Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Idami Raptor
Gallente Blue Labs
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 12:42:00 -
[181]
Edited by: Idami Raptor on 09/02/2008 12:43:49 I've never seen trading a ship void the insurance, personally. I've had ships carrier jumped by other people without losing insurance, recently put one of my ships in a corp hangar, had it moved back into mine by someone else, and still had insurance.
Though come to think of it I don't think I've tried that with an in-station trade...
In fact the only thing I've ever seen that will remove insurance like that is putting the ship on a CONTRACT. Sad part there is an UNSUCCESSFUL attempt to put it on contract removes it too.
I'm pretty sure the contract system warns you about that... but meh.
They are right, nowhere does it say that giving it to someone else voids the insurance. It says, quite specifically, that you won't get paid if someone else is flying it when it gets blown up. It doesn't say anything anywhere about it being voided just because someone else FLEW it.
IMO CCP needs to learn one simple truth of customer service: There are certain things that will, most of the time, cause a person to cease being a customer. In many of these circumstances, it's easier, cheaper, and better in the long run to make the customer happy rather than to tell them they're wrong.
Getting screwed out of insurance, possibly knocking your progression back a massive amount, is one of those things.
Frankly it'd be easier and better just to give the guy his bloody isk than to create yet another angry customer that's probably gonna go around telling everyone he knows about how horrible CCP is.
Here's another one for ya: My father used to be a customer service manager for a major newspaper. He once told me about the result of some study he'd seen... Customer Loyalty rates are HIGHER among people that have had a problem and had a good customer service experience than they are among people that never had a problem in the first place.
|
Trishan
Green Men Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 13:56:00 -
[182]
Sigh. The OP is of course right, and CCP has nonetheless the power to do whatever the hell they want. That doesn't make the OP less right. But it really seems that reading comprehension fails in general as usual.
The idea that insurance is magically voided when ship goes out of your possession is ridiculous. If I put a phoon in a carrier (thus losing its possession), then get it out at the op point... how am I supposed to insure it in the middle of space?
Ridiculous.
|
Loyal Servant
Caldari Viper Intel Squad Pure.
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 15:32:00 -
[183]
Originally by: Trishan Sigh. The OP is of course right, and CCP has nonetheless the power to do whatever the hell they want. That doesn't make the OP less right. But it really seems that reading comprehension fails in general as usual.
The idea that insurance is magically voided when ship goes out of your possession is ridiculous. If I put a phoon in a carrier (thus losing its possession), then get it out at the op point... how am I supposed to insure it in the middle of space?
Ridiculous.
That is because a possible bug just got turned into a feature.
So, why is ccp messing with my sig?
|
ElrondMD
The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 15:53:00 -
[184]
Let me get this right.
I buy a Battleship and insure it.
I pay another fellow eve player to transport it, just like one would load their car into a ferry to get across a channel.
I get into my Battleship and because i had it transported ive voided an insurance contract?
Do you void your car insurance when someone else sits in the seat and doesnt even drive it?
What utter silliness. Also, a Ship Maintenance Array is rarely a personal asset, its fictionally manned by people who could be running all over my ships while they are stored.
This is borked.
|
Ranger 1
Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 16:01:00 -
[185]
7 pages of this.... unbelievable.
Hopefully it's been mentioned, but I'd say CONTRACTING a ship to another character pretty much transfers ownership of that ship to the other character... as much as any other legally binding agreement... whether money exchanged hands or not. And of course, the moment it legally leaves your ownership the insurance is null and void.
Simply trading the ship to another character or placing it in a corp hanger of any type does not legally change the ownership of that vessel any more than parking your car in someone else's garage for awhile. No transfer of papers or ownership took place.
Unfortunately there are always people who will try and manipulate the wording of a rule or law to suit their own ends, thus explaining why the wording of laws and contracts are so convoluted for everyone else.
So yeah, if you must appease the less bright or thwart those that can't seem to function without finding a tiny loophole to exploit, then tighten up the wording on insurance contracts. But as far as making it possible for ships to be contracted to others and keep their insurance... no way.
Now lets say we turn our attention to more important matters eh?
|
Ranger 1
Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 16:08:00 -
[186]
Edited by: Ranger 1 on 09/02/2008 16:13:52 Elrond, if you trade it to someone to transport you are fine. But currently there is no way to contract a ship to someone without changing its ownership. And I'm pretty sure it needs to be that way, otherwise, if you think about it, it would be exploitable. If I were an unsavory type (well, more unsavory) I could contract a fully fitted ship to a stranger for a nice profit. I could then arrange for someone to kill them outside of the station as soon as they leave, and then rake in the insurance money on top of the purchase price.
