open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Evolving Procedures: GM’s Petition Review Initiative
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic

Wellfan
Snake Eyes Inc
Posted - 2010.09.15 10:43:00 - [31]
 

Edited by: Wellfan on 15/09/2010 10:46:56
Edited by: Wellfan on 15/09/2010 10:46:19
Originally by: Jason Edwards
Edited by: Jason Edwards on 14/09/2010 17:38:52
I'm a player who rarely logs in because of a bad decision in a petition.

On Sisi many times ive seen a bug but it always got fixed quickly and never made it to tq. That is the bug where shields dont recharge serverside but they appear to be recharging clientside. Basically your passive shield tank ship appears to be functioning correctly... but all of a sudden your ship is taking armor damage and well that lasts for all of a second. Pop goes the weasel.

Well that bug made it's way to TQ. My newly buffed rattlesnake was fit with a passive shield tank. It went poof. I petitioned and they said 'the logs dont show anything' too which I complained. They said 'nothing's going to change and you're not getting it back'

I now rarely login and when the isk runs out. I probably wont be an eve player anymore.


'the logs show nothing' isnt a valid point at all. If a bug occurred to create the issue. Then there's no reason to suggest that your logs are accurate at all.


I have to agree, I lost a nicely fitted nighthawk about a month ago due to a game bug. I petitioned and was told the logs show nothing. My mate and I replicated the fault and bug reported it. Last time I checked the status of the BR it had a defect assigned to it. Thinking that even though the logs show nothing, I could get my ship back, I escalated. The Snr GM rejected as the logs show nothing. By now I was thoroughly hacked off and escalated to a Lead GM who repeated the same crap line. Sorry the logs show nothing.

To be quite frank, this is bull. I lose a ship to a game bug, I should have the ship returned. I am not emoragequitting, I rolled a new alt the other day and I am enjoying the NPE :D

edit - spelling has never been my strong suit

ceaon
Posted - 2010.09.15 12:31:00 - [32]
 

Edited by: ceaon on 15/09/2010 13:16:20
the problem whit EvE customer support is the ****ing automated answers which are ******ed disable that crap and you will have a better customer support




http://www.zappos.com/ is considered to that the best customer support, why ? simple they dont use the stupid and idiotic concept where the person who work there read a text and tell you that text on the phone or copy paste said text on a email, they allow the customer service workers to take all the time is needed to fix/find a solution to the customer problem, take a look from minute 4:00

CCP instead hire sitel, how much you pay them for solved petition ? 1€ ?

Altaree
The Graduates
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2010.09.15 14:23:00 - [33]
 

Nice post! It is great to know what the rating system means. I would love to know if the the numbers change after this blog. I have a feeling that you have a lot of 1's in your future!

De'Vadder
Minmatar
Dissonance Corp
BLACK-MARK
Posted - 2010.09.15 23:05:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: Altaree
Nice post! It is great to know what the rating system means. I would love to know if the the numbers change after this blog. I have a feeling that you have a lot of 1's in your future!


Thought the very same.
Please give us an update on that. ^^

I'm Down
Posted - 2010.09.16 01:18:00 - [35]
 

Edited by: I''m Down on 16/09/2010 01:21:25
Originally by: Dareth Meroul
Edited by: Dareth Meroul on 15/09/2010 00:16:43
Originally by: Helicity Boson
Quote:
To give you some perspective, the team screened 561 petitions (~2% of total) which were submitted in April this year (which was incidentally the first full month reviewed as a part of this project). Out of those petitions, 146 warranted some action on behalf of the team, which translates to roughly ~25% of the reviewed petitions, or in other words, ~0,5% of the total number of petitions submitted that month.



Your wording in this section is rather misleading, I suggest you revise it.

What's misleading about it? I don't think they'll know what you're talking about if you don't state how it's misleading. I mean, I don't.

A quick review of the math:
30,000 x 0.02 = 600 (561 is pretty close to that, matching "~2%")
600 / 4 = 150 (the 146 reviewed and "~25%" matches up as well)
150 / 30,000 = 0.005 (that's 1/2 of a percent, so that also matches with what was stated)


And this is why statisticians get paid so much to make numbers lie. CCP GM trying to make things out to be nothing when in fact the stats show a very disturbing figure.

Naturally this means that only .5% of eve players are ****ed about 18 months because only 100% of the 1500 people who reply on the forums say so... and 1500/300,000 accounts = .5% of the eve player base.

