| |
Hi, Jake,
first of all: I know you're only the messenger. Take the bullets to
those who are responsible for this.
Jake McKee wrote:
> Good news – based on the discussions and debates, many colleagues are clear that
> the color change dramatically affected the AFOLs. They are also clearly aware of
> the reasons it has upset you. In order to help address some of your concerns,
> several things have been agreed upon.
<sarcasm>
Translation: Even the dumbest managers can learn a little from an
outright desaster. It may be late, but what the f..., its only
customers. Just put up some policies for the next time we wreck something.
</sarcasm>
> * The three new colors (light gray, dark gray, brown) will now be classified as
> "universal", and these colors will NEVER be touched again. There will, of
> course, be colors that change over time with trends, but not these universal
> ones.
OK. Now: which other colours are marked "universal" - or more important:
which are not? Could you clarify about the "universal" status of the
core colours, especially white, which was or maybe still is on the list
of colours to be replaced?
> * A certain few parts that are crucial to keep in the old colors will likely be
> created as service pack type items. An example of this would be the 9v train
> track. I am interested in getting feedback from you (via this thread) on which
> elements MUST be produced in the old colors for the long term. (And no, you
> can’t say "the whole range of parts!" :) )
Of course I can say "the whole range of parts!". Who are you to stop me? ;)
Bricks, plates, slopes, arches, most of the modified bricks and plates.
Anything short of "all" makes no real sense.
> * We also have received confirmation from colleagues that in the future, we will
> include both the adult and kid enthusiasts in any testing related to
> modification or change of the core building system. (Please note that there are
> not any plans whatsoever in the works for making changes)
Well, at least none of the plans are known to you. The information
pathways at TLC are wonderous at best, and non-existing on average, so
the decision to make the studs square in the future will hit those who
are in the front like you when it is done and over. And, as you might
have noticed, the community will know this quite early (although we
learned about this desaster way too late...)
And the one and only conclusion they should have drawn from this
catastrophy is not "ask some more people before we do this" but "don't
do this at all".
Therefor, it is (again) too little, too late.
> I know this isn’t the silver bullet update you were hoping for, but hopefully
> this bears some good news for you.
Simply: No.
> Again, I know the color change upset many of you, and I don’t mean to re-open
> wounds. Thanks for your patience while we worked on getting this put to bed once
> and for all. As I’ve said before, out of all bad things comes something
> positive. In this case, the positive is that there are many more people
> internally who understand your passion and interest.
Maybe it is put to bed for the management. This just shows that those in
charge did not understand the issue.
But the issue is still alive and will burn on. At least with us.
Yours, Christian Treczoks
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Christian Treczoks wrote:
> Jake McKee wrote:
>
> > * The three new colors (light gray, dark gray, brown) will now be classified as
> > "universal", and these colors will NEVER be touched again. There will, of
> > course, be colors that change over time with trends, but not these universal
> > ones.
> OK. Now: which other colours are marked "universal" - or more important:
> which are not? Could you clarify about the "universal" status of the
> core colours, especially white, which was or maybe still is on the list
> of colours to be replaced?
I was wondering about white...can white be anything other than...well, white?
:0?
Tracey
|
|
| |
Tracey Greenwood wrote:
> > OK. Now: which other colours are marked "universal" - or more important:
> > which are not? Could you clarify about the "universal" status of the
> > core colours, especially white, which was or maybe still is on the list
> > of colours to be replaced?
I was about to ask the very same question, Christian was faster...
>
> I was wondering about white...can white be anything other than...well, white?
Actually LEGO white is slightly creamy. They can make it a bit bluish,
colder. That would match 'cold' gray better.
--
Jindroush <jindroush@nospam.seznam.nospam.cz>
Remove both 'nospam's from the address to reply.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Jindrich Kubec wrote:
> Actually LEGO white is slightly creamy. They can make it a bit bluish,
> colder. That would match 'cold' gray better.
No, the only thing that would make sense would be to shift the handful of truly
"cool" colors toward the warmer end of the spectrum. That way {[NO]} colors
would look good next to the bleys. Looking through the various colors I have on
hand, it's actually quite shocking to see how many of them are warm colors that
utterly clash with the bleys. White shouldn't clash with anything...but it does
with bley. Every shade of green except sand-green clashes with dark-bley. Even
classic blue looks like it might be slightly warm! The only old colors that
I've seen that do work with dark-bley are dark-blue, black, and the three cool
sand-tones (green/blue/purple). That's only five colors, and four of them are
too rare to be of any help. Heck, light-bley is probably more common than
sand-blue, sand-purple, or dark-blue by now. Sand-green at least has the Yoda
and Statue of Liberty sculptures.
|
|
|
