EVE Search - Disabling ghost training

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Disabling ghost training - the blog edition

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 6 post(s)
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 03:31:00 - [1] Originally by: Lhyda Souljacker Originally by: Tizoca Mature people realize that not everyone has to agree with them, and those who disagree just may be doing it without getting paid to. You seem to be the only person really posting for this change. They're certainly not the only one who understands and agrees with this change.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 03:38:00 - [2] Originally by: Trupplupagus Simply put, even if you don't really care, there's no reason whatsoever to SUPPORT CCP in this matter. Sure there is: it simply makes sense. "Ghost training" was an unintended consequence of the way they used to calculate skill point accumulation and handle inactive accounts. As more and more people exploited this little loophole it gave them incentive to finally get around to fixing it. I don't see why they wouldn't and am frankly surprised that it took them this long. The only opposition I'm hearing is "HEY! I WAS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THAT YOU BASTARDS!" which I hardly consider worthy of consideration.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 03:45:00 - [3] Originally by: Trupplupagus It's a feature used to sell the game, they aren't 'getting around to fixing it' after 5 years, that's idiotic, and finally, those people simply get a few days additional training. They don't have the money, rep, ships, or interpersonal connections that an active player has. On top of that, it's a wonderful feature for casual players to stay interested and to bring new players to the game. There's very little harm to you or to CCP in keeping it, and much in getting rid of it. 1) Very little harm isn't the same as no harm. 2)This may be why you bought the game (as completely weird as that seems to me) but it's certainly not "used to sell the game" in any meaningful fashion. It's not in the ads, the promos, the trailers, the interviews, etc... 3)Most people never, ever, ever take advantage of this "wonderful feature". Many of us, in fact, consider it extreme metagaming: cheating, to be blunt.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 03:47:00 - [4] Originally by: Haldane Fisher the only reason people get by with eve's skill training system is the fact that you could train out of subscription. Speak for yourself. I've never taken advantage of "ghost training", never felt the need or the desire and am quite pleased to see it go. (And hopefully to see the folks who take advantage of such things go with it.)
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 03:51:00 - [5] Originally by: Trupplupagus Originally by: Catherine Frasier 3)Most people never, ever, ever take advantage of this "wonderful feature". Many of us, in fact, consider it extreme metagaming: cheating, to be blunt. So you are a CCP employee. Nope, I just agree with them.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 03:52:00 - [6] Originally by: Haldane Fisher I call bullshit. Either you are lying or you are in fact a lump of cheese. Turns out there's a third possibility...
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 03:56:00 - [7] Originally by: Cosy Ceaon Originally by: Catherine Frasier Originally by: Trupplupagus Originally by: Catherine Frasier 3)Most people never, ever, ever take advantage of this "wonderful feature". Many of us, in fact, consider it extreme metagaming: cheating, to be blunt. So you are a CCP employee. Nope, I just agree with them. because they pay u btw u win sufficient money one month to get 5 times drunk in iceland ? Sweetheart, if it makes you feel better to think that nobody could possibly disagree with you unless they're paid, then go right ahead. It's puerile but don't let that stop you.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 04:06:00 - [8] Originally by: Trupplupagus It is not a minority opinion that CCP is a bad company Opinions are like anal sphincters- everybody's got one. So? I like the game and have had no significant complaints about CCP's level of service over the years. YMMV. Originally by: Trupplupagus and this issue proves they're out to get your money OMG! A company selling something who is (GASP!) out to get our money?! No way! Originally by: Trupplupagus even if ghost training doesn't effect you on this issue. The options (and there really are just two) are that you are a bad, suckup sycophant without empathy for your peers, or you are, in fact, related to or employed by the company. Third option: I understand, respect and support CCP's decision on this matter. Maybe you can only function in simplistic terms of "good company" or "bad company", but I am capable of examining things like this on their own merits. It's a reasonable decision. I understand it. I support it. As to "empathy for my peers", my peers don't metagame, don't cheat and don't emoragequit over a policy change. Those who do, while they may be my fellow Eve players, are not my peers, and for them I have very, very little sympathy. To be blunt: screw 'em.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 04:19:00 - [9] Originally by: Delos Harriman Originally by: Catherine Frasier As to "empathy for my peers", my peers don't metagame, don't cheat and don't emoragequit over a policy change. Those who do, while they may be my fellow Eve players, are not my peers, and for them I have very, very little sympathy. To be blunt: screw 'em. Well, we've had a documented instance of CCP devs cheating (documented by CCP, no less), so why spend time defending a group that (by your own definition) you don't consider your peers, and you have no sympathy for? That was vile, reprehensible, and has long since been addressed. It's over. That means we get to stop whining about it now. Cool eh? If you don't think it was handled well enough then what exactly are you still doing here? This decision has nothing to do with that incident. Even if you have a video of some Dev tossing puppies into a woodchipper it doesn't change a single thing about this particular decision.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 04:26:00 - [10] Originally by: Haldane Fisher Maybe the part were it was listed as feature and not a bug? That was merely descriptive and certainly doesn't mean it was an intended mechanic. Did you really expect that the guide would say "Oh yeah, and we screwed up the skill training stuff with inactive accounts, please pretend we didn't." ?
