test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Please give us a JHAS upgrade option
humblesheep
Member Posts: 423 Arc User
I consider myself neither entitled nor worthy, I am just asking nicely.
Please may we have an option to upgrade our existing bug ships to the new T6 version that is not just gambling for a new one.
Please may we have an option to upgrade our existing bug ships to the new T6 version that is not just gambling for a new one.
Post edited by humblesheep on
0
Comments
Cryptic prefers to go for the R&D Promo Pack random number gambling option. They get much more money that way from gambling addicts and people who think the new ship is a God Ship despite no stats having been released for it yet.
Free Tibet!
This! Why wouldn't they want you to pay for the same thing twice? That's just good business!
sig
http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/5451/om71.jpg
It is a peculiar phenomenon that we can imagine events that defy the laws of the universe.
When DR went live my old style fleet patrol escorts suddenly gained a tempest tail gun, new boff seating and the tempest skin.....
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Rules_of_Acquisition
I'm pretty sure there's a rule somewhere for JHAS lol.
Well, we all know how that turned out.
T5U is right on par with T6.
They said nothing about traits, consoles, or BOff seating.
i'd clearly say no, it's not!
The only distinguishing things about T6 are the TRAITS, CONSOLES and BOFF SEATING.
Without that, no ship is Tier 6.
Free Tibet!
You both are wrong. T6 and T5-U have the same number of consoles, just like Fleet T6 and Fleet T5-U have the same number of consoles.
But, comparing T5-U and T6 to T5:
T5-U has:
an extra console
scaling hull hp
starship masteries
T6 has:
all of the above
a starship trait
a 13th bridge officer ability
at least one seat with a specialization.
Obviously, the T5-U JHAS lacks those bottom three things, and is lacking some of the basic capabilities of a Tier 6 starship.
Until the JHAS has a starship trait, a 13th bridge officer ability, and the ability to make use of specialization powers, it is lacking some of the basic capabilities of a T6 starship.
SCM - Hive (S) - [02:31] DMG(DPS) - @jarvisandalfred: 30.62M(204.66K) - Fed Sci
Tacs are overrated.
Game's best wiki
Build questions? Look here!
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Main_Page , wonderful bit of reality, learn it and love it.
I have an idea for what Season 11 should be; Season 11: The Big Bug Fix.
I have not been able to read my bug tickets in over a year, not even the tickets about not being able to see my tickets.
I find the drama of your signature proof of your immaturity, this means you, DR whiners.
And why would Cryptic do this? These differences are incentives for players to buy the new Tier 6 ship. If every T5-U ship had these, then there would be no point to spending $30 on a new ship.
It doesn't have the same name!
It's not the exact same model!
It has new seating!
New extras!
New stats!
Therefore, it's new, and perfectly legal!
They're not selling you the same thing twice; they're selling you the 2015 edition of that 2011 ride! All new leather interiors! Automatic climate control for driver and passengers! Hands-free conference calling! Galactic Network Radio! Ports to charge all your electronics while on the go! Custom 2015 body detailing and skin! Temperature-adjustable seats! Deluxe suite rooms! 5 star safety ratings! Rated for best-in-class performance by Galactic Reports!
If you are taking a lawyer with you... ask them to look into the following.
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17500-17509
Evidence they will need
http://i.imgur.com/tsT6fGb.png
http://www.arcgames.com/en/games/star-trek-online/news/detail/6007323-the-jem%27hadar-attack-ship-returns
http://www.arcgames.com/en/games/star-trek-online/news/detail/9079533-r%26d-pack-promotion
while it can give grounds to ambiguity the "capabilities" makes the statement more or less defend-able in court.
I can tell you they would loose in a Canadian court. I will admit to not being versed in US law. Reading though that California statue, I would say it is pretty vague. The law in CA does seem to be terribly in slimy companies favor no doubt there.
They also may be protected by some of the clauses that seem to state a time period of 3 months.
In Canada they would have been legally ok IF... they had posted a retraction after the fact stating there AD was in error, however they would have had to honour any offers made to people prior to the printing of the retraction on new sales at the least.
Anyway... if you live in California... the case isn't completely on there side, it would seem you would have to prove they knew they where lying the day they typed the ad.
I have to say you guys really should be fighting for better laws. Your business code laws are seriously outdated and or watered down. (at least in California)
Well I looked at the code you posted and Saw right away that this will not apply to Cryptic at all.
It states,
"17500. It is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or association, or any employee thereof with intent directly or indirectly to dispose of real or personal property..."
Well the JHAS is not real property, nor is it Personal property. You do not own it. You are leasing it for the life of the game. All of the Advertising mentioned falls back on "Real or Personal Property"
On top of that it exempts companies Section 17502 from the code (Commercial Internet companies, of which Cryptic is one) By a good faith argument. At the time the T6 was mentioned Cryptic in good faith told you that the JHAS could be upgraded to T6 Capabilities.
