Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ian Ovaert
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 09:56:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hello.
Reimbursement policy is missing some important information.
HED fight was classified as Large-scale player engagement and : "Any losses of any kind resulting from a large-scale player engagement are not covered by this reimbursement policy."
1. Can CCP be more precise and define what is "large-scale player engagement". Is this means for example local bigger than 300 people or 300 people shooting.
2. How normal player can protect itself from being a part of something that is against CCP policy. We cannot know : - what is on the another side of the gate , cyno in case of capitals - if someone else will jump in into the system
3. Can we get some popup that will state before entering system : - "You are about to enter Large-Scale player engagement that is against CCP reimbursement policy and not supported by EVE. Do you want to execute the jump. Yes/No" or when you are in the system: - "Current system escalated to Large-Scale player engagement that is against CCP reimbursement policy and not supported by EVE. Do you want to continue to be here or do you want your ship to be moved to the nearest safe system. Yes/No"
Yes i know " do not undock ". But i ask for clarification from CCP employee and answers how player can defend himself from being in some events that are not supported and against official CCP Policy.
Thank you for your answer. |
Lykouleon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1263
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 18:43:00 -
[2] - Quote
1) If you don't know what a "large-scale player engagement" is, you shouldn't be undocking. 2) Large-scale engagements aren't against CCP policy. Reimbursing except for very obvious CCP screw-ups is usually denied by CCP. And, in the case of large pvp fights where reimbursement of potentially hundreds of ships is possible, is explicitly listed as being a no-reimbursement-zone. Deal with it. 2a) Yes, you very well (or your FC) knows whats on the other side of a gate or whats potentially coming or you (or your FC) is bad. 3) You shouldn't be undocking and heading into large fleet warfare if you don't understand what it is. Deal with it. Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER so I can hit them with my sword |
Ian Ovaert
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 08:11:00 -
[3] - Quote
Lykouleon wrote:1) If you don't know what a "large-scale player engagement" is, you shouldn't be undocking. 2) Large-scale engagements aren't against CCP policy. Reimbursing except for very obvious CCP screw-ups is usually denied by CCP. And, in the case of large pvp fights where reimbursement of potentially hundreds of ships is possible, is explicitly listed as being a no-reimbursement-zone. Deal with it. 2a) Yes, you very well (or your FC) knows whats on the other side of a gate or whats potentially coming or you (or your FC) is bad. 3) You shouldn't be undocking and heading into large fleet warfare if you don't understand what it is. Deal with it.
You are almost in every point. But can you state what is "large-scale player engagement"?
If this is a 1000vs1000 people fighting OR 2000 people on local OR 2000 people on the same node in multiple systems. Difference? 2000 on local you can have in Jita - and there is always people shooting each other on the station. They all are part of large scale engagement
Maybe we don't have to go to thousands of players, and large - scale player engagement for CCP starts from 255 players.
We have no guarantee that at some point someone will not abuse "large-scale player engagement" and deny some player reimbursement because of some obvious bug during 70 vs 40 fight.
I don't see any harm in asking CCP for a definition of LSPE . Clear rules will never do any one harm - they will also cut speculations.
|
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
2687
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 19:19:00 -
[4] - Quote
Obviously CCP can't say "X players is a large fight, no less", because at some point in some place there would be someone fighting with X-2 people and demand unfair reimbursement.
This is not about "bugs they can't manage", this is about not giving any advantage to one side of a conflict.
If you don't want to go in a fight without knowing your ship will be reimbursed, maybe you should join an alliance that offers a reimbursement program, an not rely on Deus Ex CCP to save you. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
4743
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 20:56:00 -
[5] - Quote
Good rule of thumb:
When TiDi kicks in -> Large scale fight
Basically OP, any company in any industry is going to keep some of their policies vague on purpose. It gives them flexibility in what they can say or do. In this case... a large scale fight can be pretty much anything, yes. But I don't think the GMs are that spiteful and/or lazy that they would declare any battle a "large scale fight" and be done with it (though, I can imagine it being very tempting sometimes).
If this can never satisfy you... well... "HTFU." Accept any loss you take regardlesss whether you or CCP were at fault. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
Ian Ovaert
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 08:15:00 -
[6] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote: When TiDi kicks in -> Large scale fight
Yesterday while moving 40 man gang thru gates we got TIDI. No gunfire ; local less than 50.