Abdiel Kavash
Caldari
Paladin Order
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2010.09.16 04:31:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Dareth Meroul
Edited by: Dareth Meroul on 15/09/2010 00:16:43
Originally by: Helicity Boson
Quote:
To give you some perspective, the team screened 561 petitions (~2% of total) which were submitted in April this year (which was incidentally the first full month reviewed as a part of this project). Out of those petitions, 146 warranted some action on behalf of the team, which translates to roughly ~25% of the reviewed petitions, or in other words, ~0,5% of the total number of petitions submitted that month.



Your wording in this section is rather misleading, I suggest you revise it.

What's misleading about it? I don't think they'll know what you're talking about if you don't state how it's misleading. I mean, I don't.

Read the underlined bits out of context.


Anyway, one statistic I (and I believe many others) would like to see is the average time needed to answer and resolve a petition, ideally based on the category.

Ban Doga
Posted - 2010.09.16 06:27:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Abdiel Kavash
Anyway, one statistic I (and I believe many others) would like to see is the average time needed to answer and resolve a petition, ideally based on the category.


I see your average processing time and raise you by the numbers of petitions that were escalated to a senior / lead GM.

Ivan Zhuk
Gallente
1st Steps Academy
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2010.09.16 11:39:00 - [38]
 

I too would be curious for the response time of petitions of different categories. For some petition areas it seems there is a permanent 10 day wait. I understand ship reimbursement being slow because we whine alot but one of the major and most critical petition areas seems to have some of the worst wait time (sov)

Sedilis
Lead Farmers
Kill It With Fire
Posted - 2010.09.16 12:44:00 - [39]
 

Eve has one of the best GM teams around.

I think I must have logged about 20 petitions in my 2.5 years in game. They have almost always been answered quickly and dealt with fairly.

Only with one did I need to ask for it to be escalated to check the decision (which was overturned).

Anyone who stops logging in cos the mean GM wont give him his ship back needs to **** off to hello kitty online

Dareth Meroul
Posted - 2010.09.16 13:12:00 - [40]
 

Edited by: Dareth Meroul on 16/09/2010 13:13:34
Originally by: Ban Doga
Edited by: Ban Doga on 15/09/2010 09:54:51
Originally by: Dareth Meroul
Edited by: Dareth Meroul on 15/09/2010 00:16:43
Originally by: Helicity Boson
Quote:
To give you some perspective, the team screened 561 petitions (~2% of total) which were submitted in April this year (which was incidentally the first full month reviewed as a part of this project). Out of those petitions, 146 warranted some action on behalf of the team, which translates to roughly ~25% of the reviewed petitions, or in other words, ~0,5% of the total number of petitions submitted that month.



Your wording in this section is rather misleading, I suggest you revise it.

What's misleading about it? I don't think they'll know what you're talking about if you don't state how it's misleading. I mean, I don't.

A quick review of the math:
30,000 x 0.02 = 600 (561 is pretty close to that, matching "~2%")
600 / 4 = 150 (the 146 reviewed and "~25%" matches up as well)
150 / 30,000 = 0.005 (that's 1/2 of a percent, so that also matches with what was stated)


The 0.5% are misleading.
It suggests that all the non-reviewed petitions do not warrant some correction or feedback.
However there is nothing to support that hypothesis.

25% of all reviewed petitions warranted an action. One might very well assume that this holds true for all of the roughly 29,400 non-reviewed petitions as well.

*EDIT*
To give a very dramatic example:
If they chose to review 100 petitions and 99 of them needed a corrective action then this would account for only 0.33% of all filed petitions.

But would you really think that this demonstrates an improvement compared to 146 corrected petitions out of 560 reviewed ones - after all that's 0.5% of all files petitions?

The 0.5% isn't misleading because it makes little sense to assume that the other 29,400 petitions were in need of some corrective action, since these were not rated poorly. Do you really think that those rated well, or especially those rated very well, were in desperate need of re-review or corrective action?

The takeaway is quite simple: less than 600 out of ~30,000 were rated poorly; of those that were rated poorly (where someone was actually dissatisfied), 1/4 of them warranted different action being taken. And if I was one of the other 29,400, there's a good chance I wouldn't want my satisfactory handling of a petition changed at all.

Ban Doga
Posted - 2010.09.16 20:05:00 - [41]
 

Edited by: Ban Doga on 16/09/2010 20:24:11
Of course we do not know the rate of incorrectly handled petitions in the non-reviewed ones.
That's why assuming 0% of the non-reviewed petitions were handled incorrectly is just as wrong as saying 25% of them were handled incorrectly.
It might even be possible that the rate is higher (the customers could be happy because they got something they weren't entitled to Twisted Evil).
The point is: We just don't know and making statements about that is pure speculation.
Citing those speculations like they are facts is misleading (the math is still correct of course, that's why it's misleading and not miscalculated)


I'll try another example:

A and B participant in a large-ish fight.
The node has major lag and both pilots lose their ships.