*Edit: We posted at the same time, just at cross purposes.
|
Loyal Servant
Caldari Viper Intel Squad Pure.
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 16:17:00 -
[187]
Originally by: Ranger 1 Edited by: Ranger 1 on 09/02/2008 16:13:52 Elrond, if you trade it to someone to transport you are fine. But currently there is no way to contract a ship to someone without changing its ownership. And I'm pretty sure it needs to be that way, otherwise, if you think about it, it would be exploitable. If I were an unsavory type (well, more unsavory) I could contract a fully fitted ship to a stranger for a nice profit. I could then arrange for someone to kill them outside of the station as soon as they leave, and then rake in the insurance money on top of the purchase price.
*Edit: We posted at the same time, just at cross purposes.
OP traded it to a carrier pilot to be taken to a battle, he lost it. There was no contract involved, per OP. So, you cannot insure a ship and have it jumped to battle because your not going to get paid, per CCP logic. (??)
So, why is ccp messing with my sig?
|
Ranger 1
Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 16:26:00 -
[188]
My pardon, I mis-read that to say he contracted it to his alt.
However, my point stands in that contracts MUST change ownership for insurance purposes. However his point stands that trading a ship should not change ownership.
I suppose that insuring a ship for the corp comes into play in this, so that ships can be traded and transported by corp members freely.
|
Loyal Servant
Caldari Viper Intel Squad Pure.
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 16:32:00 -
[189]
Originally by: Ranger 1 My pardon, I mis-read that to say he contracted it to his alt.
However, my point stands in that contracts MUST change ownership for insurance purposes. However his point stands that trading a ship should not change ownership.
I suppose that insuring a ship for the corp comes into play in this, so that ships can be traded and transported by corp members freely.
I am in agreement on contracts because the ownership change takes place. We are all in battles and logistics takes your fitted ships to the front, just to return them to you. It should not void your insurance. Now, if the carrier/mom is lost with your ship as it's cargo then the rules should apply, it was not in your possession.
So, why is ccp messing with my sig?
|
clone 1
Laughing Leprechauns Corporation The Crimson Federation
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 16:32:00 -
[190]
Originally by: Ranger 1
I suppose that insuring a ship for the corp comes into play in this, so that ships can be traded and transported by corp members freely.
Yes but a contract will cancel the corp insurance too.
Just so we know, trading keeps insurance, damage, ammo loading etc. Contract does not. And until recently all ships had to be repackaged when contracted, loosing rigs etc.
But I think the main focus of peoples anger, is that we are told this is 'intended game design' when infact it is not. It's a limitation of contracts that dont record damage info and insurance details. But we get a smart answer rather than a real response when asked these types of questions.
-------------------------------------------------- The Angels Have the Phone Box |
|
Ranger 1
Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 17:00:00 -
[191]
Originally by: clone 1
Originally by: Ranger 1
I suppose that insuring a ship for the corp comes into play in this, so that ships can be traded and transported by corp members freely.
Yes but a contract will cancel the corp insurance too.
I know, as it should
Just so we know, trading keeps insurance, damage, ammo loading etc. Contract does not.
Interesting, the other gentlemen maintain that trading voids the insurance. If it does not, then it is functioning as it should.
And until recently all ships had to be repackaged when contracted, loosing rigs etc.
But I think the main focus of peoples anger, is that we are told this is 'intended game design' when infact it is not. It's a limitation of contracts that dont record damage info and insurance details. But we get a smart answer rather than a real response when asked these types of questions.
Smart answers, as you put it, are the result of it being considered common sense that a contract will change ownership of an item, whatever it may be. Thus directly affecting insurance.
What could stand a bit of clarification is the written description of whether or not trading, placing a ship in a corp facility, or into another persons capital ship intact affects insurance. That and a blunt statement that any personal or corp contract on a ship invalidates the insurance on that ship the moment the contract is accepted (to ensure that the insurance payout is not exploited by the original owner).
|
Kurt Laundry
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 17:57:00 -
[192]
Originally by: Fujiko MaXjolt
Originally by: Annapolis
Stuffs...
OK i'm gonna go ahead and guess at you being from the US.
Such whining and lawyer-threatening only comes from there, lmao Dood, YOU GAVE AWAY YOUR SHIP - to whom or for how long is irrelevant - the ship left your possession and ended the contract, end of story.
