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

CCP Fallout

Posted - 2010.09.14 16:49:00 - [1]
 

GM Lelouch's newest dev blog outlines the Petition Review Initiative and how the game master team is using it to help improve service. You can read all about it here.

Anna Grahm
Caldari
Posted - 2010.09.14 17:01:00 - [2]
 

I guess the takeaway for players is: Rate your petitions, especially if the GM didn't help.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.09.14 17:08:00 - [3]
 

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

Kinroi Alari
Gallente
Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2010.09.14 17:08:00 - [4]
 

Reasonable approach to screening comments.
I like!

Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
Spreadsheets Online
Posted - 2010.09.14 17:21:00 - [5]
 

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.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.09.14 17:23:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Jason Edwards
I'm a player who rarely logs in because of a bad decision in a petition.


Did you rate your petition?

-Liang

Fastercart
Gallente
Ornery Cantankerous Curmudgeons
Posted - 2010.09.14 17:25:00 - [7]
 

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

I like this suggestion. Sounds reasonable. But, I do not know what kind of workload this would entail.

What about accounts that expire?

Cuchulain Spartan
Posted - 2010.09.14 17:27:00 - [8]
 

Well, something definitely needs to improve. I've issued a lot of bug reports as of late and your team just doesn't seem to get it, not even sure they read things fully.

Example
In the last few days I filled 4 bug reports covering 8 separate bugs, granted they are the same bug but they had logs/crashdumps related to 8 separate occurrences of the bug type. You team member canceled 3 of the 4 bug reports and said I had reported the same bug multiple times.

No I didn't report the same bug 8 times, I reported 8 separate occurrences of the bug and 8 separate logserver/crashdumps for each occurance that occured over several hours.

I thought he purpose of providing bug reports was so that CCP could gather as much info as possible on separate occurrences and look for coming factors that cause the bug. Clearly the GM or whoever I dealt with needs some training as he/she doesn't seem to recognize this.

I have 8 more separate incidents of this bug that have occurred in the last 24 hours, should I even bother reporting these or are they going to be just closed out and ignored because one of your team cant be bothered to take the time to see that all the files attached are from 8 separate time stamps and dates, 8 separate occurrences, NOT the same 1 occurrence reported 8 times!!!

ShadowMaster
Gallente
Posted - 2010.09.14 17:39:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Cuchulain Spartan
Well, something definitely needs to improve. I've issued a lot of bug reports as of late and your team just doesn't seem to get it, not even sure they read things fully.

Example
In the last few days I filled 4 bug reports covering 8 separate bugs, granted they are the same bug but they had logs/crashdumps related to 8 separate occurrences of the bug type. You team member canceled 3 of the 4 bug reports and said I had reported the same bug multiple times.

No I didn't report the same bug 8 times, I reported 8 separate occurrences of the bug and 8 separate logserver/crashdumps for each occurance that occured over several hours.

I thought he purpose of providing bug reports was so that CCP could gather as much info as possible on separate occurrences and look for coming factors that cause the bug. Clearly the GM or whoever I dealt with needs some training as he/she doesn't seem to recognize this.

I have 8 more separate incidents of this bug that have occurred in the last 24 hours, should I even bother reporting these or are they going to be just closed out and ignored because one of your team cant be bothered to take the time to see that all the files attached are from 8 separate time stamps and dates, 8 separate occurrences, NOT the same 1 occurrence reported 8 times!!!



Bug Report != Petition
Different people handle them.

Thank you for the dev blog, much appreciated.

gfldex
Posted - 2010.09.14 17:41:00 - [10]
 

How do I opt out of getting those annoying E-Mails I get every time an agent is requireing GM help? I could ofc just tell procmail to handle all E-Mails comming from ccp if you prefere it that way.

Cuchulain Spartan
Posted - 2010.09.14 17:52:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Cuchulain Spartan on 14/09/2010 17:54:08

Originally by: ShadowMaster
Originally by: Cuchulain Spartan
Well, something definitely needs to improve. I've issued a lot of bug reports as of late and your team just doesn't seem to get it, not even sure they read things fully.

Example
In the last few days I filled 4 bug reports covering 8 separate bugs, granted they are the same bug but they had logs/crashdumps related to 8 separate occurrences of the bug type. You team member canceled 3 of the 4 bug reports and said I had reported the same bug multiple times.