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 04:29:00 - [11] Originally by: Delos Harriman Other than the fact that, by your own definition, you have no sympathy for EvE devs, and do not consider them your "peers". No I don't consider the Devs my peers in the context of Eve, mostly because they aren't. I never said otherwise. Try to keep up with the conversation.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 04:30:00 - [12] Originally by: Haldane Fisher Originally by: Catherine Frasier Originally by: Haldane Fisher Maybe the part were it was listed as feature and not a bug? That was merely descriptive and certainly doesn't mean it was an intended mechanic. Did you really expect that the guide would say "Oh yeah, and we screwed up the skill training stuff with inactive accounts, please pretend we didn't." ? That's pretty weak, even for a sycophant Right, like just calling me names is such a powerful argument.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 05:19:00 - [13] Originally by: Liranan Originally by: Catherine Frasier That's pretty weak, even for a sycophant Right, like just calling me names is such a powerful argument. You are an idiotic fanboi. Shut up until you're ready to reveal who you actually are. I don't care whether you're in my corp, alliance, the GBC or whether you're a Goon, in MM, RZR or are a CCP employee. When you can stop being childish and hiding bhind some year old NPC character come back and post. Ahh, that's a much better argument! You don't like the character I post with! What an insightful way to address the content of the discussion. And, just FYI, having been war dec'ed in the past by mouth-breathing knuckle-walkers who use in-game force when their emorage surpasses their out-of-game capabilities and having no particular interest in subjecting my corp-mates to such sophomoric nonsense, I post with this alt. Mandatory posting in oog forums under the byline of an ig character is one of the dumbest things CCP has done, tbh.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 05:22:00 - [14] Originally by: Ralf Kenichi in for name fairness after the 15 October patch i can finally queue mi skill training for the fairness of that pay to play. after that date the will no excuse from part of ccp to get os one. I don't really see the connection here. You couldn't change skills on a ghost account anyways. Yes a 1 slot queue would be convenient, but what's it got to do with this?
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 05:30:00 - [15] Originally by: Haldane Fisher Originally by: Catherine Frasier Mandatory posting in oog forums under the byline of an ig character is one of the dumbest things CCP has done, tbh. You don't like making people accountable for what they say in game or out? That's one hell of a stretch. People are accountable in-game for what they say in-game. (Smack = dec) People are accountable in-game for what they say in in-game forums. (Where post-with-your-main is required.) People are accountable out-of-game for what they say in out-of-game forums. (Forum moderators enforce forum rules). What I am opposed to is YOU deciding what I should or should not say about the game and enforcing that by in-game actions. My right to speak here as a paying Eve player should not be curtailed in any way shape or form by some other player simply because he doesn't agree with me.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 05:34:00 - [16] Originally by: Lysander Kaldenn You pay for a game... so you play a game... why should you benefit from lapsing payment? Pay for the game or quit. No one will miss you if you leave. One less baby crying on the forums. Dead on. Now to kill ghost market orders, ghost research points, etc.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 06:04:00 - [17] Originally by: Kallisto Black We know this has always been a known feature of the game, prominently explained in your very OWN game guide explaining how skill training works. Quote: Skills continue training even if you are logged off or if your account is inactive (in the second scenario you can't change skill training, though). That was true when written. It is still true. Very soon they will change it and I'm sure they'll change the guide too. Where's the lie?
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 06:07:00 - [18] Originally by: ATARI BABY Originally by: Raquel Trotter Edited by: Raquel Trotter on 14/10/2008 05:59:48 Originally by: Sen Black http://www.eve-online.com/features/ "Exclusive offline skill advancement" So, it was a bug ? Exploit ? Screenshot for when they ninja edit it: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/0810/-20081014015643.jpg how aobut this: "Offline skill advancement" is still perfectly accurate and not affected by this change.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 06:15:00 - [19] Originally by: Clone 231A 1) Some of the devs themselves have stated this feature was worth it merely for ensuring players return, and as it took NO DEVELOPER RESOURCES, was not a drain on anything. It was shortly after the dragon release, and they have said as much back in the very early days when this was first discovered. It lent value to the game, and became a documented feature. CCP IS LYING. I don't understand how you can possibly tell us with a straight face that something intentional, a feature, could be "first discovered" by the devs. Yeah, when it was first discovered CCP didn't think it was a very big problem. Some devs might even have thought it was a good thing, then. Now though things have changed (like player counts) and CCP's position on this issue has also changed. Changing your mind about something doesn't make you a liar.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 06:35:00 - [20] Originally by: Morgon Borga You'd think they'd at least be smart enough to remove all references to the "bug" as an intended feature before posting this garbage. For example?
