EVE Search - New Dev Blog: Reimbursement policy updated

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

New Dev Blog: Reimbursement policy updated

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)

CCP Navigator C C P C C P Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.11 11:16:00 - [1] Lead GM Grimmi and the Customer Support team have updated the reimbursement policies and provide you with a detailed guide on the new process. Full details can be seen here. Navigator Senior Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online

Batolemaeus Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.11 11:38:00 - [2] Edited by: Batolemaeus on 11/03/2011 11:43:27 Quote: Finally, we endeavor to be consistent Quote: Any losses of any kind resulting from a large-scale player engagement are not covered by this reimbursement policy. Unless of course when you do. Which you did. Quote: a. Any losses attributable to errors in the EVE client may not be eligible for reimbursement. So when I ddos someone's client into submission using the fact that spamming of convo requests from multiple sources can freeze the client, the victim can't even get his stuff back? Awesome.
andeira	Posted - 2011.03.11 11:38:00 - [3] Edited by: andeira on 11/03/2011 11:38:39 thanks for listing them all usefull info for me (I petition almost never and now even less probably) Quote: 3. Missions 2. Reimbursements will not be granted in instances where: c. A mission objective is destroyed or stolen by another player. Is this a recent change? I have heard from a few people last month that got there mission reset cause they shot the objective. (activating guns instead of tractorbeam) edit: lol one sec to slow to be first ------------- Originally by: Stitcher For frak's sake, it took millions of years of evolution for that brain to get inside your skull, would it kill you to actually USE the damned thing?
Killerhound Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.11 11:40:00 - [4] Guys, why dont you get it, the damsel is to be safed since its a damsel in distress. Anything else would be cruel. Thx @gm for clarifications
Grek Forto Crosshair Corp	Posted - 2011.03.11 11:48:00 - [5] Originally by: andeira Edited by: andeira on 11/03/2011 11:38:39 thanks for listing them all usefull info for me (I petition almost never and now even less probably) Quote: 3. Missions 2. Reimbursements will not be granted in instances where: c. A mission objective is destroyed or stolen by another player. Is this a recent change? I have heard from a few people last month that got there mission reset cause they shot the objective. (activating guns instead of tractorbeam) edit: lol one sec to slow to be first If you believe it was like that before I am sure that it was just a clarification on their standpoint towards the issue.
Estel Arador	Posted - 2011.03.11 11:49:00 - [6] Are there stats on reimbursement petitions, such as what percentage gets declined, and how much time is spend on reimbursement petitions compared to other petitions or petition categories?
Mashie Saldana Minmatar Veto Corp	Posted - 2011.03.11 11:56:00 - [7] In before the log jokes.
Kalidia	Posted - 2011.03.11 12:05:00 - [8] "3. Ships destroyed by use of the "self destruct" feature or any action initiated by the owner (including but not limited to: recycling, trashing, etc.), whether intentionally or accidentally, cannot be reimbursed." "1. Items recycled accidentally may be reimbursed on a case-by-case basis, but only if the minerals received have not been moved from the original recycling station and the original resulting "stacks" of minerals have been retained (thus not merged with other stacks of minerals or broken up into smaller stacks)." So wich is it, u need to choose one
Demitrios Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas.	Posted - 2011.03.11 12:08:00 - [9] Edited by: Demitrios on 11/03/2011 12:08:31 More swearing in dev blogs please, it clearly shows the professionalism of the company you are representing. ** ** bastard. EDIT: oh i see bastard is allowed, interesting :P
ArchenTheGreat Caldari Nomads of Zen	Posted - 2011.03.11 12:12:00 - [10] Edited by: ArchenTheGreat on 11/03/2011 12:13:17 I think you should clarify this one: "a. Any losses attributable to errors in the EVE client may not be eligible for reimbursement." I think where is a clear (and confirmed by CCP) bug in EVE client you should reimburse. I know why you put it there but it's too broad statement. Originally by: Demitrios More swearing in dev blogs please, it clearly shows the professionalism of the company you are representing. Shut up. EVE is a game for mature people. If you want nanny game for pussies go play WOW.

