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


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

CCP Fallout

Posted - 2011.04.05 15:09:00 - [1]
 

GM Grimmi's newest blog provides some answers to player questions regarding the recently changed reimbursement policy, and shares the new changes instituted thanks to player feedback. Read all about it here.

Mashie Saldana
Minmatar
Veto Corp
Posted - 2011.04.05 15:25:00 - [2]
 

In before Chribba...

Reading now.

Knug LiDi
N00bFleeT
Posted - 2011.04.05 15:27:00 - [3]
 

Quote:
"4. Recycled Items 1. Items recycled accidentally may be reimbursed on a case-by-case basis, but only if the minerals received can be recovered."


Why, oh why, is CCP compensating players for screwing things up themselves? I have accidentally recycled meta 4 loot before, and I'm sure I will do so again. Why would I even ask CCP for compensation for the game doing exactly and precisely what I asked it to do?

In a "harsh and hyper capitalistic universe" would I go crying to the gods to have my toys back, when I stupidly put them in the shredder?

And if the answer is "well the way that we grab tons of items and single right-click to have them reprocessed makes it too easy to make a mistake" well holy smoke. I want compensation for flying a mammoth loaded with sleeper loot into Jita on a Sunday. A mistake in judgment is a mistake you made, not the game made.

You did something. Twenty seconds later you regretted doing it. Welcome to life, buddy.

I can't believe this is even being considered on a case by case basis. The short answer should be "No."

Mara Villoso
Posted - 2011.04.05 15:34:00 - [4]
 

I was a little surprised by this piece of the blog:
Quote:
Our logs show lots of things. Regrettably, we are not able to log everything as there must be a trade-off where server performance and logging is concerned. Sadly, this means that sometimes we are not able to verify losses as being eligible for reimbursement by way of our server-side logs. Our logging capabilities are constantly improving, however, and with that we have a better chance of being able to render assistance.

The situation described by the player was one in which all the GM had to do was REPLICATE THE ACTIONS of the player and the error could have been EASILY confirmed. Relying solely on logs while simultaneously saying that your logs aren't complete is precisely the customer support approach with which so many players have an issue.

Simply pasting in the words "sadly" and "regrettably" is not a substitute for actual customer support. If the issue is that you don't have enough staff to adequately cover the number of reimbursement requests you receive, please consider fixing the bugs that cause so many of them. All business processes benefit more from handling problems at the point of creation than they do from cleaning up the mess they cause. Its simple cause and effect.

I'm not saying that every reimbursement request falls into the category of being replicated, but it should be something you guys should be doing in addition to checking logs.

Abdiel Kavash
Caldari
Paladin Order
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2011.04.05 15:47:00 - [5]
 

Quote:
In the comments section we received some good feedback from you guys and a few requests for clarification of some of the items in the policy. We have also made a couple of changes to the policy from the feedback you guys gave.


Follow-up: Anomaly changes revisited?



also IBC

Mara Rinn
Posted - 2011.04.05 15:55:00 - [6]
 

Amusing to see some of the foaming-mouth ranting from the previous thread, wonder if folks will repeat the performance here? I especially found the "we're paying you to reimburse the ships we lost in combat" rant entertaining. How wrong can people get?

The customer is almost never right. That's why we have salespeople to stop the mouth breathers getting their hands on our product.

Marconus Orion
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.04.05 16:22:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Abdiel Kavash
Follow-up: Anomaly changes revisited?


Stop crying already.

Steve Thomas
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2011.04.05 16:23:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Steve Thomas on 05/04/2011 16:26:04
Edited by: Steve Thomas on 05/04/2011 16:25:10
Read first, posted second so I dont look like a flaming idjit

1) I honestly dont think that conq stations should be mission targets in the first damned place but meh

2)
Quote:
creating duplicate items brings the risk of destabilizing the market
Im calling complete and total Bullcrap on that argument, you guys dont have enough GMs to manged to spawn enough items to seriously disrupt the games economy unless you go totaly ape**** under an item re-enburment policy and start re-embursing for every "loss" a player has had(Ie every bit of trit lost due to ineficency, all ammo expended, all normal ship losses, taxes, fees, skillbookcosts, items not looted, Items not salvaged and so on every time they have any "reimbursable loss"). however your other arguments are valid.

other than that, good blog.

