test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Elachi Battleship's Stolen cloak

124

Comments

  • logicalspocklogicalspock Member Posts: 836 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    tc10b wrote: »
    No this isn't a bad PR situation. This is a cash grab people trying to turn their EC bought item which functions as designed into something else.

    This is nothing like a bad PR situation. This is pure, unmitigated avarice under the pretense of social justice.

    1. If Cryptic were truly interested in a "cash grab", why would they fix a design flaw that heightened the appeal of the ship? Your reasoning is illogical. The fix to the lottery ship is more likely to lead to less sales in the long term, not more sales.

    2. Social justice is fairness and equability within the different classes of a society. Fixing a programming flaw in a lottery ship has nothing to do with social justice.
  • jockey1979jockey1979 Member Posts: 1,005 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    darkwyndre wrote: »
    I didn't buy the ship so I don't have a personal dog in the fight, nor any complaint of my own to make.

    For someone who did not buy it, you are really trying your best for a refund, post #28 was your first and you've been going strong on bait and switch (which it wasn't) right through to "good PR" (which it would not be)

    Would you like to retract that statement, or are you after a refund for something you didn't spend on to start with ??? :P
  • asardetemplariasardetemplari Member Posts: 447 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    I read just the first post, and all I have to say is this.

    THE ELACHI MONBOSH BATTLESHIP WAS NOT MEANT TO HAVE CLOAK. YOU WERE NOT CHEATED, THEY MESSED UP. THEY FIXED THEIR PROBLEM. DEAL. WITH. IT.
    latest?cb=20160406061118&path-prefix=en

    Dreadnought class. Two times the size, three times the speed. Advanced weaponry. Modified for a minimal crew. Unlike most Federation vessels, it's built solely for combat.
  • mimey2mimey2 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    Here's another point to get lost in this thread:

    People are making a fuss about the cloak.

    The cloak.

    The basic, non-BC, non-EBC...cloak.

    Yet they totally IGNORE all the other stats the ship has, which is pretty much a copy/paste of the Fleet Vor'cha, aka the Fleet Tor'kaht (and probably why it was accidentally given a cloak in the first place). The Fleet Tor'kaht which is widely considered one of the BEST KDF ships in the entire game?

    That ANYONE can have access to now?

    So...fuss about the cloak, yet ignore the awesome and incredible stats this thing has for a cruiser, as now anybody can use one of the best KDF ships in the game, minus cloak? (In some ways, it's better than the Tor'kaht because of it's 2 LT universal slots)
    I remain empathetic to the concerns of my community, but do me a favor and lay off the god damn name calling and petty remarks. It will get you nowhere.
    I must admit, respect points to Trendy for laying down the law like that.
  • jockey1979jockey1979 Member Posts: 1,005 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    I read just the first post, and all I have to say is this.

    THE ELACHI MONBOSH BATTLESHIP WAS NOT MEANT TO HAVE CLOAK. YOU WERE NOT CHEATED, THEY MESSED UP. THEY FIXED THEIR PROBLEM. DEAL. WITH. IT.

    You're missing a great "debate" here, with points and counter points, facts and opinions - I'd highly recommend going back and reading the whole thread. :D
  • jockey1979jockey1979 Member Posts: 1,005 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    mimey2 wrote: »
    Here's another point to get lost in this thread:

    People are making a fuss about the cloak.

    The cloak.

    The basic, non-BC, non-EBC...cloak.

    Yet they totally IGNORE all the other stats the ship has, which is pretty much a copy/paste of the Fleet Vor'cha, aka the Fleet Tor'kaht (and probably why it was accidentally given a cloak in the first place). The Fleet Tor'kaht which is widely considered one of the BEST KDF ships in the entire game?

    That ANYONE can have access to now?

