These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Mining Barge SP Reimbursement

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#421 - 2013-02-13 19:54:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Aren Madigan wrote:
There's a difference when its a game. Otherwise removed skills could be compared to completely obsolete technology.
No, because even completely obsolete technology has a value and can be used.

Removed skills would be compared to things that were stolen from you, for which you can generally get some form of reimbursement.

Whitehound wrote:
The point here is that the usefulness of a skill, any skill, depends entirely on the person who wants to use it.
…and whether or not it actually does something. No matter how much the person wants it, if it can't be used it can't be used. As is the case with skills that are tied to removed mechanics.

Karl Hobb wrote:
If you value time-sinks then you are free to train Jury Rigging to V, even though its usefulness ended at IV (IIRC). In fact, training Jury Rigging to V should be a reimbursable action since it provides no tangible benefit at all.
It actually has a use now, in T3 production, so not even that one qualifies.
Whitehound
#422 - 2013-02-13 19:58:26 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
Usefulness as defined by the effect it produces within the game, not by your own personal perception of usefulness. If the skill provides no effect whatsoever, under any circumstance of its use, then it is useless. If you value time-sinks then you are free to train Jury Rigging to V, even though its usefulness ended at IV (IIRC). In fact, training Jury Rigging to V should be a reimbursable action since it provides no tangible benefit at all.

That's just your opinion, son. You have your own definition of usefulness and so do I and everyone else.

The skill itself is probably still fully functional, only are there currently no blueprints in the game that make use of it. There were BPs in the past that needed it and there can be again in the future, but not at present.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#423 - 2013-02-13 19:59:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Aren Madigan
Karl Hobb wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:
De'Veldrin wrote:
I demand that the manufacturer of every component in my PC write me a check because I can now buy those components cheaper than I could when I built it.

There's a difference when its a game.

How so? That makes absolutely no sense.


Lets pretend for a moment if EVE was real life... would the laws of space and physics suddenly change because we wanted them to? New rules and such put in place just because we wanted them to? Would we be compensated if suddenly capsuleer neurology (learning skill removal) suddenly improved that removed the edge we once trained for? Would the knowledge required to fly the same ship suddenly and drastically change for new people while the veterans don't notice a difference? These are the kind of things that make up life. Games however are bound by a very strict set of rules and limitations that generally are passed over everyone evenly. Its an brief escape from the insanity and chaos of life. Its organized, stable, orderly in the ideal cases. The rules of life do not always apply to games because ultimately? The goal is to have a fair, if sometimes cold and harsh, environment to have fun. To make people enjoy themselves, make it feel fun and worth doing despite the game ultimately being pointless in the grand scheme of things. I could go on how the purpose of games conflicts with what life actually is, but I think I've made my point whether you agree with it or not.

Tippia wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:
There's a difference when its a game. Otherwise removed skills could be compared to completely obsolete technology.
No, because even completely obsolete technology has a value and can be used.

Removed skills would be compared to things that were stolen from you, for which you can generally get some form of reimbursement..


For it to be comparable to getting stolen you'd have to have lost the benefit it provided completely, not everyone else getting it. If I recall, they increased the base attributes, not decreased. At best you could compare it to a city having free internet access when people used to have to pay for it. Those people who paid for it aren't going to get their money back.
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#424 - 2013-02-13 20:05:01 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
That's just your opinion, son.

It's also apparently CCP's, so tough ****, eh?

Whitehound wrote:
The skill itself is probably still fully functional, only are there currently no blueprints in the game that make use of it. There were BPs in the past that needed it and there can be again in the future, but not at present.

Then it is a useless skill, injected and trained, and thus eligible for reimbursement by CCP's standards.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#425 - 2013-02-13 20:06:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Karl Hobb
Aren Madigan wrote:
The goal is to have a fair, if sometimes cold and harsh, environment to have fun.

Yes and, in all fairness, the skill is still useful and thus reimbursement is not needed.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#426 - 2013-02-13 20:08:23 UTC
Aren Madigan wrote:
For it to be comparable to getting stolen you'd have to have lost the benefit it provided completely
…which is pretty much exactly what happens when the benefit of training a skill no longer exists.
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#427 - 2013-02-13 20:09:54 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:
For it to be comparable to getting stolen you'd have to have lost the benefit it provided completely
…which is pretty much exactly what happens when the benefit of training a skill no longer exists.


Nope, their attributes would have had to go down for that to happen. If I give everyone a candy bar while you had to pay for yours, you didn't lose your candy bar.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#428 - 2013-02-13 20:12:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Aren Madigan wrote:
Nope, their attributes would have had to go down for that to happen.
No. All that needed to happen was that those who had trained those skills no longer trained faster than those who hadn't — i.e. the benfit of the skill was lost.

…and that's exactly what happened. Lost advantage → reimbursement, which is the reason the Orca skill change isn't cause for compensation.

Quote:
If I give everyone a candy bar while you had to pay for yours, you didn't lose your candy bar.
…but I lost the benefit of having paid for one, as opposed to those who hadn't.
Whitehound
#429 - 2013-02-13 20:13:11 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
Then it is a useless skill, injected and trained, and thus eligible for reimbursement by CCP's standards.

Again, this is your opinion on what you find useful. The GMs and CCP staff also had different opinions and it took a while until a decision was made (I had to escalate it).