Now start posting the blogs on the new stuff! NOW NOWNOW!

Jiro Rans
Perkone
Posted - 2011.04.05 16:32:00 - [9]
 

Quote:
Posted by: biggie fluffy on 11/03/2011 17:33:00

I have to say I find may of your policy and M pretty horrible to deal with. It is clearly the most negative aspect of the game ( that is: interacting with GM when required).

99.999% of the the responses I have received from GM's indicate they either do not understand English, or have not bothered to read my request. It seems the GM is only concerned with providing a response, ANY response, and is not concerned with the quality of helping the person understand the issue.

I am currently dealing with an issue where I was buying items in station, but he items where being bought in other places. I found the issue. and sent a message to GM, I then did many other transactions to verify it could not possibly me something I was doing wrong, and then when to HELP CHANNEL to verify with them I was doing it all correct. I then messaged the gm FROM the station I was in , and bought something right then, with the same times stamp so they could verify the issue.

The response I received? "our logs show no errors"

This whole concept of the logs showing errors is faulty to start with! If your smart enough to sort through logs to find errors, why aren't you able to fix the problems generating them?!!!!!!!!

Quite simply - there needs to be a paradigm shift in the thinking of the gm's, and there roll. They need to be problems solvers, not the "blow off department".

I don't think you should EVER send a message to a user that your logs don't show the error they are seeing.-- this only proves that your logging is not effective.



Quote:
Our logs show lots of things. Regrettably, we are not able to log everything as there must be a trade-off where server performance and logging is concerned. Sadly, this means that sometimes we are not able to verify losses as being eligible for reimbursement by way of our server-side logs. Our logging capabilities are constantly improving, however, and with that we have a better chance of being able to render assistance.




Wow this is exactly what the guy meant, it's as if you didn't read what he was saying. Nice job

Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Posted - 2011.04.05 17:23:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Knug LiDi
Quote:
"4. Recycled Items 1. Items recycled accidentally may be reimbursed on a case-by-case basis, but only if the minerals received can be recovered."


Why, oh why, is CCP compensating players for screwing things up themselves?


My understanding is that for this type of petition, the phrase 'on a case-by-case basis' usually means 'if this is the first time it's happened to this player'.

gtiness
Sick Tight
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2011.04.05 17:34:00 - [11]
 

I came here expecting to find a URL to get reimbursed for all my ships lost to a black screen or while out of my control.

Predictably, I left disappoint.

Taedrin
Gallente
Kushan Industrial
Posted - 2011.04.05 17:42:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Mara Villoso
I was a little surprised by this piece of the blog:
Quote:
Our logs show lots of things. Regrettably, we are not able to log everything as there must be a trade-off where server performance and logging is concerned. Sadly, this means that sometimes we are not able to verify losses as being eligible for reimbursement by way of our server-side logs. Our logging capabilities are constantly improving, however, and with that we have a better chance of being able to render assistance.

The situation described by the player was one in which all the GM had to do was REPLICATE THE ACTIONS of the player and the error could have been EASILY confirmed. Relying solely on logs while simultaneously saying that your logs aren't complete is precisely the customer support approach with which so many players have an issue.

Simply pasting in the words "sadly" and "regrettably" is not a substitute for actual customer support. If the issue is that you don't have enough staff to adequately cover the number of reimbursement requests you receive, please consider fixing the bugs that cause so many of them. All business processes benefit more from handling problems at the point of creation than they do from cleaning up the mess they cause. Its simple cause and effect.

I'm not saying that every reimbursement request falls into the category of being replicated, but it should be something you guys should be doing in addition to checking logs.



The issue here is that petitions are not the mechanism where by you report bugs. You file bug reports for that. GMs are only responsible for looking up on the logs to see if anything is amiss, and acting upon that information.

HERE IS THE PROBLEM:
If the logs show nothing, then the GM must take the player's word for truth. Even if the player can describe the bug in question perfectly, who is to say that the player is telling the truth that they were affected by that bug? The GM MUST find evidence that the bug actually occurred.

Imagine, for example, that a player discovers a bug which causes him to lose 1 million ISK, however the bug doesn't show up in the logs. The player then files a petition claiming that he lost 243 billion ISK due to the bug. Now, even if the GM can confirm that such a bug exists, how can the GM confirm that the player really lost 243 billion ISK if it doesn't show up in the logs?

Random Womble
Minmatar
Emo Rangers
Electric Monkey Overlords
Posted - 2011.04.05 17:46:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Random Womble on 05/04/2011 17:59:34
Edited by: Random Womble on 05/04/2011 17:47:18
Originally by: Steve Thomas
Edited by: Steve Thomas on 05/04/2011 16:26:04
Edited by: Steve Thomas on 05/04/2011 16:25:10
Read first, posted second so I dont look like a flaming idjit

1) I honestly dont think that conq stations should be mission targets in the first damned place but meh

2)
Quote:
creating duplicate items brings the risk of destabilizing the market
Im calling complete and total Bullcrap on that argument, you guys dont have enough GMs to manged to spawn enough items to seriously disrupt the games economy unless you go totaly ape**** under an item re-enburment policy and start re-embursing for every "loss" a player has had(Ie every bit of trit lost due to ineficency, all ammo expended, all normal ship losses, taxes, fees, skillbookcosts, items not looted, Items not salvaged and so on every time they have any "reimbursable loss"). however your other arguments are valid.

other than that, good blog.

Now start posting the blogs on the new stuff! NOW NOWNOW!


1. They are mission targets for player courier contracts because some players legitimately want to get their items out to outposts/conq stations and do not have the means to do so. Even if you made it so missions were restricted as only available to players able to dock at stations that would be broken since corps can be kicked and stations can change hands additional blues can be added. So on and so forth plus as with the general missions note Eve can be harsh all it really takes is a little thought to avoid any issues.

2. Is this a troll? If so I will bite anyway. While the numbers of most items may not destabilize the market substantially (however there is a possibility of small but noticeable change anyway) there are a few select markets for high end items where it would not take many issues to cause an imbalance. Don't get me wrong there is a low chance of this happening but it is entirely possibly. Also the second aspect of it will always be true regarding the fact that you or your mates could well still pick up the loot basically giving you free stuff it would be very very hard to track all of the loot and see who had handled it. Did you receive the isk in the end? perhaps you looted everything with a neutral alt of yours in order to separate it so you get the mods back by reimbursement as well as picking them up. I'm sure there are a ton of other loopholes that my small mind wont even think of. On the flip side a blue, corp or alliance member may pick stuff up and not give it back to you but do you then still not get reimbursed for the dropped mods?

It would be interesting for CCP to post the number of ships reimbursed over a 1 month period and the approximate value of all the modules that dropped which were not included in the reimbursement as that might supply a better idea of the market impact. Perhaps the Dr could do an analysis to see which items that dropped and were not reimbursed had the highest % of total market value for that item and what that % was which would give a better idea of the potential market impact. e.g 100 expander 2s dropped and the total value of the market for expander 2s is 5bil a month making the dropped items worth 1.1% of the total market for that month (based on roughly 550k/expander).

Ariane VoxDei
Posted - 2011.04.05 18:05:00 - [14]
 

As one of the few who got the questionable honour of being included in that blog, I want to put a bit of perspective on "my" bit.

There used to be other times, where taking or otherwise denying a mission runner his/her objective (militants, damsel, whatever), was something you could get a GM to help you with. And that was generally the theory most people in Eve Uni public channel believed in and passed on for a long long time.

