These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

I want my SP refunded

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#301 - 2012-05-10 08:12:15 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
You are not the judge here so shut up now.
No. The policy is, and the policy says that he has no reason to get his SP back.
Also, reality is, and the reality is that his claims are false.

“I wish“ is not a good reason to bypass the game mechanics.

Quote:
And why would this be?
As mentioned numerous times, had you actually followed the thread: see the many many threads on SP remaps in the F&I and skill forums.

Quote:
I told you a few times.
No you didn't, but at least you admit that you can't discuss the topic. This means you're just trolling in a failed attempt to hide this fact.

Quote:
Had you followed the thread then you would know that one could use the reimbursed SPs to train trade skills. It is the obvious choice.
He can do that anyway, and that means CCP doesn't have to let him skip the game mechanics for no good reason. So the fact remains: there is no good reason for the OP to get his SP back.
Whitehound
#302 - 2012-05-10 08:13:04 UTC
Andski wrote:
oh yeah I forgot that you can sell fitted ships, researched blueprints and BPCs through the market and that you can limit who you can sell things to through the market

good point

The OP has specialised on shiny modules. She would now need to train science skills or for a freighter to make use of her contracts. Maybe she already has got these skills, but if not then she is now forced to spend some extra training time. There is then nothing wrong with CCP offering skill reimbursement after a change. In fact if they had such a system in place could CCP make more substantial changes to the game than before.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#303 - 2012-05-10 08:16:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Whitehound wrote:
The OP has specialised on shiny modules.
…and can still do so. Nothing has changed. In fact, now he can be even better at it than before since more open trades and markets are available to him.
Quote:
She would now need to train science skills or for a freighter to make use of her contracts.
No he doesn't. He can use them in exactly the same way as always. Science and freighter skills are particularly irrelevant to using contracts (in fact, it's the absence of both that fuel a lot of contract use).
Quote:
Maybe she already has got these skills, but if not then she is now forced to spend some extra training time.
And as with all such things, the skill system already allows for the adaptation needed should that be the case (it isn't, since nothing has changed).
Quote:
There is then nothing wrong with CCP offering skill reimbursement after a change.
…aside from it being completely counter to the policy of not reimbursing something that hasn't been lost.
Whitehound
#304 - 2012-05-10 08:24:17 UTC
Tippia wrote:
No. The policy is, and the policy says that he has no reason to get his SP back.

No. Shut up. You also do not get to make policies here.

Tippia wrote:
As mentioned numerous times, had you actually followed the thread: see the many many threads on SP remaps in the F&I and skill forums.

And yet did CCP introduce a system to reimburse skill points and used it at least twice from what I remember.

By the way, denying good reasons only means you see them as good reasons.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#305 - 2012-05-10 08:28:20 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
No.
Incorrect. Go read it.
Quote:
And yet did CCP introduce a system to reimburse skill points
…which isn't the same thing as a remap system.
Quote:
By the way, denying good reasons only means you see them as good reasons.
Nope. It can also mean that the reasons are no good, for instance when they go counter to facts.
Quote:
Yes, I have no argument, as always...
We know. You make it abundantly clear every time you post.
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#306 - 2012-05-10 08:30:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
Whitehound wrote:
Andski wrote:
oh yeah I forgot that you can sell fitted ships, researched blueprints and BPCs through the market and that you can limit who you can sell things to through the market

good point

The OP has specialised on shiny modules. She would now need to train science skills or for a freighter to make use of her contracts. Maybe she already has got these skills, but if not then she is now forced to spend some extra training time. There is then nothing wrong with CCP offering skill reimbursement after a change. In fact if they had such a system in place could CCP make more substantial changes to the game than before.


yo you should go back a few pages and check out that quote I made straight from da tos

then come back and tell us that we don't make the policy when we're quoting an existing policy

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Whitehound
#307 - 2012-05-10 08:31:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Tippia wrote:
which isn't the same thing as a remap system.

And which nobody here is talking about.

Tippia wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
By the way, denying good reasons only means you see them as good reasons.
Nope.

Yes you did. And you now edited your comment, too. Lol

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#308 - 2012-05-10 08:36:56 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
And which nobody here is talking about.
…except for you and except that this is exactly what the OP (and you) are asking for: “a method to untrain and reimburse skills after a change” — a.k.a. a remap system.

Quote:
Yes you did.
Ehm. You know, if you're going to say that, it really helps is if the thing you're responding to is actually something anyone did. So no, denying good reasons does not only mean you seem them as good reasons. Most commonly, it means you see them as bad reasons or as nonsensical.

Quote:
And you now edit your comment, too.
There would be an “edited by” heading above it if I did. There isn't, so I didn't, so you're wrong as always.
Whitehound
#309 - 2012-05-10 08:48:02 UTC
Tippia wrote:
…except for you and except that this is exactly what the OP (and you) are asking for: “a method to untrain and reimburse skills after a change” — a.k.a. a remap system.

