a 200 mill PooooF

[_____Poweredge|vault]

... goes quiet ...

[Breaku]

shure i get what your saying... and i can see how in the future this will help.

But I am talking about customer support, not the policy. The rude gms/arks whoever it was should apologies to claire. Thats #1. IM sick of rude gms who just stick the the policy "sorry i can't help you, im a character with no common sense who runs around and help you after you've waited X amount of hours to say the same dam thing". I mean, is it just me or do they always say the same thing?

Anyways im getting off topic. yes the policy says "such and such" but the people behind the policy are just plain rude. Be nice to a girl who obviously knows the game that they have built.

I don't know about you. but sorry is just not good enough for a bug in their game. I don't care what your gonna say after this MIIR... you just mix peoples words with quotes and shove it up their @ss.. i actually have to think twice before i type. Your just as bad as they are.

/sigh here comes MIIR

[__________Merkaba715]

I like how they told the community to be careful of trading with bots.

*sarcasm*

[________________Miir]

But I am talking about customer support, not the policy. The rude gms/arks whoever it was should apologies to claire. Thats #1. IM sick of rude gms who just stick the the policy "sorry i can't help you

- Were you there?
- Do you have logs of the conversation where the GM/ARK was rude to Claire?

Did they use profanity or type with condescending, demeaning or sarcatic overtones?



don't know about you. but sorry is just not good enough for a bug in their game.

Could you please explain to me what exactly the bug was that caused Claire to lose her items?



you just mix peoples words with quotes and shove it up their @ss..

I use exact, cut-and-paste quotes.
Please explain to me how I'm mixing people words.



I know a lot of people are upset about this.
When people are upset, it's impossible to have an unbiased and objective opinion on a situation.

Try to remove yourself from the situation and review the facts.

- Player claims to have lost items in a trade
- Player petitions about lost items
- ARK and GM say there is nothing they can do and have a policy against item reimbursment
- Player posts on forum
- Funcom rep states they will personally look into the matter
- Funcom rep says items were traded to a pet
- Funcom rep says lead GM reviewed logs of GM/ARK, player conversation and found no problem with how the matter was dealt with.


All this took place over the span of 3 business days.



Personally, I can't find fault with how Funcom dealt with this matter.

I would suggest they re-evaluate their reimbursement policy to include exceptions for valuable items lost to verifiable bugs.

[________________Miir]

I like how they told the community to be careful of trading with bots.

That was right after they told the community to be careful to not let their HP be reduced to zero.

[________________kfox]

Now...Funcom may, or may not have poor customer support ( I have always received adequate, if sometimes untimely, CS), but that is not what this thread is about. This thread is simply a story of a person who was careless, and though their OWN carelessness, lost the most valuable item in the game...and although Funcom is not a fault here (as Miir and others have said) she still decides to come rant on the boards, as do others, in some sort of Holy Crusade against Funcom…

Am I saying Funcom is perfect? …hell no. But is Funcom at fault for PLAYER error (and a particularly CARLESS error in this case) ?? I think not…

[____________Maitrize]

Originally posted by kfox
( I have always received adequate, if sometimes untimely, CS),

LOL nice to know you've recieved random CS from FC. ^_^

Matter here is that there was no mention that you could now trade with pets.

Maybe Claire would have accidentally traded to another player that could have made off with her items, though the fact is FC has a BUG that allows pets to trade with you and THAT was no fault of Claire's. It would NOT hurt FC to give Claire the items she ALREADY had within her possession. Especially since they evaporated into nothingness through ANOTHER bug (bot not dropping the items after death like he was SUPPOSED to...) so blah. FC owes Claire.

[________________kfox]

Pffft...I just noticed something, Cz removed my original post...and I am trying to defend Funcom!!! Apparently the use of the word "moron" is offensive to some people...and even though it is a bit harsh, I feel it was justified in this case...

[__________Zephoralyn]

Originally posted by Miir
I like how they told the community to be careful of trading with bots.

That was right after they told the community to be careful to not let their HP be reduced to zero.

ROFL! Thanks Miir! That pretty much leaves it 'nuff said'.

Ahem, the other day (before this happened to Claire) I helped a guy do a transfer - thought I'd be a good samaritan - and in the midst of all the vicinity chatter I traded his bags to my own pet! Well, I did *not* petition, it was clearly player error. I offered the fellow 1 million credits and apologized for my stupidity. He was gracious and understanding and all went well. At no point did I feel Funcom had anything to do with this - I was simply not paying enough attention.