The policy listed on the blog was a radical break with that line of thought.

My response was futher aggravated by the fact that my recent encounters with GM staff have not been nearly up to the standard that I had come to know.
There does seem to be a much lower level of knowledge and attitude more in line with "how can I thwart this player".

Flat out wrong info about some of the newer missions (the question was 50/50 to get it right and the response was wrong), and further back wrong cosmos info, due to game mechanics that have changed greatly since the content was introduced (scanning/probing), but refusing to acknowledge that and do something.

Now, to break a major unwritten rule: do not argue a point with a GM.
Quote:
Not wanting to be harsh here, but it was never the intention that mission runners should be able to ply their trade without risk of interaction with the rest of the EVE Online community. EVE is hard because our players make it hard, this goes for the mission running bit of it as well.
That implies I was also arguing that they should me immune to actual combat (pvp), which is not the case. Perhaps you are a "remove concord!" hardliner and were having a moment of wishful thinking, but it was and is only about the sanctity of the objectives.
Specifically the ones that need picking up - the kill objectives just trigger on destruction, not on who did it.

To elaborate further, I was not concerned with hauling missions, even though it is extremely unsporting to shoot someone on a hauling storyline.
You know, just in the case that you were seeing it as a plea to protect macro/autopilot courier missioners from rightious player policing.

I doubt you are going to reconsider, but let me give you a hint on this.
The moment you drop the disproportionate standing penalty for failing missions due to objective denial, is the moment where this ceases to be so touchy.

Yoann Gourcuff
Posted - 2011.04.05 18:08:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Mara Villoso
The situation described by the player was one in which all the GM had to do was REPLICATE THE ACTIONS of the player and the error could have been EASILY confirmed. Relying solely on logs while simultaneously saying that your logs aren't complete is precisely the customer support approach with which so many players have an issue.



Wouldn't that allow scammers in Eve to simply say "bug xxx happened to me" and get their stuff back? Verifying a bug is not the same as verifying that it happened to someone.

Aineko Macx
Posted - 2011.04.05 18:53:00 - [16]
 

I don't see any change in GM mentality.

Suicide Funtime
Seppuku Unlimited
Disciples of Crom
Posted - 2011.04.05 19:25:00 - [17]
 

IMO, you guys seem to be missing the general point of much of the feedback quoted in this blog. The problem is not necessarily with the reimbursement policy per se, so much as with the general attitude and helpfulness of the GM's.

Think about the (stereo)typical "Our logs show nothing." They may, and probably do, show nothing - that does not make this an appropriate response to your customer. It appears to be a write-off, whether it's the truth or not.

Yes, short, sometimes curt, responses to player petitions are the standard for your industry. This is the natural result of a usually understaffed and somewhat under-trained customer service department responding the the requests of hundreds of thousands of customers. Unfortunately, CCP as a company has built a reputation that goes beyond industry standard, and (in your own words) "strives for excellence." You cannot maintain a standard of excellence when even one somewhat minor aspect of your company is sub par. And your customer service IS sub par.

TL;DR - get a new catchphrase

dibblebill
Danneskjold Heavy Industries
Posted - 2011.04.05 20:10:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: dibblebill on 05/04/2011 20:13:11
I have a great question. Before Incursion released, I filed not one, but TWO petitions for a Nighthawk. In petition one, it was stated that the bug that cost me the Nighthawk was unknown and could not be reimbursed. So I filed a bug report. IN THE BUG REPORT RESPONSE, AFTER DUPLICATING SAID BUG WITH ANOTHER COMPUTER, OPERATING SYSTEM (Linux), AND CLIENT, they told me it was a known bug.

I then re-opened the petition. I was told this time the bug "couldn't be retroactively reimbursed". I pointed out the wording and this was changed to "the warp scrambler on you stopped you from using your microwarpdrive". The microwarpdrive wasn't working BEFORE it was so generously slathered onto my hull. It being the scrambler. Its worth noting I've lost ships worth 2-3 billion ISK and not asked for reimbursement, but this one Nighthawk, I fought nearly a month for.