A petitions for reimbursement and having GM Happy Guy working on that petition he actually gets the ship reimbursed,
despite the correct action being "no reimbursement for lag in PVP". He's happy and rates 10/10.

B petitions for a reimbursement as well. GM Grumpy Dog takes one quick look and finds "Lost in PVP - No reimbursement for you". B is disappointed because he knows A got his reimbursement and rates 0/10.

B's petition is reviewed and found to be handled correctly.
A's petition is not reviewed but should have been reverted since there was no basis for a reimbursement (A got an unfair advantage).


You are somehow making the assumption that highly rated petitions are automatically correct.
That a satisfied customer would not want his petition to be reviewed and the result potentially altered is obvious.
But that's not the same as having the petition handled correctly.
Even in the very simple (and quite realistic) example above the petition from A causes 1 dissatisfied customer and 1 not reviewed wrong GM action.

But obviously this little "trick" is already working (at least on you): You're clearly focussing on the "0.5% of all petitions were corrected" and not on the "every 4th petition that we reviewed was handled incorrectly".
And that's the reason for those "tricks": they really do work!

Dareth Meroul
Posted - 2010.09.17 01:54:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Ban Doga
Edited by: Ban Doga on 16/09/2010 20:24:11
You are somehow making the assumption that highly rated petitions are automatically correct.
That a satisfied customer would not want his petition to be reviewed and the result potentially altered is obvious.
But that's not the same as having the petition handled correctly.
Even in the very simple (and quite realistic) example above the petition from A causes 1 dissatisfied customer and 1 not reviewed wrong GM action.

But obviously this little "trick" is already working (at least on you): You're clearly focussing on the "0.5% of all petitions were corrected" and not on the "every 4th petition that we reviewed was handled incorrectly".
And that's the reason for those "tricks": they really do work!

I'm not so much stating that the highly rated petitions are correct as that they aren't a problem. In many situations its safer and better to incorrectly excuse or help than it is to wrongfully punish or refrain from helping, and I think this would fall into that area.

Of course, both of our arguments are based on speculation, as you pointed out. Nevertheless, based on my experience with customer support (giving and receiving), the largest and most frequent errors generally correlate with customer dissatisfaction, which is what has pushed my conclusions towards the "not a problem" end of the speculation spectrum.

In the end, however, one can pile 'possibilities' on until the day is long. It's possible that some of the 25% of the poorly rated comments that had a different action taken after review, actually had the incorrect action taken the second time rather than the first. Possible, but not at all likely. And in the end I don't think it really matters. CCP is trying to improve player experiences, going to lengths that other companies don't and being transparent about the whole process. It's also this pattern of transparency and openness that leads me to relegate the notion that this is all a "trick" into the region of far less than likely.


Now, all that being said, I have to compliment you on your largely objective and reasonable tone. It's nice to be able to have a disagreement with someone who doesn't get emotional about differences of opinion. It's quite the rarity – having a discussion instead of an argument – especially on the web; in a forum of all places! Wink

Catari Taga
Centre Of Attention
Middle of Nowhere
Posted - 2010.09.17 04:04:00 - [43]
 

<--- unhappy customer

Only time I asked to escalate a petition I was flat out refused btw.

Although the CS is still the best thing about EVE, try to file a bug report if you are seriously masochist...

Dareth Meroul
Posted - 2010.09.18 20:22:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Catari Taga
<--- unhappy customer

Only time I asked to escalate a petition I was flat out refused btw.

Although the CS is still the best thing about EVE, try to file a bug report if you are seriously masochist...

Ah. Sorry to hear that. That definitely sucks.

Yeah, I've never had to file a bug report, and the few petitions I've had to file (3 total, I think, in my entire time) were either quite quickly resolved without intervention or simply mistakes on my part.

Lykouleon
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.09.19 20:38:00 - [45]
 

Considering I've had petitions escalated all the way up to the Devs before...and then having the petition simply dropped...this blog does very little to say as to how the GM process is being made better.

As Liang stated, the GM team also needs to look at petitions that cause people to become so disgusted with the process that they unsubscribe (even if not related to that specific incident).

GM Lelouch


Game Masters
Posted - 2010.09.21 17:11:00 - [46]
 

Hello there and thank you for your comments, questions and ideas.

I'd like to begin with by clarifying that this process is intended for catching and correcting mistakes made in petitions which have already been closed. The option to escalate petitions to a Senior GM is always open if you believe that your petition is not being handled correctly and escalation results in a similar review as the one given to petitions reviewed as a part of this project. Asking for your petition to be escalated to a Senior GM for review is a quicker and more efficient alternative to rating a petition poorly if you wish to have it re-reviewed by an experienced member of our support team.