--
Zephora
AOR
AORealms

[________________Miir]

though the fact is FC has a BUG that allows pets to trade with you and THAT was no fault of Claire's.

Maitrize, the ability to trade with NPCs (pets are treated as NPCs) is, most definately, not a bug. This feature was added so that static quests which require returning an item to an NPC could be completed.

Accept the fact that Claire was careless.
She didn't look at the chat window at the Trading with... message.
She didn't confirm with the other player that the correct items displayed in the trade window.
She didn't wait for the other person to click accept the trade before she clicked accept.

These should be standard practices for everyone who trades items. You will protect yourself from potentially fradulent deals and people who try to rip you off.

There is no bugfix for players being careless.

[_____________Mr Bean]

A PLAUGE I SAY A PLAUGE OPON THOUSE WHO DO NOT READ THE ENTIRE THREAD

THE WHOLE ISSUE OF THE DISSAPERING DISK THE TRADING WITH A BOT THING ONLY ENTERD INTO IT AS A GUESS BY SOMEONE ELSE


THE FACT REMIANS THAT THE TRADE WAS INSIATED, THE ITEM SEEN BY BOTH PARTYS AND THEN TRADED OPON WHICH THE ITEMS CEASED TO BE

NO ACUTAL BOTS WERE TRADED WITH DURING THE CORSE OF THIS EXERSISE IT WAS MEARLY POINTED OUT AS A POSSIBLITY ON PAGE 2 OF THIS THREAD

Now back to your normal none caps locked version of me speak, I pointed it out a few pages ago but everyone keeps assuming that the disk WENT to the bot but as anyone who botherd to read the first three posts saw that infact the disk went poof all togther

I'f I'm wrong please flame me all you like, I'm off to play Tribes 2 as I wait for the next patch

[________________kfox]

Well here comes that moron word again....as in "you are a...."

Mr Bean, if you take your own advice and read the WHOLE thread, Im sure you will see on page 6 that Cz clearly stated that the item WAS traded to a bot...

Perhaps next time you should reserve your "caps lock" for a real issue, like why people are hypocrites and cant seem to look at a situation objectively....

[gnuman]

But I am talking about customer support, not the policy. The rude gms/arks whoever it was should apologies to claire. Thats #1. IM sick of rude gms who just stick the the policy "sorry i can't help you

- Were you there?
- Do you have logs of the conversation where the GM/ARK was rude to Claire?

Did they use profanity or type with condescending, demeaning or sarcatic overtones?

I am sorry Miir, but I can point this right back at you. Were you there? I don't think I saw you around. And yet you seem to "know" everything like a first hand witness. Or at least act like you do.

Fact: The GM acted rude and wasn't taking the case serious at all. He rather wanted to chat and joke around with the people around this whole thing. And why isn't this in this thread? Because noone is interested in a big GM-flamewar. And therefore Cz directed the involved people to use emails direct to Funcom. Your "facts" are just as much speculations as most of the others here. So don't try to act like a superior judge and judge people.

don't know about you. but sorry is just not good enough for a bug in their game.

Could you please explain to me what exactly the bug was that caused Claire to lose her items?

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."

Is it me, or does this sound like a bug, just without using the word "bug"? If you deny that... well, I feel sad for you then.

I know a lot of people are upset about this.
When people are upset, it's impossible to have an unbiased and objective opinion on a situation.

Try to remove yourself from the situation and review the facts.

- Player claims to have lost items in a trade
- Player petitions about lost items
- ARK and GM say there is nothing they can do and have a policy against item reimbursment
- Player posts on forum
- Funcom rep states they will personally look into the matter
- Funcom rep says items were traded to a pet
- Funcom rep says lead GM reviewed logs of GM/ARK, player conversation and found no problem with how the matter was dealt with.

- Player lost item to a bug with pets accepting trades.
- Player petitions about lost items
- ARK and GM say there is nothing they can do and have a policy against item reimbursment, besides that being rude and not taking the matter serious at all
- Player posts on forum
- Funcom rep states they will personally look into the matter
- Funcom rep says items were traded to a pet due to a bug
- Funcom rep says lead GM reviewed logs of GM/ARK, player conversation and found no problem with how the matter was dealt with. So the lead GM talked to the GM and he told him "no everything just went fine" and you take that for good? lol - have you ever heard about 2 sides of the same story? That GM is of course frightened what this could affect his future job. But seriously we are not interested in getting him fired, we just do not want this crappy treatment of customers. GMs are SUPPOSED to be the helpers of the players. What happens the day when the customers have no trust in the helpers?
- Players tries to get the policy changed and beg for better treatment of payingcustomers.
- A few players seem to fail to see the bigger perspective and starts a pissing contest.
- All this took place over the span of 3+ business days. And doesn't stop here.