Batolemaeus Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.11 12:13:00 - [11] Quote: Hacking is any unauthorized access to another person's account, by illegal means or not. No, it is not. Please use a fitting term instead of misusing a word.
Mike deVoid Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2011.03.11 12:17:00 - [12] Can you let us know what logs you have available? Because although requiring evidence in server-side logs is completely reasonable, we sometimes have to take on trust that no such evidence exists when in fact it may be the case that the GM cannot find it or is looking in the wrong log because of poor game knowledge about a specific area. TL:DR. Tell us what logs are available to GMs.
Ifly Uwalk Caldari Empire Tax Collection Agency	Posted - 2011.03.11 12:21:00 - [13] Originally by: Kalidia So wich is it, u need to choose one Why? Recycled ships don't get reimbursed, recycled items do. Ships != items.
Demitrios Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas.	Posted - 2011.03.11 12:27:00 - [14] Originally by: ArchenTheGreat Edited by: ArchenTheGreat on 11/03/2011 12:13:17 I think you should clarify this one: "a. Any losses attributable to errors in the EVE client may not be eligible for reimbursement." I think where is a clear (and confirmed by CCP) bug in EVE client you should reimburse. I know why you put it there but it's too broad statement. Originally by: Demitrios More swearing in dev blogs please, it clearly shows the professionalism of the company you are representing. Shut up. EVE is a game for mature people. If you want nanny game for pussies go play WOW. Next time you are in a shop and the person serving you tells you to go **** your self, remember that life is for mature people.
Ban Doga	Posted - 2011.03.11 12:36:00 - [15] Edited by: Ban Doga on 11/03/2011 12:43:13 Quote: 3. Missions Missions may be offered by either NPC agents or as courier missions created by other players. 1. 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. 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? Got another question: Quote: 3. Reimbursement will only be granted if a loss is attributable to a bug or server error. a. Any losses attributable to errors in the EVE client may not be eligible for reimbursement. Quote: Assets lost to a scam may only be reimbursed if the scammer used a verified bug to hide his intentions to scam. Is an error something else than a bug? I'm not sure, could you explain if those two rule contradict each other and if not, why a loss due to a bug used for scamming does not fall under "any losses attributable to errors in the EVE client"?
ArchenTheGreat Caldari Nomads of Zen	Posted - 2011.03.11 12:37:00 - [16] Edited by: ArchenTheGreat on 11/03/2011 12:37:37 Originally by: Demitrios Next time you are in a shop and the person serving you tells you to go ** your self, remember that life is for mature people. I never encountered situation when CCP told someone to ** yourself. They sometimes use loose language but do not insult people. Again, don't be such a pussie. HTFU.
Kalidia	Posted - 2011.03.11 12:42:00 - [17] Originally by: Ifly Uwalk Originally by: Kalidia So wich is it, u need to choose one Why? Recycled ships don't get reimbursed, recycled items do. Ships != items. Then tell me, why should there be diffrent rules between ships and items? Just doesnt make sense.
Demitrios Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas.	Posted - 2011.03.11 12:44:00 - [18] Originally by: ArchenTheGreat Edited by: ArchenTheGreat on 11/03/2011 12:37:37 Originally by: Demitrios Next time you are in a shop and the person serving you tells you to go ** your self, remember that life is for mature people. I never encountered situation when CCP told someone to ** yourself. They sometimes use loose language but do not insult people. Again, don't be such a pussie. HTFU. I dont need to htfu, thanks. Maybe you are the one that needs to chill out, After all, its just a game.
Selene D'Celeste Caldari The D'Celeste Trading Company ISK Six	Posted - 2011.03.11 12:50:00 - [19] It looks like there are some more edits that need to be made =D ______________________________
Demitrios Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas.	Posted - 2011.03.11 12:57:00 - [20] Its better than making a new post, everytime you want to add something.