I WOULD like to know what happens if you make a loan-type contract and repeat what you did (put in carrier, jump, return)...
This stuff, only in the US... tut tut
only problem here is that the contract DOES NOT say that.
Show me in the contract where is says that "trading" a ship voids the insurance.
"In possion of" can mean lots of things, if my mom loans me her car, i am in possions of it, but i dont own it.
|
Kurt Laundry
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 18:04:00 -
[193]
Originally by: Angel DeMorphis Or maybe everyone is reading "insured while in your possession for the duration of the contract" wrong. Everyone here is assuming it means that during the duration of the contract, if it's in your possession it will be insured. If this was the case, the OP would be right and he could trade it and trade it back and it'd still be insured.
However "insured while in your possession for the duration of the contract", gramatically, can also be written as "it must be in your possession for the duration of the contract for it to remain insured". In this case, CCP would be right.
Both understandings of the sentence, according to the English language, could be the intent of the sentence.
The second sentence would seem to mean that if destroyed while in possession of someone else should mean that if it comes back in your possession it's still insured. However, the second sentence is not tied to the first by anything more than being in the same paragraph. It can just be restating that if you give it to someone else, it's not insured (or as worded, the contract is void if it's destroyed, as insurance only means something when the item is destroyed). The second sentence, however, does not invalidate the first, which could still mean that the ship needed to be in your possession for the duration of the contract for the insurance to be valid.
So, it can work either way, according to the English language, no matter how you argue about it.
well, where i live, if it isnt stated EXACTLY it does not apply. anything that can be read two or more ways ALWAYS benefits the insured (like the tie goes to the runner in baseball)
|
Kurt Laundry
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 18:07:00 -
[194]
Originally by: Rufus MacMaranth Edited by: Rufus MacMaranth on 08/02/2008 21:26:35 Edited by: Rufus MacMaranth on 08/02/2008 21:25:08 Edited by: Rufus MacMaranth on 08/02/2008 21:24:04
Originally by: "The selected item will be insured while in your possession for the duration of the contract.
Sorry, but this line here is their get out. The ship is insured while in your possession. As soon as it leaves your possession it is not insured any more. End of story. You might want to take a logic 101 course and read the sentence.
Ruf.
That is NOT what it says. It says that you are insured during the time period, if you are in possion of it... he was!
|
Kurt Laundry
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 18:11:00 -
[195]
Originally by: Airika You know what the law is? What ever the Judge says it is that particular day.
Not true! To avoid this we have appelett courts who judge the lower judges and often reverse their ruleings.
|
Kurt Laundry
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 18:13:00 -
[196]
Originally by: Ursula LeGuinn
Originally by: Angel DeMorphis No, does not specifically say in your possession for the entire time, but is perfectly reasonable, within the constraints of the English language, to be read and understood as such.
Really? I'd dispute that, but I don't need to. The wording disputes itself.
What's all that nonsense about "if it's destroyed while in someone else's possession"?
If the contract is voided instantly upon any transference of ownership, then what logical sense does it make to write some drivel about how it's voided if the ship is destroyed in someone else's possession?
Exactly!
The second sentence proves the OP is right.
|
Kurt Laundry
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 18:23:00 -
[197]
Originally by: CCP Prism X Any lawyer worth his salt would evoke precedent. Period (seeing as people decided to pick up on that theme).
Precedent doesn't work where you're from? Well, the only just way to treat this case is in the same way as all others. You decided to engage in PvP trade, it voided the contract. The words are misleading? Honestly, this isn't international law. We aren't dealing with morals...
It's game mechanics. Insurance binds you to a location unless you take the time and risk to move. Any veteran player knows this and perhaps this is the root of the problem. I'll take care to mention to the NPE (New Player Experience) group that this is confusing to new players, but you're not getting a reimbursement. We've refused everyone else up to this point and just because you found the fine print vague enough... well it still aint international law, it's EVE. You have to abide to the same rules as the other players.
To summarize: I'll take care to mention the message could be clearer to content designers. It's the best I can give you as a DB Developer who took interest in this misunderstanding. On the flip side I'm also ready to promise you that you'll have to abide by the same rulse as everyone else regardless of how you understood the written word. It's EVE law.
Then why did the guy who bought the shuttle and traded it back and forth still get his payout?????
WHY WHY WHY
|
Kurt Laundry
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 18:34:00 -
[198]
Originally by: DJ P What I cannot understand is the whine for what? 40-50mil? Get over it.
if thats the case, please send me 40 or 50 million isk because i have about 3000 isk to my name.
|
Mark Lucius
The Vinlanders
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 18:52:00 -
[199]
Originally by: Kurt Laundry
Then why did the guy who bought the shuttle and traded it back and forth still get his payout?????
