Tamed Pets : How about an insurance for them also ?

[popps]

Some pets can be extremely tough to get be it for their rare hue or for their hard to get stats.

It may take a huge amount of time to get one to finally spawn or a fortune in UO gold to buy one.

Bottom line is, that losing one to a game bug can really turn a player down and upset a whole lot.

In order to avoid this, how about designing a way to at least give to players somewhere to go to in case trouble arises ?

I am thinking, of a special insurance that players could seek from StableMasters.

The player goes to a StableMaster and requests insurance. It only works on bonded pets and only the owner can request it, friends to the pet will be refused insurance. The cursor becomes a crosshair and the player can select the pet that needs to be insured.

At that point the pet is copied in all its details, hue and stats and registered by the system as a pet owned by that account.

Should the player now transfer that pet to another account or transfer it to another shard, the system would automatically delete the insurance record upon transferring the pet so to avoid any duplication.

How would the insurance work ?

Should the player loose permanently the pet because of a bug, the player could go to the StableMaster and ask to retrieve the exact copy of the lost pet.
The system would first make a check whether there is the original anywhere on the shard, even as a ghost, and if no trace whatsoever of the pet can be found, authorizes the duplication and releases to the player a copy of the pet.

Problem solved and the player won't get upset over the loss to a bug.

Feasible ? Worth it ?

 

[Lord Chaos]

Ever heard of pet bonding?

 

[Maximus Neximus]

Ever heard of pet bonding?

/thread

 

[Taylor]

Stablemasters eat pets, too. The same bug that you're trying to protect against could lose insured pets as easily as uninsured pets.

 

[Fink]

I think if anything we need more ways to lose pets, not fewer. The pet market should have decent turnover again, and people should value their animals.

A bonding meta game required to bond with any pet, scaled for taming difficulty. Bonding should be an optional benefit that requires some input, not just apple-week-apple. Optional is the key. For bigger pets it should be more difficult to earn their trust, particularly if you bought them.

A loyalty cap penalty for pets that are repeatedly mistreated. If you treat it as disposable it should treat you the same way, possibly even turn on you. The cap could be increased by redoing the bonding meta game. Pitting them against far greater foes and allowing them to die over and over would be abuse. Having your horse repeatedly killed by an enemy player would not be abuse.

Just a few ideas. It would be nice as a tamer to have some actual taming to do again, instead of just hunting, or to have people look after their pets properly.

How about instead of insurance against bugs we get rid of the bugs?

 

[popps]

Ever heard of pet bonding?

Players reported "bonded" pets lost due to bugs.

The reason for my suggestion is to provide a level of security above bonding and that deals with BUGs which bonding a pet does not guarantee from.

It is not in regards to pets dieing, it is in regards to having them deleted permanently because of game bugs.

 

[Viper09]

Soooo, how about just have them fix the bugs instead? If it's due to bugs then what good would insurance do? We have insured items that get lost due to bugs and we get nothing back.

 

[Petra Fyde]

Very few pets are actually lost due to 'bug's. Some are, but in the main lost pets are down to player error.
Almost always you find that the player failed to stable, or mount, the pet close to server down. Many of these pets can be recovered if the player returns to his last hunting spot.
Others are lost because players fail to realise that loaded pack animals are not subject to autostable and therefore stay in game till they go wild.

 

[popps]

I think if anything we need more ways to lose pets, not fewer. The pet market should have decent turnover again, and people should value their animals.

"Value" one's own animal ??

Excuse me ?

How can any player protect against BUGs if I may ask ????

Some pets with rare hues or rare stats can take weeks, months, sometimes even more to finally get one to spawn or can cost tens if not hundreds of millions of UO gold to buy.

Losing them to a BUG with no possibility to get them back can be devastating and a loss too hard to recover, at times.

 

[Taylor]

Soooo, how about just have them fix the bugs instead?

This.

 

[popps]

Soooo, how about just have them fix the bugs instead?

This.

Bugs can go away when they get fixed but new ones can always surface again......

In the meantime, players can loose their hard gotten pets like Blaze CU-Sidhes, 4.5+ uber rare stats pets and so forth.

Yes, current bugs can be eventually fixed, hopefully, but how much is this going to help that player who will loose a pet found after working the spawns for weeks, months, because some unexpected bug shows up all of a sudden ?

Players' time should be kept in the highest regard, IMHO, as time is an assett and losing items which cost countless time to get because of malfunctionings should not be overlooked and there should be some way to recover them when the player did nothing wrong.

