i'm so worry about something.

[burnsme]

i see the post about complain about recent patch, and saw the kyronix's answear.

there is proverb in my country in this situation.

in ENG, "A ship will go to the mountain if there are too many captains."

i think game designer go to there way and player should go to there way.

no need to answear all the complan, you execute patch and see the bad thing and repub repub and so all

ty

 

[Gilmour]

In English it is "Too many cooks spoil the broth".. different scenario, but overall message is the same

 

[Ender]

Maybe it's just poorly worded, but you think they should just feel free to break things, push those bad changes live with no testing or discussion, and THEN have people comment on it?

 

[Zuckuss]

I think the message is that you can't please everybody and that there is a certain redundancy in trying to achieve 100% support before moving forward.... because you'll never achieve 100% support. Hence you'll never move forward.

So keep moving under a predetermined plan and fix the errors as you go.

At least that's what I got from it, and it's good advice too.

 

[FrejaSP]

I hope the Devs listen and looks how it works out on TC1, then looks an extra time of the players who seem to be more powerful than others and the ones who do poorly.
Sure some are way better PvP'ers than other but in many cases they also know how to find the strongest template and suit.

If someone see their template nerfed because it is to powerful, they will complain but they will survive.

Also when several choose same template, it may be overpowered. Now I'm only an old lady, playing an Archer and not willing to switch template to get more power. I can see we do have a lot Archers at the moment and I can see some do way more damage than my old school template.

I would like PvP template to depent less on maxed out suits or suit be easier to max out. On Siege, where we do not have the Trammel/Fel split, it is a problem, that a template/suit builded for PvM sucks badly in PvP, that make a lot stop trying to PvP but on other shards, that's only a problem in Felucca.

Also crafters need more defense, Blacksmithing should really count as macing too, at least when using any kind of hammers and a Lumberjack should count as sword at least when it comes to axes.
Then we have miners, they need to be able to use their pickaxe vs monsters and players without having swordmansship. The other crafting skills are not really out in the wilderness.

 

[Eärendil]

In English it is "Too many cooks spoil the broth".. different scenario, but overall message is the same

In German too

 

[MalagAste]

I always heard "Too Many Chiefs not enough Indians"... but always thought that was rather racist... but that was my parents generation... they had a great number of such sayings I'd rather not repeat most of them.

I'm not sure it's possible though to get a true balance... You have to find a way to factor in too many variables. What works for one person doesn't always work for others... not everyone has the same skills, the same set ups, the same connections, the same dexterity on the keys... etc... so Balance to me is rather a pipe dream. Certainly though we can level out the obvious flaws in a system to where it seems more fair without breaking what folk have become accustom to and love.

I'm sure everyone has a memory of some change that really "broke" the game for them. For many it was the creation of Trammel... for many others it was AoS... Some saw it as Pub 16... Some of us have racked up a large number of publishes and changes to the game that we felt did more harm than good.

My thing is though that at least right now you can't claim they didn't listen or try.

 

[Dizzy]

I always heard "Too Many Chiefs not enough Indians"... but always thought that was rather racist... but that was my parents generation... they had a great number of such sayings I'd rather not repeat most of them.

I'm not sure it's possible though to get a true balance... You have to find a way to factor in too many variables. What works for one person doesn't always work for others... not everyone has the same skills, the same set ups, the same connections, the same dexterity on the keys... etc... so Balance to me is rather a pipe dream. Certainly though we can level out the obvious flaws in a system to where it seems more fair without breaking what folk have become accustom to and love.

I'm sure everyone has a memory of some change that really "broke" the game for them.

After the great bard nerf when my GM provocation went from "awesome" to "&$##&" overnight and left me unable to do the t-hunts I loved, I left UO for over 10 years.

Sent from mTalk

 

[OREOGL]

I think the message is that you can't please everybody and that there is a certain redundancy in trying to achieve 100% support before moving forward.... because you'll never achieve 100% support. Hence you'll never move forward.

So keep moving under a predetermined plan and fix the errors as you go.

At least that's what I got from it, and it's good advice too.

This is how I understood it.

 

[Minerva Foxglove]

In Swedish :The more cooks, the worse soup!

 

[Razz]

What I got from it was: Sailing a boat on top of a mountain sucks and I want some soup for lunch today.

 

[Merlin]

Auuchkie Deutschkie




Ha. Had to do it after seeing comments about Swedish chefs. In all seriousness though, putting the changes on TC before making live is the right move when they're testing several game-changing updates. If this was just one or two smaller tweaks, I'd have no problem with it going live and providing feed back later. But some of the nerfs to alchemy, SSI, and so forth... they're game-breaking for some people... hence the heated discussions in other threads.

 

[Grazz't1970]

I'm impressed that siege was mentioned needlessly in this thread. Oh wait...