    So...fuss about the cloak, yet ignore the awesome and incredible stats this thing has for a cruiser, as now anybody can use one of the best KDF ships in the game, minus cloak? (In some ways, it's better than the Tor'kaht because of it's 2 LT universal slots)

    You forget, even a basic cloak gives you an ambush bonus when you first drop out of it, with Rommie BOFFs and the right skills and DOFFs it can be quite the bonus
  • asardetemplariasardetemplari Member Posts: 447 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    jockey1979 wrote: »
    You're missing a great "debate" here, with points and counter points, facts and opinions - I'd highly recommend going back and reading the whole thread. :D

    Personally, I don't like debates on things like this, but dear lord. They mess up, people are happy. They fix their mess up, people complain. This isn't Cloak Trek Online :P
    latest?cb=20160406061118&path-prefix=en

    Dreadnought class. Two times the size, three times the speed. Advanced weaponry. Modified for a minimal crew. Unlike most Federation vessels, it's built solely for combat.
  • mimey2mimey2 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    jockey1979 wrote: »
    You forget, even a basic cloak gives you an ambush bonus when you first drop out of it, with Rommie BOFFs and the right skills and DOFFs it can be quite the bonus

    True, but it's still only a basic cloak, so you wouldn't be able to 'blink' the cloak like you can a BC. You HAVE to wait until you are out of Red Alert to use the cloak again.

    And cloaking in PvE, unless you are 'blinking' with a BC to refresh the ambush, is more a liability than anything else since you are not doing anything to help the team while you are cloaked. EBC is an exception if you can use it well.
    I remain empathetic to the concerns of my community, but do me a favor and lay off the god damn name calling and petty remarks. It will get you nowhere.
    I must admit, respect points to Trendy for laying down the law like that.
  • kar1972kar1972 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    Star Trek Enterprise Season 1 Episode 12 - Silent Enemy.

    Everything by the numbers, even the green cannons.

    No cloak.

    Klingons have cloak, Romulans have cloak, the Defiant have cloak.

    Enough of cloaks.
    SFX Fleet Captain Kar
    _________________
    Join StarfleetXtreme
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Best Space Games
    Me on the Web
  • darkwyndredarkwyndre Member Posts: 36 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    An 11 page thread on the forum is not a bad PR situation. You are making this sound more important than it is, probably in the hope of getting some undeserved refund or compensation.

    PWE employees have my express permission to share my complete list of ships I own on my account. You won't find the Elachi Monbosh Battleship there because I don't have one.

    This is what is known as an ad hominem fallacy. You're attacking me by questioning my honesty and integrity in order to try and undermine my argument. Generally once you have to resort to logical fallacies, you might as well give up the debate.
    jockey1979 wrote: »
    You're missing a great "debate" here, with points and counter points, facts and opinions - I'd highly recommend going back and reading the whole thread. :D

    I'm glad you put "debate" in quotation marks, because it stopped being a debate the moment you and smokeybacon90 up there started attacking my honesty instead of trying to argue or debate the points of discussion.
    The ones attempting the cash grab isn't Cryptic, it's the handful of players trying to get a "refund" on the ship.

    And how exactly is this a cash grab? These people already paid for the ship either in EC from the GTN or with Lobi crystals from opening lockboxes. They will have nothing more or less than they already have if they can turn the ship back in because they got it for the cloak ability.

    As others have pointed out, it's a quite nice ship without a cloak, but even so there are people who parted with their Lobi Crystals (potentially $150+ of opening lockboxes) because they saw someone with the ship cloak, or they had someone in their fleet get one and talk about it having the ability cloak, etc...

    For some group of people (including apparently the OP), the cloak was the deciding factor on using the expensive Lobi currency on this particular ship. It's irrelevant that the cloak wasn't discussed in the dev blog ... the ship was put into the game and stayed in the game for a week with the cloak. The fact that it had a cloak was not the fault of any player who bought it. It's the fault of the Cryptic employees who designed and checked off on the ship as being ready to go live.

    Since the developers are at fault for releasing the ship into the game with a cloak, it is incumbent upon them to fix the entire problem. The first step to fixing the problem was to remove the cloak, which they have done. In order to entirely fix the problem their mistake caused, they need to make people who bought the ship solely because it could cloak whole. Simply allow them to turn the ship back in and do whatever they like with their Lobi instead.

    However you want to slice it, every single one of those ships was generated by the expenditure of 800 Lobi crystals, so taking the ship back from someone and giving them 800 Lobi crystals in return is a zero sum proposition.

