It is time CCP made all reimbursements transparent & published for peer/player review on a monthly basis.
This has been a long time coming, with recent CSM posts reflecting that 60% of all reimbursement petitions being successful & rising to 80% in the last month (server instability & local loss) questions need to be answered.
Ship & module prices are being hammered by the inflation caused by 60 to 80% reimbursements, supercap numbers are through the roof and 10,000’s of player hours wasted in killing for them to be just magically brought back.
Pet players and alliances are getting unfair reimbursements, I’ve said it now it is up to CCP to disprove via publication each month.
CCP does not lie about reimbursements they simply do not publish them & probably for good reason, the reason being is that they are unfair. CCP is often very, very, very dishonest but they rarely fat face lie & when they do it almost always blows up in their face. For example CCP is very dishonest about who it gave T2BPO’s to (We’re not talking about T2O) but it does not lie or try to cover up about such bias it simply goes silent.
CCP’s silence on reimbursements is exactly the same, the reimbursements are unfair they benefit pet players while not catering for normal players. We need them to be published to prevent this. For CCP to edit their reimbursement publication would of course cause massive outrage if it was ever discovered so they would be unlikely to do so. Thus we would eliminate a massive area of game corruption over night with public posted reimbursements.
I myself have witnessed shambolic use of reimbursements with entire fleets that were spurged with the only fault laying with the FC who welped them into a more powerful fleet. The excuse used was that we were convo bombed, this was after convo bombing had stopped being a thing by disabling.
Now with a 60% to 80% successful reimbursement rate this topic is going to generate some serious heat especially from some big CCP pets.
Ship and module reimbursement prices are not causing inflation. If you have anything other than your gut instinct to tell you this, do share. Otherwise that’s a completely unfounded assertion with no apparent basis in reality.
More importantly, a reimbursement is a company/customer interaction, and almost all industries treat such things as highly confidential no matter the actual substance of the interaction. There’s about a thousand different privacy and OpSec issues with such an idea. And to address those would remove any and all context for reimbursement in any given situation. People would be grabbing pitchforks and demanding explanations as to why [carrier A] was reimbursed while [carrier b] was not, while there could be very good reasons for those decisions (including but not limited to someone’s use of an exploit, a CCP-side socket closure, etc).
Any given reimbursement has to be justified to one person, and one person only: THE BOSS. If you don’t trust CCP to do such things fairly, then don’t be a part of the game. But it is reprehensible that you would demand such a thing from them. These are customer service interactions, and customers need assurance that their interactions with the company are given proper discretion.
Your entire post is an argument for published reimbursements and wreaks of pet player privilege. I have a feeling this post is about to explode and truly hope to have CSM candidates wade in and stand their ground flying their colours.
To right they would, that is why CCP needs to publish the reason for the reimbursement alongside. Published reimbursements would also hopefully bring that 60% to 80% down & ease the inflation somewhat too. To what level well only CCP can reveal but I fear their very, very, very dishonest silence on this matter will only be shattered by CSM candidates.
Just a point, CCP’s policy has been that reimbursement is for hull only when done. Amy module lost or dropped is not replaced. Doing so would mess with the economy and loot drop collecting. So if your ship dies and you are reimbursed you get hull only.
So unless that has changed, reimbursement has no impact on the module market.
I just want to point out that these have nothing to do with one another, and even if they did you’d see deflation not inflation. Or are you trying to say items come back into the game are helping stem inflation? They will likely never make these things transparent/public and what right do you think to even have to ask this? No company in existence does this, and for good reason. What would come of it but grief?
Let’s go with one of the common stories I hear and have almost experienced several times myself. A person socket closes and the game doesn’t remove him from the game for almost 5 minutes, some times longer. He logs back in to being in a pod in station. Turns out the rats or some gang came by and killed him when he thought he was safe because there was no way to actually tell he had lost connection and had no ability to avoid or fight back. He files a ticket and gets back what he can. You call bull and cause a stink because you were auto-aggressed by drones and feel he wasn’t really afk.
In my case I’ve disconnected in 10/10s where there are times if I don’t cycle a second rep the tank will break until a few rats die. I’ve come back a few times in to start it up in low armor and a few in structure! A story most people can share is jumping through gates to have it not actually happen, only to be facing a socket closure message a minute or two later. I’ve been in gate camps and roams where I’ll suddenly drop connection out of the blue and not have a clue until the actual message pops up. Log back in to find myself warping back in on the gate I saw myself warp off of with everyone else.
Can you really say our fault if we die in this situations? When everyone knows it’s how CCP handles packet loss that leads to many people very easily and often getting socket closures? This has also seen an increase in occurrence and only recently had some attempts to alleviate these constraints. This is very likely why you see an increase in successful reimbursements, because they’re valid reasons behind them.
No it’s not. They don’t need to do ■■■■. You, however, need to remove the tin foil and stop feeling entitled to every little detail.
Just playing devil’s advocate, because this is a non-issue for me:
If they published a ‘Reimbursement Summary’ each month, showing the totals of ships reimbursed, that would not cause any privacy issues. Any more than the monthly economic report shows anybody’s trading or manufacturing activity. It would just be a generic ‘3 of ship X, 22 ship Y etc etc’ thing.
Although honestly, unless it could easily be automated into an aggregate report, I can’t see that it would be worth CCP’s time to prepare one.
Without some actual evidence of ‘someone in CCP is auto-replacing Alliance X’s ships to keep them happy’, it seems like a non-issue to me. They’d be better off working on all the bots that CCP cough definitely cough does not approve of cough cough hack!.
I’d actually really like to see what evidence you have of this.
Feel free to post it here, or you can email it directly to me at falcon@ccpgames.com - I’d be very interested to see where these claims are coming from.
Alternatively, if you have no actual evidence of any wrongdoing, please feel free to stop rumour mongering, or you’ll end up banned from the forums.
Have you been drinking tonight Falcon? What evidence do you want? Seriously are you asking for T2 drop evidence or are you asking for reimbursement evidence? T2 drops have been well discussed beyond T20 including the lottery & drop area’s for event obtained T2 BPO which dropped in players back yards.
As to reimbursements the ball is in your court, as stated I’ve been a member of a fleet that got reimbursed due to a non occurring convo bomb.
Publish reimbursements, there is not a single reason not to, you have the data so shed light on the 60 to 80% reimburse rate that the CSM has ID’d.