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#430 - 2013-02-13 20:16:04 UTC
Tippia wrote:
…but I lost the benefit of having paid for one, as opposed to those who hadn't.


And If I make you pay a dollar while everyone else pays 35 cents?
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#431 - 2013-02-13 20:16:23 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Karl Hobb wrote:
Then it is a useless skill, injected and trained, and thus eligible for reimbursement by CCP's standards.

Again, this is your opinion on what you find useful. The GMs and CCP staff also had different opinions and it took a while until a decision was made (I had to escalate it).

Since CCP's opinion is the only one that really matters when it comes to what is useful, there's no reason to be debating the fineries.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#432 - 2013-02-13 20:16:58 UTC
Aren Madigan wrote:
And If I make you pay a dollar while everyone else pays 35 cents?
Then you're talking about something that has no bearing on the topic at hand.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#433 - 2013-02-13 20:19:21 UTC
De'Veldrin wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
De'Veldrin wrote:
So CCP allowed you to replace a completely useless skill with one that still had a purpose. Thereby adding to the precedent that reimbursements (of any kind) are only done for skills that are completely useless in the context of the game.

Thanks for the example.

Not exactly. The skill is still being traded for 5b ISKs and for some does it serve for bragging.


Last time I checked, bragging rights didn't confer any kind of in-game bonus.

This is EVE Online, are you sure... also seems like a 5b bonus is a pretty big deal

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#434 - 2013-02-13 20:24:04 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
also seems like a 5b bonus is a pretty big deal
…but then you're not talking about the useless skill, but rather about the collectible-item skill book, and you wouldn't qualify for any kind of reimbursement.
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#435 - 2013-02-13 20:24:28 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:
And If I make you pay a dollar while everyone else pays 35 cents?
Then you're talking about something that has no bearing on the topic at hand.

The Mining Barge/Industrial Command Ships thing is more along the lines of "Everyone who wants to buy a Snickers Bar needs to have a Blow-Pop, but after April we will sell you a Snickers Bar if you have a Tootsie Roll."

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Whitehound
#436 - 2013-02-13 20:24:35 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
Since CCP's opinion is the only one that really matters when it comes to what is useful, there's no reason to be debating the fineries.

Actually, yes, there is. If I had not explained my view would I not have gotten a replacement.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#437 - 2013-02-13 20:26:57 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Karl Hobb wrote:
Since CCP's opinion is the only one that really matters when it comes to what is useful, there's no reason to be debating the fineries.

Actually, yes, there is. If I had not explained my view would I not have gotten a replacement.

And in CCP's opinion, you deserved a reimbursement.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#438 - 2013-02-13 20:27:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Karl Hobb wrote:
The Mining Barge/Industrial Command Ships thing is more along the lines of "Everyone who wants to buy a Snickers Bar needs to have a Blow-Pop, but after April we will sell you a Snickers Bar if you have a Tootsie Roll."
…in other words, not even remotely the same thing. Everyone got exactly what they paid for, and the prices they paid actually remain the same. You used to pay $1 for $1 worth of candy; now you pay ¢35 for ¢35 worth of goods. If you want the full $1 package, you actually have to pay $1.15… (but you get all three candies for that).
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#439 - 2013-02-13 20:28:22 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Karl Hobb wrote:
The Mining Barge/Industrial Command Ships thing is more along the lines of "Everyone who wants to buy a Snickers Bar needs to have a Blow-Pop, but after April we will sell you a Snickers Bar if you have a Tootsie Roll."
…in other words, not even remotely the same thing. Everyone got exactly what they paid for, and the prices they paid actually remain the same.

*\o/*

It's almost as if we've been saying the same thing all thread!

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#440 - 2013-02-13 20:31:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Aren Madigan
Tippia wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:
And If I make you pay a dollar while everyone else pays 35 cents?
Then you're talking about something that has no bearing on the topic at hand.


If you want to use this comparison so bad, then yes, it does have bearing whether you like it or not, you have to deal with both sides of the comparison, not just what suits YOUR argument. Cry some more if you don't like it. To get the ORCA, ignore everything else, the ORCA, nothing else matters right now, the ORCA, they had to pay the "dollar". Sure it came with this other thing which could be golden, but to others? Its a steaming pile of refuse that's just in the way. Now they are offering it for the "35 cents" but now its what they want and pretty much ONLY what they want, by itself, only coming with things that directly support it.

Karl Hobb wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:
And If I make you pay a dollar while everyone else pays 35 cents?
Then you're talking about something that has no bearing on the topic at hand.

The Mining Barge/Industrial Command Ships thing is more along the lines of "Everyone who wants to buy a Snickers Bar needs to have a Blow-Pop, but after April we will sell you a Snickers Bar if you have a Tootsie Roll."


Wow... you actually somewhat accurately predicted where I was going with it on accident. Point is, if the only thing you want is that snickers, someone is getting a step up over someone else. Whether it be at reduced cost or free should barely matter other than it happening, which in life, it happens, but from games, that's generally the kind of thing you try to get away from. Actually, I think this is the only game I've EVER heard of changing stuff involving skill requirements in such a large way, not because some games don't get a little silly with some stuff sometimes, but because they're actually taking the time to fix it.

EDIT: Hell, I could even just go back to the candy bar example and say you paid just to get an early edge over everyone else. You got your candy bar ahead of everyone else because you were willing to pay for it. You made the choice to do so. Bam.