    It's laughable to call it Avarice. In order for it to be greed, the players would have to be trying to get something extra or more, and no matter what every single one of those ships in the game was generated by somebody spending 800 Lobi crystals, and so there is absolutely no greed or gain in erasing a ship and giving the crystals back.


    I mean, this might be the most preposterous argument ever:

    Premise 1: Cryptic made a mistake by releasing the ship with cloak which was not intended to have the ability to cloak.
    Premise 2: Some players were enticed to purchase the ship due to Cryptic's mistake in releasing the ship with cloak.
    Premise 3: Mistakes should be fixed

    Conclusion: Removing the cloak retroactively corrects the mistake.

    Unfortunately your reasoning conveniently ignores the people who were enticed to buy because of said mistake. You fanboys freely admit that Cryptic made the mistake but then stubbornly insist that the players affected by the mistake should be forced to live with it, even though it wasn't their fault.
  • newromulan1newromulan1 Member Posts: 2,229
    edited August 2013
    This is NOT really a issue about the "cloak" - the main issue is that for a long time Cryptic has been putting out broken/incorrect/OP/Not working as intended ships/consoles/gear - WITHOUT proper Q/A and testing.

    So far in this Box we have had 2 major snaffus - this cloak and the Subspace integration circuit.

    Before that was the Scimitar - and on and on.

    How long will Cryptic keep using paying players as play testers for broken stuff put out to holodeck?

    There is no-one in this thread - fanboys or what ever - I tend to lean toward the cryptic fanboy side - is not going to say that this is not becoming a MAJOR PROBLEM.

    Stop putting broken stuff right out to holodeck without proper Q/A - testing and feedback!!
  • mrtsheadmrtshead Member Posts: 487 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    darkwyndre wrote: »

    I mean, this might be the most preposterous argument ever:

    Premise 1: Cryptic made a mistake by releasing the ship with cloak which was not intended to have the ability to cloak.
    Premise 2: Some players were enticed to purchase the ship due to Cryptic's mistake in releasing the ship with cloak.
    Premise 3: Mistakes should be fixed

    Conclusion: Removing the cloak retroactively corrects the mistake.

    Unfortunately your reasoning conveniently ignores the people who were enticed to buy because of said mistake. You fanboys freely admit that Cryptic made the mistake but then stubbornly insist that the players affected by the mistake should be forced to live with it, even though it wasn't their fault.

    Unfortunately, your second premise asserts something that none of us agree with - that is, that a) there were people who got the Monbosh only because of the cloak (and would otherwise have passed) and b) that if such people existed, they were not solely and singly responsible for the mistake.

    Again, individuals are responsible for making responsible purchasing decisions. If the presence or absence of a cloak was a big enough deal to be the make or break on buying the ship, then that puts the onus on the BUYER to do the requisite research. A cursory investigation on the part of consumers would've solved this problem. They chose not to do the work. They are owed nothing.
  • tinead51tinead51 Member Posts: 449 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    The only "Stolen" thing in this thread is alot of peoples common sense :rolleyes:
  • latinumbarlatinumbar Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    darkwyndre wrote: »
    Premise 1: Cryptic made a mistake by releasing the ship with cloak which was not intended to have the ability to cloak.
    Premise 2: Some players were enticed to purchase the ship due to Cryptic's mistake in releasing the ship with cloak.
    Premise 3: Mistakes should be fixed

    Conclusion: Removing the cloak retroactively corrects the mistake.

    Unfortunately your reasoning conveniently ignores the people who were enticed to buy because of said mistake. You fanboys freely admit that Cryptic made the mistake but then stubbornly insist that the players affected by the mistake should be forced to live with it, even though it wasn't their fault.

    And unfortunately, your reasoning ignores the fact that things get fixed or nerfed ALL THE TIME despite the number of people that may have been 'enticed' to buy it pre-nerf. Just look at the recent changes made to the new Subspace Integration Circuit console. I'm sure some people bought it for the original published stats. Your argument could be applied to just about ANY change/fix/nerf that the devs make. Sorry, but this is how MMOs work. Things get nerfed or fixed. It is what it is. Buyer beware.

