These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#361 - 2012-05-11 23:59:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Whitehound wrote:
You do not get to make these decisions just like Tippia does not get to make policies.
Good thing that I'm not doing that, then, but rather that I'm explaining the existing policies to you: nothing has been lost or removed, thus there is nothing to reimburse.

ShipToaster wrote:
You used corporation contracting to increase your ability to crate contracts for items that could only be traded on contracts but now this unique reason for having a large number of contract slots is gone
But here's the thing: that reason isn't gone. If you want to trade in items that can only be traded through contracts, you still need all those contacts slots. If you want to trade in items where you attract customers across region boundaries, you still need all those contract slots. If you want to trade in items that come in groups or packages, you still need all those contract slots. If you want to… you know… simply trade using contracts, you still need all those contract slots. It's just the same as before. The only difference is that now he can also trade the items he has chosen as his speciality through the standard market as well, thus increasing his volume.

Quote:
Did they remove contracts? No but it lowered the number of contract slots you need by a lot so the in game change has caused a problem for players who trained this skill that new players to EVE will be able to avoid.
What problem is that?

Quote:
Did it make the need for you to have corporation contracting and even contracting trained at all? Yes. The change had a critically significant impact on the use of this skill as it was being used in game and now the only people who need this skill trained are those who actually do corporation ship replacement transfers and need those extra slots.
No. The skill can still be used in exactly the same way for exactly the same purposes as before. The use of the skill hasn't changed in the slightest.

Quote:
Do contracting and corporation contracting skills need looked at by CCP to reflect their changed use and role in the new game? They do.
Why? Their use and role haven't changed in the slightest.

More to the point: so what? Just because things change doesn't mean you get your SP reimbursed. It's part of the package. You train something, and it changes. When stuff is removed (and this is beyond your control), then there might be time for a reimbursement. This is the policy they abide by. Your own choices; your own mistakes; plain old dynamics in the development — none of that is sufficient reason to get a reimbursement. Simply crying “I want!” most definitely does not qualify.
Whitehound
#362 - 2012-05-12 00:55:11 UTC
Tippia wrote:
The OP does indeed not have a problem ...

Sure does the OP have a problem, you are only being selfish and want to ignore it.

Being able to make new skill choices is not a solution, at least not for CCP, or we still would have the learning skills.

If you think the items are not moving from the contract market to the trade market then proof it.

Tippia wrote:
Good thing that I'm not doing that ...

No, it is bad of you to try. It is a good thing that you cannot do it.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Shian Yang
#363 - 2012-05-12 00:59:15 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Shian Yang wrote:
Then in perhaps a year we can revisit this. Until then, there is no reason to make an exception to a reasonably standard approach.

You do not get to make these decisions just like Tippia does not get to make policies.


Dear capsuleer Whitehound,

Arguably no. Neither do you. All we are doing is pointing out to you that this is unlikely to happen because it is entirely unlike any previous case where there has been a skill point reimbursement.

You can keep on hoping the dog will turn into a fish, but to be honest, it is very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very unlikely to happen.

It might though. But as there is not even a problem I honestly cannot envisage of a situation in which CCP would reimburse a player for skill points simply because they want CCP to.

Regards,

Shian Yang
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#364 - 2012-05-12 00:59:50 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Tippia wrote:
The OP does indeed not have a problem ...

Sure does the OP have a problem, you are only being selfish and want to ignore it.

Being able to make new skill choices is not a solution, at least not for CCP, or we still would have the learning skills.

If you think the items are not moving from the contract market to the trade market then proof it.

Tippia wrote:
Good thing that I'm not doing that ...

No, it is bad of you to try. It is a good thing that you cannot do it.


And STILL you and your alt refuse to directly answer what remains a simple question. Perhaps you could offer actual evidence of the effect this change has had, then we might agree with you. You should also stop with your pathetic attempts at obfuscation, it only serves to make you look even more foolish than you already do.

