DUST Search - So the people complaining about BPOs.

Jakar Umbra wrote:

Chunky Munkey wrote:

Jakar Umbra wrote:

Why not just ask for the equivalent of the blueprint to be placed in your inventory instead. You would still have the militia BPO to use and it would simply be the 1.7 equivalent. A friend of mine who has played EVE has told me that CCP has done it before where they simply replaced BPOs in the inventory with their new equivalent after an update.

Would this satisfy you? Instead of the unnecessary outrage you've been having?

How is it unecessary outrage? CCP has used an unquestionably underhanded tactic to get what they want, at the expense of many players. I think your suggestion is the only way CCP can redeem themselves, but they're only going to be compelled to do so in the wake of community outcry.

There's some bizarre principle held on these forums, that because CCP has the legal right to do something, they should not be criticised when they do it.

So... CCP said we're removing BPOs so this is your last change to buy them. A BPO is an item that you only need one of, since it can cover everything its purpose serves without running out. People bought Aurum from the Playstation Store in order to convert it to these items and some bought multiple even though it served absolutely no purpose presently or in the future to obtain multiple of them where one would suffice. CCP removed BPOs from the in-game market stating that there are no plans to remove them from your inventory in the future. This does not mean that they may not be removed in the future, it simply means that no plans currently exist to remove them. CCP plans to make a change to the game that will render the BPO that the items represents completely obsolete and worthless otherwise so CCP says we're going to convert the item back to Aurum for you. CCP did not ask you to buy multiple of them, nor did they say that a change to the game would not require them to be removed.

What I find to be the real problem here is that people are essentially screaming for CCP to not release 1.7 because they will lose the BPOs when in actuality you paid for the Aurum with real money and not the BPO itself. If this issue were related to the Ishukone Watch Saga, Gurista Saga, Toxin ICD-9 SMG or any item that was purchased in the pack itself as opposed to buying Aurum and then using the Aurum to get the weapon, I would be concerned as it was the item in the pack that you were promised and not the Aurum to obtain an item in the game.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Chunky Munkey Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 2243	Posted - 2013.11.21 15:38:00 - [1] - Quote Jakar Umbra wrote: Why not just ask for the equivalent of the blueprint to be placed in your inventory instead. You would still have the militia BPO to use and it would simply be the 1.7 equivalent. A friend of mine who has played EVE has told me that CCP has done it before where they simply replaced BPOs in the inventory with their new equivalent after an update. Would this satisfy you? Instead of the unnecessary outrage you've been having? How is it unecessary outrage? CCP has used an unquestionably underhanded tactic to get what they want, at the expense of many players. I think your suggestion is the only way CCP can redeem themselves, but they're only going to be compelled to do so in the wake of community outcry. There's some bizarre principle held on these forums, that because CCP has the legal right to do something, they should not be criticised when they do it. No.
Chunky Munkey Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 2251	Posted - 2013.11.22 01:43:00 - [2] - Quote Jakar Umbra wrote: Chunky Munkey wrote: Jakar Umbra wrote: Why not just ask for the equivalent of the blueprint to be placed in your inventory instead. You would still have the militia BPO to use and it would simply be the 1.7 equivalent. A friend of mine who has played EVE has told me that CCP has done it before where they simply replaced BPOs in the inventory with their new equivalent after an update. Would this satisfy you? Instead of the unnecessary outrage you've been having? How is it unecessary outrage? CCP has used an unquestionably underhanded tactic to get what they want, at the expense of many players. I think your suggestion is the only way CCP can redeem themselves, but they're only going to be compelled to do so in the wake of community outcry. There's some bizarre principle held on these forums, that because CCP has the legal right to do something, they should not be criticised when they do it. So... CCP said we're removing BPOs so this is your last change to buy them. A BPO is an item that you only need one of, since it can cover everything its purpose serves without running out. People bought Aurum from the Playstation Store in order to convert it to these items and some bought multiple even though it served absolutely no purpose presently or in the future to obtain multiple of them where one would suffice. CCP removed BPOs from the in-game market stating that there are no plans to remove them from your inventory in the future. This does not mean that they may not be removed in the future, it simply means that no plans currently exist to remove them. CCP plans to make a change to the game that will render the BPO that the items represents completely obsolete and worthless otherwise so CCP says we're going to convert the item back to Aurum for you. CCP did not ask you to buy multiple of them, nor did they say that a change to the game would not require them to be removed. What I find to be the real problem here is that people are essentially screaming for CCP to not release 1.7 because they will lose the BPOs when in actuality you paid for the Aurum with real money and not the BPO itself. If this issue were related to the Ishukone Watch Saga, Gurista Saga, Toxin ICD-9 SMG or any item that was purchased in the pack itself as opposed to buying Aurum and then using the Aurum to get the weapon, I would be concerned as it was the item in the pack that you were promised and not the Aurum to obtain an item in the game. What are you talking about with the mentions of "multiples"? With the exception of the stuff that is just an account of what has happened, I'm at a loss to understand what you're saying here. No.