No I didn't report the same bug 8 times, I reported 8 separate occurrences of the bug and 8 separate logserver/crashdumps for each occurance that occured over several hours.

I thought he purpose of providing bug reports was so that CCP could gather as much info as possible on separate occurrences and look for coming factors that cause the bug. Clearly the GM or whoever I dealt with needs some training as he/she doesn't seem to recognize this.

I have 8 more separate incidents of this bug that have occurred in the last 24 hours, should I even bother reporting these or are they going to be just closed out and ignored because one of your team cant be bothered to take the time to see that all the files attached are from 8 separate time stamps and dates, 8 separate occurrences, NOT the same 1 occurrence reported 8 times!!!



Bug Report != Petition
Different people handle them.

Thank you for the dev blog, much appreciated.


Bug Report != Petition, yes I know this but sometimes they go hand in hand. Those 8 separate bugs I reported that got brushed aside were also listed as part of reimbursement petition brought on as a direct result of the 8 separate bug occurrences.

T'Amber
Garoun Investment Bank
Posted - 2010.09.14 17:58:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: T''Amber on 14/09/2010 17:58:48
I heard there were cookies.

also +1 for posting while Chribba was sleeping.



Daedalus II
Helios Research
Posted - 2010.09.14 18:03:00 - [13]
 

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

Grimpak
Gallente
Midnight Elites
Echelon Rising
Posted - 2010.09.14 18:16:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Grimpak on 14/09/2010 18:16:52
what the hell? GM Lelouch?


I'm scaredSad

Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
Posted - 2010.09.14 18:44:00 - [15]
 

Halfsnipe and good read yet again.

Thank you.

/c

Vertigo Ren
Posted - 2010.09.14 18:51:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Grimpak
Edited by: Grimpak on 14/09/2010 18:16:52
what the hell? GM Lelouch?


I'm scaredSad


Don't look him in the eye!

ElvenLord
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2010.09.14 19:05:00 - [17]
 

This thing started with Vuk Lau pounding on the table with CSM3 and kinda culminated and, I hope, ended with me in CSM4. Its good to see GM dept adapting to new times and evolving. One of the first signs of maturity is the ability to admit a mistake.

Hopefully this is just a start and there will be many, many more improvements in this dept.

@GMs: Thank for listening, hearing and acting on what was said.

Letrange
Minmatar
Red Horizon Inc
Cascade Imminent
Posted - 2010.09.14 19:22:00 - [18]
 

You do realize of course that part of the problem you GMs face is that sometimes parts of the EVE interface are so arcane and badly designed it can take up to 3-4 days to figure out that there IS something that needs to be petitioned?

This can add considerable bad feeling on the part of the customer that GMs are not responding to problems fast enough, since by the time we realize we need GM help it's already 3 days since the problem started...

CEO interface anyone?

Calistro
Gallente
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.09.14 19:39:00 - [19]
 

I am happy to hear that there is constant review taking place of the procedures that lay the basis for work.

With my experiences however, I've always left with a feeling that the GMs base cases that has a small ounce of complexity in them, totally random and by their own heart. The (l)on(g)-going joke "The logs show nothing" should really be a huge indicator that something is rotten in the state of the GM department.

What I wish you would focus on, is more transparency and logic behind your decisions. I want to follow your thought of process and if I get all the way to a Lead GM with my case, I don't want the same standard reply I got when I spoke to the normal GM and senior GM.

More transparency in the process would not just keep me happy, it would probably also result in a lowering in the mistakes and different judgements made by GMs.

Computer says no doesn't cut it anymore.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.09.14 19:56:00 - [20]
 

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.


Did you file a bug report? I have 100% of the time gotten reimbursements when linking a valid bug report.

-Liang

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2010.09.14 20:02:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Calistro
I am happy to hear that there is constant review taking place of the procedures that lay the basis for work.

With my experiences however, I've always left with a feeling that the GMs base cases that has a small ounce of complexity in them, totally random and by their own heart. The (l)on(g)-going joke "The logs show nothing" should really be a huge indicator that something is rotten in the state of the GM department.

What I wish you would focus on, is more transparency and logic behind your decisions. I want to follow your thought of process and if I get all the way to a Lead GM with my case, I don't want the same standard reply I got when I spoke to the normal GM and senior GM.

More transparency in the process would not just keep me happy, it would probably also result in a lowering in the mistakes and different judgements made by GMs.

Computer says no doesn't cut it anymore.