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
Whitehound
#365 - 2012-05-12 01:05:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
And STILL you and your alt refuse to directly answer what remains a simple question. Perhaps you could offer actual evidence of the effect this change has had, then we might agree with you. You should also stop with your pathetic attempts at obfuscation, it only serves to make you look even more foolish than you already do.

No. You will never agree with any of us. If you had doubts then you would not be posting so much crap here. I then gave three examples, you apparently missed them. Why should I care for what you want? You cannot find it yourself but need others to help you find it. You think your lazy ass opinion is good for anything? No. You are a joke. Lol

GTFO.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#366 - 2012-05-12 01:23:04 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
And STILL you and your alt refuse to directly answer what remains a simple question. Perhaps you could offer actual evidence of the effect this change has had, then we might agree with you. You should also stop with your pathetic attempts at obfuscation, it only serves to make you look even more foolish than you already do.

No. You will never agree with any of us. If you had doubts then you would not be posting so much crap here. I then gave three examples, you apparently missed them. Why should I care for what you want? You cannot find it yourself but need others to help you find it. You think your lazy ass opinion is good for anything? No. You are a joke. Lol

GTFO.


Ok, so asking you and your alt for actual evidence as basis for your claim is now unreasonable? Is that what you say to everyone who you seek support from? What an odd way to go about things. Would the answer be the same to CCP if they asked you? Are you that stupid or arrogant?

And funnily I agree with pretty much everyone in this thread. It so happens that they are the ones telling you and your alt that you have no reason to expect a refund on skillpoints. It may have escaped your attention, but the policies created, enacted and adhered to by CCP cover eventualities such as these.

Those policies, which are freely available, and which several other posters have attempted to point out to you, make it clear that this "case" is not a case at all. It is merely you and your alt getting your panties in a bunch because of your failure to understand basic logic.

I should also point out that you are not a Dev, nor a GM, nor a member of the ISD and as such you have no right to tell me to GTFO of anywhere. Cool

Yet again you prove your inability to converse with people in a logical and polite fashion, thus proving your argument has no real substance and is in fact nothing more than a pathetic whine. Well done you.

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
Serge Bastana
GWA Corp
#367 - 2012-05-12 01:35:26 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Tippia wrote:
The OP does indeed not have a problem ...

Sure does the OP have a problem, you are only being selfish and want to ignore it.

Being able to make new skill choices is not a solution, at least not for CCP, or we still would have the learning skills.

If you think the items are not moving from the contract market to the trade market then proof it.

Tippia wrote:
Good thing that I'm not doing that ...

No, it is bad of you to try. It is a good thing that you cannot do it.


First of all it's beyond ironic that you're calling anyone selfish here after defending this idea of sp reimbursement for this and second, the burden of proof is on the OP (whom, as has been pointed out, is most likely your alt) to show that the skills they say are now useless actually are.

Carry on slick.

WoW holds your hand until end game, and gives you a cookie whether you win or lose. EVE not only takes your cookie, but laughs at you for bringing one in the first place...

Whitehound
#368 - 2012-05-12 06:30:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Serge Bastana wrote:
First of all it's beyond ironic that you're calling anyone selfish here after defending this idea of sp reimbursement for this and second, the burden of proof is on the OP (whom, as has been pointed out, is most likely your alt) to show that the skills they say are now useless actually are.

Carry on slick.

Keep bumping this thread, which you so hate. I am not as selfish as you are and I can still see what I am doing here. You could have let this topic die a long, long time ago. Yet your egos forbid this. This lets me take this thread beyond a thousand pages.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Kietay Ayari
Caldari State
#369 - 2012-05-12 07:12:06 UTC
The less able people are the more they will use their lack of ability to attempt to gain a moral high ground to use against everyone who is able to do what they are not. If you are unable to make use of the contract slots you have with the changes that have been made you do not deserve to benefit from them. If other people manage to do it, it is possible. The fact that you think it is harder, or even that it is harder, is irrelevant.

