Cannot Repair VvV Epaulettes

sibblesibble Posts: 7
Tried everything

Comments

  • KyronixKyronix Posts: 207Dev
    This is working as intended.
  • Max_BlackoakMax_Blackoak Posts: 210
    haha is it just me? Somehow Kyronix' avatar makes this look like he's mocking the OP (I know he isn't...)
  • DJAdDJAd Posts: 202
    Kyronix said:
    This is working as intended.
    Shouldn't they carry the "cannot be repaired" tag in this case?
  • MervynMervyn Posts: 958
    edited May 14
    Lol I swear down I just read this. After I had a post removed for saying this very dev often has the opinion that everything is working as intended (I presume it was the way I worded it rather than for any factual inaccuracies) 

    what happened to misk in these Bug forums?
    I tell you the truth, tis better to do 10 damage on the right target than 100 damage on the wrong target.

    Breaking in the young since 2002
  • MervynMervyn Posts: 958
    But yes it is in that case missing “cannot be repaired” on the description.
    I tell you the truth, tis better to do 10 damage on the right target than 100 damage on the wrong target.

    Breaking in the young since 2002
  • sibblesibble Posts: 7
    Welp, that was easy
  • sibblesibble Posts: 7
    1) Why isn't every VvV arty like that?
    2) I thought "cannot be repaired" was removed from the game
  • MervynMervyn Posts: 958
    Well I think I can answer both of those questions with the same answer.

    Kyronix’ default response was incorrect.
    I tell you the truth, tis better to do 10 damage on the right target than 100 damage on the wrong target.

    Breaking in the young since 2002
  • CovenantXCovenantX Posts: 118
    more inconsistent crap the Devs seem to not care about, but it annoys the players, when items don't work the same way others do, yet there's nothing stating that it shouldn't.

    Honestly the Epauletes aren't very good compared to other items that occupy the same equipment slot, so there aren't many people that care about this particular item.... but it should be fixed, to either become repairable, or display the "cannot be repaired" tag.  leaving it the way it is just opens up players for an unknown disappointment.

    I  mean, could you imagine, this happening with a in-game-store bought item?  yea... that's why inconsistencies should be fixed.


    Remove or change casting focus & poison immunity it reduces the need for "Player Skill" it's garbage. rant2 Bring timing back and eliminate chance in pvp!
    ICQ# 478 633 659
  • MervynMervyn Posts: 958
    edited May 15
    I completely agree with CovenantX as is almost always the case. 

    Let me explain the background to my beef with a certain dev member, please note I should also put things into context, there are a couple of dev members whom I absolutely respect and would say maintain good relationships with, in fact I have probably been responsible in the past to divulging details of exploits for numerous things. To the point that my guild friends no longer divulge things to me because they think I will report the exploit:

    (I currently have a corker for Shadowguard but no one seems interested at the moment, I can only presume they’re already aware)

    There was a certain meet and greet where someone asked the question about the lower mana cost bonus property not being displayed on non medable armour. And a certain dev gave a response that this was working as intended, and despite the fact that legendary armour shows already about 11 mods (plus all the other base properties), the reason they gave to not add it, was simply that they didn’t want to overcrowd the display bar. As if 1 more line was going to make any difference. I should at this point also mention as a side note that “lower requirements” is displayed as a property but “unwieldy” and “heavy” are not. One may say that you need to know that lower requirements is present as it counts as an imbuing mod and may cause confusion. But I will also add that resists can be a mod and they’re not displayed as an obvious additional mod.

    There was another time when a bug report was made, I should note during the publish test centre stage that on classic client. When you or someone rides a mount, you lose the mount healthbar which causes targeting problems, instead of the healthbar greying out like it should and does in any other case where the target cannot be targeted. So a certain dev member said this was working as intended. And when a certain someone pointed out that the healthbars work correctly in EC for mounts. A certain dev concluded that it must just be broken in EC and they will “fix” that. I should mention as a side note that this is currently partially bugged in EC as the healthbar apparently dissapear after multiple mounting and dismounting.