At least, that's how I see it.

 

[Lord Chaos]

I think that if someone lost a blaze super cu-sidhe, then they'd be all over the board complaining and that hasn't happened, so I honestly don't think this is really such a problem. If there's a bug, then it needs to be fixed, but this is an overkill solution that might even lead to exploitation and further bugs.

 

[Petra Fyde]

Just out of curiosity, can you link me to one post of someone losing a pet to a bug that didn't, in the end, turnout to be player error, and not a bug at all?

 

[BajaElladan]

I am glad YOU have NOT suffered from such GAME ERROR BUGS. However, I have, and I have friends who HAVE! Some of our oldest, most rare and beloved pets deleted by game bugs and errors.

EA, Dev's, and in game staff always deny it was game problems, blaming it instead on "player error."

All this Original Poster is saying is that the "we never replace lost anything" policy should have an exception.

While I agree the policy should have exceptions, the exception(s) should not be just for pets.

Sadly, having watched the "powers that be" blame players for their own bungling in coding, testing, etc., for 13 years I doubt this will ever change.

But please, Petra, don't you parrot their bogus, lying, mantra.

Far to many of us Players have experienced the truth.

Lord Elladan of Trinsic/Baja

Very few pets are actually lost due to 'bug's. Some are, but in the main lost pets are down to player error.
Almost always you find that the player failed to stable, or mount, the pet close to server down. Many of these pets can be recovered if the player returns to his last hunting spot.
Others are lost because players fail to realise that loaded pack animals are not subject to autostable and therefore stay in game till they go wild.

 

[Fink]

"Value" one's own animal ??

I hope I'm using the word correctly. To value, as in the verb form. To hold in high regard, to adore, to laud, to cherish, to revere. Animals should respond well to compassion and poorly to cruelty.

Excuse me ?

I don't understand this question.

How can any player protect against BUGs if I may ask ????

A player can only inform themselves and be wary. Typically there are workarounds. A developer can fix bugs directly, which is a better use of their resources than making their own workarounds. They can literally go right to the source.

Some pets with rare hues or rare stats can take weeks, months, sometimes even more to finally get one to spawn or can cost tens if not hundreds of millions of UO gold to buy.

This is the nature of rarity. One must either spend much time or much money to acquire something which is rare, or rely on good fortune. You don't sound as if you get lucky very often. While this is sad, it is part of the bargain of playing any game that some will be winners and others will be losers.

Losing them to a BUG with no possibility to get them back can be devastating and a loss too hard to recover, at times.

Now it's my turn to question your terms of value. Do you mean recover financially? It's only money. It's not even real money, so it's not even real loss. Or do you mean recover emotionally? Because this is not what I meant by pet bonding. I only meant a smaller game within the game, similar to plant growing, not becoming emotionally attached to the pet. Do you have issues culling hundreds of ordinary animals to find the rare one?

 

[Lord GOD(GOD)]

Feasible ?

I highly doubt it. I've heard that reverse Altering of items isn't possible because of the huge amount of data storage that would be needed to track what the item once was. Item data is stored differently to pet data, pet data is currently stored in a simplified form with the character data, so considering 2-16 *I think - depending on SA and Taming skills etc* pets per player would need individual stats recording as items it doesn't seem very likely. Least of all for a bug that is pretty rare.

 

[Petra Fyde]

I didn't say there weren't some bugs, though this idea is, I believe, unworkable.

What I did say, and have proven, is that most of the so-called bugs are the result of player error. I have personally been involved in the recovery of a considerable number of these 'lost' pets by advising the player to look where they were hunting just before server down. I have also, through questioning, discovered many, many instances where the 'bug' was in actual fact a failure to realise that loaded pack animals stay in game when you log out.
Pets that 'run off' are often classed as 'lost to bugs' too, but can be found, with a little logic and searching. These, too, I have been instrumental in recovering on several occasions.

 

[Old Man of UO]

Pet insurance against program bugs?

How about insurance for everything against all bugs, like the blessed item bug, instead of fixing those bugs?

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

hehe.. hehe

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!


Oh, that is funny.


Umm... NO.

 

[Yen Sid]

I think that if someone lost a blaze super cu-sidhe, then they'd be all over the board complaining and that hasn't happened, so I honestly don't think this is really such a problem.

Actually I can think of one person recently that lost a Blaze Cu due to an xfer issue and did come here about it. Here you go: http://vboards.stratics.com/showthread.php?t=212691

Fixing the bugs would be the best bet.

