[News] FoF: Antsy with Anticipation

[Jhym]

I can't definitively say it's happened, but there have been a few instances when stuff that I believe had the tag showed up on my corpse later when I retrieved them.

It would be simple enough to run some tests on, have someone insure an item, give it to someone else, then kill them, and see whether the item stays with them or not.

 

[Guest]

Actually you can shop while in stealth .... so I have never really had a problem.

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

<blockquote><hr>


It would be simple enough to run some tests on, have someone insure an item, give it to someone else, then kill them, and see whether the item stays with them or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

actually ... need to run it thru a VENDOR to "check" it ...
Huh?

hehehehe

 

[imported_xStrikerx]

You're missing out on some good shops by staying out of fel. And like Willa says, you can shop in stealth and also stock vendors in stealth. You can also customize your house in a way so you wont have to worry about getting killed/stolen from while stocking. Really, you dont need to be afraid of fel.

 

[Guest]

Yeah, this item insurance thing seems to be for no reason. I actually make a point of insuring every item I put on my vendors as a small service to my customers. I can't see the point pf this change.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

Because if you insure an item, then sell it to someone else, it will still say [insured] but it is NOT insured for them, only for you - so if they die, it won't stay with them.



[/ QUOTE ]
Has this been internally tested and discovered to be true? I've never experienced this. Perhaps someone confused insurance with personal blessed items but I think I've died enough that I would've noticed...

[/ QUOTE ]

I can tell you this has been very true for me. Hell, it just happened yesterday with a Crystaline Ring I just bought.

The funny thing was, is that once I un-insured it, and re-insured it, it happened again, where the ring stayed on the corpse....and when i looted it, it said insured.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

Because if you insure an item, then sell it to someone else, it will still say [insured] but it is NOT insured for them, only for you - so if they die, it won't stay with them.


[/ QUOTE ]

100% Wrong. You are confusing insurance with personal bless deeds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hate to say, but you are 100% wrong. This situation just happened to me yesterday.

Sorry to burst your 'I am so mighty' bubble.

 

[imported_GalenKnighthawke]

<blockquote><hr>

Because if you insure an item, then sell it to someone else, it will still say [insured] but it is NOT insured for them, only for you - so if they die, it won't stay with them.


[/ QUOTE ]


Woah.

Really?

Crap.

How come I've never noticed this in....Damn how long HAS it been since AoS?

Crap.

-Galen's player

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

Being an "infrequent" and "non-repeatable" BUG ... you maybe on the (seemingly) Larger side of the RNG aspect ...
ie ... not seen it ... theres those that have had the insurance bug more than once ... PvP, PvM, both ....
There's some say it doesn't exist ... never seen it ... tis a lie ...

(Thats IF it is directly related to the insurance bug ... could be something else entirely ... just coincidently be related ONLY through the "text" that has been mentioned)
*shrugs*

Just saying ... was quite a while before a BRE killed my miner ... till then ...I could have ASSUMED the reports were exaggerated ...

Turns out ... Dat Dam BRE can be a pretty tough nut ... solo, buffed archery PvM character ... reduced to luring it to a guard zone to dispose of ...

 

[Guest]

There is also a spot in papua from the docks to the island with the champ spawn on it, if you hit it on a boat you can't go anyplace and you have to help out. Me and a grp of mine had been hauling back 500k of gold on a boat and the thing stopped moving on us. we had to help out :/

 

[Tomas_Bryce]

<blockquote><hr>

Because if you insure an item, then sell it to someone else, it will still say [insured] but it is NOT insured for them, only for you - so if they die, it won't stay with them.

Oh, and the stable slots question got covered last week.

[/ QUOTE ]

what will happen to items that are insured and on sale on vendors right now? Is this properly QA'd?

 

[WarUltima]

I believe one of the DEVs has stated that summon ethy should be 3 seconds instead of 4, will this be fixed?

And exactly how long does the petball summoning take? Will it be like summoning an ethy?

I just want to find out so if the patch comes in I can just put away my two petballs that I used for emergency oh [censored] bottom. That way I can save 600gp everytime I get dismount ganked since these will never work again. Hooray, way to buff dismount

*Taking out of 120 ninjitsu soulstone from a dusted chest*

 

[imported_Hanna]

<blockquote><hr>

Because if you insure an item, then sell it to someone else, it will still say [insured] but it is NOT insured for them, only for you - so if they die, it won't stay with them.

Oh, and the stable slots question got covered last week.

