Dev Meet And Greet On Yamato Summary 1-25-16

[spin]

spin submitted a new Article:

Dev Meet And Greet On Yamato Summary 1-25-16

This is a summary of the meeting that was held on January 25, 2016 in Yamato (Japan shards)

Japanese player ⇔ EM Asiantam (Translation for both) ⇔ Bleak · Kyronix · Mesanna · Misk

Remark color :
Bleak
Kyronix
Mesanna
Misk
EM Asiantam
Player (English remark · Japanese remark is omitted)



Bleak: Greetings!
EM Asiantam:
EM Asiantam: Good morning Mesanna
EM Asiantam: we have already cut the line
Mesanna: ok...

Read more about this article here...

 

[MalagAste]

Thank you for posting.

 

[Piotr]

her skirt disappears when she is squelched

 

[FrejaSP]

I'm glad to see, that Mesanna and our Dev team understand the issue with suits being to expensive to make. I do believe if that was fixed, less would use Item Insurance and it would work much better on Siege.
Making suits cheaper and keep item insurance expensive on normal shards may help the crafters too if more suits get lost when dying to monsters or in PvP.

EM Asiantam: last one
Mesanna: hi
EM Asiantam: I think UO nowaday is not as fantasic as before
EM Asiantam: we feel it comfortable
EM Asiantam: but as all items or pets are insured
EM Asiantam: we dont lose our properties
EM Asiantam: and instead of that
EM Asiantam: there are less joy
EM Asiantam: so my request is
EM Asiantam: he'd like to revive older UO for example
EM Asiantam: remove insurance system as much as possible
EM Asiantam: applying Fel rules
EM Asiantam: making systems that is not reluing on items
EM Asiantam: those 3
EM Asiantam: possible?
Mesanna: no its not possible
Mesanna: I understand what you are saying
Mesanna: but
Mesanna: its not easy to rip out a system
Mesanna: what you are asking for is a legacy server
Mesanna: without all the bells and whistles
Mesanna: like in the beginning?
Mesanna: or just one without insurance
Mesanna: Have you played on Siege? or Mugen?
EM Asiantam: yes he has
Mesanna: not everyone wants that
Mesanna: and as I hope you can understand its hard to please everyone
Mesanna: so we have to be very careful
Mesanna: but I agree I loved turning red and staying red
Mesanna: dieing and losing everything
Mesanna: but remember this
Mesanna: it didn't cost what it does now to make a suit

 

[MalagAste]

I'm glad to see, that Mesanna and our Dev team understand the issue with suits being to expensive to make. I do believe if that was fixed, less would use Item Insurance and it would work much better on Siege.
Making suits cheaper and keep item insurance expensive on normal shards may help the crafters too if more suits get lost when dying to monsters or in PvP.

EM Asiantam: last one
Mesanna: hi
EM Asiantam: I think UO nowaday is not as fantasic as before
EM Asiantam: we feel it comfortable
EM Asiantam: but as all items or pets are insured
EM Asiantam: we dont lose our properties
EM Asiantam: and instead of that
EM Asiantam: there are less joy
EM Asiantam: so my request is
EM Asiantam: he'd like to revive older UO for example
EM Asiantam: remove insurance system as much as possible
EM Asiantam: applying Fel rules
EM Asiantam: making systems that is not reluing on items
EM Asiantam: those 3
EM Asiantam: possible?
Mesanna: no its not possible
Mesanna: I understand what you are saying
Mesanna: but
Mesanna: its not easy to rip out a system
Mesanna: what you are asking for is a legacy server
Mesanna: without all the bells and whistles
Mesanna: like in the beginning?
Mesanna: or just one without insurance
Mesanna: Have you played on Siege? or Mugen?
EM Asiantam: yes he has
Mesanna: not everyone wants that
Mesanna: and as I hope you can understand its hard to please everyone
Mesanna: so we have to be very careful
Mesanna: but I agree I loved turning red and staying red
Mesanna: dieing and losing everything
Mesanna: but remember this
Mesanna: it didn't cost what it does now to make a suit

May also make players think this game sucketh most verily like they did prior to Tram... which is why the subs were dropping like flies... so no not really a good idea. I'll say this as someone with 100's of characters the LAST thing I want to do is have to farm my equipment back... don't we have enough grinds?

Honestly.... I want to have FUN not work to maintain..... FUN. Which means I want to go out and do something that is enjoyable, gives decent loot or drops, brings folk together... and is FUN. Not have to grind all day to maintain the stuff I have just to do 1 or 2 fun things and have to grind all day again to rinse and repeat.

 

[Spock's Beard]

I'm glad to see, that Mesanna and our Dev team understand the issue with suits being to expensive to make. I do believe if that was fixed, less would use Item Insurance and it would work much better on Siege.
Making suits cheaper and keep item insurance expensive on normal shards may help the crafters too if more suits get lost when dying to monsters or in PvP.

Go back to your dead shard and tell it to the tumbleweeds. If they tried to get rid of insurance the game would shut down within six months.

Also, you know what, screw "helping the crafters" already. Everything I'm wearing is crafted. They're fine.

 

[Ox AO]

20 year vet reward soon. Jesus Christ we been playing this GAME for almost 20 freaking years!
That really is amazing

 

[FrejaSP]

Go back to your dead shard and tell it to the tumbleweeds. If they tried to get rid of insurance the game would shut down within six months.

Also, you know what, screw "helping the crafters" already. Everything I'm wearing is crafted. They're fine.

No need to be rude

 

[Ox AO]

Go back to your dead shard and tell it to the tumbleweeds. If they tried to get rid of insurance the game would shut down within six months.