 

[popps]

Now it's my turn to question your terms of value. Do you mean recover financially? It's only money. It's not even real money, so it's not even real loss. Or do you mean recover emotionally? Because this is not what I meant by pet bonding. I only meant a smaller game within the game, similar to plant growing, not becoming emotionally attached to the pet. Do you have issues culling hundreds of ordinary animals to find the rare one?

To me there is nothing of real, intrinsic value as time.

Why ?

Because the time passed and gone will never ever come back, it is simply gone forever. Anything material can somehow be remade, even if costly but time ? Time never can come back......

So, if something cost time to acquire, a whole lot of it, and then it goes "poof" just like that, it is like someone's time, someone's part of a life went "poof"....

I do not know others, but losing a good chunk of my life, my real life, all for nothing, ain't something I would cheer about.

 

[BajaElladan]

That's all well and good, even laudable. But the Original Poster is speaking specifically about pets properly placed into stables that are then deleted by some bug or flaw in the games mechanics.

Players, and especially Tamers cannot log out of the game mounted on all their pets. It IS intended that pets be Stabled. It should also be a reasonable expectation that Stable Masters will not destroy or otherwise destroy our pets while in their paid care without some liability to replace them when they are so destroyed.

That is both the specific and the general issue I believe the OP is raising.

Lord Elladan of Trinsic/Baja

I didn't say there weren't some bugs, though this idea is, I believe, unworkable.

What I did say, and have proven, is that most of the so-called bugs are the result of player error. I have personally been involved in the recovery of a considerable number of these 'lost' pets by advising the player to look where they were hunting just before server down. I have also, through questioning, discovered many, many instances where the 'bug' was in actual fact a failure to realise that loaded pack animals stay in game when you log out.
Pets that 'run off' are often classed as 'lost to bugs' too, but can be found, with a little logic and searching. These, too, I have been instrumental in recovering on several occasions.

 

[Old Man of UO]

That's all well and good, even laudable. But the Original Poster is speaking specifically about pets properly placed into stables that are then deleted by some bug or flaw in the games mechanics.

Players, and especially Tamers cannot log out of the game mounted on all their pets. It IS intended that pets be Stabled. It should also be a reasonable expectation that Stable Masters will not destroy or otherwise destroy our pets while in their paid care without some liability to replace them when they are so destroyed.

That is both the specific and the general issue I believe the OP is raising.

Lord Elladan of Trinsic/Baja

Yes, but why go through the trouble of adding a new system to the code when it would be time better spent to remove the bugs? What bugs or exploits would this coding add?

 

[popps]

Yes, but why go through the trouble of adding a new system to the code when it would be time better spent to remove the bugs? What bugs or exploits would this coding add?

Because what I am suggesting is a permanent fix to the issue for existing and yet to come future bugs.

Fixing current bugs, while notable, only fixes current bugs. It does nothing to players who lost their pets to the bugs nor it does anything for players who "will" loose pets due to future, yet to come bugs.

What I am suggesting, instead, deals with the issue once and for all for all bugs we may now have and also those that do not exist yet but might show up some day. An approach to address the issue before it actually occurs rather then after, when it would be too late having the pet already been lost to a bug.....

It provides a permanent "safety net" that shields players to ever loose their pets to bugs.

That is what it helps with.

 

[Wenchkin]

I think it's more sensible that the devs try to fix these very rare bugs rather than put in a system which itself could have bugs. Or be exploited in some way.

The best way to improve the lot of the tamer in this respect is to educate players how to protect their pets, and urge bug victims to produce really comprehensive bug reports, to fix what we have.

Adding in a new system is only going to bring in another layer where players will become complacent or subject to pet loss bugs. Players are far too reliant on auto stable now for example, so some pets are protected when a player crashes, but many are lost because the owner regularly logged out with pets and one day they didn't log out fully and lost a prized pet. This would almost certainly go the same way.

Wenchy

 

[Sevin0oo0]

I remember(10 yrs ago) thinking when the stablemaster said "stable it for one week", it was literal, or it went poof, he 's done a great job since then, literally for free.

>>reverse Altering of items isn't possible
Altho they usually only change newly gotten items, I think they've done this a few times, of late, something to an axe comes to mind, plus maybe some past invasion items, serpent scales, etc.
I remember putting in bank, backpack (somewhere) several items to keep their original tag/quality. Thinking they've all been converted anyways.