[/ QUOTE ]This is wrong Jeremy. an item insurance will work. This is NOT the insurance bug. Which I am sure is why this lame attempt is being made at fixing it. The insurance bug can happen anytime a different character uses a peice insured by any other character. Doesn't matter if it is bought off a vender.

I have never had any problems with ones bought off vendors. In fact the 3 times it has happened to me, is times a character of my own has insured an item and then I had a different character use it.

Instead of actually finding the code that is causing the problem, they put another bandaid on it. This time one with no adhesive at all.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

Because if you insure an item, then sell it to someone else, it will still say [insured] but it is NOT insured for them, only for you - so if they die, it won't stay with them.

Oh, and the stable slots question got covered last week.

[/ QUOTE ]This is wrong Jeremy. an item insurance will work. This is NOT the insurance bug. Which I am sure is why this lame attempt is being made at fixing it. The insurance bug can happen anytime a different character uses a peice insured by any other character. Doesn't matter if it is bought off a vender.

I have never had any problems with ones bought off vendors. In fact the 3 times it has happened to me, is times a character of my own has insured an item and then I had a different character use it.

Instead of actually finding the code that is causing the problem, they put another bandaid on it. This time one with no adhesive at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe the Devs are trying to eliminate factors that could contribute to creating the situations in which the 'insurance bug' occurs. This could be a step towards eliminating factors that could be involved and making a more universal environment for the insurance routine to be investigated.

 

[Guest]

lol i love that sig, Justy

 

[Guest]

What happens when you hand a friend an insured item. I find they always stay inured when my friend uses it....

 

[imported_Gwendar-SP]

Since I live on Siege with no insurance I have no experience with this. However, it would only seem logical that once an item is insured and the premium paid it would be insured for whoever wears it.

 

[Elric_Soban]

..ok, so.. nothing for KR?

..?

 

[Cygnas]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

Because if you insure an item, then sell it to someone else, it will still say [insured] but it is NOT insured for them, only for you - so if they die, it won't stay with them.

Oh, and the stable slots question got covered last week.

[/ QUOTE ]

what will happen to items that are insured and on sale on vendors right now? Is this properly QA'd?

[/ QUOTE ]

If they are taking the time to "prevent" dropping an insured item onto a vendor, WHY not just make it so that if an insured item is dropped onto a vendor, it just turns off insurance?

And at the same time turn off the insurance property on any items already on a vendor?

 

[imported_kinney42]

Huh? they totally do stay insured!
I've given and been given many items between my friends and I and they stay insured when we die!

 

[imported_Gwendolynne]

<blockquote><hr>

Because if you insure an item, then sell it to someone else, it will still say [insured] but it is NOT insured for them, only for you - so if they die, it won't stay with them.

Oh, and the stable slots question got covered last week.

[/ QUOTE ]

So is the insurance issue one of your "Made several fixes that we ain't telling you about until they're live on all shards

" ? Is this a new "feature" that insured items will not be insured for anyone who did not insure it themselves? A new gold sink perhaps? Or an attempt to fix the insurance bug? It is not the way insured items work now. If insured the item is insured for anyone who equips it. I have used and given to others items already insured and they always stayed on the character carrying them. Plenty of other players have posted the same thing already in this thread.

 

[DrDolittle]

<blockquote><hr>

I can tell you this has been very true for me. Hell, it just happened yesterday with a Crystaline Ring I just bought.

The funny thing was, is that once I un-insured it, and re-insured it, it happened again, where the ring stayed on the corpse....and when i looted it, it said insured.

[/ QUOTE ]It sounds like there may be a bug with that particular ring then.

I did some tests placing an insured item on a vendor and then buying the item with a character on another account. The insured item was in the character’s pack after death just like it should have been. So, unless they can provide specific and repeatable examples where insurance does not work for a pre-insured item purchased off of a vendor, I would be forced to conclude that there is not a real problem.

This is an instance where, rather than fix an actual problem, they plan to simply eliminate useful functionality that, arguably, might trigger the problem. This seems to be exactly the same path they are taking with the pet auto-defend functionality; rather than fix the actual problem of inappropriate auto-defend responses they choose to simply turn off auto-defend functionality in a wide variety of situations. In effect, they are masking a problem by eliminating useful functionality rather than fixing the actual problem.

I find this trend disturbing.

 

[_Uriah Heep_]

RTLFC *waves to the Dr.*

Another example of fixin what aint broke....thought Bob or somebody said they were quitting this.