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 06:42:00 - [21] Originally by: Gregorius Decimus Calling that ex-feature "a bug" is the most craziest thing, that I've ever heard in EvE... You've deployed that feature form the begining.. Not exactly true. As pointed out previously in this very thread this "feature" was discovered, not intended. Yes it has remained unaddressed for a long time but that doesn't make it any less of an accident.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 06:49:00 - [22] Originally by: James Marshalll telling us its a balance issue... then a snowflake, then a database issue, then a money issue makes you a ****ing liar. Unless of course it is a balance issue and also a database load issue and also a storage issue and also a money issue and also... What are you expecting? That some dev will say : "It's THIS issue and only THIS issue and doesn't affect anything else and nobody from CCP thinks anything else is significant at all."?
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 06:54:00 - [23] Originally by: Triksterism C'mon Cat, be real. If they really thought bad of this from day 1, then they would not or at least should not have promoted it as a feature. Plain 'ol bullshit tbh. I don't think they thought this was bad from day 1, or at least not bad enough to worry about. (Of course, I also don't ever remember seeing them promote it as a feature.) What I think is that it was an accident, didn't really seem to present much of a problem, and so they let it slide. Now that it it starting to be a pain in the butt (or once somebody noticed just how much it's being exploited) they are fixing it.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 06:59:00 - [24] Originally by: Flinchey Originally by: Catherine Frasier As pointed out previously in this very thread this "feature" was discovered, not intended. are you stupid? its IN THE SKILL TRAINING GUIDE ON THIS VERY WEBSITE linked toover and over. Yes. The guide describes the way things are. It does not say anything about whether or not that was an accident.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 07:11:00 - [25] Edited by: Catherine Frasier on 14/10/2008 07:12:51 Originally by: Triksterism That is a bit BS. They didn't give a rat's ass until Iceland got all debt'ed up. Iceland's economy is in trouble. We, however, pay for our Eve subscriptions in Dollars and Euros which have just skyrocketed in comparison to Iceland's currency. So the plummeting ISK makes our payments to CCP worth more, and more, and more. What's you're doing is making the post hoc ergo propter hoc mistake. That is assuming that because thing 1 happens after thing 2 therefore thing 1 was caused by thing 2. It's also pretty silly to think that this decision is going to result in an immediate and significant cash infusion of the type needed to "fix" a catastrophic economic crash. Much more likely that they did give a rat's ass for some time and just didn't mention it to you.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 07:16:00 - [26] Originally by: Stormwind Bloodfeather 1. You advertised this as an INTENDED FEATURE of the game... for years. Got proof?
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 07:25:00 - [27] Originally by: Triksterism The majority of CCP employees reside in Iceland, I'd say the financial situation, no matter what currency is being sucked in, is quite relative. Not to mention the blog even stated this was a financial endeavor. But they didn't say anything about Iceland's economy. As you say, it's relative. Now CCP's expenses in krona(the wages for those employees you mentioned) have just dropped like a rock compared to their income in dollars and euros. That's good, not bad. It's also an excellent reason to go to fanfest, the way the krona crashed beer is like half-price there now.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 07:31:00 - [28] Originally by: Carsidava Originally by: Catherine Frasier Originally by: Stormwind Bloodfeather 1. You advertised this as an INTENDED FEATURE of the game... for years. Got proof? I'm still waiting for your proof that this is a bug. It's unintentional, like jet-can mining. It happened, people exploit it, but nobody planned it to work out that way. Exactly what kind of proof do you expect there to be for "nobody thought about that"? More to the point though if you want accuse someone of lying then the burden of proof is upon you to support such a charge. You know, like show me where they "dvertised this as an INTENDED FEATURE of the game... for years."
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 07:34:00 - [29] Originally by: Tunnas Originally by: Catherine Frasier Originally by: Stormwind Bloodfeather 1. You advertised this as an INTENDED FEATURE of the game... for years. Got proof? proof Skills continue training even if you are logged off or if your account is inactive (in the second scenario you can't change skill training, though). For the 73357th time: Describing what happens is not the same thing as saying it was done that way on purpose. You put "INTENDED FEATURE" in caps and rightfully so, intent is the key question. Nowhere in the guide does it say "we planned it this way" rather than (like lots of other things in Eve) "it just worked out that way".
