Diamondized Precious Velium Ore (type 19 aug raid drop)

I would also like to know any general info on this!

Tradeskill combine with 3 outcomes:

1 - Success
2 - Made a different item (partial fail)
3 - Failure

Number 3 has a chance to salvage. The other two don't, or you'd END UP WITH MORE ITEMS THAN YOU STARTED WITH BEFORE YOU HIT COMBINE. That's the purpose.

The TS dev doesn't want it to be 100% success. He wants randomness. He worked the system to make sure you can't buy your way out of randomness.

Whether or not its good policy, a good decision, good development, is completely besides the fact that it is absolutely fine, the idea of a lawsuit over it is a joke, and if you researched how these things work, you probably could have thought about it.

Or maybe ask.

And as soon as the subject of lawsuit came up, my ability to respond was reduced to "no comment."

I know how it all works. And that it's intended. But the description on the Marketplace item is crystal clear.

'Partial fail' is still a fail. Its internal name is also ALT_FAIL. So if somebody does take DP to court over this, they may actually win. Which will be a bad thing, for everybody involved. That description needs to be corrected. Change the language, add a disclaimer or w/e. Just don't leave it like that.

Regardless of whether a lawsuit is a good idea they should address this in some way. More people are going to be using these potions than ever and this issue will keep coming up if they don't.

easily
"100% (with few exceptions)"
done.

Just assume from now on that the potion wont help and stop buying it. And when you hear the inevitable "derrr why didnt you use a pot" in guild or general be sure to rub their nose in it explain that the pot doesnt actually work on anything except low level skilling up.

We deal with these cases frequently in litigation with advertising firms. While the nuanced mechanics may work as you both imply, if it is reasonably assumed that the potion works the same way it does to the thousands of other combines, the advertising is misleading. Legally, it doesn't matter if it "technically" works correctly - the premise is on how it is generally interpreted.

For people talking about filing class action (which I don't recommend). It must meet the qualification of having affected more than 40 people and be across more than 1 state.

With that said, the best course of action would be to send a written letter to DPG asking for the verbiage of either the tradeskill text or Potion text be updated to clearly reflect the actual mechanics. For example, the tradeskill would say that the Potion does not apply to this combine. Or the Potion would list what combines it does not augment.

As far as individual lawsuits, the attorneys at my firm bill $700/hour. So I wouldn't recommend that.

This issue exploded and people are understandably angry if they wasted their $22.

It seems like the obvious answer is to make the potion work as described in the screenshots and not take a nuanced ackchyually explanation even if it’s correct from a coding perspective.

Developers created this by making the items too rare, with too much potential risk, and a significantly misunderstood method to mitigate these two factors.

Legal action for $25 is a silly solution but so is a company blatantly failing to acknowledge the problem they created.

Fix the potion or make the item returned on fail by default. Also educate customer service because the only thing worse than getting ripped off is to have the supplier tell them too bad and fail to address their concerns.

I think I’ve had 6 or 7 of these fail, yes it sucks but you know what the rage of rallos flows through you irl when you fail. Do something good with this rage and just kill the crusader.
And remember... Eq always said you’re in our world now.

omg I beg your forgiveness since your all knowing and so much better then the rest of us commoners. No it does not do EXACTLY what it says it does genius, what is implied stated or functioning as intended are different things. I m 100% certain though your an idiot, who thinks you know and are better then the rest of the people here, blatantly saying they all cannot read or are too stupid to understand. Back under you bridge now all knowing troll and the little people here will be better off without you. You get out from your mom's house often enough you might just lighten up, just saying. Reading s fundamental you should try it sometime. Scroll up read Axxius's reply as well the language is quite clear, regardless what you or the mother company believes it SHOULD do. Jesus took a troll like you to have me agree with Axxius.

Its pretty simple.

** plain english version is required. This test is not met, marketplace =/= in game potion description
** layman test is not met. Experts might know, per yepmetoo - ignorance is not an excuse. The proviso however, is adequate and understandable documentation. One has to be able to make an educated decision if the product for sale is fit for purpose. This is not the case here. Trawling back through a myriad of tangentially related forum posts for snippets from devs and the like doesn't suffice. Nothing on official pages and nothing on 3rd party tradeskill websites.
** there is no learning without pain, be it financial and/or emotional. In this case it's both.

Across 3 characters I've failed 6 aug attempts - losing 5 precious and 1 diamondized ore (not using Craftsman Draughts, lesson learnt). In all cases the ore was lost. I don't mind so much there is a chance of failure (since you get to choose what aug you get), but the main problem is the ability to 'reacquire through gameplay'.

Diamondized - I can deal with, although the effort/reward on the GD raidtrash is marginal at best.
Precious - this loss STINGS alot, because the drop rate is soo ridiculously low. If it is a 2% chance from a named, and a named spawns ~1 in 72mins odd, then i might see one once every 3 days, and i might be 1/6 on winning the roll. Am I feeling lucky? Am I?

Clearly, I am not lucky. I am massively annoyed

The description of the product is poor, it gives the impression that you will get the components back. This should be fixed immediately. For good customer relationship, they should replace the lost components for affected players.

If what yep said is true..

That the devs themselves stated you can be partially successful in this regaurd then yes that would be correct.

As the potion grants 100% salvage on failures .. Not partially successfull combines..

Yall upset about it because yep pointed out Ngrath himself stated that yes there are "partially successful " ts combines .. and that they are not salvageable for the componants.

Yall upset an wanna sue.. so sure yall gonna win.. here is the rub.. how you gonna sue a company who owns the very toon you rent from them ?

How you gonna sue a company who literally owns every aspect of what you experience in game .. you play by their rules or not at all.

Good luck in court .. and when yall lose in court.. an wanna get mad an stomp an moan.. an quit.. can i has ya stuff ?

And this is why we can't have good things. There are always a few folks who feel they have to resort to threats or violence to get what they want.

Thanks from the rest of us who were trying to provide feedback and show where there was a problem that might get fixed to .... "no comment"

Well done.

Patch notes have been fixing 'minor grammatical errors' since 1999. Time to fix another one.

If burning 2500 DBC and wasting time on petitions are the cost of fixing the 'Precious Crystallized Velium Ore' drop rate, then it is cheap.

DPC (nee Daybreak) fixed the scarcity of Velium Infused Pelts problem ... I'm sure they've got the tools to solve this one. The problem has been raised elsewhere on the forum with good suggestions.

A Lil' Help ?

A comment isn't required as long as a fix to the underlying problem is made. Easy peasy.

Just add

"Does not work on partial success combines."

This should make most people question what a partial success is and covers your .

WELL really no comment necessary, fix the issue, the verbage used is VERY incorrect for what DBG is selling as what is intended for the item. It's either one or the other. If what you all say is true for the item, then DESCRIBE that as such on the item. What you state on the item is a complete falsehood then.

Heh. Look at Daybreak trying to get in on loot box randomness. Made sure the senators looking into gambling in games got a link to this thread and made sure wayback snapshotted it