Also, you know what, screw "helping the crafters" already. Everything I'm wearing is crafted. They're fine.

The ONLY reason I don't play that shard is because of the one character per account limit. i couldn't do it period. not the way I play.

 

[Gameboy]

The ONLY reason I don't play that shard is because of the one character per account limit. i couldn't do it period. not the way I play.

I'd roll more than one character on siege if I could

 

[Angel of Sonoma]

playing devil's advocate ... maybe the 1 character per account on seige is a way to 'encourage' player teamwork and interaction. example: say you only have a dexxer. dexxer needs armor enhanced. dexxer must find a mule who can do the enhancement for him. if it's a nice piece, you most certainly want to know and trust the person.

 

[FrejaSP]

playing devil's advocate ... maybe the 1 character per account on seige is a way to 'encourage' player teamwork and interaction. example: say you only have a dexxer. dexxer needs armor enhanced. dexxer must find a mule who can do the enhancement for him. if it's a nice piece, you most certainly want to know and trust the person.

The problem is, the players like to play more than one char, more than one template without having to switch skills on soulstones all the time. If someone want to craft their own gear, they get some soulstones.
UO is meant to be a RP game, if you are on your dexxer, you may RP a virtue knight or a PK. If on your crafter, you stay in that role. Soulstones already did the damage, so there is no reason keep the one char rule, it only stop new players from joining the shard and stay here.

 

[Gameboy]

The problem is, the players like to play more than one char, more than one template without having to switch skills on soulstones all the time. If someone want to craft their own gear, they get some soulstones.
UO is meant to be a RP game, if you are on your dexxer, you may RP a virtue knight or a PK. If on your crafter, you stay in that role. Soulstones already did the damage, so there is no reason keep the one char rule, it only stop new players from joining the shard and stay here.

I'd be happy with at least two slots so I can make a crafter. One fighter and one crafter

 

[MalagAste]

I'd be happy with at least two slots so I can make a crafter. One fighter and one crafter

I just have several accounts and make all the characters I want.

 

[OREOGL]

The problem is, the players like to play more than one char, more than one template without having to switch skills on soulstones all the time. If someone want to craft their own gear, they get some soulstones.
UO is meant to be a RP game, if you are on your dexxer, you may RP a virtue knight or a PK. If on your crafter, you stay in that role. Soulstones already did the damage, so there is no reason keep the one char rule, it only stop new players from joining the shard and stay here.

I would play siege more if they lifted the one character rule.

As it stands now I'd have to dump money into more soul stones or accounts. Neither of which I am prepared to do.

 

[Gameboy]

I just have several accounts and make all the characters I want.

I only have one account and only want one account. Considering how old the game is I get why people have more than one account. Though I think asking for 2 slots isn't going to make or break the shard

 

[MalagAste]

I only have one account and only want one account. Considering how old the game is I get why people have more than one account. Though I think asking for 2 slots isn't going to make or break the shard

No I don't either.

 

[Lord Frodo]

I only have one account and only want one account. Considering how old the game is I get why people have more than one account. Though I think asking for 2 slots isn't going to make or break the shard

No I don't either.

Give us the org 5 slot account for SP and you could see a lot bigger population.

 

[Gameboy]

Give us the org 5 slot account for SP and you could see a lot bigger population.

I agree 110%!!

 

[BrianFreud]

I'm always rather surprised how much activity Mugen has, including players who also play on at least one of the non-SP ruleset Japanese shards.

 

[TimberWolf]

A couple of observations about the meet and great.
1) for parts of it the text was virtually unreadable with the classic Stratics background...just like it is virtually unreadable in the player journal. Incredibly disappointing that this hasnt been resolved.
2)I find it shocking that anyone feels the appropriate response to a customer is ever... " nope wont do it...too much work" ( paraphrasing here). I have worked in the customer service industry for years, I can ever remember a client coming to a company and getting that kind of response. Totally unprofessional and totally unacceptable,
The correct answer is NEVER "NO" .... truly disgusting!

 

[Elenni]

1) for parts of it the text was virtually unreadable with the classic Stratics background...just like it is virtually unreadable in the player journal. Incredibly disappointing that this hasnt been resolved.

Unfortunately, this is a result of including extra "features" in the advanced Wysiwyg editor. Because you can change your font color, in addition to having both a "light" skin and a "dark" skin on the forums, someone can end up posting in a font color that's not compatible with a user's selected site theme or skin. :-(

The only current solution I know of is to remove some of the extra features from the wysiwyg editor, or to only offer color-compatible themes or skins for the site (ie all dark ones or all light ones.) I agree that we should choose one of those resolutions, and I have it on my "list" of things we should look at.

 

[Deraj]

2)I find it shocking that anyone feels the appropriate response to a customer is ever... " nope wont do it...too much work" ( paraphrasing here). I have worked in the customer service industry for years, I can ever remember a client coming to a company and getting that kind of response. Totally unprofessional and totally unacceptable,
The correct answer is NEVER "NO" .... truly disgusting!

I have to disagree with you. Over the course of time, on here and other places players have explained their own "ideas for UO", ideas so numerous that it is perhaps more than the developers could ever be reasonably expected to read in their free time, and lord knows I've contributed to that mess. I'd rather the devs be frank and honest with this sort of thing - if someone presents an idea which they can safely say with all certainty for one reason or another that they are unwilling to pursue, then a polite but firm 'no' is perfectly fine. Even if I disagree with their 'no', I appreciate being able to know where they truly stand on the matter, rather than being given false hope. Customers should be respected, yes, but not coddled.