Taken from Incursion patch notes in Incursion 1.2 or 1.3, whichever was in January and enabled Incursions, it said "Fixed an issue where being warp scrambled and docking disabled your microwarpdrive" (or something along those lines).

I was furious, but your policy doesn't allow me to fight it any more. What about situations like that?


EDIT:

Originally by: Knug LiDi
You did something. Twenty seconds later you regretted doing it. Welcome to life, buddy.

I can't believe this is even being considered on a case by case basis. The short answer should be "No."


QFT (Quoted For Truth for the ones who don't get it)

Mara Villoso
Posted - 2011.04.05 20:19:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Yoann Gourcuff
Originally by: Mara Villoso
The situation described by the player was one in which all the GM had to do was REPLICATE THE ACTIONS of the player and the error could have been EASILY confirmed. Relying solely on logs while simultaneously saying that your logs aren't complete is precisely the customer support approach with which so many players have an issue.



Wouldn't that allow scammers in Eve to simply say "bug xxx happened to me" and get their stuff back? Verifying a bug is not the same as verifying that it happened to someone.

If you'd read the player's complaint carefully, you'd have seen that his particular problem had to do with market orders and buys. Simply looking at his wallet transactions, the location of the bought items, and the time stamps, the GM can verify that the player did make the purchases and by replicating his actions at that station, confirm that a bug/whatever exists. He will have simultaneously provided customer support, confirmed a bug, and, hopefully, submitted a bug report on the player's behalf. Instead, he copy/pasted the classic not-in-our-logs statement. I don't blame him; he's probably working on the classic call center metrics.

The answer to the player's issue, whether he gets reimbursed or not, shouldn't sound like a 'too freaking bad' response. Perhaps something that borrows a bit from your response and is very frank and straightforward: "We're sorry that you've lost game items as a result of a possible bug in our program. EVE is a game in which players work very hard for what they have and losing it through no fault of their own can be very frustrating. We would like to be able to replace these items, but we must be able to verify the exact cause of your loss. We were not able to do that in this case. We have taken the information from your reimbursement petition and created a bug report [report #] on your behalf. Please open the bug report, and complete any missing information."

Lubomir Penev
Dark Nexxus
S I L E N T.
Posted - 2011.04.05 20:41:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: GM Grimmi

Players may be able to recover items that have been left in the wrecks of their lost ships. Tracking items that were not recovered can still be problematic from a technical aspect or, most common, from an economic/balance perspective since these items may still be in play; creating duplicate items brings the risk of destabilizing the market.



CCP to people that got ganked hours after logging off, who not logged on obviously could not make any attempt at recovering the loot : "Go f-word yourself"

CCP knows they are at entirely to blame, yet paying customers get the shaft because CCP can't be arsed fixing bugs nor tracking down items.

I won't let the door hit me on my way out no worry.

Yoann Gourcuff
Posted - 2011.04.05 21:36:00 - [21]
 

Edited by: Yoann Gourcuff on 05/04/2011 21:36:13
Quote:
If you'd read the player's complaint carefully, you'd have seen that his particular problem had to do with market orders and buys.


My statement had just as much to do with market and buys as anything else. I was also not referring to the part about the GM sending a bug report, but the reimbursement aspect. I do agree that it would be nice to have the GMs verify stuff like this and send in a bug report, but to do that maybe they need more resources. The waiting period on petitions is rather high, and you want them to spend a bunch of additional time verifying bugs and sending in bug reports? I'd rather they answer petitions faster so I don't have to wait 4 days for an answer, and players actually use the bug reporting page which I assume exists for a reason.

sableye
principle of motion
Posted - 2011.04.05 21:38:00 - [22]
 

that thing about guy buying stuff and it going into toher station happend to me till i worked it out, it happend because I placed buy orders on market set for 2 jumps then when I was buying stuff it was setting its buy radius to 2 jumps as well, I just change dit back to simple view and it reoslved issue it did have me confused for a few hours though at first as it never used to work like that and I never buy off market alot so tend to not notice changes.