I lost a bonded cu in the papua invasion (oh well, it wasn't very bright anyways), but I say fix the bugs. With the instances I've heard reported, they seem to still have problems w/ insurance, I don't want any additional bugs to deal with, sorry.

 

[Fink]

To me there is nothing of real, intrinsic value as time.

I do not know others, but losing a good chunk of my life, my real life, all for nothing, ain't something I would cheer about.

How can you lose something you've already spent?

Appreciate each moment as it passes. Don't validate your experience in retrospect based on whether or not you attain (or maintain) your goals.

 

[popps]

How can you lose something you've already spent?

As I see it, time spent on spawning the "right" pet, to remain in argument, is time "invested" towards a result : getting that particular pet (be it of a particular hue or stats combinations).

Now, if the pet goes "poof" because of a nasty bug, along with it, that's how I see it, goes the "investment" of time, all of the work gone into getting that pet.

Force spawning a particular pet can be boring, annoying and very time consuming.

Sure, one can do it a little now and a little then but still, it eats up lots of time and is repetitive and tedious. Yet, it is done in expectation of the result.

But if the result goes "poof" because of a nasty bug, it ain't funny...........

The time spent into that also goes "poof" and, therefore, as I see it, gets lost.

 

[DarkScripture]

I think pet bonding should be done through a loyalty system. not just tossing a couple a items of food it's way. The more you fed it, heal it, talk to it, over TIME you gain it's trust. There is not way to stop the bug loss really. That is the way and the risk of online gaming. I had a White wyrm for 9 months before bonding. Same pet played with it every day. Lag killed it one day long ago in Wind. I was upset and have not played a Tamer much since. That was TRUE bonding hehe.

 

[LeBaiton]

Just out of curiosity, can you link me to one post of someone losing a pet to a bug that didn't, in the end, turnout to be player error, and not a bug at all?

During the Magincia invasion, I launched a boat in an effort to pick up rubble from the shoreline. I was targetted by a daemon and was killed on the boat. Fortunately a few kind players witnessed the situation and ressed me just as I walked off the plank in ghost form. This whole thing didn't last more than half a minute, but the Magincia invasion's rapid boat decay deleted my boat, with my bonded cu on it...

Poof, into oblivion, before I even had the chance to do anything. Was gutted, the pup was a gift from a friend. GM's couldn't do anything they said...

Actually rage-quit after that...

 

[popps]

Actually rage-quit after that...

That is what I would like to prevent with what I suggested.

Why always run to patch up with bug fixes after the damage to players has already been done when there are ways to make it possible for players not to have to go through all this ?

I mean, if players can be eased up and be kept as customers why instead risk them getting frustrated and loose them as customers ?

I do not get it.............

 

[Flutter]

I hate myself for reading this post.

 

[Viper09]

If they're going to make a system of "insurance" over pets lost due to bugs then they should add one for items lost due to bugs as it is a hell of a lot more common. However it would be a huge waste of time to make it even work properly when their time would be better spent just simply fixing the bugs!

 

[Saunders]

Just out of curiosity, can you link me to one post of someone losing a pet to a bug that didn't, in the end, turnout to be player error, and not a bug at all?

During the Magincia invasion, I launched a boat in an effort to pick up rubble from the shoreline. I was targetted by a daemon and was killed on the boat. Fortunately a few kind players witnessed the situation and ressed me just as I walked off the plank in ghost form. This whole thing didn't last more than half a minute, but the Magincia invasion's rapid boat decay deleted my boat, with my bonded cu on it...

Poof, into oblivion, before I even had the chance to do anything. Was gutted, the pup was a gift from a friend. GM's couldn't do anything they said...

Actually rage-quit after that...

This is terribly sad, but wasn't the result of a bug, but of normal game mechanics.

But I'm so glad you didn't stay quit.

 

[Siteswap]

Some pets can be extremely tough to get be it for their rare hue or for their hard to get stats.

It may take a huge amount of time to get one to finally spawn or a fortune in UO gold to buy one.

Bottom line is, that losing one to a game bug can really turn a player down and upset a whole lot.

In order to avoid this, how about designing a way to at least give to players somewhere to go to in case trouble arises ?

I am thinking, of a special insurance that players could seek from StableMasters.

The player goes to a StableMaster and requests insurance. It only works on bonded pets and only the owner can request it, friends to the pet will be refused insurance. The cursor becomes a crosshair and the player can select the pet that needs to be insured.

At that point the pet is copied in all its details, hue and stats and registered by the system as a pet owned by that account.

