Player Features and Ideas Discussion

If it doesn't come at a significant cost to the company, you'd be surprised how many unreasonable requests are granted. After all, if you could make a customer happy for basically no cost, wouldn't you do it?

Bah, I won't respond anymore though re this since it's derailing the thread.

No it isnt, its exactly on topic
Do you work in customer service or for a company which grants unreasonable requests?

Define unreasonable. The quote I made is a well known motto for good customer service, and it's not relevant to this thread. As I said, you cannot make everyone happy anyway, so this is not a motto for evaluating game changes.

This is a minor detail that everyone jumped on for the sake of argument and is just a waste of time. The AW5 case is stupid, it's unreasonable, it's not realistic. No one would ever reasonably file that petition to begin with. My point was that the AW5 case was significantly different from this. It's reasonable that you could have trained this skill just for POS gunning, and don't care at all about the other benefits/abilities.

But I still think an SP refund is an unreasonable request that CCP should not agree to simply for PR.

Why is it unreasonable though, and why, if there is no downside, shouldn't it be done for PR? Happy players is a good thing.

You know all those “SP remap for PLEX” threads? Like that, but without even the inhibitor of requiring a PLEX.

But that's just it: it's refunds without game changes — people getting their SP refunded because of their own decisions and nothing more. There's noting unpredictable or limited about how EVE players would abuse that.

You aren't going to get any sympathy here. There's a strong attitude from the people who have already posted in this thread that things should always be a certain way because they have always been a certain way.

I find that argument to be one of the weakest possible ones. But so it goes.

The rationale as it stands now is this: if a skill has a consequence, then that is the consequence you chose when you trained the skill. Regardless of what the consequence was when you actually trained the skill. That choice that you made? Doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that the skill does something. If it does something, that's worth something, and that's what you chose.

It's a completely absurd argument, but so it goes. I once thought that CCP was really convinced that this was a fundamental principal. I'm not so sure. CCP has cited the difficulty of writing the necessary DB scripts to make these adjustments happen. So I'm kind of thinking these days that it's more they don't want to spend the time than it is that they really think things should be a certain way.

I'm willing to be wrong about that. But, you know, I'm a database application developer. I spend my professional life doing things like what we're talking about here. It is absolutely not particularly that time consuming to test and script DB changes like this, unless CCP is really really short on staff.

So I am of two minds about this. One is that CCP says it's hard to do it. I believe a lot of what CCP says. I know for a fact that when CCP says that rewriting EvE for multi-threading support is hard, I know that's true. Because I know Python, and I understand the problem with the GIL. And I know that CCP devs are actually major contributors to a project called Stackless that does a very good job of maximizing cooperative multitasking performance on single cores.

But then CCP says x is hard to do because database scripts, and I don't really believe that. I find that a lot less convincing. CCP is good enough at figuring **** out to basically run the Stackless project, but aren't good enough to write DB scripts efficiently.

That makes no sense to me.