WHY WHY WHY
Bug report it. GM ruled by precedent on dubious wording. I'm sorry for the OPs loss. ---
|
Kurt Laundry
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 18:53:00 -
[200]
Originally by: PaddyPaddy Nihildarnik I have a question if I may. How does ccp feel about the continuity of this mechanic (ie voiding insurance upon trade) and the use of carriers/ MS as alliance logistics vessels? While I can appreciate if they say "nope- you misread this, its working as intended" I feel that it kinda conflicts with the roles of the two mentioned capitals.
Eve was built in layers as we all know. The insurance mechanic was developed well before capitals and both have recieved numourous tweaks since then, so its not that far fetched to see this as an oversight and conflicting game mechanic. With all that m3 in a ship maint in both the carrier and the MS, its seems obvious to me that it was intended to move assets (ie ships) that did not belong to the actual carrier pilot personally. It would therefore seem in conflict with the insurance policies that one cannot use this other intended game mechanic without voiding their insurance.
TBH I think insurance is a bad mechanic anyway, I would much prefer a harsher eve where no insurance or at least minimal insurance is paid out, BUT, if you are going to have insurance in the game AND have capital assets with their current function, than it would seem to me that one should accomadate the other.
Paddy
I agree.. What good are carriers if they void my insurance?
|
|
Kurt Laundry
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 18:57:00 -
[201]
Originally by: Ashley Dinova
Quote: The contract will be considered void if the item or ship is destroyed while being in the possession of somebody else.
Insurance is working as intended It says the contract is considered void when the ship is in possession of somebody else.Whether you trade it and get it back doesn't matter. As soon as it comes into the hands of somebody else the contract is void, get it ?
I think thats pretty simple, well for me it is.
no it does not say that, that may be what you took from it, but it does NOT say that at all.
|
Kurt Laundry
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 19:00:00 -
[202]
Originally by: Kael Denvear
Originally by: CCP Prism X Any veteran player knows this and perhaps this is the root of the problem.
Cough* I have been playing Eve since 2 weeks after launch, so I believe I can be classed as a Veteran player, Yet this is news to me!!
Within a trusting and friendly Corp such as mine, which I must add is mainly made up of Veteran Players; we often trade ships back and forth, so now youÆre telling me that this validates our insurance!
We (my Corp and I) Which I emphasize again are mostly veteran players, never realized that ôLendingö a ship to someone else within Corporation or otherwise resulted in a ôTransfer of ownershipö thus invalidating the contract.
So if this ôlendingö is indeed a ôtransfer of ownershipö Just because itÆs left your personal assets, where does it stop?
If my ship is jumped up in a carrier by a third party, does this invalidate my insurance?
If I leave my ship at a POS, does this invalidate my insurance?
If I leave my ship at a deep Safe, does this invalidate my insurance?
If I eject then board my ship, does this invalidate my insurance?
If I leave my ship in the corp. hanger, does this invalidate my insurance?
If I leave my ship in the corp. POS hanger array, does this invalidate my insurance?
This needs clarification, as in all the above cases the ship is ôno longer in my possessionö an argument used to discredit the OPÆs ômisunderstandingö of the insurance payment system.
Official responses to these questions are paramount, as they affect so many everyday activities within all Corp. and alliance logistics.
QFE!!!
|
Loyal Servant
Caldari Viper Intel Squad Pure.
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 19:20:00 -
[203]
I don't think my Tri friend is going to get the time of day from them about this one. The issue is, veteran players are not their bread and butter... new ones are. Some of us that have been around for many years and seen how one sided these guys are. It has steadily gotten worse over time....
It is the principle of the matter and all I can do at this point is re-evaluate our logistics and my personal logistics to make sure I do not fall victim to this system of theirs.
Also warn others at this point to not trust the system. That is all we can do, because you risk not getting anything for your insurance investment.
Spread the word I guess.... insurance before battle is bad, mmkay?
So, why is ccp messing with my sig?
|
DrAtomic
Atomic Heroes Phalanx Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 00:22:00 -
[204]
Originally by: Kurt Laundry
I agree.. What good are carriers if they void my insurance?
Well they are awesome haulers... ow wait... - - -
Originally by: CCP Wrangler If you can understand our goal, disagree with our solution and offer a solution that is equal or better your opinion has a better chance of being heard...
|
Moon Kitten
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 02:49:00 -
[205]
The fleet clause in the insurance policy is questionable.
