a 200 mill PooooF

[gnuman]

Originally posted by Miir
Noer:

My point was that you can't yell and scream that ARK/GMs were rude if you weren't there. I wasn't there, I never said the ARK wasn't rude.


However, I will take the objective assesment of the situation by a Funcom employee above that of an upset, emotional subjective assesment of this situation.

I bet every player present and involved in this conversation was upset, shocked and very emotional at the time. What could have been a innocent comment could have been interpreted as very rude by a person in such a state.


Can you please try to re-read this quote from Cz?
"Yes, we do understand that trading with pets is currently an unnecessary feature, and will as far as I know disable it."

Yes, when they can have the game engine differentiate pets from NPCs, they will disable this feature. But such as the way the game is designed, the dev team will have to dig deep into the game code and completely recode pets. In other words, this will not likely happen in the near future.
But because one player was so careless as to not check who she was trading with, they will likely devote a lot of resources to 'fixing' this feature.

As I said before, I feel badly for Claire that she lost the items and if I come across a MK II disc, I would be more than happy to give it to her for free.
What bothers me is that people like you trying to place the blame on Funcom for this incident.
Funcom cannot be held responsible for player carelesness.
They can only idiot-proof the system so much.

If there is not a line of text that indicates the trading target and Claire lost the items because of that, I would be screaming along with you for item reimbursal.


Come on man, can you tell me that you never check your chat box to confirm your trading target?
Let be serious here.

I'm sure Claire is a nice, honest person but she really should have been a little more careful when trading an item that held so much value to her.

I give up. You still say it was not a bug though Cz wrote himself through a bit twisted line of text that it was. So it is not carelessness.

And have I traded with a person without checking chat? Yes, on several occations. Will I do it in the future? Of course not. Does this justify the bug? Not in my eyes.

And pets treated like NPCs? Ehrm, what do you base that on? Try to ask any pet-profession how they feel like the pet pathing vs. npc pathing.

[________________Miir]

And have I traded with a person without checking chat? Yes, on several occations. Will I do it in the future? Of course not. Does this justify the bug? Not in my eyes.


What if you had blindly traded a NS MK II Nano to a stranger standing next to you when you intended to trade it back to Claire?

Would you be blaming Funcom if that person had refused to give it back?

Would you consider that a bug?
Would Funcom be to blame because you carelessly neglected to check your trade target?

How is that different from trading it to a pet?
Tell me, I'm dying to know.

The bottom line is that Claire was careless in not checking the target of the trade.



And pets treated like NPCs? Ehrm, what do you base that on? Try to ask any pet-profession how they feel like the pet pathing vs. npc pathing.

I said the game engine treats pets the same way as NPCs.
They are moveable, non player controlled, objects in the game world.

[_______________Clute]

I vote Miir off the island.

[Isgrimnur]

Trading with pets and NPCs is a bug.

If it were not a bug, you should get the loot from them when you kill them as it would be on them, wouldn't it.

I think this whole incident leaves a bad taste in my mouth. FC is the most twisted company. I can't understand their logic. They know Claire had this item, but they won't fix it. Why do they fix yalms that go missing? Seems that is now "unfair" too.

Technically Claire did lose it to a bug. Having checked the trade window means nothing. That could be bugged too.

IMO if FC wants to keep customers they have to treat them better. The game is crap. NO new content. I have been waiting patiently since October 31st for a storyline that just aint happening. If what has happened is supposed to be the storyline, this game sucks worse than I thought. I hang around because of the people I meet, as I am sure TONS of other people do. EVERYONE in my guild is bored with this game. A few people have already quit. Doing this to Claire is going to leave us with someone else that quit. A few more people quit and I probably will too.

Cz this is something I know you can't fix, but I am sure FC pays you for the job you do on these boards. What's going to happen when everyone stops playing? I will bet 100 bucks US that when something really good comes out like SWG that Rubi Ki is going to be a ghost planet again. Customers will only take it up the rear for so long.

Rule #1 of marketing: It costs x amount of dollars to get a customer to get your product.

Rule #2 it costs x amount times about 10-100 to get a customer to re-look/buy/consider your product after they have been turned off of it.

Basically in this market once someone gets turned off, they are hitting cancel and gone. Fix Claire's situation. Fix other "serious" situations like this.