    It’s very irritating for customers to be told your bugs are “features”. I know this is only a game, but if you’re paying for a product. Shouldn’t you expect a minimal level of bug fixing and acceptance of liability. I think the default answer is unacceptable. 
    I tell you the truth, tis better to do 10 damage on the right target than 100 damage on the wrong target.

    Breaking in the young since 2002
  • KronalKronal Posts: 61
    Mervyn said:
    I completely agree with CovenantX as is almost always the case. 

    Let me explain the background to my beef with a certain dev member, please note I should also put things into context, there are a couple of dev members whom I absolutely respect and would say maintain good relationships with, in fact I have probably been responsible in the past to divulging details of exploits for numerous things. To the point that my guild friends no longer divulge things to me because they think I will report the exploit:

    (I currently have a corker for Shadowguard but no one seems interested at the moment, I can only presume they’re already aware)

    There was a certain meet and greet where someone asked the question about the lower mana cost bonus property not being displayed on non medable armour. And a certain dev gave a response that this was working as intended, and despite the fact that legendary armour shows already about 11 mods (plus all the other base properties), the reason they gave to not add it, was simply that they didn’t want to overcrowd the display bar. As if 1 more line was going to make any difference. I should at this point also mention as a side note that “lower requirements” is displayed as a property but “unwieldy” and “heavy” are not. One may say that you need to know that lower requirements is present as it counts as an imbuing mod and may cause confusion. But I will also add that resists can be a mod and they’re not displayed as an obvious additional mod.

    There was another time when a bug report was made, I should note during the publish test centre stage that on classic client. When you or someone rides a mount, you lose the mount healthbar which causes targeting problems, instead of the healthbar greying out like it should and does in any other case where the target cannot be targeted. So a certain dev member said this was working as intended. And when a certain someone pointed out that the healthbars work correctly in EC for mounts. A certain dev concluded that it must just be broken in EC and they will “fix” that. I should mention as a side note that this is currently partially bugged in EC as the healthbar apparently dissapear after multiple mounting and dismounting.

    It’s very irritating for customers to be told your bugs are “features”. I know this is only a game, but if you’re paying for a product. Shouldn’t you expect a minimal level of bug fixing and acceptance of liability. I think the default answer is unacceptable. 
    Perhaps if you stopped complaining about pointless things or about things that you have already been told are working as intended people would take you a little more seriously.  Also your condescending attitude is enough to make a troll cringe.  Quite frankly I give all the credit in the world to the devs and the mods here for not kicking your can to the curb. 
  • CovenantXCovenantX Posts: 118
    Mervyn said:

    There was a certain meet and greet where someone asked the question about the lower mana cost bonus property not being displayed on non medable armour. And a certain dev gave a response that this was working as intended, and despite the fact that legendary armour shows already about 11 mods (plus all the other base properties), the reason they gave to not add it, was simply that they didn’t want to overcrowd the display bar. As if 1 more line was going to make any difference. I should at this point also mention as a side note that “lower requirements” is displayed as a property but “unwieldy” and “heavy” are not. One may say that you need to know that lower requirements is present as it counts as an imbuing mod and may cause confusion. But I will also add that resists can be a mod and they’re not displayed as an obvious additional mod.

     I think the default answer is unacceptable. 

     While the LMC thing probably doesn't affect us knowledgeable players so much, it doesn't bother me...    But, I saw the transcript to that meet & greet, and the way it was worded... really does sound like an excuse not to address the issue.

    They could easily replace the Property "Mage-Armor" with +1 to +3 Bonus Lower Mana Cost.
    The most common items spawn with "Mage Armor" already anyway, so the extra line displayed when the item is highlighted makes absolutely no sense.

    I also agree with the last sentence which applies to several things in UO, but, I suppose the majority doesn't care, 'cause they're not very vocal about it.
    Remove or change casting focus & poison immunity it reduces the need for "Player Skill" it's garbage. rant2 Bring timing back and eliminate chance in pvp!
    ICQ# 478 633 659
  • MervynMervyn Posts: 958
    I won’t deny that I have a habit of upsetting people by putting things bluntly. But in the end my intentions are to improve the game quality for everyone. I think booting someone from a meet and greet mid sentence because they don’t want to address the elephant in the room isn’t the way to go. 

    You say the things I complain about are minor, but these minor things add up to majors. Without me and my campaigns on buffs and debuffs, we’d still have only about 3 buffs/debuffs that show. I campaigned hard to get them all for everyone and respect works both ways.
    I tell you the truth, tis better to do 10 damage on the right target than 100 damage on the wrong target.

    Breaking in the young since 2002
  • KyronixKyronix Posts: 207Dev
    There's a difference between putting things bluntly and your veiled attempts at calling me/us stupid when referring to "technical ability" and the general tone of your posts.  I appreciate all your contributions, and you'll see some issues you've brought up fixed in Pub 100.  That being said, despite your belief that something is a bug and/or an exploit, that doesn't make it so.  In some instances further discussion and insight may change that (like the healthbar situation, I was operating off information given to me) and in other situations it won't (like the pet "exploits" you like bringing up).

    So far we've enjoyed a great back and forth on these forums and as a result have gained some incredibly valuable insights with great feedback and bug submissions.  I would hate for that to be jeopardized because of some personal vendetta you seem to have and the inability to participate while maintaining a respectful and appropriate tone.

    That all being said let me address a couple questions that have been raised here.  With regard to item properties.  As far as unwieldy & heavy are concerned, those properties are inherently contained with the strength requirement and weight property of the item.  Does the entire item property display need to be addressed? Yes.  The presentation is cumbersome and overwhelming.  This was something we'd hoped to address during the EC UI update a few years back, but we had to dial back on scope due to time constraints.  There is never "just" anything in these changes.  There are many questions we have to ask and answer before we make a change.  With regard to item property display - do we offer an option to show basic and advanced versions of the item property display?  Refactor Item ID to provide a more informative gump while slimming down to only the most important properties on an item, or display it's overall weight?  Just slapping more item properties on an item is only a bandaid solution to a much larger issue.  It doesn't degrade the point that all information should be available to a player, but understand that there is a larger issue that needs to be addressed.
  • sibblesibble Posts: 7
    edited May 15
    Listen I apologize for the way this thread went.

    No offense to anyone posting in this thread, but the topic is clear - and posts should have been as just (on topic.)

    I would like to know why I'm allowed to repair all VvV items but one.  If it's intended, then it's intended - I'd just like to know why?  From my point of view, as a player, it doesn't make sense.

    https://stratics.com/threads/vvv-epaulettes-5-hit-chance-ones-cant-be-repaired.337782/
    https://stratics.com/threads/how-to-repair-vvv-epaulettes.346067/
  • MervynMervyn Posts: 958
    Perhaps if you could explain then why something is not a bug but a feature.
    Do we the customers need to have some sort of vote on what the expected result of an action should be?


    Who actually decided that this item not being repairable is a feature? Or being able to bypass rules on summoning pets to dungeons by logging out and in is a feature? I would have thought that logic would dictate the expected results, not a lone developer. And like I said, respect goes both ways. Kicking someone out of meeting mid question in front of an audience, some would also say is disrespectful. 
    I tell you the truth, tis better to do 10 damage on the right target than 100 damage on the wrong target.

    Breaking in the young since 2002
  • KyronixKyronix Posts: 207Dev
    edited May 15
    The epaulettes are not craftable, they are available as artifacts through various systems and are not repairable.  The reason for this is because it is one of the few items that we can use in reward systems that will eventually decay and is a specialty item that can only be obtained through those systems, thusly maintaining value in doing those systems.  The relative lifespan of gear as long as it is, presents a big problem for the core gear acquisition loop of the world.  Gear simply lasts almost forever. 

    Decisions like these get made by the team while evaluating all viewpoints as well as keeping them in line with our long term goals while having access to the full overview of all contributing factors. 
    The fact it is missing the Cannot Be Repaired tag item property is something we can address in Pub 100, although my previous comments regarding the larger item property display problem remains true for the situations I describe there.
  • MariahMariah Posts: 351Moderator
    This question has now been answered fully, and beyond.
This discussion has been closed.