| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Darknesss
D00M.
Triumvirate.
   |
Posted - 2009.04.01 17:11:00 -
[91]
Yeah!
And no the empire loss one was legitimate, they had a falcon perma jamming me but there was no bugs involved so I didnt petition 
|
Sanfrey Statolomy
E X O D U S
Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 21:21:00 -
[92]
I've seen this ship in action. The regulars in Pure Blind know Darknesss' Kronos as "The big teaser" and while jumping into a camp just to say "Nyah nyah nyah" and jump out might seem a bit lame, when you're putting 5bn isk on the line each time, you have to respect that. Watching it tank a moderate hac fleet is pretty cool.
However the only bug I am aware of that relates to this type of situation is the killmail bug. Recently I've seen many killmails where ships are just missing from the KM, and damage is flat out wrong. I wouldn't trust the KM to represent the engagement. I don't think you were DD'd, and I don't think you'd be using a broken KM as an excuse to get reimbursed.
In any case on the basis that CCP agreed it was an unfair loss (and this replaced the ship) yes, there is no reason to penalise the player by not reimbursing the items. Supported. The potential for intentional item duplication would rely on being able to convince a GM that the bug was at fault, and you'd expect that if this policy was changed, GM's would become even more reluctant to agree to reimbursements. But assuming GMs know what they're doing, and the logs are adequate to determine whether the game play was as intended, then CCP should be able to reimburse correctly. Agreed that the volume would have negligible economic impact.
I hope you are able to replace the parts and come trolling around Pure Blind again soon.
|
xena zena
Comparative Advantage
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 23:23:00 -
[93]
I believe that Darkness's position is correct, that losses the direct result of a serious bug should be complete, as in all modules returned. It is unfair to excessively punish the player who experienced this bug by not returning billions in modules that they wouldn't of lost if the bug didn't exist.
The flip-side is that this could be exploited, discovering a serious bug like this before it's patched would allow people to purposefully have a friend destroy their ship and then file a reimbursement and duplicating some of the mods. Such exploiting should carry a punishment of being banned for all involved parties. I doubt it would take much investigation to determine if the players are doing this or not. Of course you couldn't eliminate all the people who could take advantage of this with remote aquantices in enemy alliances/corps but just the threat of banning for trying it should deter most people
I don't think the remote off-chance risk of people exploiting this policy change is enough to justify not reimbursing the loss of the modules to a serious bug.
This isn't about Tri or Darkness or if this was the result of a bug or not, or even anything about his situation. This is about the general policy for reimbursement being changed for losses from serious bugs. Such bugs become quickly public knowledge, and are quickly patched.
|
Falonas
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 20:04:00 -
[94]
I have been screwed a few times times with gettng the ship back but no droped modules.. but I understand the CCP pov.
When you drop those billions of isk mods into your ship, you knew that if a bug got you, you would not recieve reinbursement for them...
You made the choice to equip.. as we all do.
I see no reason to change things.
|
Efrim Black
Gallente
Apellon
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 20:15:00 -
[95]
The fact that this thread has so few supports and so many replies, proves to me that this is a whine thread with a little extra glitter.
Do not Fly, what you can not afford to lose.
That is supposed to be the Cardinal rule in eve. Whether you lost your ship in a "fair" fight, or somewhere in that fight your ship exploded. It doesn't matter. You should be able to re-coup the loss.
They replaced the OP's ship. I don't know what all the fuss is about.
|
Caffeine Junkie
Atomic Battle Penguins
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 22:44:00 -
[96]
Edited by: Caffeine Junkie on 03/04/2009 22:44:12
 Originally by: Efrim Black
Do not Fly, what you can not afford to lose.
I have no doubts that Darknesss can afford to replace that ship 3 times over.
The point is he shouldn't have to, he lost it because of a bug, no bad piloting or enemy fire.
|
Efrim Black
Gallente
Apellon
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 00:57:00 -
[97]
Originally by: Caffeine Junkie
Edited by: Caffeine Junkie on 03/04/2009 22:44:12
Originally by: Efrim Black
Do not Fly, what you can not afford to lose.
I have no doubts that Darknesss can afford to replace that ship 3 times over.
The point is he shouldn't have to, he lost it because of a bug, no bad piloting or enemy fire.
Yeah and he got it back. From CCP. So why are we on page 4-5 of this whine-fest?
|
Tzar'rim
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 13:39:00 -
[98]
Lots people people not reading posts properly and adding their own take/crap/agenda/trolling, per usual.
It really comes down to this; IF the pilot is reimbursed because of a hickup/bug/whatever CCP deemed to be reimbursable, that means the player lost the ship to an issue he had no control over. THAT means the player should get the whole ship back, not just the empty casco.
That would be the same as the insurance company replacing your car but leaving out the engine as that had bits stolen from by bystanders when the crash happened.
I DO understand the possible exploitation of this and the fact that giving back modules without removing them from the new owners inject goods/isk into the economy but this is not the concern of the petitioner. HE lost a ship which CCP deemed to be replaced, so he should get the whole ship.
Any aftermath is CCP's problem, not the petitioner's.
Self-proclaimed idiot
|
MrBlitz
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 15:20:00 -
[99]
People need to read the posts badly rather than assuming that its a whine for mods replacement. Hes not asking for any reimbursement but rather a change in policy.
I support. |
Gavin Darklighter
THE FINAL STAND
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 21:58:00 -
[100]
Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 05/04/2009 21:58:18
Originally by: Tzar'rim
I DO understand the possible exploitation of this and the fact that giving back modules without removing them from the new owners inject goods/isk into the economy but this is not the concern of the petitioner. HE lost a ship which CCP deemed to be replaced, so he should get the whole ship.
Any aftermath is CCP's problem, not the petitioner's.
The problem is what if the petitioner got the loot himself and then got duplicate fittings back. He could have made billions. Honestly there can never be a fair solution to this problem. It sucks but thats life.
signature picture exceeds the size limit.~WeatherMan |
Poreuomai
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.06.07 11:12:00 -
[101]
Edited by: Poreuomai on 07/06/2009 11:12:28
CCP should be able to check who the dropped mods went to.
Originally by: Tzar'rim
It really comes down to this; IF the pilot is reimbursed because of a hickup/bug/whatever CCP deemed to be reimbursable, that means the player lost the ship to an issue he had no control over. THAT means the player should get the whole ship back, not just the empty casco.
Yep, agreed.
Let My People Go |
Fille Balle
Dissolution Of Eternity
Ethikos Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.06.07 23:02:00 -
[102]
OP has a good point. In some ways, you could consider what happened an exloit, so taking the modules back isn't so bad. |
Cissenei
|
Posted - 2009.06.07 23:41:00 -
[103]
Edited by: Cissenei on 07/06/2009 23:42:21
Reimbursement means that CCP admits that something was not right. This should mean that you get all your stuff back. This I support because the opposite is just stupid.
It's also very difficult to abuse that as I assume that reimbursed losses are thoroughly investigated and very difficult to fake. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |