open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Reimbursement policy updated
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Author Topic

MagicAcid
Posted - 2011.03.12 00:24:00 - [61]
 

Originally by: Ban Doga
Edited by: Ban Doga on 11/03/2011 12:43:13
Does that mean if I accept a courier contract with 5 billion ISK collateral to transport something to Jove space I can get that reimbursed?
How about a transport to a player outpost that I won't get docking right for?


It is perfectly feasible to haul the item to a station you do not have docking rights for. You simply must take the station from it's owners to get docking rights. Think of it like a merc contract YARRRR!!

Ban Doga
Posted - 2011.03.12 00:46:00 - [62]
 

Edited by: Ban Doga on 12/03/2011 00:46:23
Originally by: Tobin Shalim
Originally by: Jason Edwards


Quote:
a. Any losses attributable to errors in the EVE client may not be eligible for reimbursement.

Because the end user is capable of maintaining bugs in the eve client any more then the server?



Are you joking? Are you ****ing joking CCP? Is it April 1st yet? What the **** were the people thinking that came up with this horse****? You're now saying that bugs IN YOUR OWN SOFTWARE are not eligible for reimbursement? The bugs that YOUR company have in YOUR OWN SOFTWARE are not reason to get stuff back when YOUR own stuff ****s up and screws us over? I want whatever you guys were drinking when you came up with THAT little gem, it must be some high-quality liquor.

Do consider changing this, it's quite moronic.


I don't know how to say this but he's absolutely right!

It's so incredibly amazing that you are apparently incapable of thinking straight for 5 minutes to realize what kind of bull**** you are pushing onto your own public forum again and again.
Just like the free-of-charge-reactivate-your-account-so-you-can-vote-for-the-CSM-without-being-subscribed.

Isn't there a CSM that should help you stop throwing around ape**** like this twice a week?!
You can't tell me that any EVE player can be happy about "those rules clearly explain how we don't give a flying ****".

Galandil
Posted - 2011.03.12 01:13:00 - [63]
 

Originally by: mkmin
Originally by: Matalino
Originally by: mkmin
Well, it's pretty awesome that you just told hackers how to get away with hacking an account and not be punished. Love a policy that favors real world criminals over your paying customers.
Just because the victim doesn't get a full reimbursement does not mean that the hacker goes unpunished.


a hacker just has to distribute the stolen assets to his alts through market orders. Read carefully what is said there and how gaping holes are left.


Releasing this kind of information is ALWAYS going to be a double edge sword. In my opinion, I rather know what I am able to get back instead of having a false hope.

Ramman K'arojic
Posted - 2011.03.12 02:45:00 - [64]
 

Edited by: Ramman K''arojic on 12/03/2011 02:47:33
Originally by: Tobin Shalim
Originally by: Jason Edwards


Quote:
a. Any losses attributable to errors in the EVE client may not be eligible for reimbursement.

Because the end user is capable of maintaining bugs in the eve client any more then the server?



Are you joking? Are you ****ing joking CCP? Is it April 1st yet? What the **** were the people thinking that came up with this horse****? You're now saying that bugs IN YOUR OWN SOFTWARE are not eligible for reimbursement? The bugs that YOUR company have in YOUR OWN SOFTWARE are not reason to get stuff back when YOUR own stuff ****s up and screws us over? I want whatever you guys were drinking when you came up with THAT little gem, it must be some high-quality liquor.

Do consider changing this, it's quite moronic.




I tend to agree - may be not so passionately more from a technical stand point; as this can be fixed.
I understand where CPP is coming from; they lack the ability to authenticate the accuracy of their own logs.

However their things CPP *should* fix things so they can verify the integrity of the client logs. Without wasting too much brain power; they could create a secret hash function with the elements ; such as a session key (generated and unique for each session however stored sever side), date time & event Id, for each log event..

That way when the logs are sent back each can be verified against the text, the hash and session sectret key and thus proving that its all true and correct.

Making internet space ships a fairer place for all.