The guy who compared 100k to a newb to 200mil to Claire is wrong. I have never seen 100mil in my life in Rubi Ki and I was a pretty rich char myself having 60mil max at one time. It isn't about cash, it is about an item that is as rare as me finding a diamond in my backyard.

enuff said.

[_________Anisotropic]

Originally posted by Khatrina
Just a thought, but when a player does something that Funcom didn't intend to happen it is called a exploit if it benifits the player, correct? I don't think funcom intended for players to be able to trade with pets. So wouldn't that be something that funcom is exploiting? Anyways I was just pointing out how point of view means everything. Just fix the bug Funcom, and please give that woman back her nano, hell there are not very many of them in the game.

Nrse

we can take this even further
by Funcom's logic, , if this is the way they treat a BUG, then how, if we treat a bug that gives us an advantage, shouldnt' that then be considored "fair" and legit, as opposed to expoiliting?
the sword swings both ways..
anisotropic

[____________Maitrize]

My bot is an NPC! Whoah cool.
Never thought I could make NPC's insult people.
/pet chat "Funcom ****ed Claire!"
Fun. ^_^

Say. Page 27 of my AO instruction booklet... where does it say that your window specifies who you're trading with? I've read it several times... seeing no mention of. Or how about the "unnecessary feature" of trading with pets that will be FIXED?

Why FIX an "unnecessary feature"? I mean... unless it's... a BUG.

[_________Anisotropic]

Originally posted by Miir

This just made me laugh:

real world example, you go get your car fixed. car mechanic leaves off a few bolts on an axel.. your car axel falls off while on an interstate causing loss of control of the car (gets jammed or something), . the axel falling off can be directly traced to the bolts left off, the car mechanic is negiligent in his behavoir, and would be required to pay for any losses you incurred due to the accident, etc..

It's more like a person who buys a hammer, hits themself in the head with it and fractures his skull , then sues the hammer company because they didn't post a warning that you shouldn't hit yourself in the head with it.

alright, you're really clueless, i got my car fixed Spefically a part that invovled removing the axle.. i drove home, While i was driving home, within 20 minutes the very axle they had just replaced FELL OFF THE CAR because they had LEFT OFF PARTS caused me to lose control, and well i managed to come to a safe stop. please explain to me how this is my fault?, they were clearly negilegent, and didnt' even put up a fight, they fixed everything free of charge.. in what way is this similar to a buying a hammer and hitting yourself on the head? I would be fascinated to know, just from the standpoint that listening to such illconcevied logic would be entertaining.
is it my responsiblity to check up on their work?, I paid them to fix my car., they are in a position of trust, and they were paid to do the job properly, they didnt' fullfill their end of the contract, and thus are responsible

[________________Miir]

If it were not a bug, you should get the loot from them when you kill them as it would be on them, wouldn't it.

Open a trade with any mob/npc, pass them an item then kill the mob. The traded item(s) does not get added to the loot pool of the mob/npc.

What if she had opened a trade window and Trading with... indicated that she opened a trade with another player?
If she quickly put the items in the trade and clicked accept.. then the pther player clicked accept... could they just kill the player and expect to loot the item?


Technically Claire did lose it to a bug. Having checked the trade window means nothing. That could be bugged too.

No, she lost it due to carelessness.
She didn't check that she was trading the items to the correct target.

There is no known bug where the Trading with.. dialog will indicate the incorrect target.

Now if she had clicked on the proper target and Trading with... had also indicated the correct target, BUT the items were traded to a pet then you could say it was a bug.


Basically in this market once someone gets turned off, they are hitting cancel and gone. Fix Claire's situation. Fix other "serious" situations like this.

There's a lesson to be leared here if Funcom gives in and gives Claire the item back.

Game companys will have to idiot proof their games to such an extent, with ARE YOU SUR YOU WANT TO XXXX dialog boxes that MMOGS will become a series of non stop dialog boxes and endless clicking.

Claire messed up.
She was careless.
Claire pooched herself.

Funcom cannot be held responsible for player carelessness.

[________________Miir]

alright, you're really clueless, i got my car fixed Spefically a part that invovled removing the axle.. i drove home, While i was driving home, within 20 minutes the very axle they had just replaced FELL OFF THE CAR because they had LEFT OFF PARTS caused me to lose control, and well i managed to come to a safe stop. please explain to me how this is my fault?

