Droid Engineer Archive
Thread: So much for being positive and the truth
Sketh, really, you're not giving it a chance. We need to stay positive, otherwise the devs will not give much weight to our ideas/discussions. We have all been guilty (myself included) of dev-jumping and rantiness. I'm going to try and follow TK's lead here and at least try to act positive through the next couple publishes.
Oh, and if you go back to one of Gorantoth's old issues threads, you'll find that the DSC's granting artisan xp and using artisan experimentation was listed as a bug...
OK, took a walk away from the keybord to think for a few.
The change to the DSC was a nerf to the arch class. Though I didn't approve of the tone of the arch posts on the matter, it was.
However, if this is the ONLY change to droid experimentation (and the change isn't in exp, it is in materials required (OQ vs OQ and COND)), it means nothing.
Just becuase we offered the olive branch doesn't mean that TH should come in here being condecending. TH does NOT understand crafting. He may have played an arch for a few days - that is a far cry from playing a crafter / merchant for a month or six.
I still have hope. But like I said in TK's thread, give us a solid foundation to work with the devs on - not fluff, or anti-player rants. Give us some substance, and we will be the most constructive community on the boards.
Gribnitz wrote:
The DEV's ACTUALLY start to read our top bugs/issues list and start fixing some and on the VERY first one they fix, they get a bunch of **edit**ing grief over it. Grow up people ! Istarting to understand why we never see a red name in here.
Kollos wrote:
A little more clarity in the response to Architects and this might not have ever blown out of proportion like it did.
Okay...I really agree with this.
Kollos, thanks for being something of a voice of reason here.
/bow
Respectfully,
Sketh wrote:
OK, took a walk away from the keybord to think for a few.
The change to the DSC was a nerf to the arch class. Though I didn't approve of the tone of the arch posts on the matter, it was.
However, if this is the ONLY change to droid experimentation (and the change isn't in exp, it is in materials required (OQ vs OQ and COND)), it means nothing.
Just becuase we offered the olive branch doesn't mean that TH should come in here being condecending. TH does NOT understand crafting. He may have played an arch for a few days - that is a far cry from playing a crafter / merchant for a month or six.
I still have hope. But like I said in TK's thread, give us a solid foundation to work with the devs on - not fluff, or anti-player rants. Give us some substance, and we will be the most constructive community on the boards.
I think you missed the intention of the fix. The material stats required was just a byproduct, what they purposefully changed was the typ of experimentation the part used. By changing that, the material stats automatically changed. Yes, DSC's got fixed (I'm extremely happy with the fix, could never sell DSC's before since I didn't have master artisan), yes its harder for architects to make great stations as a result, but that just diversifies the market.
Where things did go wrong is when the devs didn't explain this clearly. Granted, Drashk did saturday I believe it was, but I guess not enough people read his post. Both groups screwed up, lets stop bitching about it and move on.
Kollos wrote:
A little more clarity in the response to Architects and this might not have ever blown out of proportion like it did.
I'm sorry guys, but TH's answers/blames are just BS.
It is theirresponciblity to understand the mechanics oftheir game and the consequences of changes they make.
'Its too complicated' just doesn't cut it with me.
The developers need to think about the consequences of each change they will make. That is largely the definition that separates 'developer' from 'programmer'.
They changedDSC to different attributes because it was expediant to just copy code. (one presumes). How much longer would it really have taken to do it 'carefully' (i.e. right )?
Tell you what, I be happy to be positive. But they are going to have to except responsiblity for their side too.
'We screwed up' is a perfectly acceptable answer as long as one learns from it.
So far, no real appologies and no real learning.
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
They changedDSC to different attributes because it was expediant to just copy code. (one presumes). How much longer would it really have taken to do it 'carefully' (i.e. right )?
Kollos wrote:
Gribnitz wrote:The DEV's ACTUALLY start to read our top bugs/issues list and start fixing some and on the VERY first one they fix, they get a bunch of **edit**ing grief over it. Grow up people ! Istarting to understand why we never see a red name in here.They're not catching grief for fixing one of our issues. They're catching grief for nerfing Architects with a side effect of the fix, and then after being questioned about it by Architects implying that Droid Engineers asked for the nerf.A little more clarity in the response to Architects and this might not have ever blown out of proportion like it did.
Exactly.
After reading the comment about what DE's normally have for quality experimentation I wnet and took a look over at SWGCraft. It appears THAT comment was right on. Since it moved into the DE experimentation tree the common denominator I see is OQ/Conductivity 50/50.
Well, here's hoping for one amazing spawn some time this decade. Thanks for the support from the DE community. I only wish the formula had been correct from the beginning.
Sincerely,
Fivo Asia