Achieving less is the opposite of what you need to do in order to have any right to claim anything from anyone.

Ferox #1
Whitehound
#370 - 2012-05-12 07:27:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Kietay Ayari wrote:
The less able people are the more they will use their lack of ability to attempt to gain a moral high ground to use against everyone who is able to do what they are not. If you are unable to make use of the contract slots you have with the changes that have been made you do not deserve to benefit from them. If other people manage to do it, it is possible. The fact that you think it is harder, or even that it is harder, is irrelevant.

Achieving less is the opposite of what you need to do in order to have any right to claim anything from anyone.

No. It is a game change as many. If a change balances ships and brings them in line then the change only turns the game into what people expect the game to be. If you had trained for a Falcon while it was over-powered then you were really only exploiting an imbalance and after they fixed it is a Falcon still a useful ship.

If you have trained skills to be able to do something, like trading with certain items that can only be traded through contracts, then you did not exploit an imbalance. You did exactly what you were supposed to do and trained skills to enable you to do the things you want to do. When a change then eliminates the need for these skills do you begin to burn players' skill decisions. If you had asked how to trade these items prior to the change will everyone have told you to train contracting skills.

What makes this a controversy is that the change not only burns a few players, but it enables others to do more than before without having to train skills for it.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Kietay Ayari
Caldari State
#371 - 2012-05-12 07:32:49 UTC
The game will always change in ways like this. To not expect it is to lie to yourself. Every person who has played for a long time has felt like some skills they have trained were less useful than they were when they originally trained them because of a change.

If the change does not make the skills useless, then you have no argument. If you only used contracts for one specific thing, that is not an issue. Your lack of desire to use them to their full potential is not an argument for any kind of benefit to be given to you. You are not rewarded for achieving less. You should not be given a better chance at something else simply because you are unable to do something now.

Ferox #1
Whitehound
#372 - 2012-05-12 07:38:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Kietay Ayari wrote:
The game will always change in ways like this. To not expect it is to lie to yourself.

No. You cannot base skill decisions on what might be in the future.

The change does make the contracting skills less useful for most and completely useless for some. If the skills had been made completely useless for all would CCP likely have reimbursed the SPs for all. Now they would need to reimburse them for only some players, which is a technical and organizational problem for CCP, because you just cannot simply do it for all but first have to find the players who need it done.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Kietay Ayari
Caldari State
#373 - 2012-05-12 07:44:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Kietay Ayari
How can any skill be useless for some? Do those some not have the same possibilities as all? What is it you are really saying? It is that its completely useless for those who don't want to use it properly in other ways. As I have said before already, the fact that you do not want to use it for anything else does not make it useless. If they changed the way mining lasers worked so you could no longer fit them to BSs, would they have to reimburse those skillpoints to miners who only trained the skill to have a safe ship to fly during Hulkageddon?

Your claim is the same as theirs. It is not one of rationality, it is a demand for something which has not been earned and has no reason to be given.

Ferox #1
Whitehound
#374 - 2012-05-12 07:47:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Kietay Ayari wrote:
How can any skill be useless for some?

Ask a hardcore PvPer what he thinks of mining for example.

You simply cannot train all skills. You have to decide what to train for, what is useful to your game and what is not.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Kietay Ayari
Caldari State
#375 - 2012-05-12 07:51:47 UTC
You are still giving in to my point. Mining skills are not useless to a PvPer. That person can still use them just as well as anyone else can, they simply choose not to. Just because you do not want to use a skill in a way in which it is still effective does not mean there is a problem with the skill. There is a problem with something else.

Ferox #1
Whitehound
#376 - 2012-05-12 07:57:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Kietay Ayari wrote:
You are still giving in to my point. Mining skills are not useless to a PvPer. That person can still use them just as well as anyone else can, they simply choose not to. Just because you do not want to use a skill in a way in which it is still effective does not mean there is a problem with the skill. There is a problem with something else.