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 14/09/2010 17:08:37
GM Lelouch, may I suggest that if someone cancels their account that all petitions filed or answered/closed in the last 2 weeks automatically be flagged for review?

-Liang


A good idea and something I would like to do in the near future. It would probably be another good way of proactively spotting petitions that may have been mishandled in some way. This will definitely be brought up as a discussion point.

Originally by: Lost Hamster
I still see problem with petition prioritization.
Let's see an example:
Account hacking.


If you suspect that your account or that of your friend has been hacked, then please file a petition under the stuck characters petition category to ensure that it gets looked at as soon as possible. Account hacking reports should have their initial review as soon as possible to prevent damage from being done to the account as you said.

Originally by: Dareth Meroul
Originally by: Daedalus II
Edited by: Daedalus II on 14/09/2010 18:04:20
What I want to know is; why was there a rating to begin with if you didn't look at it util recently anyway? Wink

I don't think he's saying that they didn't use the ratings in some way, but rather that it wasn't part of a comprehensive review. Ratings and satisfaction scores are often used only to evaluate those doing support and provide trending metrics, not to act as a re-review marker. Based on my experience with various models of customer/tech support, it's fairly unusual to use it in this way.


Exactly! We have been using these numbers for metrics and such, but we haven't used them for this purpose before.

There were a few comments about bug reports and I wanted to clarify that GMs do not handle those. Our Bug Hunter team is responsible for filtering through bug reports we receive before they are forwarded to our QA team which takes over from that point. GMs do file their own bug reports in the form of internal defects when reoccurring issues are spotted, but we do not read or respond to the bug reports themselves.

Finally, bug reports do not directly factor into the decision-making when reimbursement petitions are being investigated; a bug report can lead to a specific bug being reproduced and eventually fixed, but reimbursement can unfortunately not be offered unless it is possible to verify without doubt that the loss at hand was caused by a bug. Knowledge of the existence of a specific bug does not necessarily mean that we can reliably determine whether or not a specific player was affected by the bug at a specific time. But this is starting to bleed into a discussion about reimbursement policies which could perhaps be a topic for another blog Wink

Originally by: Alekseyev Karrde
Semi-related Q: Any chance we could see a streamlining of the bug reports system or an increase in communication between the GM staff and the staff that deals with the bugs?


The GMs and QA do have a shared internal mailing list which sees quite a bit of action. GMs use it to raise awareness of bugs which we hear about in petitions and have things testers and QA uses it to ask us if we have information about bugs in the wild which they are investigating. GMs and QA are in general a pretty tight crew.

Viktor Villiance
Caldari
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2010.09.21 17:58:00 - [47]
 

From experience, this sounds like it will help the process a great deal, HOWEVER, I still feel this game needs more GMs in general.

The thing that is great about being on a single shard is it is indeed awesome, but that means being a GM is harder and it takes longer to do anything than if we existed on a 2000 person shard.

I think I speak for everyone when I say we'd like the current GM team increased a bit more. The issue isn't poor handling of petitions most of the time (on the contrary) but the time in turn around.

EVE just requires better and more GMs than your average MMO due its nature.

NereSky
Gallente
RETRIBUTIONS.
Legion of The Damned.
Posted - 2010.09.21 18:49:00 - [48]
 

Due to level of service re petitions either answered 'logs' show nothing or standardised text replies - ive logged in less and less when you get losses that are not part of the game design ie lag , bugs unexplained game issues you begin to question what is the point of even bothering playing a game which lets be honest is a part grind > epic loss due to circs out of any control you have,

And then you get the crappiest replys ever by someone (possible some Icelandic teenager wth a poor grasp of english, someones delinquent son maybe) who doesnt even know game mechanics and cannot even get the reply correct,

and then when you have advised that the petition system is working and shortly later you now advise its under review you have the epic gall to try and hoodwink with a load of absolute bullcrap,

review a sample of old petitions with a epic 'zero' (incl mine please and thankyou) feedback then tell me this so called review is working or its just flannel.


Mace Wingate
Posted - 2010.09.22 01:36:00 - [49]
 

If I were not so married to my charcters, maily due to the three year investment in skill training, I would have left this game already because of the the poor level of customer service received for my petition "Event". Your process sucks, the service sucked, and the outcome sucked.

You all should have been busy improving the game and your service rather than making music videos and slapping each others backs while telling us how awesome you all are and how we just have to HTFU.

Brather
Gallente
Strategic Syndicate
Posted - 2010.09.22 11:35:00 - [50]
 

Edited by: Brather on 23/09/2010 02:04:00
...


Pages: 1 [2]

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only