This little story holds no relation whatsoever to the incident involving Claire.
It's a terrible analogy.



in what way is this similar to a buying a hammer and hitting yourself on the head? I would be fascinated to know, just from the standpoint that listening to such illconcevied logic would be entertaining.


I countered your nonsensical analogy with my own nonsensical analogy.

I guess the point wasn't lost on you after all.




is it my responsiblity to check up on their work?

How is Funcom responsible. Does an ARK have to be present every time a player initiates a trade with another player and ask each player involved if they are trading with the correct person?

They already provide players with a means to verify their trade target using a text notification.



they are in a position of trust, and they were paid to do the job properly, they didnt' fullfill their end of the contract, and thus are responsible

Do they need to pop up several dialog boxes that say ARE YOU SURE YOU WOULD LIKE TO TRADE XXX ITEM WITH XXX PLAYER? YES/NO







You just don't get it do you?

[________________Miir]

My last post on this subject.





deleted:

I guess what people say ingame about most people on this forum is true.

[gnuman]

omg... you still say its not a bug and refuse to see that Cz quoted it as an unnessary "feature".

I have no further comments to you at all. Keep trolling around the boards like you use to.

After calling her careless after being hit by a bug and so on I am pretty sure Claire would ask you to shove the dics if you found it.

[Breaku]

well im at work, i don't have as much spare time as miir does and post every 2 mins. but as soon as some time clears up ill respond to your "quotes" again...

I vote Miir off the island.

but ill bump that before i leave!

-Breaku

[_________Anisotropic]

Originally posted by Miir
My last post on this subject.






I feel badly for Claire.
Something similar happened to me in EQ and I lost items (for an epic quest) that took me over a month to collect. Verant had a no reimbursement policy at the time.

I can personally indentify with her fellings of loss and how upset she must feel.


But trying to place blame on Funcom is counterproductive.
This is clearly an instance of player error.

Instead of flaming Funcom and having pointless arguments, let's work together, as a communtiy to help Claire (if she's still playing) to get her NS MK2 nano.

It's a bug, your wrong, Verant has nothing to do with this, you're attempt to reconcile, and sudden desire to help claire is lacking in any sincerity. It seems to be your way of safely backing out, since you have no decent basis for your argument.

when someone uses a bug to their advantage, Ie exploiting, funcom is quick to nail them, but when someone loses something, through a bug, funcom turns the other cheek. their apathy towards their clients is what this is about.

[binaural]

isn't this kinda the same thing as a country or large company having an absolute refusal policy to pay ransoms on hostages so that terrorists will be discouraged from doing it again?

i know it's kind of a bad example. but if a company did pay out to get someone back, then you'd have every tom dick and harry trying to kidnap it's employess because they know they will get paid.

in this case though, it's not a matter of IF claire is ripping them off, because they can simply check the logs, however if they can't check the logs for any reason (do we really know how thier hardware works?) then they have no reason to beleive claire other then well.. all of us whining, and thier no reimbursment (no hostage payout) policy must stand.

i agree on the no reimbursmen policy, can you imagine 10 000 newbies petitioning when they lost 10k exp or they lost a peice of armour? it would bring the game and the resources at FC to a grinding halt as well as open the doors for grubby little exploiters.

[__________Mindswayer]

It's not Funcoms fault you weren't carefull. Oh yeah, hey I traded 200 mill to my pet too, so Funcom credit my account please.

[____________religion]

By Miir:
::
And have I traded with a person without checking chat? Yes, on several occations. Will I do it in the future? Of course not. Does this justify the bug? Not in my eyes.


What if you had blindly traded a NS MK II Nano to a stranger standing next to you when you intended to trade it back to Claire?

Would you be blaming Funcom if that person had refused to give it back?

Would you consider that a bug?
Would Funcom be to blame because you carelessly neglected to check your trade target?

How is that different from trading it to a pet?
Tell me, I'm dying to know.

The bottom line is that Claire was careless in not checking the target of the trade.

::

Yes, Claire was careless.
However, if it had been a person that got it, then Claire would have the ability to raise a rucuss with that persons guild, get her guild to help make life hell for the person, attempt to buy it back, etc.
Since it was a pet (which should not auto-accept trades), she had no recourse to attempt to get it back.

A good thing? methinks not...

-Religion

[_____Poweredge|vault]

Miir...

How insensitive do you want to be?

In RL terms, you may as well be saying that JFK getting shot was JFK's fault for being on that road at that time.

