These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CFC/N3/PL Cap brawl

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mario Putzo
#201 - 2014-01-27 22:54:23 UTC
Carmen Electra wrote:
Batelle wrote:
You see, as much sense as that argument might make sense to you, its not really relevant at all when CCP has an explicit policy regarding reimbursements and large scale fleet warfare. And yes, they should have absolutely anticipated it.


So, I did some reading:

Quote:
Reimbursement will only be granted if a loss is attributable to a bug or server error.


Quote:
Any losses of any kind resulting from a large-scale player engagement are not covered by this reimbursement policy.


These sections of the policy are clearly at odds with each other in some situations. Just because CCP has arbitrarily given itself a lot of latitude in this matter doesn't make it a good way to interact with customers. CCP is saying "YOU are responsible for OUR technical failings". I'm sorry if I'm not seeing your point; all I have to draw on is my 8 years as a software developer, and that M.O. has never been acceptable on any of the projects I've ever worked on.

I'm not saying that CCP should up and magically fix their servers, because I know that's not possible. But CCP not reimbursing those dreads in the interest of maintaining the sandbox integrity is punishing the players for their own shortcomings.


An overloaded node is not a bug or an error. Jumping 700 dreads into that node is not a bug or an error. People having to wait in line while the server sends 700 people information about 10K objects is not a bug or an error.

If for some reason the Sov payment system didn't pull money from the wallet causing the station to be lost and assets trapped is a bug or an error and completely different than losing that station due to an engagement.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#202 - 2014-01-27 22:54:52 UTC
Dr Farallon wrote:
With 27 titans, 150 dreadnaughts, and 5 carriers confirmed dead and their approximate value of 100, 3.5, and 1.5 billion ISK respectively and PLEX at 640 million ISK / $19.99 each this battle should have surpassed $100,000 in ships destroyed so far.

Kill all the caps.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#203 - 2014-01-27 22:54:55 UTC  |  Edited by: MeBiatch
10/22 now

edit: not confirmed but there was an auto pay bug which caused the system to go down.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Carmen Electra
AlcoDOTTE
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#204 - 2014-01-27 22:57:29 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
Server behaved exactly as it was meant to.


As I understand, dreads were able to be blapped before the clients even got their grid loaded. Are you arguing that's "working as intended"?

Mario Putzo wrote:
Tactical decision to jump 700 dudes at the same time into a loaded grid was a bad one.


If CCP's server's can not handle the load, then it is CCP's responsibility to implement game mechanics or other safeguards to prevent their game from breaking.

Bacon makes us stronger
Sebastian N Cain
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#205 - 2014-01-27 22:59:24 UTC
Carmen Electra wrote:
Batelle wrote:
You see, as much sense as that argument might make sense to you, its not really relevant at all when CCP has an explicit policy regarding reimbursements and large scale fleet warfare. And yes, they should have absolutely anticipated it.


So, I did some reading:

Quote:
Reimbursement will only be granted if a loss is attributable to a bug or server error.


Quote:
Any losses of any kind resulting from a large-scale player engagement are not covered by this reimbursement policy.


These sections of the policy are clearly at odds with each other in some situations. Just because CCP has arbitrarily given itself a lot of latitude in this matter doesn't make it a good way to interact with customers. CCP is saying "YOU are responsible for OUR technical failings". I'm sorry if I'm not seeing your point; all I have to draw on is my 8 years as a software developer, and that M.O. has never been acceptable on any of the projects I've ever worked on.

I'm not saying that CCP should up and magically fix their servers, because I know that's not possible. But CCP not reimbursing those dreads in the interest of maintaining the sandbox integrity is punishing the players for their own shortcomings.

Since they intentionally tried to shoot the node, your argument falls flat. Don't tell me your company would accept your customers demands for refunds or whatever if they themselves have intentionally screwed up your software.

I got lost in thought... it was unfamiliar territory.
Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
#206 - 2014-01-27 23:01:16 UTC
Your Dad Naked wrote:
Batelle wrote:
Carmen Electra wrote:
Plastic Psycho wrote:
That big collective shrug was becuase someone made a rookie tactical call, and Leeroy'd those Dreds into hell, not because of any bugs.


Those dreads died because the servers did not perform the way they were supposed to. It all seems pretty cut-and-dried to me.

Are you actually suggesting that the FCs should have anticipated the server failure? If so, then why even bother playing this game?