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 07:42:00 - [30] Originally by: Arrs Grazznic Quote: Ghost Training was an unintended feature It's been posted above, but NO IT WASN'T! The knowledge base states: Quote: Skills continue training even if you are logged off or if your account is inactive As Annaphera said: Quote: if you looked in the player guide a few years ago, there was a 'feature' listed that you had a chance to get a T2 BPO if you did research with R&D agents. Hmmm...don't seem to see that 'feature' any more, because CCP decided it was too overpowering, and ended the T2 'lottery'. Further, it WASN'T in the guide when the game came out - it was added later (T2 wasn't either); the guide, however, didn't state that (I've seen copied sections). So, I guess we can draw the conclusion that the Player Guide is just a list of all the things the game does right this moment, and doesn't comment on the origin and probable lifespan/destiny of any given function. As I said Quote: Describing what happens is not the same thing as saying it was done that way on purpose. Nowhere in the guide does it say "we planned it this way" rather than (like lots of other things in Eve) "it just worked out that way". All you're pointing out is that it was unintended, but once it was discovered it was documented.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 13:45:00 - [31] Originally by: Todoshi if enough people leave then say good buy to all those lovely cheap mods and ships, because if the players quit the prices will go up Ooh! Bunch of metagamers gone and prices going up? That'd be like the cherry on top: crossing my fingers that you're right. (But I doubt it.)
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 15:27:00 - [32] Originally by: Marius Duvall The issue isn't that the players guide isn't a promotion (which is arguable, really) but that a supposed "bug" was listed as an intended effect therein. No, it never was listed as an intended effect, ever, anywhere. The guide merely described the way things were. All the emorage in the world can't change documentation into proof of intent. Of course, since this has been pointed out about seven thousand times and ignored about seven thousand times, I don't expect pointing it out again will have any effect on you "But it was in the guide!!!!11one!!" folks.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 15:59:00 - [33] Originally by: Seth Ruin And you still failed to show anything in response to my challenge many pages back, so I'll post it again: Find me one other "bug" or "unintended feature" in the player's manual. I don't know of any off-hand (and have no intention of paging through the guide looking). But since the guide doesn't say anything about intent one way or the other on 99% of the game's mechanics, and since I can't read minds, how can we know what was intended and what was emergent? What I do know is that it makes no damn difference either way. Even if this was the only unintended feature documented in the guide then that just means that this was the only unintended feature documented in the guide, and so what? Now, if you could show that CCP was explicitly using this "feature" in advertising, while it would still not show intent, it would justify some of the annoyance at this decision. Originally by: Seth Ruin Or, better yet, so we're on the same level: What would you consider a list of "intended effects?" The features page? I wouldn't expect such a list, period, why would you? Why would CCP (or anyone) run through each and every aspect of the game and specify; "Meant to do that", "Just got lucky", and "Ooops"? The guide describes how things are regardless of how they ended up that way. Reading more into it is unwarranted. Quite simply: They say it was unintended and there is nothing which indicates that's untrue. Certainly there's nothing remotely resembling proof that it's untrue. Without proof, without evidence, all you have is your tinfoil hat/black helicopter nonsense being used to justify your annoyance at this decision by painting them as "liars".
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 16:11:00 - [34] Originally by: Marius Duvall If something is listed in the user manual saying "Hey, you can do this," it's an intended effect. That's complete nonsense. The way training is handled (simulating constant training by updating when you log in) didn't take into account the possibility that for some of the time between log-ins your account might have been "inactive". Training and billing were on different pages, as it were. Oops! It was unintended and no amount of documentation can ever change that fact. Nothing short of time travel can even make it an intentional decision. If you want to argue that they accepted the way it was then sure, I agree, they did. And now they don't.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 16:21:00 - [35] Originally by: Seth Ruin So here you're going to tell me neither you nor your main will ever complain about any game change ever, correct? Because after all, nothing is really an "intended feature." Completely incorrect. First: Some things are clearly intended, some are not, for many there's just no way to know. Second: That doesn't matter to me at all. I complain about (or applaud) the way things are. I don't give a rat's posterior whether they meant to do it or whether it just happened. The only people I see claiming intent are the ones who want to take their selfish whinge about this decision and try to pretend it's some great moral crusade for honesty instead of just whining about their metagaming free lunch being closed down.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 16:32:00 - [36] Originally by: IR Scoutar Originally by: Catherine Frasier I wouldn't expect such a list, period, why would you? Why would CCP (or anyone) run through each and every aspect of the game and specify; "Meant to do that", "Just got lucky", and "Ooops"? i dont know about you but id expect the creater of the game to know about their game if somethings an oopsie it needs to be fixed if something has gone into your explenation of the game declaring it as oopsie 5 years later is a bit of a stretch dont you think Not at all. In fact, some "oopsies" might be with us forever. Unintended doesn't mean bad, or good. It just means unintended. Like jet-can mining, or carrier-freighting. CCP knows (or finds out about) such things. Sometimes they ignore them, sometimes they embrace them, sometimes they let it ride for a while and see how it goes. In this case (and others) they let it ride until it becomes problematic and then fix it. This is nothing new. Try storing a fully loaded indy in your carrier. You could, now you can't. It was unintended, discovered, allowed and then fixed. Just like this.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 17:00:00 - [37] Originally by: Seth Ruin How can you define such an arbitrary line between "intended features" and "unintended features" without some kind of metric? How is it so "clear" that some features are intended? What makes them "clearly intended?" Mind you, this is not a rhetorical question. The difference between intended and unintended is intent. For example: Stacking penalties are clearly intended. We know this because we heard explanation of what, how and why they would be implemented before it was done. Originally by: Seth Ruin As far as you "complain[ing] about (or applaud[ing]) the way things are," isn't that what we are doing here? Some are. And some are discussing CCP's secret agenda, or whether documenting a bug makes it a feature, or whether this dev is a liar or that dev is uninformed or whether customer service really respects me as a person or if the account management page is really broken or was CCP standing on the grassy knoll that day in November 1963...