No, I am not. Read again. Choices are essential to a game. Changing a game in ways that burns some of these choices (and when they were made for good reasons) is bad.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Kietay Ayari
Caldari State
#377 - 2012-05-12 08:02:24 UTC
That is what every change does. When they doubled the HP of every ship they ruined a lot of choices on how to play. They also created a lot of new ones.

A change may ruin the way you play but it opens up new ones. You can argue if these new ones are bad or if the old ones were good but it is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the skill is useful and if people deserve to be refunded. The skill still has use.

Ferox #1
Whitehound
#378 - 2012-05-12 08:10:59 UTC
Kietay Ayari wrote:
That is what every change does. When they doubled the HP of every ship they ruined a lot of choices on how to play. They also created a lot of new ones.

A change may ruin the way you play but it opens up new ones. You can argue if these new ones are bad or if the old ones were good but it is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the skill is useful and if people deserve to be refunded. The skill still has use.

No one says that you cannot burn players, but it is bad to do so and CCP has implemented a skill reimbursement system in the past to avoid it. There is a good chance that they will improve their system to allow for a selective reimbursement and because it will enable them to make further changes to the game without risking a loss of players.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Hel Schatgraver
Stellar Incorporated Mercantile Services
#379 - 2012-05-12 08:35:57 UTC
This thread is lolz. Lol

To sum it up, Gay Army of PreRegal Dress-wearing Italians is whining because of one of two things:
- Something CCP did.
- Something CCP did.

EULA READING TIME! - http://community.eveonline.com/pnp/eula.asp

Quote:
11. NO WARRANTIES

The Software, System, Game and all Game Content, and all other services and material provided in connection therewith, are provided "AS IS," with all faults, and without warranty of any kind. You assume all risk of use and all risk associated with accessing the System and playing the Game.

CCP disclaims all warranties, whether express or implied, including without limitation the warranties of merchantability, fitness for particular purpose and non-infringement. There is no warranty against interference with your enjoyment of the Game. CCP does not warrant that the operation of the System or your access to the System, or that your use of the Software, will be uninterrupted or error-free, nor that the System or Software will be compatible with your hardware and software.

While CCP attempts to have the System available at most times, CCP does not guarantee that the System will always be available, or that the System will not become unavailable during Game play. The System may become unavailable for a number of reasons, including without limitation during the performance of maintenance to the System, for the implementation of new software, for emergency situations and due to equipment or telecommunications failures.


And after that one sinks in, if you're still butthurt, direct your eyes to this one:

Quote:
5. TERMINATION; SUSPENSION OF ACCOUNT
. ...
. C. By You
. (1) Anytime

. You may terminate the EULA with regard to any or all of your Accounts at any time, upon notice to CCP via electronic mail.
. You will not receive a refund of any fees in the event of such termination.


So instead of arguing over the validity of your moaning, or in Whitehound's case, the validity of someone else's moaning, think of it this way:

Even if EVE was a Democracy, your two opinions would have about as much weight as the USA's 'Justice Party' (look that **** up, it's also lolz)

tl;dr
You have proven your opinion void. The only thing this thread is doing is repeating itself and trolling. It should be locked.
Adapt or Quit. Stop this moaning.


SIDE NOTE:
Why have so many QQ OPs and their ilk been using the word 'ignoramuses'? It's like 'their' word now, or something. Either that or they collectively discovered it.

btw, before you get on your 'I've been around for much longer than you" or "You're just a noob" high horse, you haven't, and I'm not. nüf sed.

And nice OP hijack Whitehound, anyone else notice that they haven't even posted on this page?
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#380 - 2012-05-12 11:33:50 UTC
Hel Schatgraver wrote:
And nice OP hijack Whitehound, anyone else notice that they haven't even posted on this page?


That would be because Whitehound couldn't be bothered constantly switching characters to post with his alt, Gay Mafia Princess.

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.