Ramm

Alpheias
Euphoria Released
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2011.03.12 04:49:00 - [65]
 

CCP is now attributable for me ever undocking! And is it safe to even log anymore, since CCP can't be attributable for shoddy code either?

tehInventor
Posted - 2011.03.12 09:46:00 - [66]
 

5. If someone gained access to your account as a result of your use of a third party program or other violation of our EULA/TOS, all requests for reimbursement will be null and void.

moar scorch pls?

Cindy Marco
Minmatar
The Warp Rats
Apotheosis of Virtue
Posted - 2011.03.12 11:51:00 - [67]
 

I've very concerned with this blog. You just told hackers how to destroy years of our work.

Spend all their isk; then reprocess all assets. Everything they owned is gone, and will not be reimbursed. And what is more insulting is that we know you can recover reprocessed items because you have in the past. You even admitted to it in the same post!

This blog also only covers assets. Does that mean someone can hack you, then pod you 25 times and you guys won't do anything about it?



Vuk Lau
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.03.12 13:55:00 - [68]
 

Originally by: Vuk Lau
Quote:
We approach each petition with the mindset of trying to find a reason to fulfill the player's claim, but if there is no verification to be had we will most likely have to say no. This is what causes the most friction and this is why we feel that our reimbursement policy needs to be well known to our players, as well as the reasoning behind it.



Ok ok, this made me realize this devblog is actually a troll.

9/10 you almost got me.


Guys chill, this is new CCP feature - trollblog.

Argonaught
Minmatar
Cabbage Tea
Posted - 2011.03.12 16:16:00 - [69]
 

Edited by: Argonaught on 12/03/2011 16:16:15
Quote:

3. Any assets sold to another player will not be returned to the original owner; however, any ISK gained from the sale may be transferred to the original owner of the items instead on a case-by-case basis.



So you'll only get isk back if items are sold.
I can see some poor player whose account was hacked get back a the grand total of 1 isk when the hacker sells it on for that much and the investigating GM stops looking after he sees the sale and reimburses that 1 isk back.

Also, whose head was up whose arse when they wrote the new policy?

ROFL at CCP once again.

Argo

Batolemaeus
Caldari
Free-Space-Ranger
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.03.12 18:51:00 - [70]
 

Edited by: Batolemaeus on 12/03/2011 19:11:01
Originally by: GM Guard
Thank you all for the feedback and valued input. We will take the points brought to this discussion under advisement and make edits as we deem appropriate and necessary. We will also have a go at answering all your questions and try to clarify any remaining ambiguity about specific articles.



May I ask why you're deleting references to the fact that you legitimized ddos via convo requests?

Bhattran
Posted - 2011.03.12 23:53:00 - [71]
 

When are you going to let me and other players who have no intention of selling our characters lock them down either in set periods like 3,6,9,12 months or 'forever', locked characters would also be immune to biomassing.

I DO my part but YOU won't give me the tools to further ensure that the things beyond MY control won't screw me over.


Firid Soulbane
Kickass inc
Controlled Chaos
Posted - 2011.03.13 02:59:00 - [72]
 

"5. Any losses of any kind resulting from a large-scale player engagement are not covered by this reimbursement policy."

Why cant we get reimbursed in these situations?

And define largescale? 100? 1000? Or does it depends on the amount of petitions stemming from same system and time?


Lazifax
Posted - 2011.03.13 15:23:00 - [73]
 

"9.3 Any assets sold to another player will not be returned to the original owner; however, any ISK gained from the sale may be transferred to the original owner of the items instead on a case-by-case basis."

This is really a bad choice as thieves know very well the "laundry" mechanism. So they sell very undercost at theyr alts on different accounts, and the original owner get back just the 10% of the value of the goods.

Not really a smart choice dear CCP, this way you will incentivate account steals, because criminals are only partly affected by the money requisition deterrency.

So crime pays...


guska Cryotank
Gallente
Void Angels
C0NVICTED
Posted - 2011.03.13 21:12:00 - [74]
 

Originally by: Ariane VoxDei
Also. "2.c" no help if : "A mission objective is destroyed or stolen by another player."

You've got to be kidding.
That means any mission where you have to turn in any kind of item.
all Mining missions
all courier missions
quite a number of combat missions - its not just Damsel in distress.
Its also things like: smuggler interception, unauthorized military precense, intercept the saboteurs, ...
In L4 you rarely have the luxury of being in pickup range of the ship(s) that drop the objective, so anyone waltzing in in a mobile ship and engages, destroys/loots the objective, can now REALLY do some damage.
They could before, and that was bad enough, but at least then you could go through the process of getting the item back and avoid the the standing hit.
Paradise for determined griefers.


Have a cry. Mission objectives are NO different to any other can or item in space. If it's not in station, it's not secure. That's the end of it. Get it first if you want it.

Ariane VoxDei
Posted - 2011.03.13 21:56:00 - [75]
 

Originally by: guska Cryotank
Have a cry. Mission objectives are NO different to any other can or item in space. If it's not in station, it's not secure. That's the end of it. Get it first if you want it.

"Hi, I am a alliance bigmouth that doesn't have a problem with that because I have much better income options than hisec missioning, which I despise almost as much as mining. Missioners should be made to suffer more corcord makes it impractical to force them to pay protection money."

Yes, very useful response.




Ariane VoxDei
Posted - 2011.03.13 22:01:00 - [76]
 

Ok, since that probably wont hit home for you, I will spell it out a bit more.

GM are now saying that it is "A OK" to go out a **** up peoples missions.
Now, personally, I probably wont have much trouble dealing with any such attempts, I have alts I can play one if someone really tries to **** on my missions.

However, it is the principle of the thing. You can pick up that rule and use it as justification to do all manner of mission asshattery, no matter if you are doing it to a wartarget or a newbie you picked on the spur of the moment.

That does not sound like a good signal to send to people.

guska Cryotank
Gallente
Void Angels
C0NVICTED
Posted - 2011.03.14 07:20:00 - [77]
 

Originally by: Ariane VoxDei
Originally by: guska Cryotank
Have a cry. Mission objectives are NO different to any other can or item in space. If it's not in station, it's not secure. That's the end of it. Get it first if you want it.

"Hi, I am a alliance bigmouth that doesn't have a problem with that because I have much better income options than hisec missioning, which I despise almost as much as mining. Missioners should be made to suffer more corcord makes it impractical to force them to pay protection money."

Yes, very useful response.






Actually most of my income is generated through highsec mission running, which makes your outburst worthless.

I'll admit that yes, there should be some protection of the mission objective, but the whole reason most of us play EVE is because nothing is ever certain, and no-one is ever safe. You want risk-free income, go play some other MMO, since at the moment, aside from taking the mission objective, there is NO RISK in highsec mission running outside of a war dec. Compare that to Sanctums etc. and you see that for that reward, you have to deal with the possibility of hostiles rolling up and effectively shutting down your ISK making activities. Yes I believe that highsec dwellers have it too easy, but that's for another thread. The matter at hand, is that mission runners are complaining that their only risk isn't being taken away. Well I say take a look at how insanely easy it is to run missions in highsec, and then think to yourself, "what am I ACTUALLY DOING to 'earn' this ISK?". No risk should = no reward.

boom chicka wowa
Posted - 2011.03.14 08:08:00 - [78]
 

hahah u run missions lol get some nads join a good corp take some 0.0 in to ya where it rains isk and we eat carebears
Twisted Evil nom nom nom

and u can have this risk v reward debate all day long but if ccp says they cant help if someone ruins ur mission go ruin there's



Mikel Laurentson
Posted - 2011.03.14 16:35:00 - [79]
 

Edited by: Mikel Laurentson on 14/03/2011 16:35:58
Originally by: Batolemaeus

May I ask why you're deleting references to the fact ...


Wait, they're deleting posts without even putting up a 'posts removed' comment? I mean, I can see why they'd do that (reposting GM convos, OT, etc), but isn't that a violation of CCP's own forum guidelines?

Mind you, the GMs don't use the forums much anyway, so they might not be aware of how things are 'meant' to be done.

Talosen
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.03.14 19:11:00 - [80]
 

Quote:
3. Any assets sold to another player will not be returned to the original owner; however, any ISK gained from the sale may be transferred to the original owner of the items instead on a case-by-case basis.


lulz, please tell me this is a troll..

DaChMon
Caldari
STEEL AXIS inc.
Posted - 2011.03.14 22:46:00 - [81]
 

Originally by: Talosen
Quote:
3. Any assets sold to another player will not be returned to the original owner; however, any ISK gained from the sale may be transferred to the original owner of the items instead on a case-by-case basis.


lulz, please tell me this is a troll..



Sadly is not a troll. I can directly testify as it happened to me. A director of my corp (not directly me) got his account hacked, CCP recognized that the account was hacked. Account thief sold to friends at garbage prices, then they did regular auctions, and ccp reimbursed me just the profit of the first sale. Very smart.

CRIME DOES PAY!!!

Talosen
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.03.15 09:37:00 - [82]
 

@ccp. What happens in Iceland when you get caught buying stolen goods? yes thats right, you have to return them.

You should really reconsider your policy on hacked accounts a little better. You've just showed every hacker how to get away with a good heist. And you've basically failed at protecting us for any future thefts.

DaChMon
Caldari
STEEL AXIS inc.
Posted - 2011.03.15 14:19:00 - [83]
 

Edited by: DaChMon on 15/03/2011 14:20:07
Mainly because we are talking of Out of Game crimes. Account stealing is not a "game feature" it's a real life crime punished by all the law systems in the civilizated nations.

CCP, Do you really want to incentivate and support a real life crime?

sc0ut1
Posted - 2011.03.15 21:01:00 - [84]
 

Quote:

XXXX > Sorry but WoW has a reimbursement policy 10000000 times better than this **** they're writing... you can have items stolen and passed to many accounts and still with an ingame petition any standard GM (not even senior is necessary) will revert anything



Talking about working reimbursment system.

I have a similar situation. I took a break from the game and when i got back, now, i was shocked. My account was busted somehow, my character sold and transfered and even after intense GM "search" they found out that i am the owner of the account but still, let me quote some more
Quote:
Hi,

Thank you for contacting customer support.

I'm afraid there is nothing we can do. We have no way of knowing under what circumstances the character was moved off the account. You are solely responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of your account details. This is clearly stipulated in our EULA. I suggest you make sure your PC is free of viruses or keyloggers and that you never even give anyone access to any account you may have.

Best regards,
GM Nova
Senior Game master
EVE Online Customer Support



they fail. Yes, i can conclude from it that they support accout/character stealing.

Retsil Evad
Caldari
The Arrow Project
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.03.18 22:09:00 - [85]
 

Originally by: Jovan Geldon
Edited by: Jovan Geldon on 11/03/2011 15:51:20
inb4 nullsec bears whinging that they can't get their blob-mobiles reimburse-

Never mind, too late.


Originally by: devblog
Mission collateral may be required for some missions. This collateral may be refunded in cases where GM investigation shows the mission creation was incomplete or if the mission was impossible to complete within normal gameplay parameters available to the player.


So does this mean the end of the "courier contract to player-owned station you can't dock in" scam?

What part of "if the mission was impossible to complete" escapes your understanding? The cannot dock scam has nothing to do with missions. It is done through player contracts. Any courier mission can be completed through normal gameplay parameters, unless you get ganked, which is also in gameplay parameters.

PyroChemist
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.03.19 17:37:00 - [86]
 

Originally by: GM Guard
Thank you all for the feedback and valued input. We will take the points brought to this discussion under advisement and make edits as we deem appropriate and necessary. We will also have a go at answering all your questions and try to clarify any remaining ambiguity about specific articles.



I'm not one to post on forums, but this thread has me face palming. CCP released a public communication about customer service, and only has one response to players regarding their concerns and opinions on the changes; and all it is, is a boilerplate customer service response. This to me is a clear example of the state of CCP's customer service, and the executive staff of CCP should take a serious look at overhauling the entire division; if not starting from scratch. It may be easier to entice new players to come into EVE with promises of game mechanic's that the existing player base knows how to work around; but to retain your valued customers is a more difficult task that has greater payout. We tell people to play or not play EVE, before and after people sign up. If you want to have more players, make sure your existing ones are happy.