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 17:28:00 - [38] Originally by: Gaskin Ravenwing I am fine with and support this change. I would ask that there is a "grace" time added on of 24 hours or so though Reason being my subscription usually runs out overnight and i would hate to come back expecting my skill to have finished and find my expired subscription has put it back 12 hours or whatever They have already noted that there is a 3 day grace period.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 17:35:00 - [39] Originally by: Annaphera Originally by: Erimisha If they knew how to fix the bug a year ago why did they leave it in? Could it be, just possibly, maybe, because they were trying to be nice and not hurt people who were honestly just on vacation, or forgot to resub, or whatever? That they really never intended it, but wanted to leave it in as long as it wasn't getting systematically abused? Or maybe they hoped to forestall or at least postpone the flood of OMFGIQUITYOUSUCKWAHWAHWAH that we've seen here. (And who could blame them?)
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 17:52:00 - [40] Originally by: Erimisha CCP intentionally coded the game to do it this way from the start. Do NOT tell me they couldn't simply execute some code at the same time the db updates "Account ACTIVE: Y" to "ACCOUNT ACTIVE: N" to pause training. There's a huge and important difference between "Didn't fix it right away" and "intentionally coded the game to do it this way from the start". Pretending they are the same thing is just lying. Further, skills don't actually train in real time, it just appears that way. When you log in it calculates how many skill points you accumulated since your last log-in and adds that to the existing count. I imagine now the system will update your character file after the 3 day grace period has expired by finalizing the sp count and setting the skill in training to "none". (Which, I agree, they should probably have done when this oversight was first discovered. Sloppy.)
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 18:05:00 - [41] Originally by: Soldur u must be a ccp alt Clearly it's time for the Eve Tinfoil Hat Drinking Game.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 18:07:00 - [42] Originally by: IR Scoutar actualy i would call it intentional because... Sadly the word "intentional" already has a definition.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 18:13:00 - [43] Originally by: Yeknom Nam Originally by: Catherine Frasier Originally by: Soldur u must be a ccp alt Clearly it's time for the Eve Tinfoil Hat Drinking Game. You lose credibility to your argument by vehemently denying it. Brilliant! So if you accuse me and I deny it, that convinces you. If you accuse me and I admit it, that convinces you. If you accuse me and I don't respond, that convinces you. Hell, you could have this conversation all by yourself! (But then somehow I suspect that you do a lot of that too.)
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 18:32:00 - [44] Originally by: Wrathraker Since beta and the days of Castor being able to train was touted by CCP as a feature and not a liability like it is now. This is what was said and quoted by CCP in the beginning that set your game apart from other games that were out there at the time. Touted as a feature... where? "Said and quoted by CCP" that this set the game apart... where? Got links?
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 18:33:00 - [45] Originally by: Kuolematon Year ago CCP said that this is CHINESE server "function" and will NEVER hit TQ. Where did they say that?
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 18:39:00 - [46] Originally by: Elo69007 Business 101 Idiot, the customer is always right. If you really believe that silly slogan is a blanket statement of fact then you've clearly never actually taken Biz 101. (To say nothing of actually running a business.)
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 18:54:00 - [47] Originally by: Xultanis I remember them saying that it was never going to hit TQ also when they talked about it. You know how it works: Proof or...
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 18:55:00 - [48] Originally by: Arthmandar Valikari How many people here think that ghost training and offline training are the same thing? I think it is a nontrivial number. ... You know... you might be right. That would certainly explain some of the exploding-head reactions.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 19:05:00 - [49] Originally by: Xultanis The proof was those links just couple of posts above this one. Its not word for word and finding the exact one will take time but there you go right there. Those links should make you happy enough Nope, I don't see it, you're gonna have to be specific. (C'mon, how hard is it to cut'n'paste?)
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 19:09:00 - [50] Originally by: zigman123 ummm I dont know who runs the numbers at ccp but just roughly counting how many people are quitting over this... Well it's possible that they don't actually believe all the emorage forumspam. Besides, throwing a hissy-fit and stopping your account isn't terribly final. If you want to impress me then transfer all your stuff to me, delete the characters and then cancel the account.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 19:11:00 - [51] Originally by: St Claus Ain't that a shitty example. If you really don't understand why, i don't have anything else to say as i finally believe that you are a troll. Translation: "You're wrong. I can't explain how or why, but you're just wrong. Oh, and you're a big meanie-boots troll too. There, I won."