    And I should point out that this is not bait and switch. Nowhere in the info with the ships stats did it say it had cloak. People found out only by accident and word of mouth.
    _____________________
    Come join the 44th Fleet.
    startrek.44thfleet.com[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • kar1972kar1972 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    All stuff when released have a these words:

    "Stats subject to change".

    These thread completely lost the objective and it's getting a flame thread.
    SFX Fleet Captain Kar
    _________________
    Join StarfleetXtreme
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Best Space Games
    Me on the Web
  • darkwyndredarkwyndre Member Posts: 36 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    This is NOT really a issue about the "cloak" - the main issue is that for a long time Cryptic has been putting out broken/incorrect/OP/Not working as intended ships/consoles/gear - WITHOUT proper Q/A and testing.

    So far in this Box we have had 2 major snaffus - this cloak and the Subspace integration circuit.

    Before that was the Scimitar - and on and on.

    How long will Cryptic keep using paying players as play testers for broken stuff put out to holodeck?

    There is no-one in this thread - fanboys or what ever - I tend to lean toward the cryptic fanboy side - is not going to say that this is not becoming a MAJOR PROBLEM.

    Stop putting broken stuff right out to holodeck without proper Q/A - testing and feedback!!

    I don't think that the problem is that they don't QA in some form or another. Honestly I think they just don't have a specs bible. Everything that you put into the game should have a specifications sheet that describes it in detail, and part of the QA process is to ensure that what is being put into the game matches the spec sheet.

    If there were a spec sheet for this ship, it would not have listed cloak as an ability, and QA would have been able to look at the actual ship and see the cloak ability and know for sure that it didn't belong.

    You can do a lot of things in QA without specs, but the one thing you can't do is get all the details and attributes of items or systems correct. You'll find graphical and gameplay and audio bugs aplenty if you QA without specs ... but you'll never catch something like a ship having cloak when it shouldn't, because without a spec sheet for the ship, there's nothing documented that says it shouldn't have the cloak, which means it falls squarely on the one person who sets all that info in the dev tool to get it right, because nobody down the rest of the way is likely to catch a mistake.

    Unless there is a proper best practices specification for all items and systems that get put into the game.
  • arcjetarcjet Member Posts: 161 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    Seriously - 13 pages?!

    Jesus. I am a vehement critic of Cryptic's and PWE's understanding of game development, endgame content, balance (oh my god..), documentation (lol), usability, and all sorts of things.

    But this?

    You're being riduculous on purpose, or are you absolutely serious? Because then, even though I despise this kind of statement, I would have to say:"them ebil devs took away something that wasn't supposed to be there? cry me a river, boo, oh my god, hoo!"
    It's still way better than a lot of other expensive ships our there, even wthout cloak.
    Give me a break.
  • neoakiraiineoakiraii Member Posts: 7,468 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    talaj wrote: »

    Shut Up And Take My Money!!!!!!!!!!
    GwaoHAD.png
  • neoakiraiineoakiraii Member Posts: 7,468 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    darkwyndre wrote: »

    2.) If you think the BBB is a zero-power organization, then you don't live in the same world I live in, because on the rare occasion when customer service and patience have failed and I've filed complaints, those complaints got action to be taken.

    I don't think anyone lives in your world since you think the BBB has power. :eek:

    Yelp has more power then the BBB
    GwaoHAD.png
  • dareaudareau Member Posts: 2,390 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    Am I understanding this correctly?

    People are still insisting that, even though the Monbosh BB, as of right now, is exactly what Cryptic advised them it would be in their blog post released over a week ago?

    And that a refund should be granted based solely upon someone else's word of mouth?

    Here's probably the best analogy I can give:

    OP owns a movie theatre.

    I come in saying that "JoeBob told me that OP theatre is running a free soda & popcorn promotion with purchase of a movie ticket".

    OP, what would you do. Remember, you have never put up any advertising that says I'd get free snacks... Oh, and you just had a crewperson overcharging the customers for snacks and you refunded all affected customers in the theatre the "overcharged" amounts that the crewperson was pocketing...
    Detecting big-time "anti-old-school" bias here. NX? Lobi. TOS/TMP Connie? Super-promotion-box. (aka the two hardest ways to get ships) Excelsior & all 3 TNG "big hero" ships? C-Store. Please Equalize...