Anyone remember this being a problem and posted about repeatedly? I don't, but then my memory isn't too good

But the things I do remember being asked for

Don't implement the petball changes (who asked for that anyway)
Commas in checks
Fishing Fixes, better sos loot
Treasure chest loot bumps, or unique to Tchest items
Make more items stackable (might cut down on server storage issues

)
Jewelry boxes
Seed books
Content
more content
A conclusion to ongoing content thats been left hanging
Stable Slots
Either complete the skill list making all skills useful again, or drop them completely
a raise is the skill cap, what I read was a proposal for skill cap increase with PS, much like the stat cap increase.

But, we get a fix for insured items on a vendor which will hurt more than help, I'm afraid.

And for the record, stable slots, since its not OT as it was mentioned in FoF, I ain't buying the "check storage space" routine. I am being told this isnt possible because of storage limitations, from a company that is selling increased storage capacity for houses and banks, as well as additional character slots?
Give me a break.
We get the picture, and see how it works. Go ahead and put additional stable slots on sale for $19.99, it will be do-able then!

 

[imported_UONutt]

In my experience - items that say they are insured stay with my body. This holds true whether I personally insured them and or I use items given to me or items I buy from a vendor.

So, I find this "fix" curious. I've heard of the insurance bug - is this supposed to "fix" that? Or, is this "fix" related to something else entirely?


*confused at the moment*

 

[imported_Lord Kynd]

<blockquote><hr>

Because if you insure an item, then sell it to someone else, it will still say [insured] but it is NOT insured for them, only for you - so if they die, it won't stay with them.

Oh, and the stable slots question got covered last week.

[/ QUOTE ]


ok but can you make the vendors just auto uninsure a item ( and return our insurance gold to our banks) when placed into a vendor ?

i'm sure most people will get extreamly annoyed with having to manually un insure items just to sell them.

 

[imported_Lord Kynd]

<blockquote><hr>

Thats odd. I have bought many insured items and never lost any of them. I'm not so adept at staying alive either. There must be special circumstances.

[/ QUOTE ]

i've never had a issue with anything i purchased off a vendor that was insured by someone else either.
for that matter never had a probelm wiht person to person buying at bank with insured items.

maybe it's a new bug they made recently and are 'covering it up' ?

 

[imported_Lord Kynd]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

Because if you insure an item, then sell it to someone else, it will still say [insured] but it is NOT insured for them, only for you - so if they die, it won't stay with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect Jeremy... I know from personal experience. An insured item is insured no matter who insured it, and will reinsure so long as the player who dies with the item has "auto renew insurance" on.

A better fix would of been making "auto renew insurance" on by default.

[/ QUOTE ]


and the gold in bank to re-insure the item(s)

something fishy is going on here

 

[imported_Lord Kynd]

<blockquote><hr>

Being an "infrequent" and "non-repeatable" BUG ... you maybe on the (seemingly) Larger side of the RNG aspect ...
ie ... not seen it ... theres those that have had the insurance bug more than once ... PvP, PvM, both ....
There's some say it doesn't exist ... never seen it ... tis a lie ...

(Thats IF it is directly related to the insurance bug ... could be something else entirely ... just coincidently be related ONLY through the "text" that has been mentioned)
*shrugs*

[/ QUOTE ]


the insurance 'bug' is people not insuring or having auto reinsure turned on, or not having enough gold to re-insure.

some people just need to pay closer attention to what they are doing so they don't loose stuff.

 

[utilitron]

To: All the 'Nay' Sayers about the insurance fix.

I love how informed about how the actual code, and how it works, you all are.

100% sure she is incorrect? 100% sure that in the code, it does not bind the insurance to the original person to insure the item? So that any subsiquent deaths MAY cause a bug?! 100% sure?

Or have you considered the possibility that:
<blockquote><hr>

[*] Made several fixes that we ain't telling you about until they're live on all shards

[/ QUOTE ]
might include a major change to said coding of the insurance, that afterwards,
<blockquote><hr>


if you insure an item, then sell it to someone else, it will still say [insured] but it is NOT insured for them, only for you - so if they die, it won't stay with them.


[/ QUOTE ]

So unless you can tell me that:
A.) you have read, and understand the insurance code.
B.) you know the future plans of the devs
c.) have inside information that apperently Jeremy is not aware of

don't spout off how dumb you think this change is, because you are 100% sure.

