So like I said, it’s not anyone’s fault.
How does that become:
I get that there is disappointment about the current situation, but seriously how does the first quote get interpreted as the second? It makes no sense.
1 Like
Because it is CCP fault no matter how you look at it.
They provide the system that can be exploited.
They provide the game you pay for but can’t play as long as you do it “right”. Problem is the “right” is some esoteric measure with a eula note that they won’t give you your ■■■■ back.
2 Likes
OK, but still how does, it’s not anyone’s fault, become acting like it’s your fault?
Seriously, who’s acting like it’s your fault?
1 Like
The was BS CCP. I demand every CCP employee with an name beginning between A and Q be fired and the rest be flogged until morale improves. Do this or I unsub my 16,000 accounts (for like 5 minutes, just to prove a point, I don’t intend to actually stop playing, that would be too much).
I await proof that you have complied.
I’m still waiting…
9 Likes
What interests me is who was it that said it will be fine or is it just incompitence. Conclusion Incompitence or ignorance towards the customer
1 Like
CCP by putting this on EULA:
" 5. Any losses of any kind resulting from a large-scale player engagement are not covered by this reimbursement policy."
Not sure why is so hard to comprehend a fact.
1 Like
That isn’t CCP saying it’s your fault. It’s just them saying it’s not their fault, which goes back to the original statement that you somehow interpreted "not anyone’s fault’ as “our fault”.
These tears are glorious.
2 Likes
I was waiting for the tears or something in those lines part. Explains the rest.
1 Like
Well at this point, it’s just a “fact” (not really, but just as factual as interpreting the EULA as saying it’s our fault for playing the game).
If you took a step back and this was someone else posting in this vane, I think you’d probably see this as a bit teary as well.
1 Like
Not really. Again, a fact means a fact. Blame shift, “designed” lack of accountability does not equal as nobody’s fault. Quite on the contrary. Obvious, clear, undisputable.
Unless Dunning–Kruger effect + corpo talk and zealots defending it.
And as a gamer I’ll always agree with anybody complaining about a broken state of the game. No matter what side they are on.
1 Like
Except it isn’t factual. You have no proof that because the EULA replacement policy doesn’t cover loss in big battles, that CCP is acting like it is our fault for playing the game.
That isn’t what fact means at all.
It’s just an emotional response to the current situation, but not a fact by any real meaning of the word fact.
The concept of “fault” doesn’t even really make sense here.
2 Likes
The product we pay for isn’t working as expected. That is something that you would sent back and get a refund for under law, right?
4 Likes
Insanity would be to continue to pay for a product that you didn’t like… Good luck trying to win that in a case lol
1 Like
It’s a fact that jumping too many people into system messes the game so bad that it becomes unplayable so when players do that and ■■■■ hits the fan - CCP uses as a basis for denying any possible in game reimbursement. How’s that not our fault if it equals no reimbursement. CCP is just washing hands of their inability to deliver a working product.
I’m not even gonna mention ships appearing in local without ANY mods on them lol.
Lmao dude please. Stop the brownie stuff.
1 Like
Love how the discussion went away from the mechanics and server problems to non-relevant reimbursement because someone who isn’t even invested in the fight just decided to randomly chime in.
4 Likes
Because it’s no one’s fault.
We just hit a performance limit of existing hardware, network and/or architecture. That isn’t CCP’s fault and it isn’t our fault. It’s just that no matter how CCP design and architect the infrastructure and game, we have always been able to eventually find the limit of performance.
It’s no one’s fault. Not CCP’s. Now ours.
Could it be better? Sure. Wait a couple of years and hardware will be able to handle today’s server load. But then, we’ll push it to the next limit and still this thread will happen.
3 Likes
If you are talking about me, I got back to KS and found out I have two titans in hangar while previously I had one. Yeah, this game is ■■■■ and CCP should reimburse people that died cause they couldn’t deliver equal performance for all.
2 Likes
If one side has a actual hardware / server performance advantage cause they woke up earlier then that is not ok under any logic you think you are using to justify this because this hardware limitation automatically denies the other side any possibility of game play. The point here is so everybody can have a fair possibility to achieve their objective without getting ■■■■■■ by esoteric boundaries. It’s lame to even defend that simply because this time you cheered for one side or the other. This is about all of us playing this game.
2 Likes
I have no dog in this fight. I am just curious what you mean by this:
Who was receiving a performance benefit? I’m not seeing anything in the thread about one side having a different experience from the other. If group A got on site first they had more players already in system by the time performance issues started, but their ships in that system were subject to the same issues as all other ships in the system, and any players arriving to the system from either side had the same experience at that point.
I also do have to ask: did anyone on either side fill out the large battle alert form to request additional technical resources from CCP ahead of the fight? The lack of anyone complaining about “why have the form if it doesn’t prevent these issues” leads me to think it was not done, which impairs CCP’s ability to try and prepare to support that kind of engagement.
2 Likes
2 Likes