>From: "Daniel P. Sniderman" <fuzzbone@...>
>You definitely make some valid points. I find the "secret nerfing" to be
>very frustrating. I do think, though that perhaps some of what may appear
>to
>"nerfing" may be the introduction of new bugs as they attempt to fix old
>one.
>
>I hate to take some issue with your comments - particularly your assertion
>(in your second post) that "and Verant chooses to
>ignore those suggestions even though they're easily implementable"
>
>First of all - your are 1 of 125,000 customers. To be surprised that
>Verant
>seems to ignore your suggestion is, to say the least, naive. How much time
>do they have to respond to suggestion vs. implementing their own? Also -
>your suggestions may be in direct contraction to what others are
>suggesting.
>So it's not really fair to say you're being ignored...
>
>Also - it's impossible for anyone who doesn't have access to the EQ source
>code and database definition to know how easy to implement any change is.
>Very often what seems (even to the programmer!) to be an easy change can
>cause major problems with the code.
>
>
As I said, these kinds of posts always raise issues. I also stated in my
posting that they're just not ignoring myself, they're ignoring the entire
EQ gaming population in general.
Also, I am not "naive" enough to believe (as you put it) that just because I
suggest something, that it's automatically going to be put into the game.
And yes, I realize all too well that I'm just 1 out of 250,000+ players and
that my suggestions may contradict someone elses suggestion. The whole point
I'm trying to make here is that I feel dis-satisfied with Verant's rather
lame "band-aid" patch policies. Rather than fixing the problem outright,
they'll come up with something to temporarily fix it (this would not be bad
however, but they never go back and straighten out the mess).
At this point and time, I'd say 80% of the EQ gaming population as a whole
feel dis-satisfied for the same reason - we'd like to see some change for
the better for once.