 

[Surgeries]

<blockquote><hr>

It sounds like there may be a bug with that particular ring then.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had the same experience the first time my character that wears the Crystalline Ring died. It stayed on the corpse, and I was well insured, and it was specifically insured, as well.

I am very careful with my insurance, and Bless Deeds.

The toon that wears the CR is my Bard, and I have never had the experience since (he died again just the other day), but the first time he died, after getting the ring in his suit, it stayed, insured, on the corpse.

T'was only PvM, and I did get back for it...but still...

I HAVE traded and purchased insured items, and they definitely are in the backback when rezzed, for sure, no doubt about it...every single time. Never an instance of those items staying on the corpse, ever, that I can recall.

 

[_Uriah Heep_]

Now see, here is where all the top secret *For your eyes only* hush hush stuff comes back and bites em in the arse.

IF, as you propose, the scenario was:
Make changes in the code, that insured items sold off a vendor became uninsured, then Jeremy's statement would be true.
AND if that is what is happening, why not simply state it as such, that this will be how it is in the future, instead of the secrecy. What, are we gonna run out and buy insured items off vendors to beat the deadline? for what purpose, pray tell.

so, in short, I disagree with your response, because as it is NOW, what Jeremy said is WRONG. I tried it on a noob char, insured off the vendor stayed with me.

In regards to reading the code, etc etc you mentioned...I personally am not sure the Devs themselves can read it LOL
Not to the extent of anything being 100% sure...always seems to be a new bug popping up everytime something is changed.

--edit--

Okay after reading a few more posts, I'll throw my hands up in the air and proclaim jeremy right, and everyone else wrong. End of story for me

 

[imported_Ilysess]

I have to agree with Util here on this one

Have any of you stopped to think that although what Jeremy stated would appear to be incorrect, that she is in fact right and that is how insurance is SUPPOSED to work, thereby making the real insurance bug the fact that people arent losing things that they themselves did not insure.

Perhaps something hasnt been working right all along and insurance is supposed to cancel or whatever when items change hands, except it only works on the rare occasion (which is when people scream insurance bug)

It does kinda make sense if you think about it....if you buy a boat or a car or something else, you arent covered by the insurance that the first owner paid, you have to rebuy your own. Would make sense if thats how insurance was supposed to function in game as well.

Although it doesnt change the fact that yea obviously something somewhere is messed up no matter which way its supposed to work, perhaps if you look at it from a different angle you can see another option that they are trying to resolve instead of just argueing how horrible it is. We all know AOS was full of broken messy code, so maybe someone has just finally figured it out and realize what the problem is and they are trying to repair it to how it should have been... I dunno just another theory

 

[utilitron]

<blockquote><hr>


so, in short, I disagree with your response, because as it is NOW, what Jeremy said is WRONG. I tried it on a noob char, insured off the vendor stayed with me.

In regards to reading the code, etc etc you mentioned...I personally am not sure the Devs themselves can read it LOL
Not to the extent of anything being 100% sure...always seems to be a new bug popping up everytime something is changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exacly what I am talking about... you tried it once! If it is indeed a bug, then you need to know how bugs work. Not all bugs are 100% of the time.

If the way it is currently coded, if this glitch has a 1/1,000,000th chance of happening depending on server conditions, you will not see the bug by trying it once. You may not even ever see it dieing 1,000,000,000 times. But that doesn't stop it from happening.

The way code works, is a flow of logical structures, telling the computer how to handle a situation. You could quite logically have normal operation in the current state, until a special set of circumstances is met, causing the glitch.

So please, unless you actuly know what your talking about, don't spout off how the information provided is "wrong"... by all means question it, ask if its correct, but don't be so boisterous to claim to know more then the developers of the game.

 

[Death Adder]

<blockquote><hr>

Because if you insure an item, then sell it to someone else, it will still say [insured] but it is NOT insured for them, only for you - so if they die, it won't stay with them.

Oh, and the stable slots question got covered last week.

[/ QUOTE ]I don't believe this for one second. I have bought MANY MANY insured items off of vendors (including my current main weapon and most of my armor) and I have never lost a single item to any "insurance bug". I also carry tons of shurikens and darts that are insured by my crafter yet never drop on my PvPer (the same was true of the 80 or so potions I would insure before they became stackable).

 

[Death Adder]

<blockquote><hr>

So unless you can tell me that:
A.) you have read, and understand the insurance code.
B.) you know the future plans of the devs
c.) have inside information that apperently Jeremy is not aware of

don't spout off how dumb you think this change is, because you are 100% sure.

