Yesterday I was traveling through low sec and had just hit jump to travel between systems when I disconnected. I get back in game to see I am in my pod, with my wreck looted. I summited a ticket which got approved this morning only for me to find out that the reimbursement policy only gives me back what was actually destroyed and not anything that dropped which due to the Crimson Harvest event was almost nothing. So through circumstances I had no control over I lost 95% of the value. This just seems hostile and completely unfair to players.
2. LOST SHIPS
The insurance payout received when a ship is lost will be subtracted from a player’s wallet if the ship is reimbursed.
Only items destroyed along with the ship are eligible for reimbursement. Any items left in space (in wreck, containers, etc.) are not eligible for reimbursement.
Ships destroyed by use of the “self destruct” feature cannot be reimbursed.
The bold part is the only thing I have an issue with why can’t dropped items also be reimbursed? Why are the ones who are at no fault the ones getting punished. It seems to me that there is a better way of handling this.
For those wondering here is the kill mail. Its not the value that matters I would be just as upset no matter the cost, its the fact that the person who is most hurt is the one had the least control over the situation.
This is logical, because people can loot those items. You could have looted those items.
CCP can reimburse that which was destroyed. This way reimbursements are never ISK positive and because of that reimbursements cannot be exploited by players for their own gains.
People can still ask for reimbursement to avoid losses, like you did, but not for profit.
If CCP paid out everything, then haulers would cycle their modems at the first sign of a gank, which to CCP would look like an internet disconnect, and never lose anything again. @DrysonBennington suggested as much many, many years ago. It’s his infamous “Scissor Method” to counter gankers.
If CCP paid out everything, then I could stuff a ship full of bling and have friends gank it while I disconnect, thus ending up with both the dropped and replacement modules. Even if this only works once, it would still profit me tens of billions of ISK.
Reimbursement will only be granted if a loss is attributable to a bug or server error.
Any losses attributable to errors in the EVE client may not be eligible for reimbursement.
Any losses attributable to problems with a player’s system (i.e. computer, internet connection, etc.) or any system owned by a third party are not eligible for reimbursement
So by CCP approving any reimbursement they are admitting that they are at fault, but the only person who gets harmed in cases like mine is the person who got disconnected because of CCP. So in cases where CCP causes harm like this they should give better compensation to the harmed party.
I see a lot of the CSM candidates are wanting a better new player experience this is the sort of situation where CCP politely says screw you that would drive a new player away.
I would make this thread for a 10 mill loss. Its not the isk that I care about its the player experience of CCP telling me sorry we messed up have a fraction of the harm we caused you. Had I been connected and died to a gank, had my cat accidently shut off my computer or I suffered a power outage I wouldn’t have bothered with a ticket as that is not the fault of CCP what happened to me however was their fault and I don’t appreceate someone saying my bad than handing me pennies.
Approximately 16% of the CSM candidates mention new players in their short pitch. This is an experience that I can tell you would have made me quit were I new player. I don’t know what the solution to this is, but this is a not a user friendly solution.
I absolutely second above.
If a fault is detected at user end, point it out to the user so they can rectify it and in that case no need for reimbursing anything.
If a fault is detected at your end, Reimburse what was lost. This is fair.
There really isn’t a need to make it anymore clustered. I couldv’e salvaged after and this and that .. NO. REIMBURSE what was lost. thats it.
Why do us as users take it upon OUR selves to start defending the other side? it doesn’t make sense to me. eve being other side and users being us in comments battling it out amongst ourselves.
If I lose something due to a fault of Eve, EVE shoudl reimburse what I lost. End of. Why do I care about how they can’t tackle some haulers issue??
What Im asking is, if someone IS taking a step to ask what is Due , then least we can do is let him.
Except there is not only two ends here…there are quite a few points in between the server and your computer…and secondly it is not easily detectable where the problem happened aside from “not at the EVE server side”.
In that case also no advice can be given to the user as the problem can originate everywhere in the long communication trail over many hops to the EVE server. It is not possible to detect where the problem happened and also not possible for the user to rectify it.
Because I’m not an idiot who automatically assumes a Corporation is out to get me because my area has sh!tty internet. Not everyone is stupid enough to blame people for an event they likely had nothing to do with.
Of course they should, if it’s something CCP caused.
So if your â– â– â– â– gets looted, do you want CCP to just magically recreate everything that was in your wreck or container? what about who looted it, should CCP steal it back from them to give it back to you? Not fair either way.. What is fair is just not reimbursing what was lost when the ship go boom.
Idk if they can or not, but they may not even be able to see what assets are in a ship.. idk..im not a techie.
thats not the same ■■■■■■■thing…
if i looted your ship of say 400 mil of loot, CCP shouldn’t be dipping into my assets and taking them out, or just copy pasta you another 400 mil of loot..
It is the same thing they are copy pasting a destroyed creating something out of nothing they can do that for the other loot or just pay the estimated value in is back to me.