My goodbye forever rant

[Taernath]

I too am one of the Evil, H@Z0r, Coraesine Cabal!

Here is a lovely post by Naos on the official forums:


http://forums.play.net/forums/GemSto...zard/view/1134

There are a few more posts in that thread that add context:

VEYTHORNE

>> Who made the decision about what can be enchanted, and what cannot be enchanted? Can they speak up in this conversation?

It depends on the item in particular. If it is due to the material; it was decided when the material was designed. If it's due to the script, it was decided when the script was designed. If it's due to a property (e.g. Creature Bane under the old spell) it was decided when that property was designed. There is no one answer for this.

As a concrete example, I designed and built the "steel weapons" that went out during an EG auction; these weapons cannot be enchanted and never will be. This is a part of their design, conceptually, as well as a concession mechanically to support how they function.

Low steel and high steel also became enchantable during this release, and apparently that is now confirmed not to be buggy (until Coase changes his mind again).

Guess it's my fault for being an idiot and not knowing this was an obvious bug.

No, not the low/high steel materials. Two weapons were released at the 2009 EG auction: "a steel short sword" and "a steel katana", which have some fancy properties. That's to what I am referring. There might be a wiki article talking about them; I'm too lazy to check.

I always took the enchanting changes to refer to flares, padding, that sort of thing, not materials that were always considered to be anti-magic or unenchantable. How many enchants did you do?

[Mobius1]

Uh, so they can be in the right without having to produce any evidence, because they know that they released no documentation for their half finished system that even they weren't properly aware of how it functioned?

Like how when they swore up and down that when they accidentally sold 6x HCW/HCP stuff off the shelf that their data said it would crash the market if they left them for sale, when in reality they just wanted to release the smithy a couple months later?

They probably intended to make coraesine enchantable at some point, via simucoin voucher or something at a future event, and accidentally left that part of it enchantable by players. That's the first thing that came to my mind when that particular material was enchantable and other historically un-enchantable items weren't.

If I said, "Check it out, Coraisine is bugged and you can enchant it!!" Or some such, then yeah, that is good evidence.

Again, not saying that is the case here, or at least with everyone that got warnings. But again, I don't have all the facts.

[Murrandii]

Never admit guilt when you're dealing with any type of authority figure.

+ 1

You're not helping yourself when doing so, you're making THEIR job easier

[Methais]

STFU - you're full of it.



Someone like you, especially you, should know that coraesine shouldn't have been that easy. Stop being retarded.

If Simu had any brains or foresight, they would have published a list of metals that still can't be enchanted, and then be like "If you have an item made of any of these metals that read as enchantable, please submit a BUG report, as these metals should not be player enchantable under any circumstances."

I really want to know how coraesine got by QC when they were redoing enchant in the first place. Did not even 1 person even bother trying to cast 925 at coraesine anything during the QC process?

[Mobius1]

If Simu had any brains or foresight, they would have published a list of metals that still can't be enchanted, and then be like "If you have an item made of any of these metals that read as enchantable, please submit a BUG report, as these metals should not be player enchantable under any circumstances."

I really want to know how coraesine got by QC when they were redoing enchant in the first place. Did not even 1 person even bother trying to cast 925 at coraesine anything during the QC process?

I totally understand your point on this, but it's like blaming me for leaving my car unlocked when something got stolen from it. Sure, I was stupid and should have known better - but that doesn't make the criminal any less of a criminal.

Now, if they didn't know that it wasn't some intended change, I can totally see that.

But seeing as no GM has chimed in on this really, we only have one side's word to go on. The side that presents its evidence first always seems right - until the other side makes its case. Again, we simply do not have all the facts here to be maligning the GMs over this. (Though yeah, they certainly need to get their QC act together. Maybe less pay event planning and more QCing?).

[Parkbandit]

If I said, "Check it out, Coraisine is bugged and you can enchant it!!" Or some such, then yeah, that is good evidence.

Again, not saying that is the case here, or at least with everyone that got warnings. But again, I don't have all the facts.

But how would a player know this is a bug and not an intended part of the new enchantment system.

There has to be more to this story than what is being told. It's not just a couple people who found out that Coraesine is now enchantable and enchanted a couple of their weapons.

[beldannon5]

Qc people are a bunch of little bitches though. Just in my opinion. Some of the stuff they get anal about it ridiculous. Seriously if its your stupid fault something was lower dont punish the people at fault.

[Axhinde]

If Simu had any brains or foresight, they would have published a list of metals that still can't be enchanted, and then be like "If you have an item made of any of these metals that read as enchantable, please submit a BUG report, as these metals should not be player enchantable under any circumstances."

I really want to know how coraesine got by QC when they were redoing enchant in the first place. Did not even 1 person even bother trying to cast 925 at coraesine anything during the QC process?

Have to agree with this. I understand SIMU plays by their own made up rules that only they can decide to enforce for their own made up reasons, and players literally have zero recourse. Provide us a list, don't encourage experimentation then punishments when players discover programming shortcomings. If it wasn't enchantable before the 925 update yet was enchantable afterwards...why would anyone assume it wasn't intended?

[audioserf]

Shout out to Ragz and O for coming forward.

I think the warnings were excessive. They aren't the end of the world, and nobody got a lockout, but warning someone for failing to be clairvoyant is meh.

SIMU now and forever fail at coherent and cohesive messaging.
- one GM posting about how you can now enchant things you may not have been able to before
- another GM in discord saying how they were just going to fix the items but not warn anyone
- another GM saying that you should know when bugs are bugs and to report all bugs and you're a bad bad bad person for casting 925

On its best day SIMU is about as professional and organized as two dogs wearing rollerskates having sex.

Months later 925 is still as clear as mud and we're nowhere near having 8x-10x potions avaialble for the new system. I doubt any single GM on staff even knows everything about how the spell is meant to function. The utter lack of transparency is wild.

[Neovik1]

As much as I like the new system. I would of liked it better with the 8x-10x potion trader being available. If I had to continue infusing potions I probably would of been done fast enchanting my voln armor to 10x. I was halfway there at the time and would probably be finished now. Even though they left the old system as an option they took away the ability to infuse.

The fun thing is my voln armor was enchantable under the old system. Now it's a bit more difficult. So yeah... it probably won't be enchantable at all once they release the rules even though I specifically purchased the 9x and 10x potions to enchant them when they were easily enchantable under the old system.