    To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
  • usscapitalusscapital Member Posts: 985 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    has this not been asked before ? = why was the cloak on the ship if it was not going to be released with the cloak ? .
    just seems odd to me that they did not catch this error before release , are they that under-staffed at cryptic ?
    NERF NERF NERF ONLINE

    DELTA PRICE RISING
  • cgta1967cgta1967 Member Posts: 86 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    ./facepalm...here we go again......
    _______________________
    ---- FIRE EVERYTHING ! ----
  • usscapitalusscapital Member Posts: 985 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    cgta1967 wrote: »
    ./facepalm...here we go again......

    why facepalm ? , it's late here and I don't have the time to read 14 pages :rolleyes:
    NERF NERF NERF ONLINE

    DELTA PRICE RISING
  • talajtalaj Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    usscapital wrote: »
    has this not been asked before ? = why was the cloak on the ship if it was not going to be released with the cloak ?

    For the same reason the Elachi DHC info talks about polaron damage.
  • tekehdtekehd Member Posts: 2,032 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    Nerfing: Taking something that can hurt, and making it safer..... example, turning a softball into a whiffleball is nerfing.

    What isn't nerfing is removing shards of glass that were accidently included during manufacture of the softball.
  • verline1verline1 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    darkwyndre wrote: »
    It's a fairly well documented fact that only a small portion of people who play online games visit the associated forums, facebook, twitter, etc. Many times you will find people visiting those places for the first time when they have a problem.

    When in game channels started telling people that the ship had a cloak, lots of people were swayed to grab it who otherwise wouldn't have purchased it. The only reason they made the expensive purchase was because the ship had something they wanted.

    Could they have come to the forums and seen the posts? Sure ... but again the vast majority of players don't come to the forums unless they need help with something, and a very large majority who need help ask for it in game and still don't come to the forums.

    dinner because it came with the buffet.

    see all they had to do was pull the info ont he box, which you can do before buying it form the lobi store, look through what it has, see it dosnt have a cloak listed, so there is a ingame way to look at the info on something before you buy it, but they didn't, their loss.
  • tc10btc10b Member Posts: 1,549 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    1. If Cryptic were truly interested in a "cash grab", why would they fix a design flaw that heightened the appeal of the ship? Your reasoning is illogical. The fix to the lottery ship is more likely to lead to less sales in the long term, not more sales.

    My reasoning isn't illogical, your reading comprehension is flawed. I'm stating that anyone here advocating a refund for a perfectly decent product is attempting to make a cash grab.

    Just in case that wasn't clear. No "refunds" for something that works fine.
    The ones attempting the cash grab isn't Cryptic, it's the handful of players trying to get a "refund" on the ship.

    Oh good someone with reading comprehension.
  • wolfpacknzwolfpacknz Member Posts: 783 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    verline1 wrote: »
    see all they had to do was pull the info ont he box, which you can do before buying it form the lobi store, look through what it has, see it dosnt have a cloak listed, so there is a ingame way to look at the info on something before you buy it, but they didn't, their loss.

    Oh c'mon you can't expect people to use common sense and actually read something. Good lord man can you imagine just how wonderful things would be if that happened?? *Smack* Snap outta it..... :P
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    ***Disenchanted***
    Real Join Date: Monday, 17 May 2010
  • verline1verline1 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    wolfpacknz wrote: »
    Oh c'mon you can't expect people to use common sense and actually read something. Good lord man can you imagine just how wonderful things would be if that happened?? *Smack* Snap outta it..... :P

    Sorry I do tech support for a living, so I like to try and live in a fantasy outside work were people do just that.
  • wolfpacknzwolfpacknz Member Posts: 783 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    verline1 wrote: »
    Sorry I do tech support for a living, so I like to try and live in a fantasy outside work were people do just that.

    Ahhh explains things.. I been there, done that, now I'm a repressed alcoholic :P
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    ***Disenchanted***
    Real Join Date: Monday, 17 May 2010
Sign In or Register to comment.