[=teak421;703627]
The Epic engineer responded to that thread and has been transparent. The outcome wasn’t what you and others wanted, but they did respond. Did you read the post suggested by the engineer about why certain features might not make it into the engine? What more do you want Epic to do? Other than implementing the , what additional communication could they have done in addition to the posts already on that thread? is transparency… No? You may not like the method of communication…forum responses as opposed to a road map, and that’s made perfectly clear. The end result though is the same…communication.
You didn’t answer my audio question and how Epic failed to be transparent about a that was introduced back in early Feb. What else could they have done that would have satisfied your transparency needs?
Communication and clear communication are two different things. There was clearly a failure to communicate clearly which is what my post addresses. Like I mentioned, conflicts like those are regressive and could have been addressed with regular twitter like updates added to the Trello roadmaps regarding the limitations Epic Staff are working with. Ultimately, both sides end up feeling salty. Max-Dev feels like Epic doesn’t care about him. The Epic staff meanwhile feel like they are being unfairly criticized for technical limitations beyond their control. What you’re arguing is that bad communication is okay as long as the attempt is made. I disagree with that assertion. I’m sure many others will as well.
Regarding the audio, send me a PM regarding my discussion of the audio system. I fear there’s a few things that have gone over your head. But if you want to post a full history of how the new audio system was introduced for us, the methods placed for us to review it, and how both reveal and review were in correlation with the roadmap, I think the entire thread will be happy to go through the process with you, myself included.