You see, as much sense as that argument might make sense to you, its not really relevant at all when CCP has an explicit policy regarding reimbursements and large scale fleet warfare. And yes, they should have absolutely anticipated it.
If bringing your teammates into the fight to help is considered a mistake, EVE is not worth anyones time.

Perhaps they should not reimburse anyone due to the policy, however to claim the FC's should have known the server will bug out and therefore should not have helped their teammates is beyond unreasonable.

If the server cannot handle the load, the server should not be attempting to jump all 700 in at once. You cannot expect players to know if they can bring in 300 vs 500 vs 700; ridiculous. That is CCP's responsibility. You're effectively arguing that if one side brings in 80% of the node's load before the second side does, the second side should automatically be destroyed as the server cannot handle the second side's reinforcements. That's not fun, fair or exciting.

Lol
THIS is how you do comedy! Nice parody of a Goon Pet. Cool
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#207 - 2014-01-27 23:02:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Kimmi Chan
Carmen Electra wrote:
I'm not saying that CCP should up and magically fix their servers, because I know that's not possible.


The people jumping 700 dreads knew it wasn't possible and they jumped anyway.

Quote:
If CCP's server's can not handle the load, then it is CCP's responsibility to implement game mechanics or other safeguards to prevent their game from breaking.


Quote:
all I have to draw on is my 8 years as a software developer, and that M.O. has never been acceptable on any of the projects I've ever worked on.


If it's so easy, you go fix it.

Until then - the policy is the same now as it was before you posted.

ED: Just checked the reimbursement policy again - yep, still not changed.

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
Mario Putzo
#208 - 2014-01-27 23:04:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Carmen Electra wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
Server behaved exactly as it was meant to.


As I understand, dreads were able to be blapped before the clients even got their grid loaded. Are you arguing that's "working as intended"?

Mario Putzo wrote:
Tactical decision to jump 700 dudes at the same time into a loaded grid was a bad one.


If CCP's server's can not handle the load, then it is CCP's responsibility to implement game mechanics or other safeguards to prevent their game from breaking.



You mean the handful of people out of nearly 4K that were inconvenienced.? Sucks to be them I am sure. But for the folks in system there was no issues, the only people who had a problem were a small % of Dread pilots who were likely to impatient and disconnected then tried to reconnect. Id actually put money on that.

How could N3PL target dreads if they weren't on grid?

32 Dead Titans
1 Dead Super
Over 150 Dead dreads
30 something dead carriers
(last two are ball park guesses)

Costly day.
Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
#209 - 2014-01-27 23:05:16 UTC
Carmen Electra wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
Server behaved exactly as it was meant to.


As I understand, dreads were able to be blapped before the clients even got their grid loaded. Are you arguing that's "working as intended"?

Mario Putzo wrote:
Tactical decision to jump 700 dudes at the same time into a loaded grid was a bad one.


If CCP's server's can not handle the load, then it is CCP's responsibility to implement game mechanics or other safeguards to prevent their game from breaking.

Ah. I see. You want you hand held. Do you also need your bum wiped for you?
Carmen Electra
AlcoDOTTE
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#210 - 2014-01-27 23:06:17 UTC
Sebastian N Cain wrote:
Since they intentionally tried to shoot the node, your argument falls flat. Don't tell me your company would accept your customers demands for refunds or whatever if they themselves have intentionally screwed up your software.


I am absolutely expected to harden my software against people intentionally trying their very best to break it. In fact, we have an entire department dedicated to that called QA.

Re: refund, this is where the analogy breaks down a little bit. No one's asking for a refund, they're asking for reimbursement. This is a critical distinction in this context.

Bacon makes us stronger
Kryptik Kai
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#211 - 2014-01-27 23:07:01 UTC
Carmen Electra wrote:

So, I did some reading:

Quote:
Reimbursement will only be granted if a loss is attributable to a bug or server error.


Quote:
Any losses of any kind resulting from a large-scale player engagement are not covered by this reimbursement policy.


These sections of the policy are clearly at odds with each other in some situations. Just because CCP has arbitrarily given itself a lot of latitude in this matter doesn't make it a good way to interact with customers. CCP is saying "YOU are responsible for OUR technical failings". I'm sorry if I'm not seeing your point; all I have to draw on is my 8 years as a software developer, and that M.O. has never been acceptable on any of the projects I've ever worked on.