Should the player now transfer that pet to another account or transfer it to another shard, the system would automatically delete the insurance record upon transferring the pet so to avoid any duplication.

How would the insurance work ?

Should the player loose permanently the pet because of a bug, the player could go to the StableMaster and ask to retrieve the exact copy of the lost pet.
The system would first make a check whether there is the original anywhere on the shard, even as a ghost, and if no trace whatsoever of the pet can be found, authorizes the duplication and releases to the player a copy of the pet.

Problem solved and the player won't get upset over the loss to a bug.

Feasible ? Worth it ?

You know popps, I used to always give you the benefit of the doubt, even in the face of criticism from others ... but im now starting to think that you stay awake at night just thinking of ways to be antagonistic.... some of your posts are just downright troll bait and I think you know it...

 

[Lord Frodo]

I hate myself for reading this post.

LOL Joins Flutter

 

[Nastia Cross]

I hate myself for reading this post.

LOL Joins Flutter

Let's start a support group.

 

[popps]

You know popps, I used to always give you the benefit of the doubt, even in the face of criticism from others ... but im now starting to think that you stay awake at night just thinking of ways to be antagonistic.... some of your posts are just downright troll bait and I think you know it...

Perhaps it is simply a different way to label things ?

I call it constructive criticism in the hope to see a game bettered and make it more player friendly, others may call it whatever they like I guess......

Perhaps it is better that players loose their hard gotten pets because of unexpected bugs, get upset and close their accounts ?

If that's what people prefers for UO oh well, then be it, but I am of a different opinion............

What I do not understand, though, is how it would be acceptable to anyone that perfectly innocent players who lost their hard gotten pets over bugs which they have no control whatever for are an OK thing but then, when it comes to ban cheaters the thinking changes and there is concern about these accounts lost....

So it is ok to loose accounts of players who lost pets to bugs but it is not ok to loose accounts for banning cheaters ?

Really ?

People keep saying use the resources instead to fix bugs.

Sure, fixing bugs is always nice but fixing today's bugs does not take care of tomorrow's bugs also and what if some bug tomorrow gets players to loose pets ?

Fixing today's bugs will not help those players who will loose their pets for a new bug tomorrow.

Having an ingame system that duplicate pets upon necessity takes care of that, for good.

It solves the issue once and for all, no more worries, period.

 

[hawkeye_pike]

Enough with the popps suggestions already!
*covers his hears*

 

[Scarst]

I hate myself for reading this post.

Enough with the popps suggestions already!
*covers his hears*

I completely Agree with both of you! The only thing good about this thread is that I got to see Fink's best Sig yet!

I only looked out of morbid curiosity and knew I'd regret it.

 

[uoBuoY]

Actually I miss the days before bonding and visible stats. Back then we tamed a beast and ran with it until it died. Rinse and repeat. We didn't kill a thousand critters to find perfect stats. We didn't train our pets...at least I didn't. We were a bit more careful about where we took our pets.

And it was real fine to see all kinds of tamed pets lined up for sale at Brit bank. A very active pet market back then.

Although wildly unbalanced, it was an awful lot of fun taking out 5 White Wyrms for a hunt.

 

[Kat]

Just out of curiosity, can you link me to one post of someone losing a pet to a bug that didn't, in the end, turnout to be player error, and not a bug at all?

I can't link you to a post because the players I know didn't come here to complain about it. However, I do know a good handful of people [over 5 years or so] who lost their pets while attempting to summon them with a pet ball [just after using the pet and leaving it in another location] or upon feeding the pet. The pets simply poofed. They were no longer showing in the follower slots and were not somehow sent to the stable. They were just gone and it happened during normal game play, not after they were logged out.

I believe the most recent was Mook, if you care to interrogate him.

ETA: Not that I agree with the OP.

 

[Petra Fyde]

I don't deny there are, and have been, some bugs. My hubby lost a white wyrm to one. But there aren't as many as are claimed, and this idea, as I've already said, I believe to be unworkable.

 

[Wenchkin]

People keep saying use the resources instead to fix bugs.

Sure, fixing bugs is always nice but fixing today's bugs does not take care of tomorrow's bugs also and what if some bug tomorrow gets players to loose pets ?

Fixing today's bugs will not help those players who will loose their pets for a new bug tomorrow.

Having an ingame system that duplicate pets upon necessity takes care of that, for good.

It solves the issue once and for all, no more worries, period.