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 19:23:00 - [52] Originally by: Peter VonThal "i made the mistake of telling Wrangler they stopped training on Tranquility when subsctiptions lapsed, this lead to much confusion and me being whipped (which i have to admit, i enjoyed very much) But i was mistaken, it's only applicable to the Serenity server." "I just want to let you know that skill training WILL continue while the account is inactive. I had picked this up wrong when i was speaking to Wrangler before and i mistakenly told him that skills stop training when accounts go inactive, this is why it was included in the patch notes and it's entirely my fault." Did you actually read that? When ghost training was disabled on the Chinese server Jiekon mistakenly thought it was simultaneously being disabled on TQ. It wasn't. His correcting his mistake in no way, shape or form promised (or even implied) that therefore ghost training was a permanent feature of TQ, merely that it wasn't being terminated at that particular moment.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 19:26:00 - [53] Originally by: Kuangdianbai I think players are getting angry more at the fact that this has been a feature and advertised as a feature for the past 5 years So people keep saying but they never say where. So, where was this advertised as a feature?
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 19:33:00 - [54] Originally by: Lord Fuzzywig You see, if it was a bug, both servers would have had it removed, perhaps even at the same time. There's no reason you would leave a bug on one server and remove it from another. First: This thread demonstrates a very good reason to let this particular sleeping dog lie: the almost hysterical anger of those people exploiting it when the free ride ends. Secondly: They didn't just say "It's a bug!" like the window position UI bug. The statement was: "Ghost Training was an unintended feature... While this allowed players to run multiple characters on a shoestring budget, in all effect, this was a bug." So it's an unintended feature that basically, IN EFFECT was a bug. It's a much more nuanced statement than your interpretation would suggest.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 19:34:00 - [55] Originally by: Gedhay Originally by: Catherine Frasier Originally by: Kuangdianbai I think players are getting angry more at the fact that this has been a feature and advertised as a feature for the past 5 years So people keep saying but they never say where. So, where was this advertised as a feature? it was removed from the player guid few hours ago Documented in the guide != Advertised as a feature.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 19:37:00 - [56] Originally by: Baihuigau Originally by: Catherine Frasier Originally by: Kuangdianbai I think players are getting angry more at the fact that this has been a feature and advertised as a feature for the past 5 years So people keep saying but they never say where. So, where was this advertised as a feature? im pretty sure iv seen it on some eve advertisements as well, i should try and find my old eve box manual see if it says it there. Well I'm pretty sure that nobody has been able to find it in any eve advertisements or on their eve box manual.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 19:41:00 - [57] Originally by: Hun Jakuza Originally by: Catherine Frasier Documented in the guide != Advertised as a feature. Documented advertise in the guide = Advertised as a feature. As has been pointed out before: Microsoft documents the Blue Screen of Death in their Windows user guide, so by your logic the BSoD is advertised as a feature of Windows. =Fail.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 19:46:00 - [58] Originally by: Huan Hunglong I wish they wouldnt blatently lie to us about the reason behind it. It is NOT a bug, its been a DOCUMENTENTED FEATURE for years!!! Yes. It was a documented unintentional feature. Which is exactly what t0rfifrans said: "Ghost Training was an unintended feature where unpaid accounts of EVE Online were able to continue training skills... in all effect, this was a bug." There's just no lie there.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 19:49:00 - [59] Originally by: Lothendra Um, BSOD is a feature, it lets you know why your program/driver/kernel crashed so that you may do something about it. Fine then. Crashes in which the BSoD appears, and in which you lose all your work are documented in the Windows guide. So by your logic the crashes which result in the BSoD and the loss of your data are advertised as a feature of Windows.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 19:52:00 - [60] Originally by: James Marshalll I can tell you with no hesitation YOU DO NOT document bugs in a new user guide... No, you can merely claim that YOU don't.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 19:54:00 - [61] Originally by: Lallante Id love to know why it matters, to anyone, whether CCP once intended this, once supported it, documented it, whatever. Because then they can be all self-righteous and moral about CCP "lying" to them. (Which sounds a lot better than just whining because their exploit is being disabled.) This is all about the appearance of justification.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 19:55:00 - [62] Originally by: Huan Hunglong So show us another example of where a bug is listed in documentation, in a manner that discribes it as a feature. In a manner that describes it as a feature? Where exactly was that?
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 19:58:00 - [63] Originally by: FalconBayerskt Have CCP responded yet?? (dont have the time to check 80+ pages) Responded to what? The dev blog linked in the OP covers it all pretty well, what else is there to say?