Mane Frehm
Posted - 2011.03.19 17:49:00 - [87]
 

Also not a regular poster, and my few petitions have been reasonably well answered. That being said, item #3 as currently stated is badly flawed:

3. Any assets sold to another player will not be returned to the original owner; however, any ISK gained from the sale may be transferred to the original owner of the items instead on a case-by-case basis.

The only impression players can get from this is that your policy is designed to minimize your workload and punish those who get hacked. I am sure there are issues with account sharing and other EULA violations and its sometimes difficult to figure out whether an account has in fact been hacked...but a difficult problem set is not an excuse for a bad policy approach.

Please rethink this one.

Alathus Christensen
Caldari
Blue Sun Enterprises
Blue Moon Alliance
Posted - 2011.03.19 18:04:00 - [88]
 

Edited by: Alathus Christensen on 19/03/2011 19:43:26
As a relative unknown in the Universe of EVE, I felt the need to interject my opinion into this conversation as well. Please know that I have, in no way, ever experienced 0.0 life, aside from W-Space, so my opinion is relatively neutral.

"5. Any losses of any kind resulting from a large-scale player engagement are not covered by this reimbursement policy."

This is a horrible idea, CCP. You've given yourself carte blanche in order to approve or deny reimbursements coming from large-scale fleet fights on an at-will basis.

Null-Sec PVP is already suffering from crippling lag at times - even when reinforcement requests have been submitted - and to do something like this goes against your goals of a player-made environment.
It discourages Alliances from forming their own empires in Zero-point-Zero.

What happens when an alliance loses their whole capital fleet due to your flawed server management? You know what kind of loads to expect by now. You've got massive coalitions going back and forth in a struggle, resulting in unheard of numbers on the field.

I realize that this may reinforce your ideal of several smaller entities having a place in 0.0, but to be quite honest - this is not the way to go about it. Putting a policy such as this in place will discourage - even further - people from using the assets they've worked so hard to attain. Also, it can only lead to more :bittervet:.

Please, listen to your customers. There are other games on the horizon - one in particular that appeals to sci-fi nerds of our age range, and I've invested too much to watch EVE die - even as a relative unknown.

Sidenote: Vuk, I realize you didn't have to give up Fanfest. You could have gone and pasted a smile on your face, just for the trip. I appreciate that you didn't, one EVE player to another.

Thanks guys.

Tl:dr - Read it. It's just an opinion. It won't kill you. YARRRR!!

Ban Doga
Posted - 2011.03.20 11:02:00 - [89]
 

Originally by: Retsil Evad
Originally by: Jovan Geldon
Edited by: Jovan Geldon on 11/03/2011 15:51:20
inb4 nullsec bears whinging that they can't get their blob-mobiles reimburse-

Never mind, too late.


Originally by: devblog
Mission collateral may be required for some missions. This collateral may be refunded in cases where GM investigation shows the mission creation was incomplete or if the mission was impossible to complete within normal gameplay parameters available to the player.


So does this mean the end of the "courier contract to player-owned station you can't dock in" scam?

What part of "if the mission was impossible to complete" escapes your understanding? The cannot dock scam has nothing to do with missions. It is done through player contracts. Any courier mission can be completed through normal gameplay parameters, unless you get ganked, which is also in gameplay parameters.


Quote:
3. Missions

Missions may be offered by either NPC agents or as courier missions created by other players.

The question should be why this part of the dev blog escaped your understanding!

Firebox Jones
Gallente
Ordinary Kriminals
Posted - 2011.03.21 14:21:00 - [90]
 

I'm genuinely confused as to why any of this is a surprise to anyone.

CCP's "interpretation" of customer service has always been laughable at best.

Also confused as to why anyone is surprised at the use of inappropriate language in the dev blog - professionalism has never been top of mind with CCP.


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

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