• GM team has lack of knowledge regarding game-mechanics


• Low-level GM's are unprofessional and usually only warrant an escalation to a more senior GM to solve the issue


• General consensus that GM team is not reading petitions / annoying at "cut+paste" type answers, mostly regarding the "logs show nothing" type answer


• Feeling that GM team is corrupt/incompetent due to issues such as GM's being biased / making decisions along the BOBR name change issue


• Disorganization of GM team, especially regarding the "reimbursement policy" or lack thereof


• The long time it takes for petitions to get answered


• Players loss of trust in the support/GM system

1. Revisiting the GM hiring policy, including a test (?) for game mechanics knowledge


2. Increasing GM count in order to reduce stress on each GM, so we get the feeling of being answered by REAL humans and not a C+P machine


3. Creation of a new method to monitor game mechanics in which logs actually mean something and not just an "go-away" GM answer


4. Creation of a PUBLIC rules and regulations regarding GM do's and dont's, specifically reimbursement.


5. House cleanup by IA department (or creation of one if it doesn't exist) and clearing up all the "rotten apples" . Although there is no public T20 yet, I doubt the GM department is fully clean.

1. Lack of a working support for their game


2. Total loss of trust in said support system, to the point of which people saying "don't petition it, it won't make a difference anyhow".

Originally by: Malcanis

---

This is a better rework.

One thing I would like to add is something that could help the GMs, rather than just criticise them:

Specifically, I am talking about penalties for players abusing the petition system.

---

Originally by: Moon Dogg

---

I just read through the previous pages, and lamented the lack of constructive suggestions. Then I saw that LaVista Vista had the same view. So, without further ado, lets think about what can be done to improve things for the front-line GM.

First, let me say that - despite me being a 2006 character - I lack the indepth knowledge of Eve mechanics to ever serve as a GM. So if I say something stupid here, I blame that :)

1) GM training courses on game-specific areas. For example:
a. PvP
b. Industry/Mining
c. POS
d. Sovereignty, Corporations & Alliances
e. Factional Warfare
f. Wormholes
g. Missions/complexes
h. Skills
i. Standings
j. Reimbursement
k. Policies & Rules
l. Billing & Account
m. Markets

The idea being that a front-line GM candidate would have to take one or more of courses like the ones listed above. Maybe they are a week in length, maybe less (3 days?). Content is prepared by senior GMs, and is designed around what a front-liner should know to head off a lot of the common incoming petitions for that subject area. To get into that class, a person would have to demonstrate appropriate knowledge on that subject.

Candidates could take more than one course, and - provided they pass a test - would then receive petitions based on what areas they have been deemed competent in. CCP would then have a fair idea of how many GMs were in each area, and could up the number of GMs in areas where there are heavier petition loads.

One of the things that this doesn't take into account is how the petitions are distributed (which I assume is automated).


2) Stress the in-game Help Channel.
We have one of these? I had forgotten or wasn't really aware. Is it staffed by competent, CCP-trained individuals, or is this a place populated by well-meaning (or not?) pod pilots who may or may not be knowledgeable in the game?

Regardless, if the Help Channel is meant to be a true first line to head off needless or simple-to-resolve petitions, then CCP needs to make sure that it is populated by people that can answer questions correctly AND that the pilot base is aware of it. Promo the Help Channel more in news postings, messages above the login area, etc.


3) Don't file petitions on minor isues and gameplay questions.
Fine. CCP should provide an outline of what those things are.


4) Submitting the petition - give us a template.
Yes, we all know that "ze logs, they show notheenk". What information will a GM need? Should there be fields created in the petition that, if left unfilled, will not allow the petition to be filed? Will that just result in pilots putting garbage into the field so their narratives gets submitted - possibly. Probably :) But if we know what basic things they need to know, many of us will provide them. We WANT our petitions to succeed, afterall.


5) Courtesy in the petition process.
I am talking about the language used by the submitting pilot here, not the GM responses. I have, in my petitions, never failed to use polite language to frame my problem and ask for assistance. Remember, it isn't their fault that the issue affecting you occured, and you want them to start their interaction with you on a positive note, rather than on a negative one resulting from language that attacks or deingrates the GM and/or CCP.

(continued on next post)

---

Originally by: Moon Dogg

---

(continued from my last post)

6) GM Incentives
I am speaking from ignorance here, so bear with me. Is there any type of incentive program in place for GMs? For example, if you clear 80% of the petitons assigned to you in a quarter without bumping up to a more senior GM, and with a positive satisfaction rating, then that person gets a PLEX from CCP. Or a ship model. Or maybe a snazzy T-shirt! I have to assume that CCP has mechanisms in place to gather customer satisfaction data related to petitions, so develop a metric that, if met by GMs, rewards them for their hard work.

I used to do work for Wizards of the Coast (and TSR, Inc. before them), and when we submitted our project, the reward was X dollars in Dungeons & Dragons product. If I look at the amount of time I put into the projects I did for them, and compared them to the dollar value of the product I received, then my hourly wage was probably in the $2/hour range, but I can tell you that I was happy as could be in getting that package full of D&D stuff!

7) GM Consequences
If you provide incentives for positive results, there must be consequences for those that aren't getting them. That might mean a review of GM responses to see if it is a matter of professionalism, a lack of knowledge, failure to fully read and understand the petition, etc. Or maybe it is just that the player didn't get their way and did't rate the GM well as punishment.

Bottom line: institute a review process based on data collected from petitioners. Poor performance is either corrected, results in removal from the category of petition where the performance is lacking, or results in termination from the GM program.


8) The dreaded "English Barrier".
English is how most of the business of Eve is conducted, although a significant number of pilots don't speak it. I realize there are options out there (the German support option, for example), but for many, submitting a petition in understandable English is dificult at best. I worry that being unable to clearly impart what the issue is on the player's behalf might result in petitions that are very difficult to address and close positively on the GMs behalf.

I don't have any suggestion on how to address this, but I think it is worth the mention.


These are just some ideas that I had floating around regarding the subject. Hopefully the CSM can take these, if they are worthwhile, or develop their own suggestions that would help to improve the customer service side of the game.

---

Originally by: Mashashige

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

This is a better rework.

One thing I would like to add is something that could help the GMs, rather than just criticise them:

Specifically, I am talking about penalties for players abusing the petition system.

---

Sound like a good idea. How would you go about this though?
x time between petitions?
Rework the petition system so the GMs can notice an abnormal number of petitions from one person / regarding an issue? (could be useful if many people are reporting an isk buyer, and I doubt a system like that is in place)

And what about punishments? Complete x days ban from petitioning? Warning?

And also, how would you determine if someone is abusing the system/ what does it mean to abuse it? (guess if they publish a public rules+regs that would be there).

---

Originally by: CCP Mitnal

---

I don't sleep.
I am always here.
Watching.
Waiting.

---

Originally by: CCP Mitnal

---

it does get progressively longer.

---

Quote:

---

But it's all about approaching it in a way where it's not a direct attack on the GM team

---

Originally by: Kazzac Elentria

---

No

Perhaps some more hard fast guidelines need to be in place, especially with regards to reimbursement (which should all be but cut out except in the most extreme cases at this point), but for the most part petitions get answered within a timely manner relevant to their importance.

I realize X issue might be an issue to you now, but that is slightly less lower on the service list than say, someone who cannot log in because toon is stuck in limbo.

---

Quote:

---

Total loss of trust in said support system, to the point of which people saying "don't petition it, it won't make a difference anyhow"

---