No. It is not a remap system as with the attributes. You would only be allowed to have specific skills untrained by CCP and their SPs reimbursed and only after a change was made.

What are you so afraid of?

Tippia wrote:
Ehm.

Right, why should I care?!

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#310 - 2012-05-10 08:53:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Whitehound wrote:
No. It is not a remap system as with the attributes.
…except that that's exactly what you and the OP are describing.
Quote:
You would only be allowed to have specific skills untrained by CCP and their SPs reimbursed and only after a change was made.
…which already happens if there is a significant enough change. Since nothing changed in this case, nothing is being reiumbursed.

By the way: this is why there is no reason for the OP to get his SP back.
Quote:
Right, why should I care?!
Because one would think that you're trying to make sense and present an argu… oh, sorry. I see now. You already said that you can't do that. Sorry, I assumed you weren't just posting for the sake of it there for a while. I'll try not to make the same mistake again.
Whitehound
#311 - 2012-05-10 09:02:34 UTC
Tippia wrote:
…except that that's exactly what you and the OP are describing.

No. You are seeing it wrong.

Quote:
…which already happens if there is a significant enough change. Since nothing changed in this case, nothing is being reiumbursed.

By the way: this is why there is no reason for the OP to get his SP back.

Now you are denying the change altogether. Lol

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#312 - 2012-05-10 09:08:12 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
No. You are seeing it wrong.
U-huh… “a method to untrain and reimburse skills after a change”. Yup. Remap system, especially since the OP wants it to happen at the slightest modification.

Quote:
Now you are denying the change altogether. Lol
“Now?” Oi! Come on! Pay attention! This was said back on page one and has been said ever since: no, nothing changed about contracts that warrants a recall of the contracting skill SP.
Whitehound
#313 - 2012-05-10 09:18:31 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
Now you are denying the change altogether. Lol
“Now?” Oi! Come on! Pay attention! This was said back on page one and has been said ever since: no, nothing changed about contracts that warrants a recall of the contracting skill SP.

No. You are now denying that the game itself has changed as if there had been no patch. You did not do that before. You have gone mad. Lol

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#314 - 2012-05-10 09:22:03 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
No. You are now denying that the game itself has changed as if there had been no patch.
Nope. Nice strawman, though.
Whitehound
#315 - 2012-05-10 09:38:58 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
No. You are now denying that the game itself has changed as if there had been no patch.
Nope. Nice strawman, though.

Nice troll.

Took you 16 pages to go into complete denial over something that will only give you an advantage. Lol

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#316 - 2012-05-10 09:46:34 UTC
okay relevant expert Whitehound tell us all about the changes to the contract mechanic

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#317 - 2012-05-10 09:49:33 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Took you 16 pages to go into complete denial over something that will only give you an advantage.
Eh… what are you talking about? What advantage do I gain from the fact that the contract system hasn't changed in any way (outside of trivially proving you wrong time and time again)?
Fabulousli Obvious
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#318 - 2012-05-10 11:23:39 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Tippia wrote:
No. The policy is, and the policy says that he has no reason to get his SP back.


No. Shut up. You also do not get to make policies here.



Wow. THAT was easy. I shoulda tried that a year ago.......

I am NOT YOUNG ENOUGH to know EVERYTHING.  ~~ Oscar Wilde, writer, d. November 30, 1900
Gay Mafia Princess
Doomheim
#319 - 2012-05-10 15:32:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Gay Mafia Princess
Fabulousli Obvious wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
Tippia wrote:
No. The policy is, and the policy says that he has no reason to get his SP back.


No. Shut up. You also do not get to make policies here.



Wow. THAT was easy. I shoulda tried that a year ago.......


Everyone seems to agree that the game HAS changed so why shouldn't the policies governing it? Things change, how can me getting my SP back be anything but a good thing? I can see it as a win-win situation for everyone.

Also Tipia comes off as a pretty bossy CCP brown noser. I don't think anyone needs more CCP policies spewed at them.
Karadion Kohlar
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#320 - 2012-05-10 15:44:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Karadion Kohlar
Gay Mafia Princess wrote:
Fabulousli Obvious wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
Tippia wrote:
No. The policy is, and the policy says that he has no reason to get his SP back.


No. Shut up. You also do not get to make policies here.



Wow. THAT was easy. I shoulda tried that a year ago.......


Everyone seems to agree that the game HAS changed so why shouldn't the policies governing it? Things change, how can me getting my SP back be anything but a good thing? I can see it as a win-win situation for everyone.

Also Tipia comes off as a pretty bossy CCP brown noser. I don't think anyone needs more CCP policies spewed at them.

The game changed which is natural for an MMO. Another thing that's changed is that modules that were limited to the contract market expanded to the trade market. Especially A) It simplifies it B) Reduces the amount of ISK that were burned in contracting. What hasn't changed is the contract market which you are crying about and will not get your LEVEL 3 SP back.