[/ QUOTE ]Player testing &gt; Devs examining code. For example, their error in assuring us that Enhanced Bandages did not improve the heal amounts for Legendary Healers, based on their analysis of the code. Players who actually play the game were quickly able to inform them they were wrong.

 

[imported_revenant2]

<blockquote><hr>

Thats odd. I have bought many insured items and never lost any of them. I'm not so adept at staying alive either. There must be special circumstances.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know, this seems odd to me too. I've never noticed anything like this before; items that other people insured and handed to me seemed to work fine.

But maybe they tested it and found circumstances where it didn't work this way?

Hm.

 

[imported_revenant2]

<blockquote><hr>

To: All the 'Nay' Sayers about the insurance fix.

I love how informed about how the actual code, and how it works, you all are.

100% sure she is incorrect? 100% sure that in the code, it does not bind the insurance to the original person to insure the item? So that any subsiquent deaths MAY cause a bug?! 100% sure?

Or have you considered the possibility that:
<blockquote><hr>

[*] Made several fixes that we ain't telling you about until they're live on all shards

[/ QUOTE ]
might include a major change to said coding of the insurance, that afterwards,
<blockquote><hr>


if you insure an item, then sell it to someone else, it will still say [insured] but it is NOT insured for them, only for you - so if they die, it won't stay with them.


[/ QUOTE ]

So unless you can tell me that:
A.) you have read, and understand the insurance code.
B.) you know the future plans of the devs
c.) have inside information that apperently Jeremy is not aware of

don't spout off how dumb you think this change is, because you are 100% sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed.

That would rock, if they found it! I'll try not to get my hopes up though, I mean that bug is for all practical purposes impossible to duplicate. It's misery to try to fix a nonduplicable bug.

If they fixed that thing, hell... I'll have to send flowers or somesh*t!

 

[imported_revenant2]

REMINDER REMINDER REMINDER REMINDER REMINDER REMINDER
*
*
*
*
*
I read that there was going to be a change made to etheral mounts to where it would only take 3 seconds to get on (summon) them. Donno if youall meant to time that with the pet ball changes, but I'm doing REMINDER REMINDER about it. With the delay and interruptability going in on pet balls, the remounting situation in PVP will be more difficult, and that change to ethys seems primed to be put in at the same time.
*
*
*
*
*

 

[DrDolittle]

<blockquote><hr>

So unless you can tell me that:
A.) you have read, and understand the insurance code.
B.) you know the future plans of the devs
c.) have inside information that apperently Jeremy is not aware of

don't spout off how dumb you think this change is, because you are 100% sure.


[/ QUOTE ]I do not need to read the code to be able to do a black box test on existing functionality.

Jeremy’s statement was that “if you insure an item, then sell it to someone else, it will still say [insured] but it is NOT insured for them, only for you - so if they die, it won't stay with them”. A simple test demonstrates that this statement is not true for the current release. So I can say that I am 100% sure that Jeremy’s statement is not completely accurate for that release.

Jeremy’s statement would be true of items blessed with a character bless deed as that blessing is, obviously, character specific. By testing it is possible to achieve a reasonable level of certainly that insurance, on the other hand, is not character specific. Pass an item insured by one player to another player by whatever means you like - vendor, trade window, picking it from a container in a house or picking it up off the ground - and you can test that insurance still works for the character who now possesses the item.

Anyway, you can learn a great deal about how the code works by testing and careful observation. Cheaters do that to come up with some of the bizarre hacks that plague UO. Those cheats are certainly more complex than a simple test to determine whether insurance persists beyond a vendor sale and were done without reading a single line of code.

 

[Guest]

"To turn off guarding, tell your pet to stop or kill/attack"

Now why would we want our pets to stop guarding us just because we gave a kill command?? I dont see the logic behind changing this??



Also for the statements that if you buy an insured item off a vendor its not insured for you is completely false - try it out god knows I have many many times and the items stay with me when I die

 

[utilitron]

<blockquote><hr>


I do not need to read the code to be able to do a black box test on existing functionality.

Jeremy’s statement was that “if you insure an item, then sell it to someone else, it will still say [insured] but it is NOT insured for them, only for you - so if they die, it won't stay with them”. A simple test demonstrates that this statement is not true for the current release. So I can say that I am 100% sure that Jeremy’s statement is not completely accurate for that release.