[gnuman]

Originally posted by kfox
Well here comes that moron word again....as in "you are a...."

Mr Bean, if you take your own advice and read the WHOLE thread, Im sure you will see on page 6 that Cz clearly stated that the item WAS traded to a bot...

Perhaps next time you should reserve your "caps lock" for a real issue, like why people are hypocrites and cant seem to look at a situation objectively....

Okay, so you like the non-reimbursive politics? You like that bad treatment of customers? You like loosing friends every day due to Funcom not helping their customers after being hurt by a bug or as Cz calls it "unnecessary feature" - same thing different name.

I wonder...

[_____Poweredge|vault]

Noer... log on mate.

[gnuman]

Originally posted by Zephora


ROFL! Thanks Miir! That pretty much leaves it 'nuff said'.

Ahem, the other day (before this happened to Claire) I helped a guy do a transfer - thought I'd be a good samaritan - and in the midst of all the vicinity chatter I traded his bags to my own pet! Well, I did *not* petition, it was clearly player error. I offered the fellow 1 million credits and apologized for my stupidity. He was gracious and understanding and all went well. At no point did I feel Funcom had anything to do with this - I was simply not paying enough attention.

Paying attention? She was hit by a bug. And guess what - 1million credits can't get you nullity mk2. Neither can 200mill credits. So a person loosing the most rare item in game doesn't deserve attention. Hell, anyone loosing stuff due to bugs deserves attention. Just because you do not care doesn't make it right that Funcom uses rules of the sixties and pis of customers on daily basis. Do not make the mistake and think we hate this game, we love it - and we hate seeing a firm ruining it by pissing on the customers with rules of yesterday.

[_________Anisotropic]

Originally posted by kfox
Now...Funcom may, or may not have poor customer support ( I have always received adequate, if sometimes untimely, CS), but that is not what this thread is about. This thread is simply a story of a person who was careless, and though their OWN carelessness, lost the most valuable item in the game...and although Funcom is not a fault here (as Miir and others have said) she still decides to come rant on the boards, as do others, in some sort of Holy Crusade against Funcom…

Am I saying Funcom is perfect? …hell no. But is Funcom at fault for PLAYER error (and a particularly CARLESS error in this case) ?? I think not…

ok, look the term negeligance comes into play here, since being able to trade with a bot is a bug, (in that you cannot then recover said traded item), funcom has a responsiblity for removing bugs, and they have an obligation for reimbursement in propertly loss (nullitysphere2) due to bugs. they Don't do this because it's Easier for them. not because it's fair or unfair.
while funcom has no technically legal responsiblity, if such property were REAL so to speak, then funcom would clearly have an obligation to replace it, due to their negiligant coding of bugs.

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.. i state this example because such a thing actually happend to me.
Claire lost an object because of a BUG in AO if that bug did NOT exist, claire would not have lost the object..
EVEN Thou claire was not 100% carefull in chooseing who to trade with, it's important to note that while it may clearly look like your right clicking on someone, you can actually be clicking on someone else.
it's also important to note, that the trade was done with the pet, AND that they subsequently Killed the pet, in the hopes of looting it.
since the disc was not lootable off the pet, it was effectivly deleted by the bug. if this was NOT a bug, she would have been able to loot it off the pet, and all would be well.
there is a certain amount of responsbilty that lays on funcom in this matter, and their continued neglect in this matter is disappointing.
there is a legal term for this, and i forget what it's called..
it'ts used in real cases when for example if you have a public gallery of some sort, but have all this valuable merchandise such as pieces of art, scuplutures etc. but you have it all very pecauriously displayed, where the slightest breeze will knock it over. and then someone knocks it over.. both parties end up being responsible for it, the person that knocked it over, and the person that so pecariously displayed it

[________________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.

[________________Miir]

EVEN Thou claire was not 100% carefull in chooseing who to trade with

Claire was 100% careless.


it's important to note that while it may clearly look like your right clicking on someone, you can actually be clicking on someone else.

That is the reason your chat box shows a line of text that indicates the target of the current trade.






Are you people that stubborn and ignorant?
Are you obsessed with flaming Funcom that you fail to place any fault on Claire for this fiasco?


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.

[Nrse]

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