That's the point why im asking for definition. Because as a players we can only speculate. At the same time i want from CCP the statement how many players can interact with each other until eve servers are unpredictable.
Thank you for your posts , but what we need is a clear statement from CCP.
|
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
814
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 10:36:00 -
[7] - Quote
Ian Ovaert wrote:Thank you for your posts , but what we need is a clear statement from CCP.
You already have a clear statement from CCP-
"Any losses of any kind resulting from a large-scale player engagement are not covered by this reimbursement policy."
"You should just create one thread and put all of your complaints in it instead of littering the forums with multiple threads." ~CCP Falcon
Paranoia never killed anyone. -áA complete absence of it has. |
Ian Ovaert
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 11:24:00 -
[8] - Quote
Please read my posts. I don't have any issues with no reimbursement.
CCP should clarify just what is Large - Scale Player Engagement. Because: - this will allow each player to be aware that they are in this position - cut all speculations why some items where and few days later in similar engagement where not reimbursed.
My primary goal is to persuade CCP to add to policy clear statement.
Large - Scale player engagement occurrences when: - local reaches (for example ) 800 people in the system. or - on kill mails you have more than 255 people. (or maybe both?)
All looses caused during this time will be not reimbursed.
We had situation where overloaded node crashed - and yet all items bugged during this accident where reimbursed (eg billions in Fighter Bombers) Recent nyx with over 300 people on its kill mail - also reimbursed. At the same time all people in HED are denied reimbursement based on the same rules that others in the similar situations got it.
Those few lines in policy defining what is large player engagement will cut all speculations in future incidents. |
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
814
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 14:23:00 -
[9] - Quote
Ian Ovaert wrote:Please read my posts. I don't have any issues with no reimbursement.
CCP should clarify just what is Large - Scale Player Engagement. Because: - this will allow each player to be aware that they are in this position - cut all speculations why some items where and few days later in similar engagement where not reimbursed.
My primary goal is to persuade CCP to add to policy clear statement.
Large - Scale player engagement occurrences when: - local reaches (for example ) 800 people in the system. or - on kill mails you have more than 255 people. (or maybe both?)
All looses caused during this time will be not reimbursed.
We had situation where overloaded node crashed - and yet all items bugged during this accident where reimbursed (eg billions in Fighter Bombers) Recent nyx with over 300 people on its kill mail - also reimbursed. At the same time all people in HED are denied reimbursement based on the same rules that others in the similar situations got it.
Those few lines in policy defining what is large player engagement will cut all speculations in future incidents.
Do you lack an understanding of the concept of intentional vagueness? Do you understand the need for intentional vagueness?
Let's see if this will suffice - all reimbursement requests will be evaluated on a case by case basis. "You should just create one thread and put all of your complaints in it instead of littering the forums with multiple threads." ~CCP Falcon
Paranoia never killed anyone. -áA complete absence of it has. |
Jint Hikaru
Truly Transdimensional The Nova Foundry
1110
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 14:56:00 -
[10] - Quote
Ian Ovaert wrote:ShahFluffers wrote: When TiDi kicks in -> Large scale fight
Yesterday while moving 40 man gang thru gates we got TIDI. No gunfire ; local less than 50.
I believe that TIDI works on the Node not individual systems. So you and your 40 man 'NoGunfire' gang didn't cause the TIDI.... something else going on in another system on the same Node did.
Jint Hikaru - Miner / Salvager / Explorer / SpaceBum In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. |
|
Sura Sadiva
Entropic Tactical Crew
1045
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 15:53:00 -
[11] - Quote
I dunno why you folks keep spamming this. The policy is clear, one could be entiteled to a reinbursement only in case of some server bug (if you can prove it):
Quote:Reimbursement will only be granted if a loss is attributable to a bug or server error.
Any losses attributable to errors in the EVE client may not be eligible for reimbursement.
Any losses attributable to problems with a player's system (i.e. computer, internet connection, etc.) or any system owned by a third party are not eligible for reimbursement.
Losses caused by lag or non-server related disconnection will not be reimbursed.
basically very few scenarios are covered: node or server crashing du to some bug (not simple overload) and similar.
The large-scale battle thing steps in only to enforce the concept that even if you can prove there was some bug will NOT be considerated if happened in some massive battle.