[/ QUOTE ]

But if it is a glitch, generated by the coding of insurance, a "simple test" would yeild nothing of value.

In fact, "simple tests" are exactly how bugs get let out into the game...

About 2 years ago, Devs changed the way Explosion worked. It went past QA, but it still had a major glitch. If you died while casting, the cast timer wouldn't reset, and you could never cast explosion again.

If you wanted to buy a car, and the seller said, "The car has difficulty running after starting. Let me show you how to work it." Would you really just start it up, and say "sounds fine to me, it works 100% perfect" without fining out what really is going on?

<blockquote><hr>


Jeremy’s statement would be true of items blessed with a character bless deed as that blessing is, obviously, character specific. By testing it is possible to achieve a reasonable level of certainly that insurance, on the other hand, is not character specific. Pass an item insured by one player to another player by whatever means you like - vendor, trade window, picking it from a container in a house or picking it up off the ground - and you can test that insurance still works for the character who now possesses the item.


[/ QUOTE ]
Again, you don't KNOW the code, so from someone who has years of coding experience, I would say it is very unreasonable to determine if insurance is bound by character or not. It may just be copy/pasted from bless clode, and altered... commenting out the player binding. One missed reference, and its glitch city.

<blockquote><hr>


Anyway, you can learn a great deal about how the code works by testing and careful observation. Cheaters do that to come up with some of the bizarre hacks that plague UO. Those cheats are certainly more complex than a simple test to determine whether insurance persists beyond a vendor sale and were done without reading a single line of code.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are definately use thing more complex, because quie simply, a simple test only yeilds normal opperation, and not glitches.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>


If you wanted to buy a car, and the seller said, "The car has difficulty running after starting. Let me show you how to work it." Would you really just start it up, and say "sounds fine to me, it works 100% perfect" without fining out what really is going on?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeh... like a car salesmen is going to tell you that...

 

[Chrille]

Hmm, if they fix it why cant they fix it?
So if an item after its sold changes to get uninsured also say so? If that is what they are planning to do. Or at least that is what you think they are doing.

Ive read some people in other threads claiming that insured item is character specific. But to the majority of all that plays uo that isnt true.

And well maybe its weekend, or that they quickly realized that they got some info that actually isnt correct. Since we havent got any answer from them in this thread. After people started to correct them.

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

Well then ...break it loose Sherlock!

prove by mathmatical deduction ...
That the "Insured items can no longer be placed on a vendor for sale"

IS Not necessary ...

every thing will be perfectly SAFE ... without its addition ...

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

How come I've never noticed this in....Damn how long HAS it been since AoS?

[/ QUOTE ]

Cuz it's not true.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Maybe the Devs are trying to eliminate factors that could contribute to creating the situations in which the 'insurance bug' occurs. This could be a step towards eliminating factors that could be involved and making a more universal environment for the insurance routine to be investigated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to say...if that's the case it's just not very smart.

Maybe on TC for the QA testers...but not to the live servers.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

100% sure she is incorrect?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. Completely certain.

It's not at all odd for people who actually use software every day to know more about how it works than the people who coded it months or years ago and never look at it again.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

if you insure an item, then sell it to someone else, it will still say [insured] but it is NOT insured for them, only for you - so if they die, it won't stay with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be even worse than the bag of sending "fix". No one would ever be able to tell what was really insured and what wasn't.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Have any of you stopped to think that although what Jeremy stated would appear to be incorrect, that she is in fact right and that is how insurance is SUPPOSED to work

[/ QUOTE ]

No, because that would be bad design. You just don't intentionally create a UI that says one thing and doesn't mean it.

 

[utilitron]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

if you insure an item, then sell it to someone else, it will still say [insured] but it is NOT insured for them, only for you - so if they die, it won't stay with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be even worse than the bag of sending "fix". No one would ever be able to tell what was really insured and what wasn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you read it wrong, because that is how it is being stated as how it currently works.

<blockquote><hr>


Up and coming fix:
[*] Insured items can no longer be placed on a vendor for sale

Why?
"If you insure an item, then sell it to someone else, it will still say [insured] but it is NOT insured for them, only for you - so if they die, it won't stay with them."


[/ QUOTE ]

It is entirely possible that Jeremy meant blessed, but until it is retracted I will believe what has been stated as true. Its really not a big deal if people don't want to believe it. Great. People are entitled to their opinions, but claiming opinion as fact... to state they disproved what has been stated as fact, by someone who has the facts, that is absurd.