But Popps, this new system could have bugs. Then what? Your failsafe isn't failsafe, because there's no such thing in UO! It's like the example I made earlier about auto logging pets. People rely on that all the time now, and it doesn't always log you or your pets out fully. That was supposed to protect us too. Adding more code isn't the answer.

The less systems you have to look through to find a bug's source, the easier it is to fix a bug. The more you add in, the harder it will be to fix future bugs. And there is no way to make this new code invulnerable to all the other bugs in game, now or in the future. You also have all the unexpected things players do which can challenge the code - which in this case could be a new way of duping rare pets by tricking said system Creating more work for the devs isn't going to help tamers. Educating tamers in how to not lose their pets (trust me, there's a lot of scope here!) and getting detailed bug reports to the devs are IMHO much better attack points.

Other new bugs will come along in UO, that's a given. But it's amazingly easy to protect your tamer from a lot of bugs, new ones included, with common sense. Like not logging out with your pets all the time - stabling them instead, having enough skill that you can't make a mistake with items, regular lore/feeding of pets, having a pet summon crystal for every pet. If there's a new publish or a wonky server, don't use precious pets.

Wenchy

 

[Old Man of UO]

But Popps, this new system could have bugs. Then what? ....

Wenchy

AWWW Wenchy... I keep hoping this thread will die of neglect. rolleyes:

Here's popps' answer to that question that was already posted - but I'm sure there is a longer version coming.
http://vboards.stratics.com/1801397-post23.html

 

[Wenchkin]

Whoops?

Note to self: Must remember to have more coffee before visiting UHall, so my enthusiasm is dampened by realising the futility of said discussion. Worse still, enabling a thread detour *cringe*

I'm gonna go lock myself in the garden shed for a while with the coffee pot.

Wenchy

 

[LordDrago]

Ever heard of pet bonding?

Players reported "bonded" pets lost due to bugs.

The reason for my suggestion is to provide a level of security above bonding and that deals with BUGs which bonding a pet does not guarantee from.

It is not in regards to pets dieing, it is in regards to having them deleted permanently because of game bugs.

Seriously Popps?

I have lost insured items to bugs, I have lost Blessed items to bugs.

I guess you would support an option to double insure insured items, and to insure blessed items too.

But wait, what if there is a bug in this system and someone loses something to a bug even after bonding/blessing/insuring it and this crazy notion of double insuring it. Perhaps we need a "Lloyds of Brittania" that will triple insure items.

 

[LordDrago]

To me there is nothing of real, intrinsic value as time.

Why ?

Because the time passed and gone will never ever come back, it is simply gone forever. Anything material can somehow be remade, even if costly but time ? Time never can come back......

So, if something cost time to acquire, a whole lot of it, and then it goes "poof" just like that, it is like someone's time, someone's part of a life went "poof"....

I do not know others, but losing a good chunk of my life, my real life, all for nothing, ain't something I would cheer about.

*ponders posting some pithy comment regarding the time I wasted reading this post*

 

[Magdalene]

The system would first make a check whether there is the original anywhere on the shard, even as a ghost, and if no trace whatsoever of the pet can be found, authorizes the duplication and releases to the player a copy of the pet.

Main flaw - if it's a REAL bug the pet data is lost or corrupted therefore making it impossible to identify 100% the lost pet and/or to replicate it. "Insurance" wouldn't change that unless you are suggessting that for a 100 gold pieces a pop a redundant pet database is created, which is... frivolous to say the least.

 

[Lord Chaos]

Main flaw - if it's a REAL bug the pet data is lost or corrupted therefore making it impossible to identify 100% the lost pet and/or to replicate it. "Insurance" wouldn't change that unless you are suggessting that for a 100 gold pieces a pop a redundant pet database is created, which is... frivolous to say the least.

What she said.

 

[popps]

Seriously Popps?

I have lost insured items to bugs, I have lost Blessed items to bugs.

Yes, LordDrago.

In the Age of Imbuing, losing combat items, even top notch ones is not that much of a problem as they can be reproduced. Even the special Events ones now have replicas which spawn.

The hard to come by pets, instead, those that spawn 1 in a 1,000 or perhaps 1 in 10,000 cannot be "custom made" by imbuing them..........
Losing them means having to go back to the search board for months and months before bumping into one again.

So, losing combat items to bugs is NOT as painfull as losing a very special stats pet.

They can be quite rarer and harder to get than combat items.

And in regards to the fear that a pets' duplication system in case of loss could be abused, well, perhaps it couls be released to the publish only after they make sure that it is sound and solid and not abusable ?