Which T5U is, now if they Said to Full T6 then you MIGHT have a point, but you still wouldn't have a case.
Therefore the argument is null and void.
antoniosalieri
The Buisness laws is the us were written by big buisness to protect Big Buisness. Once they wrote them they them paid the US Congress to pass them.
Fleet leader Nova Elite
Fleet Leader House of Nova elite
@ren_larreck
no matter what legal action is made there will always be loopholes and ambiguous statments to weasle out of anything.
no Cryptic would not loose in canada, I've seen companies get away with selling placebos and cheap tea with ambiguous statements, and in Cryptics defense the JHAS does have T6 Capabilities just not T6 functionality. hell I've even seen a company called "Kelping Hand" sell freaking baked iceberg lettuce as kelp, they did it for five years and was always called out on it, canada is where they had the heaviest legal action and they still won those cases.
it all depends on what lawyers you have.
I'm no expert on legalities, so I'll stay out of that. But I do know a good amount about ships, and...
T5-U does not have the full capabilities of T6. The 13th bridge officer ability, the starship trait, and the ability to slot hybrid bridge officers are defining capabilities of T6 starships, as they themselves have said.
SCM - Hive (S) - [02:31] DMG(DPS) - @jarvisandalfred: 30.62M(204.66K) - Fed Sci
Tacs are overrated.
Game's best wiki
Build questions? Look here!
but the JHAS still has T6 Capabilities, they didn't say full capabilities.
17502 does not protect an online seller... what it says is if a company places an ad on the radio/tv/internet ect... the radio/tv/internet company is not liable. So in other words if you advertise something in the newspaper I can't sue the Newspaper if the ad is found to break any of the rules... unless the newspaper was aware of it being a lie. This protection was extended to the internet... so for instance you couldn't take Cryptics ISP to court over a Cryptic ad.
You are clearly not a lawyer. This is a statute intended to be a cover-all. There for it is intended to cover products and services, although like most American laws I have read it seems to have around 10,000 words more then needed and talks in circles enough to allow a judge to pretty mostly do what they want. lol
Understand where I come from the law is much more clear.... however after reading a bit more... CIVIL CODE SECTION 1770 would be most likely the code cited by a California lawyer in this case.
Specifically:
"1770. (a) The following unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or which results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer are unlawful:"
"(1) Passing off goods or services as those of another."
" (7) Representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another."
" (9) Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised."
" (17) Representing that the consumer will receive a rebate, discount, or other economic benefit, if the earning of the benefit is contingent on an event to occur subsequent to the consummation of the transaction." (this might not seem to apply to some, however I have seen in some cases arguments made with clauses like it, that upgrade offers constitute a form of "rebate" and surely a "economic benefit" in fact I believe Microsoft in the past has lost cases on statutes with wording much like this)
In any event I admit I'm not a Legal expert on Californian or American law... however form a quick read it would seem Cryptic has skirted some. I wonder if they have consulted there legal dept... I am not so sure adding the word "capabilities" or waiting 3 months really protects them from what I have read.
PS... I missed your edit there... and have to agree with you. These laws where clearly not written with consumers rights in mind... although the civic code I found seems to be more clear, I would assume because it carries less weight and likely isn't something you could use outside of a small claims court.
No doubt... and to be fair it is the same here... I will admit I may have helped a few slime ball construction companies get out of some junk they shouldn't have. Even in Canada the laws aren't perfect... and like everywhere most legal reps don't do the proper research. Its always a case of the side that prepares best. They have been cleaning those laws up here for a long time, and your right a good lawyer can still manage to find a few loop holes. I'm sure cryptic feels pretty safe as they seem to have waited a proper amount of time, and use a few vague words that could easily be all they need to do in Ca.
Not saying anything new but it is out there since this is to some degree a breach of agreement when they said players would get a fully upgradable JHAS instead of re-selling it.
Good luck!
If T6 capabilities is read as "I can use 13 bridge officer abilities" then no, it does NOT have T6 capabilities.
If T6 capabilities is read as "I can use Intel/Command bridge officer abilities, a 'defining' characteristic of T6 ships", then no, it does NOT have T6 capabilities.
Indeed... T6 capabilities it would seem means T5-U.
Had they said T5-U in that advert, they would have sold fewer ships.
By giving the bug ship upgrade a different title, and not following though. They are guilty of false advertising... and are legally liable under bait and switch laws.
The only thing that would change that would be the addition of an upgrade option for the old classic bug. If they updated it with everything the new bug has minus something like the console and skin... they would not be in violation of any laws. Frankly if they did ANYTHING to make it something other then a T5-U they would be better legally protected. Adding either the trait or seats, would absolve them legally if not more morally.
The JHAS has none of these which are clear T6 capabilities. It was a mistake, but it's bemusing watching people get hurt over it.