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2011.04.05 21:38:00 - [23]
 

The few times I've had to deal with a GM, I had rainbows and unicorns. Quick responses, good outcomes. The only time when this is different is when it comes to the big fleet fights. It seems like when a big fleet fight occurs, there are no logs and all manner of weird stuff happens. I would think that is the kind of situation where logging needs to happen.

I can't speak for everyone, but I'd be willing to be beaten with more lag for the next few fleet fights if the outcome would be identifying some of the causes of the wild problems encountered during the big fights.

For instance, last month there was a fleet fight where I lost my ship then it spawned back in a few hours later to die again. Of course, during that fight, I was able to fly around with a ship without armor, hull, etc for about 20 minutes with four guns still showing (threw a weird error when I tried shooting stuff with them instead of actually shooting). Sent a bug report and petition and both came back with nothing in the logs. Again, those are the things I would think that need to be logged. I frapsed it incidentally because it was so amusing and weird.

sodney
Posted - 2011.04.06 00:06:00 - [24]
 

Edited by: sodney on 06/04/2011 00:07:01
"Our logs show lots of things."

Maybe change "lots of" to "useful" cause I'd be fairly confident in betting that most people have gotten the majority of any petition they've filed that would have required some sort of log verification has received a response somewhere in the lines "our logs, they show nothing."

GJ completely misreading the point though it wasn't about the logs at all :P

Altaica Amur
Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2011.04.06 00:26:00 - [25]
 

I work as a GM for another game and when our logs show nothing then it's the fault of our logs not the customer and we have to do our best to figure out what happened with what information we do have. Now I'm sure there's plenty of instances where you really can't reimburse player x because your logs don't show anything and I know myself and likely others wouldn't mind that so much if that wasn't where you seemed to stop. If you don't see the bug in the logs then even if you can't reimburse asking the customer details about what they encountered so you can recreate it, or simply saying that you're investigating the issue and trying to fix it ( and actually doing so ) is kinda important. Just stopping dead at 'it's not in our logs, guess it dosen't exist' is beyond absurd.

Guillame Herschel
Gallente
NME1
Posted - 2011.04.06 00:34:00 - [26]
 

Quote:
Sadly, this means that sometimes we are not able to verify losses as being eligible for reimbursement by way of our server-side logs.


Let GMs use their discretion in the corner cases when the logs "show nothing" but where there clearly seems to be a bug or problem, the player has not got a track record of frivolous petitions, hasn't received a discretionary reimbursement recently, and no other factors exist that might cast doubt on the player's side of the story.

The robotic inflexibility is what is most aggravating about the present reimbursement policy.

Olleybear
Minmatar
I R' Carebear
Posted - 2011.04.06 02:58:00 - [27]
 

Quote:
Not wanting to be harsh here, but it was never the intention that mission runners should be able to ply their trade without risk of interaction with the rest of the EVE Online community. EVE is hard because our players make it hard, this goes for the mission running bit of it as well.


Then why did you introduce a mechanic that is specifically designed to not only reduce the chances of being scanned, but reduces the chances to zero if you have the right ship/setup/implants?

Avoiding Scan Probes hosted on your own wiki...

T3 Ship mod to increase ship sensor stregnth...

T3 mod to reduce ship sig radius...

Not to mention the militia implants that increase sensor strength or the faction Halos that reduce ship radius.

So, on one hand we have a Marauder class battleship that is specifically setup to run missions, but cant do squat to keep itself from being probed. On the other, we have T3 ships, and even Logistic ships like the scimitar, that can be setup so they cant be scanned out ever.

Guys, this game mechanic does not make sense from a mission runners point of view who would like to go to low sec in their battleship/marauder, but dont stand much of a chance. But hey, as long as the pvper can sit afk in space in an unscannable ship thats ok. Not to be... harsh... Very Happy

Cors
It's A Trap
It's A Trap Alliance
Posted - 2011.04.06 03:00:00 - [28]
 

One problem I see in this blog, and in the thread with all the suggestions to CCP is I think a miscommunication.

A LOT of the players are saying that the whole GM Support setup is flawed. But in the above blog, that statement is responded to as if the players wanted something reimbursed. They are actually stating that the mechanism of CCP's GM support is flawed, and needs to be improved.

The simple "our logs show nothing" should NOT be applied to ANY in game item. EVER.
EVERY item in game should be tracked for at least the last half dozen interactions with it.
Whether it's for BOT reduction, RMT reduction, or player support.

If the "Logs show nothing" is used so much that's it's a damned meme on it's own in the EVE community, then maybe it's time to spend 6 months revamping the "logs", and the logging system.

I'm happy to see CCP revamping certain procedures, but the honest truth is that the CCP provided support structure for EVE is sorely lacking.

Mateja Agittain
Posted - 2011.04.06 07:21:00 - [29]
 

Quote:
Posted by: biggie fluffy on 11/03/2011 17:33:00 I have to say I find may of your policy and M pretty horrible to deal with. It is clearly the most negative aspect of the game ( that is: interacting with GM when required). 99.999% of the the responses I have received from GM's indicate they either do not understand English, or have not bothered to read my request. It seems the GM is only concerned with providing a response, ANY response, and is not concerned with the quality of helping the person understand the issue. I am currently dealing with an issue where I was buying items in station, but he items where being bought in other places. I found the issue. and sent a message to GM, I then did many other transactions to verify it could not possibly me something I was doing wrong, and then when to HELP CHANNEL to verify with them I was doing it all correct. I then messaged the gm FROM the station I was in , and bought something right then, with the same times stamp so they could verify the issue. The response I received? "our logs show no errors" This whole concept of the logs showing errors is faulty to start with! If your smart enough to sort through logs to find errors, why aren't you able to fix the problems generating them?!!!!!!!! Quite simply - there needs to be a paradigm shift in the thinking of the gm's, and there roll. They need to be problems solvers, not the "blow off department". I don't think you should EVER send a message to a user that your logs don't show the error they are seeing.-- this only proves that your logging is not effective.
Quote:
Our logs show lots of things. Regrettably, we are not able to log everything as there must be a trade-off where server performance and logging is concerned. Sadly, this means that sometimes we are not able to verify losses as being eligible for reimbursement by way of our server-side logs. Our logging capabilities are constantly improving, however, and with that we have a better chance of being able to render assistance.



CCP simply doesn't care about it's PR department, because as long as the subscribers count will rise (even if ever so slightly) they won't admit that the PR department is seriously flawed. Funny thing is, they release some eye-candy trailer about what Eve's "goal" in the future is to be (which looks too much like some lame console-based FPS in my opinion) and they haven't been able to seriously fix any of the issues that have been in Eve now for years. Lag, PR, "our logs show nothing" laziness, the list could go on for quite some time. And that reply to the post by biggie fluffy "there must be a trade off where server performance and logging is concerned"... I would really like to know what server performance you're talking about, can you clarify? Because if anything, the performance of server(s) is at a poor level at the moment, judging by the fact that a system(server) can't even handle 300 players properly unless there's a "reinforced node" involved. So CCP, before you're trying to hook new players with wasting money on making trailers about Eve "evolving" into a FPS game, try to address the current issues at hand, there are many; judging by the responses I heard from people in-game and also read about in the blog, people are getting fed up, but a shame the number of complaints isn't nearly as big as it could and should be, since most people have just given up on stating their issues due to GM's ignorant and generic (c/p anyone?) replies. Hire some proper personnel that can handle PR.

Camios
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2011.04.06 08:59:00 - [30]
 



"There's been a change of plans, vanguard."

That is, the new policy of customer service.

"Help isn't coming. At all"



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