I'm not saying that CCP should up and magically fix their servers, because I know that's not possible. But CCP not reimbursing those dreads in the interest of maintaining the sandbox integrity is punishing the players for their own shortcomings.


Barring a radical recode of the backend, CCP essentially has two options in regards to large fleet engagements:

1) put a cap on player load for any given system to prevent system instability... say 1000 players in a system

or

2) leave it open with the understanding that if you push the node hard, game systems may not function properly

CCP has gone with #2, leaving those sections of the policy not really at odds with each other. They will reimburse for server errors until you knowingly push the server to its limit, then all bets are off.

So...
We know they won't reimburse during huge ass battles
We know huge ass battles stress the node and cause... issues
Jump at your own risk.

"Shiny.  Lets be bad guys." -Jayne Cobb
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#212 - 2014-01-27 23:07:21 UTC
Sooner or later you guys are going to need to take a break from going "grrr" and realise that "working as intended" and "clients unresponsive for 3-5hours" are mutually exclusive to a sane person, and if you think otherwise you're leaning very hard on the apologies.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#213 - 2014-01-27 23:08:15 UTC
Carmen Electra wrote:
Sebastian N Cain wrote:
Since they intentionally tried to shoot the node, your argument falls flat. Don't tell me your company would accept your customers demands for refunds or whatever if they themselves have intentionally screwed up your software.


I am absolutely expected to harden my software against people intentionally trying their very best to break it. In fact, we have an entire department dedicated to that called QA.

Re: refund, this is where the analogy breaks down a little bit. No one's asking for a refund, they're asking for reimbursement. This is a critical distinction in this context.


CCP actually has a policy regarding reimbursement.

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
#214 - 2014-01-27 23:08:27 UTC
Carmen Electra wrote:
Sebastian N Cain wrote:
Since they intentionally tried to shoot the node, your argument falls flat. Don't tell me your company would accept your customers demands for refunds or whatever if they themselves have intentionally screwed up your software.


I am absolutely expected to harden my software against people intentionally trying their very best to break it. In fact, we have an entire department dedicated to that called QA.

Re: refund, this is where the analogy breaks down a little bit. No one's asking for a refund, they're asking for reimbursement. This is a critical distinction in this context.

You actually had me believing for a bit you were serious - But this is so far over-the-top that now it's clear you're just a troll.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#215 - 2014-01-27 23:09:01 UTC
Also I have no idea why you're arguing over this, we're fixing the problem by killing the fleet you need a dread-ball to jump into. Simple!

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Carmen Electra
AlcoDOTTE
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#216 - 2014-01-27 23:09:26 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:
If it's so easy, you go fix it.


When did I suggest that it was easy? Or even doable?

My exact words were "game mechanics/safeguards". Eg: 500 ppl max in a system.

Bacon makes us stronger
Mario Putzo
#217 - 2014-01-27 23:09:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Carmen Electra wrote:
Sebastian N Cain wrote:
Since they intentionally tried to shoot the node, your argument falls flat. Don't tell me your company would accept your customers demands for refunds or whatever if they themselves have intentionally screwed up your software.


I am absolutely expected to harden my software against people intentionally trying their very best to break it. In fact, we have an entire department dedicated to that called QA.

Re: refund, this is where the analogy breaks down a little bit. No one's asking for a refund, they're asking for reimbursement. This is a critical distinction in this context.


LOL this is quite rich. The node didn't crash so I would say CCP is doing the right thing.

"WE ARE MAD BECUASE THE NODE DIDNT BREAK WHEN WE SLAMMED INTO IT WITH 700 DREADS. CCP GIVE OUR SHINIES BACK!"
CFC 2014.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#218 - 2014-01-27 23:10:45 UTC
Man this fight has the badposting npc alts crawling out of every crack and cranny.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Caviar Liberta
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#219 - 2014-01-27 23:10:56 UTC
Malcolm from Marketing wrote:


15B drop - Ouch



Needed more domi's.
Carmen Electra
AlcoDOTTE
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#220 - 2014-01-27 23:11:11 UTC
Plastic Psycho wrote:
You actually had me believing for a bit you were serious - But this is so far over-the-top that now it's clear you're just a troll.


I don't even know how to respond to this. What part of my reply came off as non-serious?

Bacon makes us stronger