It would be interesting to see what percentage of petitions received the "logs show nothing" response and the percentage of petitions where the logs did, in fact, show nothing. I'm going to guess that, being human, the GMs likely reimburse/whatever even though the logs don't show anything.

Helicity Boson
Amarr
The Python Cartel.
The Defenders of Pen Island
Posted - 2010.09.14 21:40:00 - [22]
 

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.

Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
Posted - 2010.09.14 22:31:00 - [23]
 

I think this program is very very encouraging, particularly in the area of identifying training needs for the GM staff.

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?

Dareth Meroul
Posted - 2010.09.15 00:08:00 - [24]
 

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.

Dareth Meroul
Posted - 2010.09.15 00:14:00 - [25]
 

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)

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2010.09.15 06:23:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: Venkul Mul on 15/09/2010 06:35:17
Originally by: Cuchulain Spartan
Well, something definitely needs to improve. I've issued a lot of bug reports as of late and your team just doesn't seem to get it, not even sure they read things fully.

Example
In the last few days I filled 4 bug reports covering 8 separate bugs, granted they are the same bug but they had logs/crashdumps related to 8 separate occurrences of the bug type. You team member canceled 3 of the 4 bug reports and said I had reported the same bug multiple times.

No I didn't report the same bug 8 times, I reported 8 separate occurrences of the bug and 8 separate logserver/crashdumps for each occurance that occured over several hours.

I thought he purpose of providing bug reports was so that CCP could gather as much info as possible on separate occurrences and look for coming factors that cause the bug. Clearly the GM or whoever I dealt with needs some training as he/she doesn't seem to recognize this.

I have 8 more separate incidents of this bug that have occurred in the last 24 hours, should I even bother reporting these or are they going to be just closed out and ignored because one of your team cant be bothered to take the time to see that all the files attached are from 8 separate time stamps and dates, 8 separate occurrences, NOT the same 1 occurrence reported 8 times!!!



You can add further informations to an already existing bug report. It is really useful as adding to an existing bug report allow you to send multiple logs, pictures and so on related to the bug even when they exceeed the standard attachment size.

Quote:
the logs show nothing' isnt a valid point at all


It is a valid point.

First people playing EVE wouldn't be happy if half of the server power was used to log every minutiae so that it is always possible to check what happened in detail. It would add to lag and to serverside problems, so it would increase player unhappiness. I think that trading worse general performance for a better capacity to check logs is a bad trade up.

Second, if the losses/damages were routinely reimbursed when the logs show nothing we would see 100K petitions/month all asking for reimbursement and the various alliance and corp forums will be full of "standard petitions to get your stuff back" with the instructions to what they should say to be sure to present the case so that there is no log confirmation of what really happened.


Sophie Malaster
Heavy industries Shinohara
ARTESANOS
Posted - 2010.09.15 07:53:00 - [27]
 

One of the most important demands is related to the payments, if there is a problem with payment, your account is canceled or closed and as this made the system does not allow you to send a petition from your account manager, who must to be possible and should be a priority.

People as they can play, you can wait 3 or 4 days to a request, if you can not play, you can not expect either one day.

Lost Hamster
Hamster Holding Corp
Posted - 2010.09.15 09:32:00 - [28]
 

30 000 petition per month Shocked
That's a lot. If you compare it to the roughly 300k subscriber, then it's about 10% of the players who create at least one petition per month.

I think that's a LOT. I still see problem with petition prioritization.
Let's see an example:
Account hacking.

Account got hacked. Owner petition it. It takes one day to get the first answer from the GM. He ask couple questions. Answer is sent back, then it take an additional day until there is an answer, and the hacked account is suspended.

So the hacker had minimum TWO !! day to sell all the assets from the fellow player.

Personally I think that's to much.

Another problem:
Account verification:
You only accept the original email address as valid, what was created during the account creation process.
However email addresses are not for eternity. You can not expect that a mail address what was originally used stay there forever.

You need to implement processes, how a user can safely change the mail address so, that you accept it as a VALID original mail address.

Ban Doga
Posted - 2010.09.15 09:50:00 - [29]
 

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?

Haral Heisto
Posted - 2010.09.15 10:18:00 - [30]
 

Can we get the ability to rate individual GM actions within a petition? I've had a few of my more complex issues completely derailed when a new GM drops in on a petition and copy-pastes something unrelated to the problem due to skim-reading only the latest comment.


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