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 20:06:00 - [64] Originally by: Huan Hunglong Edited by: Huan Hunglong on 14/10/2008 19:59:47 Originally by: Catherine Frasier Originally by: Huan Hunglong So show us another example of where a bug is listed in documentation, in a manner that discribes it as a feature. In a manner that describes it as a feature? Where exactly was that? http://dl.eve-files.com/media/0810/lie.jpg which used to be what http://www.eve-online.com/guide/en/g615.asp said Actually, no. What the guide used to say was "Skills continue training even if you are logged off or if your account is inactive" which makes absolutely no statement about whether or not this is an intended feature, a bug, a loophole, a mistake, an oversight or an emergent property. It merely described, accurately, the way things worked. (Which apparently is A Bad Thing(tm) )
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 20:09:00 - [65] Originally by: Velda Chulai Originally it was a game balance feature. No. Originally (and from someone else) it was an undocumented feature, in effect a bug, which was problematic for game balance reasons. That's still completely true.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 20:18:00 - [66] Originally by: Huan Hunglong Using that arguement EVERYTHING documented in the player guide could be an 'unintended feature' Not quite. What you mean is if we ONLY looked at the guide then any documented mechanism could be considered as possibly unintended, and that might be true. However we have much more than just the guide to go on, so in reality it's a silly thing to say. The issue is that the only thing that supports this stupid "CCP put ghost training in on purpose, promised they'd never take it out, advertised it in full page ads in the NYT and now they're taking it out to ruin my life and cause me cancer (the lying bastards!)" whine is one line in the guide. So the whiners are pretending that it is the only authority, indeed that it is the only possible source of information we should consider.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 20:31:00 - [67] Edited by: Catherine Frasier on 14/10/2008 20:39:50 Originally by: Zinnn Catherine Frasier is working for CCP. I don't know anyone so tenacious and saying the same thing over and over again, and NOT be paid for it. Woo hoo! I hope that means they've got a cheque in the mail to me. (Hey! CCP! I want $CAN, none of that waste-paper ISK!) Originally by: Zinnn She refuses to recognize that people feel betrayed, duped into playing more eve online (with the power of two), and that people have a valid reason to be upset Sure people feel betrayed, duped, etc... What I don't recognize is that they have anything like a valid reason to feel that way.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 20:37:00 - [68] Originally by: Aaah This patch killing all new players. New player have not any chance to train multiple characters. Unless, you know, they pay for them.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 20:46:00 - [69] Originally by: Shard Merchant - Player guide gets edited to remove controversial remarks. I think you mean player guide gets updated to both reflect the new mechanism and to explicitly highlight the fact that it has changed. (It says "the skill will no longer continue to train on inactive accounts", hardly a disinformation campaign.) When the guide was not update eleventy thousand people screamed: "That's not what it says in the guide!!!" When the guide is updated : "You sneaky bastards are trying a ninja-edit to remove controversial remarks!!!"
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 20:51:00 - [70] Originally by: Ratio Legis And it never came into your mind that actually the moron might be you and not everyone else? Nope, instead I read what was actually said. There's no lie, no betrayal, no valid reason to emorage. There is however a selfish and petty reason to throw a tantrum. Doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to puzzle it out. Originally by: Ratio Legis Originally by: CCP t0rfifrans Now I'm not saying that if me personally would be at the other end of this Dev Blog I wouldn't be annoyed by CCP's actions. I guess he says that for nothing like a valid reason... That's exactly right. So rage on, but don't expect me to feel sorry for you or for CCP to back down because of it.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 20:54:00 - [71] Originally by: Dire Radiant That it was a portrayed as a feature in the guide shows that it is not actually a bug at all. No. It was an unintended feature which was, in effect, a bug. Documenting it doesn't change that.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 20:59:00 - [72] Originally by: Jocho If this is so, then please, please, please enlighten everyone with how ghost training is "unfair" and causes an "inbalance" with eve Sorry... I don't think you've got any right to rage over them cancelling your free lunch and so therefore I must believe and explain how ghost training was unbalancing? Did that seem to make sense when you were typing it? As it happens the reason ghost training was problematic from a balance sense is that it enables people who metagame a significant advantage in skill point accumulation over people who actually play the game. (For the same amount of money invested a metagamer exploiting ghost training can earn many times more sp.) Clear? Of course, even were that not true it still doesn't translate into your right to ghost train until the end of time.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 21:02:00 - [73] Originally by: Tito Sajic nowhere in his post does he even imply this: "You sneaky bastards are trying a ninja-edit to remove controversial remarks!!!" Some of the other posters have, but not Shard Merchant. Is this the only comment in his post that you can quote on? Specifically what about this comment did you not agree with? His attribution of motive for the change ignored those "other posters" and implied that CCP was being self-serving and deceptive rather than responding to player complaints by updating the guide to be current, accurate and to reflect the change made.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 21:06:00 - [74] Originally by: Nackturion Simply give a 5 day timer on all other character aspects (buy orders, contracts, etc). After 5 days, all of those go away also. That would give the above mentioned cases time to get issues in order at the extreme. Works for me, where do we vote?