We've lulled our opponents into a false sense of confidence. Oh, yes. Everything is going according to plan. Those fools, they think they can win... by winning. |
Carcusian
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 04:13:00 -
[206]
I'm gonna have to side with the OP on this one, and no it's not cronyism. Quite simply, at the time of the ship's destruction the ship was in his possession, during the duration of the contract; and it was not destroyed while in the possession of somebody else. He meets all the requirements for receiving his insurance payout.
That's all there is too it, really. If a trade to another voids the insurance then you ought to get a message saying so. Regardless of carriers, tbh; some people have stuff hauled in actual haulers, so in what ship the friend who takes the trade and hauls it is moot. I mean if the hauler gets killed during the hauling, then obviously the insurance is void.
Without getting into abstract, pedantic theory and legalise, I think anyone can see CCP's argument is bogus. At least give us a warning to that effect - so friends can stop helping friends haul ships as any normal friend would do?
Don't think it's asking too much. "while in your possession" is not only vague, it's downright misleading. Do your best not to think of this in terms of who the OP is or his affiliation, tbh.
And let me add this: I once asked a friend to fly my platinum insured Typhoon for me to a different system. He traded it back to me, I then self-destructed to get the insurance value back. And I did. The trade did not invalidate my insurance. So, something is amiss here. Either I have found an exploit, or CCP is arguing it's reimubrment petitions inconsistently. The only differenc in my case was that my friend actually flew the ship for me to its destination, instead of hauling it. Let that be your modus for moving things then, people. :)
cheers.
|
Reem Fairchild
Minmatar Military Industrial Research
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 04:17:00 -
[207]
Edited by: Reem Fairchild on 10/02/2008 04:16:58 Game mechanics are game mechanics. And CCP can have the game mechanics be whatever the hell they want them to be (as it is their game). I don't see how the in-game description of the game mechanics being misleading (assuming they really are) makes it valid grounds for reimbursement somehow.
|
Carcusian
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 04:36:00 -
[208]
Well this isn't mechanics per se. It's not like aggression and denial of gate jumping. This is a specific message in text about how you are to understand the nature of insurance you are buying. That's how it is misleading.
But you are correct, tbh, CCP does seem to pretty much follow through on petitions/reimburements however they feel at the time. *carc gives them more beer and a smile*
In any case, my experience with self-destructing my own ship that had been traded and then traded back took place not long before the OP's issue. Please keep that in mind when you consider what I'm getting at.
Seriously, how hard is it to say: "The contract will be considered void if the item or ship is destroyed AFTER HAVING BEEN AT ANY TIME in the possession of somebody else.
That said, it's not a matter of game mechanics at all. It's grammer, lol. Anyways, the message ought to be changed to be a tad more precise like I suggest above; even if the OP doesn't get his insurance back, at least it helps other players know how it works.
|
Moonlight Express
Amarr Moonlight Express Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 04:43:00 -
[209]
Wait a second here. So let me get this strait. If I take my insured battleship and dock it in someoneÆs carrier while boarding interdictor for a roaming OP, the insurance on my battleship is voided? Who a hell came up with this? ThatÆs the stupidest thing I ever heard.
Where does it ever say that trading ships voids insurance? Is void insurance email sent to notify of insurance being voided? Does the insurance tab on the ship in question indicates no insurance on the ship once itÆs been traded or stored?
Are we supposed to have ESP to read between the lines of what CCP means instead of what it writes? That does not even make sense to void insurance while trading ships. Why is CCP making it hard on everyone? This is the most ******** explanation of a bad design I have ever heard, and thatÆs saying a lot with all the bad designs CCP came up with over the years. And to bring up layers in to this? A layer in a real court of law would own CCP on this one, man. Big time.
|
Reem Fairchild
Minmatar Military Industrial Research
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 04:48:00 -
[210]
Originally by: Carcusian Well this isn't mechanics per se. It's not like aggression and denial of gate jumping. This is a specific message in text about how you are to understand the nature of insurance you are buying. That's how it is misleading.
How is it not game mechanics? Insurance is not part of the game? Whether the in-game description of how insurance works in the game is misleading or not (or even if it was completely inaccurate in every way) doesn't change whether it is a bug or not. If they intended it to be the way it is, even if the in-game description may lead you to think it's in some other way, then it's not a bug. And since losses caused by bugs are the only thing CCP will reimburse for, that would mean that if they say "this is the way we intended it to be", than that is it.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |