This sounds completely new to me. Apparently FD are reimbursing player kills in private groups on a case by case basis now?:
Interesting development if true.
Interesting development if true.
New policy on player kills in private groups?
- Thread starter Globusdiablo
- Start date
That quoted message says just the opposite of what the OP supposes. The message says that "being killed in a private group that doesn't allow PVP is not basis for an automatic reimbursal." It then goes on to say that FD treat every request made on a case by case basis.
The OP seems to be one of those people who read things into stuff, or is just trying to puff up some kind of controversy.
The OP seems to be one of those people who read things into stuff, or is just trying to puff up some kind of controversy.
Or maybe you're just one of those people who like to be offended?
"...we deal with each ticket on a case by case basis and being killed in a private group that doesn't allow PVP is not basis for an automatic reimbursal..."
Not being basis for an automatic reimbursal surely suggests that some players are being reimbursed? I've never in my 5 years of Elite: Dangerous heard of this practice before.
If I make a no PvP PG with five friends, then one of them figures out that I'm the one who has been stealing his toilet paper when he has company over, then decided to take it out on my Adder, I'm assuming the help desk won't care (and they shouldn't).
I don't think it should be any different for any PG, boot people who break your rules, because that's all they are, your rules.
I don't think it should be any different for any PG, boot people who break your rules, because that's all they are, your rules.
The word 'automatically' was used in response to the thread that quote originally came from. One line of argument, in that thread, is that automatic reimbursement was or could be happening.
My pointing out your shaky interpretation of the quote shouldn't give you the impression that I am at all offended. What I can say, is that you do sound like a person that reads things into what others say. Just as you have with the quote, and my response to your use.
This is one of those times where everyone would be happier if people minded their own business and kept their mouths shut. I know, a shocking thing to suggest in this day and age where to can update your status to let the world know if you’re wiping from back to front or front to back, and somewhere that matters to someone.
But it really is better to remain quiet, keep your nose in your own business and not share every little thing. If support opts to restore someone, that should remain between that person and support, not broadcast to essentially thumb your nose at someone else.
Why is it so hard for people to grow up and play make-believe space ship pilots like adults?
But it really is better to remain quiet, keep your nose in your own business and not share every little thing. If support opts to restore someone, that should remain between that person and support, not broadcast to essentially thumb your nose at someone else.
Why is it so hard for people to grow up and play make-believe space ship pilots like adults?
Nice interpretation.
I wholeheartedly disagree.
Support should be offered to all players in the same manner, they should benefit from all paid-for services in the same way. Certain support features shouldn't be available to a "select few" who are FDEV's best buddies.
Assuming there will be a new wave of "emerging content" done in Mobius (whether you agreee with Mobius is an entirely different matter, personally I used to hate it), should those players not benefit from the possibility of asking, not necessarily receiving, some sort of reimbursement? Are they lesser players, have they not paid for the game like everyone else?
FD is doing the broadcasting. I'm merely relaying and asking if this is new policy, as I hadn't heard of this practice before.
Wrong. Joining a PG and agreeing to it's ruleset with the direct aim to disrupt and break those rules is against EULA.
On the subject of 'automatic'... There is no 'automatic reimbursement'.. Each case is dealt with on its own merits.
I can't understand why peeps have a problem with this. Anyone got a well thought out and cohesive answer to that?
It would be good if they did start reinstating PK'ed ships in this situation, but probably premature to expect it just yet, as the expedition has only just started.
If some cretin infiltrates a non-PvP group to blow up a DWE2 ship after thousands of ly's of travel, that's a different situation. Hopefully Frontier won't then quibble about reversing an obvious griefing and dealing with the perpetrator.
If some cretin infiltrates a non-PvP group to blow up a DWE2 ship after thousands of ly's of travel, that's a different situation. Hopefully Frontier won't then quibble about reversing an obvious griefing and dealing with the perpetrator.
Not sure how EULA is relevant to what I said. The person invited to a PG broke the player enforced rules, and the enforcement is to remove them from the group. That's exactly how it works.
If I make a PG with a no Gutamaya policy and find a Clipper, should the offender be punished for breaking the EULA, should it be worthy of a support ticket?
Are you implying by breaking the EULA through not following rules made by another player that you agreed to by joining their group, one would be cheating, therefore any damages received from the cheating party should be reimbursed?
Last edited:
I don't have a problem. I'm asking if this is new policy. FD has never before reimbursed players killed by "gankers" in private groups. At least not to my knowledge.
7.3 Communication and interaction with other users
7.3.1 The Game and/or Online Features may allow communications between users by means including but not limited to text and voice. When using such features you must use common sense and good manners, your behaviour, conduct and communications must be considerate to other users and you must not be directly or indirectly offensive, threatening, harassing or bullying to others or violate any applicable laws including but not limited to anti-discrimination legislation based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
7.3.2 Frontier reserves the right, but not the obligation, to record, monitor and retain all or some of the communications described in clause 7.3.1 in order to safeguard other users and our community. You acknowledge that Frontier shall have the right, but not the obligation, to pre-screen, refuse, move or remove any content available through the Game or the Online Features, including, but not limited to, content that violates any law or this EULA, the Privacy Policy, or any other applicable legal or contractual obligation.
Infiltrating a no PvP PG is imho a clear form of harassment, but in the end that's FDs decision. The Eula grants them the right if they interpret it that way.