Quote:Any losses of any kind resulting from a large-scale player engagement are not covered by this reimbursement policy.
So, in the first place, you have to run in a bug if you want to try to ask a reimboursement.
The flow is:
#1. were you victim of a bug or server error? 1a) Yes -> goto #2 1b) No - > deal with it
#2. where you in a large fleet engagment? 2a) yes -> deal with it 2b) no -> maybe you' are entiteled to a reimboursement
HED is typical scenario where nobody is entiteled to any reimboursement. Any half experienced EVE player know how CCP handle this. If your blob leaders or FC are telling you something different (and pushing yout o spam EVE forum) then they're either incompetents or liars; in both cases better to drop them.
|
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
4743
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 20:58:00 -
[12] - Quote
Quote:I dunno why you folks keep spamming this. The policy is clear, one could be entiteled to a reinbursement only in case of some server bug (if you can prove it): I honestly think it's an OCD thing... that there NEEDS to be quantifiable numbers for every action/scenario you take and lacking those numbers is akin to being blindly suicidal. I have a guy in my office like this. Damn good number cruncher, but can't comprehend dynamic situations and that there may be mutiple answeres for a single question (because circumstances are not always the same). Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
974
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 21:58:00 -
[13] - Quote
The root problem is that it isn't always numbers in system that cause the instability. A relatively small number of people can spike Time Dilation by all jumping a gate at once, or all undocking at once, etc., but that's not an issue because it's just a spike, and it's well within what the system can handle.
Let's say you get to HED-GP before RUS/CFC do. You get your dialog box saying, hey, you can jump into system. We got this! So you jump, go wherever you're going, and suddenly 1700 more ships on grid. Boom, you're in a large-scale fight, and one side just hit the system much harder than Time Dilation can handle, and you and lots of other people are under lag. CCP can no longer guarantee the performance of the system because of actions taken by the players that overloaded it, and you get no reimbursement.
Basically, the causes of large-scale fights are too dynamic to predict. By the time it's obvious that you're in one, you're in it. Don't fly what you can't afford to lose. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. |
Sura Sadiva
Entropic Tactical Crew
1045
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 22:25:00 -
[14] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:Let's say you get to HED-GP before RUS/CFC do. You get your dialog box saying, hey, you can jump into system. We got this! So you jump, go wherever you're going, and suddenly 1700 more ships on grid. Boom, you're in a large-scale fight, and one side just hit the system much harder than Time Dilation can handle, and you and lots of other people are under lag. CCP can no longer guarantee the performance of the system because of actions taken by the players that overloaded it, and you get no reimbursement.
Basically, the causes of large-scale fights are too dynamic to predict. By the time it's obvious that you're in one, you're in it. Don't fly what you can't afford to lose.
But is not relevant. Poor performances, overload of the systems, lag and so on do not make you elegible to a reimbursement. You can ask for it only in case of loss as direct consequence of a bug.
The "large fleet engagment" reference is only to say that if you are in a large fight they don't even bother to check if was a loss caused by a bug or not.
On the countrary this people keep talking as they should be informed before the undock if there will be a bug and if there will be in a large fleet engagment.
Again: everyone in EVE know as the reimbursemnt policy work; they keep creating alts and spamming the forum with this **** is only cause their blob leaders ordered them to do so, to suggest the idea they lost a battle due to some bug/technical issue, and -oh, how unfair and cruel is the world! - It's the same old whine. They got the loss reimbursed from their alliance anyway. |
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
974
|
Posted - 2014.01.25 00:37:00 -
[15] - Quote
Sura Sadiva wrote:Dersen Lowery wrote:Let's say you get to HED-GP before RUS/CFC do. You get your dialog box saying, hey, you can jump into system. We got this! So you jump, go wherever you're going, and suddenly 1700 more ships on grid. Boom, you're in a large-scale fight, and one side just hit the system much harder than Time Dilation can handle, and you and lots of other people are under lag. CCP can no longer guarantee the performance of the system because of actions taken by the players that overloaded it, and you get no reimbursement.
Basically, the causes of large-scale fights are too dynamic to predict. By the time it's obvious that you're in one, you're in it. Don't fly what you can't afford to lose. But is not relevant. Poor performances, overload of the systems, lag and so on do not make you elegible to a reimbursement. You can ask for it only in case of loss as direct consequence of a bug.
Er, yes, that was my point. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |