What's sad is that the reason SE doesn't clarify what they mean when they say something would "go against balance" or when they give some sort of nonsensical gibberish and pretend it's a logical reason they can't do something, it's not done because we wouldn't actually be able to understand their logic/reasoning anyway, but rather, it's done because we would understand it, and we would be able to quickly prove their logic faulty and/or entirely fallacious. I imagine the usual process goes something like this:
"Hey guys, the players say they want you to do [random incredibly helpful thing we've needed done for years]"
"Hmmm, as nice as that would be for them, we can't, because it would negatively impact [random completely arbitrary issue that a sudden change in would not actually negatively or positively impact the game in any way] because of [spaghetti code/ps2 limitations/some other silly reason], so we can't."
"Well, yea, but we can't tell them that, they'd know it's a load of horseshit in a second and riot on us..."
"Let's flip a coin. Heads, we tell them we're 'thinking about it, but it's not a very high priority,' tails we tell them 'While we understand why the players would like this, we feel that it would unbalance [some other random thing, completely unrelated to the actual issue, but related to the proposed change], and that's something we'd like to avoid.'"
*the coin is flipped*
"Looks like it's tails. Go ahead and give the reps our 'answer' so we can move on to something more important. Who's up for a Tetra Master Tourney?"
So... perfect...


Reply With Quote