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 21:08:00 - [75] Originally by: Creepin Originally by: Catherine Frasier No. It was an unintended feature which was, in effect, a bug. Documenting it doesn't change that. Oh, cmon, the bug that was unfixable for bloody five years and coincidentally got fixed at this exact moment, mwahaha Coincidence takes two things. What's the other thing happening "at this exact moment" that makes it a conspiracy? And, to be clear, nobody said it was "unfixable". It was merely not fixed until now.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 21:11:00 - [76] Originally by: ViolenTUK What is relevant is that it HAS been used as a game feature and has been advertised as such. Describing, in the player guide, the mechanism by which skill points accumulate is NOT "advertising ghost training it as a feature".
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 21:14:00 - [77] Originally by: Jocho You completely missed the point that Ghost Training was a intentional feature of eve. It wasn't. Originally by: Jocho And your idea that someone can earn many more SP's is ludicrous. Maybe a million more tops due to implants. You don't understand. A ghost trainer who has two accounts (for example) and alternates every month which one is active and which inactive can generate twice as many skill points per dollar as a person who plays the game normally.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 21:15:00 - [78] Originally by: chotaire I could've replied to each of your posts and proven them wrong or off-topic, but this is just a waste of time to invest into your hidden trolling attempts.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 21:22:00 - [79] Edited by: Catherine Frasier on 14/10/2008 21:29:02 Originally by: Carsidava Please post proof that CCP considered this a bug (in those words) before yesterday's announcements. They have still not said that. They said "Ghost Training was an unintended feature<...> in all effect, this was a bug." Which is not the same thing. If it makes you happier to think that describing "an unintended result of the way we coded training which eventually became quite problematic and had to be fixed" in all effect a bug is a big giant evil lie, then go right ahead. AFAIAC though it's a fair and reasonable description. And even if they hadn't used the B-word I'd still support cutting off this exploit.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 21:30:00 - [80] Originally by: Siona Windweaver Originally by: Catherine Frasier Originally by: Jocho You completely missed the point that Ghost Training was a intentional feature of eve. It wasn't. If it wasn't, then why the hell CCP advertised it on Live chats or Interviews. Got a link for any of that?
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 21:32:00 - [81] Originally by: shiamizu whahaha, now all of a sudden it's all about the skillpoints? I thought CCP always said the amount of skillpoints weren important and it was all about tactics and unique ways of playing? Nope, someone asked me to specifically explain that one particular aspect, so I did.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 21:37:00 - [82] Edited by: Catherine Frasier on 14/10/2008 21:38:50 Originally by: Zinnn The question YOU have to ask yourself is WHY did they wait until NOW to fix it instead of fixing it when they had the technology YEARS AGO?? REPLY TO ME CATHERINE, you obviously have nothing better to do than to stick up for CCP, so answer. That's pretty simple. Until it was being exploited heavily enough (or until they noticed that it was being exploited heavily enough) to be a serious problem it was not worth the emoragequitfest that we're seeing here right now. Counts change, the game evolves, what was slightly annoying once becomes more important.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 21:45:00 - [83] Originally by: Zinnn OK so a LITTLE bugfix is not important, even though it is a fix (according to them) ... That makes no sense. Jesus dude, you ever play Eve? There are millions of little "bugs", flaws, imbalances and gaps that need fixing, or tweaking, or removing. As time (sometimes years) goes by they generally get fixed or changed.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 22:43:00 - [84] Originally by: Zinnn Perhaps you didn't read that the china server already got that fix a while back and CCP said it would not be implemented in Tranquility As has been pointed out before, repeatedly, the statement was made that the change only affected Serenity at that time. It was never stated (nor was it even hinted) that it would never be changed on TQ. (In fact, if you ask me, that should have been a very clear sign that CCP was not exactly thrilled with ghost training.)
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 22:49:00 - [85] Originally by: Alex Salas Originally by: Shar Tegral Where did CCP say it would never be implemented? Linkage or it didn't happen.[/justify] On the Serenity server, skills no longer train when the owning account is deactivated. Tranquility is not affected by this change. Hmm, is the word "never" written in a really tiny font or something? 'Cause I can't see it there. And, as we've said over and over, the reason TQ is mentioned at all is that a dev had mistakenly said TQ would be affected. To clear things up they added the " Tranquility is not affected by this change." The effort to turn that single patch note into some kind of permanent policy statement is, at best, one hell of a stretch.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 22:52:00 - [86] Originally by: Zinnn On another note, where did catherine go? .... Come out to play catherine... Election day, I had to go vote. Thanks for your concern. Originally by: Zinnn I miss our discussions and pwning your logic. Yeah, I completely missed that too.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.14 23:12:00 - [87] Originally by: Jocho http://img134.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ccpbeingcontradictoryvg6.png http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=430960&page=5#145 http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=450676&page=1#4 http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=504679&page=1#3 Some useful links, to show this is anything but a bug. Those have been posted before, quite a few times. All they show is that this unintentional mechanism was known and documented and that it was not fixed on TQ when it was fixed on Serenity.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.