A man who knows what he knows and knows what he doesn't know, is the sign of a man who knows. 'nuff said I reckon.

[__________Merkaba715]

Originally posted by Miir
If it were not a bug, you should get the loot from them when you kill them as it would be on them, wouldn't it.

Open a trade with any mob/npc, pass them an item then kill the mob. The traded item(s) does not get added to the loot pool of the mob/npc.

What if she had opened a trade window and Trading with... indicated that she opened a trade with another player?
If she quickly put the items in the trade and clicked accept.. then the pther player clicked accept... could they just kill the player and expect to loot the item?

why, actually yes Miir. More examples that you have no idea what you are talking about. Good riddance. I hope you don't come back to the board. Go back to you 'in-game' friends.

Unless the person saved after he got the item from you, yes, you could in fact kill him and loot the body.

Here is some proof for you so you can go rambling off on me.

Originally posted by Cz

• The PVP grace period now works as was originally intended. This means no more grid camping!
• Neutrals will now have PvP titles.
• The reward for PvP has been changed. You will now be able to loot all items your opponent has gained since last saving, and you will receive a trophy if the person loses more then 10% of the experience needed to gain a level.

Added Tuesday 19th:

• PvP Title will now update without the need for zoning, so you will see your new PvP title instantly.

[Emitter]

I actually had planned a long post but had to delete it again. This is indeed a sad. This thread is somewhat of a serous issue for FC. Already now few people have good expiriences with /petitions. Many jokes go around the different chatchannels about the "power" of petitions. I have myself only used it once, and afterward because I did not fet the feeling the Ark took my questions/reports serious and was more than in a hurry to get on. After this expirince I was very discouraged and logged off. It's never fun getting met by a wall of ignorance and standard replies. Luckily I did not had the same at stake as Claire had - If I had the disapointment would have been too much for me to bear and my money would be better spent on something else.

Trading with Pets is clearly a design error, hense a bug. Trading with pets has no porpuse, its a bug. I hate to call some people "fanboys" here, but it seems a fitting word in this context.

It's clear that the ingame support has suffered tremendiously - not only by this affair - but just the average fruitless encounter with the support. I doubt that it's because they dont want to help, but clearly must be missing the recources to do so. Buttomline is that the recources available for ARK/GMs need to be reviewed along with the policies concerning valuable lost items. The current policy is clearly hurting the companies reputation further - something that is not needed.

All this is said out of a concern for the game, because I do really enjoy the game.

[_________Anisotropic]

Originally posted by CHiK
isn't this kinda the same thing as a country or large company having an absolute refusal policy to pay ransoms on hostages so that terrorists will be discouraged from doing it again?

i know it's kind of a bad example. but if a company did pay out to get someone back, then you'd have every tom dick and harry trying to kidnap it's employess because they know they will get paid.

in this case though, it's not a matter of IF claire is ripping them off, because they can simply check the logs, however if they can't check the logs for any reason (do we really know how thier hardware works?) then they have no reason to beleive claire other then well.. all of us whining, and thier no reimbursment (no hostage payout) policy must stand.

i agree on the no reimbursmen policy, can you imagine 10 000 newbies petitioning when they lost 10k exp or they lost a peice of armour? it would bring the game and the resources at FC to a grinding halt as well as open the doors for grubby little exploiters.

sorry chik, you're my friend, but you're wrong.

they DID check the logs. she traded it to a PET, claire killed the pet, the pet did NOT have the item.
the Reimbursment policy is in place so that you don't have liars claiming to have had something, and getting ripped off.
at least this is why it should be in place.
but when you Lose items due to BUGS, and then they go and actually trace it to being traded to the pet, and then they STILL don't reimburse, then who exactly is holding who hostage here?

also the simple fact is most people who lose things aren't lying, and they lost them to bugs.. i know for a fact that you have lost several things because of zones going down, i'm amazed your taking funcom's side on this.

I can understand funcom not replacing items just because someone claims to have had it,
but frankly this is different. tons of witnesses, Very expensive rare item, they did go and check the Infamouse logs, and traced it to being traded with a pet, which nearly everyone here condisdors to be a peice of buggy code.

I know for a fact, if i happen to get nullity 2 or some other equally rare item, i WILL petition for a GM to be present when i go and get it created, cause frankly this is nonesense.

Anisotropic