# December Community Update

**URL:** https://community.puzzlequest3.com/t/december-community-update/3085
**Category:** Official News
**Created:** [December 19, 2022, 5:06pm UTC](https://community.puzzlequest3.com/t/december-community-update/3085 "2022-12-19T17:06:15Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 22

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Sibelios](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/community.puzzlequest3.com/sibelios/32/2836_2.png) [@Sibelios](https://community.puzzlequest3.com/u/Sibelios)
#### Post date: [January 8, 2023, 2:53am UTC](https://community.puzzlequest3.com/t/december-community-update/3085/22 "2023-01-08T02:53:29Z")

</div>

> [@AeonNhiyr](#):
>
> > [@Heno3HaTaTa](#):
> >
> > If you don’t get a compensation, I hope you will at least learn a lesson from the whole situation.
> 
> 1. 🤔🤔🤔🤔 Why, yes, I’ve learned so many lessons that I’m halfway to a doctorate. As I’ve said before, I’d prefer functionality over compensation. Aside from that, maybe the lessons are as follows: “If you make a mistake, then make it right;” “Do right for your customers;” and “If you don’t deliver on half the functionality of an item you sold, what do you have to lose by giving some in-game currency as compensation?”

To me this is the critical issue and players like @AeonNhiyr should be provided some sort of relief. The developers chose to name them according to existing sets in the game. Maybe they did this because of theme. Perhaps they did this because the anticipated the possibility of adding additional items to sets along the way. Who knows why they did this but the choice at the outset should have been to name them just like the other two DLC items, making them completely independent and not subject to any confusion about association. It’s entirely reasonable that a customer would buy the **Serpentine Flame Ring** expecting it to be part of the **Serpentine** set. Why wouldn’t you think that? The developer made a mistake here for whatever reason and its not unreasonable to ask them to at least provide some offset since they ultimately decided that they were not going to make them part of the set **despite an abundance of evidence that it would not imbalance the game in any way, but instead makes the buyer worse off because they are less able to make a set like other players!**.

IP2 and 505Games should do the right thing and provide some form of recompense for players, especially ones that have been as patient in learning the resolution of this issue and continued to be paying customers like @AeonNhiyr

---

_[View the full topic](https://community.puzzlequest3.com/t/december-community-update/3085)._