Krathos Morpheus Legion Infernal	Posted - 2011.03.11 13:03:00 - [21] 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. 4. Reprocessed assets cannot be restored to prior status. Not nice of you to clearly show the hacker how to make maximum damage/get away with some items. Now anyone accessing another player account knows what to do to get around reimbursement. Facepalm.
Malovich Caldari	Posted - 2011.03.11 13:04:00 - [22] Originally by: CCP Policy 1. Items recycled accidentally may be reimbursed on a case-by-case basis, but only if the minerals received have not been moved from the original recycling station and the original resulting "stacks" of minerals have been retained (thus not merged with other stacks of minerals or broken up into smaller stacks). From what I observe, the client auto-stacks minerals from reprocessing with any currently existing stacks of minerals. Unless that's an option to shut off that stacking somewhere (cba to look to for it atm) or that part of the policy is awkwardly written, it does seem rather poor form to have the client's own functionality make a reimbursement request impossible under this policy. As I read it, if I had a random unit of trit sitting around and accidentally reprocessed an officer module, I couldn't get that reimbursed since it was merged with another stack of minerals by the client without my intervention. I could be reading it wrong and what CCP means is "you haven't messed with the stacks at all since reprocessing, but it's fine if they were merged with ones you already had initially", but I don't think that's what the words on the page say at the moment. Some clarification seems needed on that point. Granted, with the new icons on faction and deadspace stuff I find it a lot harder to even make such mistakes (thanks for those by the way), but if you could see an accident coming most people would just avoid it in the first place. Thanks to Grimmi and the GM team for the update and the other work the GMs do for Eve, even if we don't always like what they have tell us.
Vuk Lau 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.11 13:35:00 - [23] Quote: 5. Any losses of any kind resulting from a large-scale player engagement are not covered by this reimbursement policy. Pathetic altering of Reimbursement policies to cover your inability to do your job related to fleet fights, because its just easier to send generic reply to hundreds of players instead of actually doing your job - to provide customer support.
Ariane VoxDei	Posted - 2011.03.11 13:49:00 - [24] Originally by: Malovich Originally by: CCP Policy 1. Items recycled accidentally may be reimbursed on a case-by-case basis, but only if the minerals received have not been moved from the original recycling station and the original resulting "stacks" of minerals have been retained (thus not merged with other stacks of minerals or broken up into smaller stacks). From what I observe, the client auto-stacks minerals from reprocessing with any currently existing stacks of minerals. Yep, it does. And how does this work if you were recycling a pile of ore and accidentally included some modules that should not have been selected? Is the claim invalid due to being part of a ore pile. Perhaps more worrying, does this mean that you are in fact not capable of tracing mineral properly if they "disappear" into other stacks? Sounds like a freaking huge abyssal gate for mineral "laundering", when combined with malicious intent for RMT. 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.
Valeo Galaem New Eden Advanced Reconnaissance Unit Sentient World Observation and Response Directive	Posted - 2011.03.11 13:55:00 - [25] These seem inconsistent - intentional? Originally by: 2. Lost Ships 3. Ships destroyed by use of the "self destruct" feature or any action initiated by the owner (including but not limited to: recycling, trashing, etc.), whether intentionally or accidentally, cannot be reimbursed. Originally by: 4. Recycled Items 1. Items recycled accidentally may be reimbursed on a case-by-case basis, but only if the minerals received have not been moved from the original recycling station and the original resulting "stacks" of minerals have been retained (thus not merged with other stacks of minerals or broken up into smaller stacks). Originally by: 9. Hacking & Account Transfers 4. Reprocessed assets cannot be restored to prior status. So if your items are reprocessed, you can get them back, but not if they are ships, and not if they were reprocessed by a hacker, correct? New rules also say nothing about accidentally trashing items. Thar be Pirates You are not authorised to hack into CONCORD's mainframe Your Wallet has been emptied! CONCORD Encryption Methods
Ishina Fel Caldari Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2011.03.11 13:56:00 - [26] I really think there should be one additional line in the policy: "All supercapital ships are exempt from reimbursement for any reason." - Signature? What signature?
schwar2ss Caldari Madhatters Inc.	Posted - 2011.03.11 14:09:00 - [27] Quote: If we can verify the cause to be a bug or server issue using server side logs, we'll reimburse. Oh the logs, they show... scnr Anyway, did you improve logging? What about LogServer logs?
Vuk Lau 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.11 14:10:00 - [28] Originally by: Ishina Fel I really think there should be one additional line in the policy: "All supercapital ships are exempt from reimbursement for any reason." Why? Because IRC doesnt have one?
Vuk Lau 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.11 15:29:00 - [29] 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 and using word which starts on S and ends with T in the devblog made me realize this devblog is actually a troll. 9/10 you almost got me.
Jovan Geldon Gallente Lead Farmers Kill It With Fire	Posted - 2011.03.11 15:51:00 - [30] 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?

Matalino	Posted - 2011.03.11 16:03:00 - [31] Edited by: Matalino on 11/03/2011 16:06:05 Originally by: Ban Doga 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? Courier missions to player outposts CAN be completed using normal game mechanics. You have the ability to avoid the scam using regular game mechanics. No refund! Selecting a courier contract to a station where you do not have docking rights is no different than selecting a contract where you do not have sufficient cargo capacity. Just because you personally cannot complete the mission because of your personal limitations does not mean that the contract cannot be completed through the use of normal game mechanics.
Versuvius Marii Ghosts of CKSSA Joined Brotherhood	Posted - 2011.03.11 16:50:00 - [32] Originally by: GM Grimmi 2. Only items destroyed along with the ship are eligible for reimbursement. Any items left in space (in wreck, containers, etc.) are not eligible for reimbursement. This is a load of bull. I can see why but 99/100 this situation occurs in a lagged-out battlefield. If you've lost your ship and then been podded due to the extreme lag and get reimbursed, there's still a wreck out there with stuff in it that someone's getting rich from. And then of course you have to buy new modules to replace the ones you can't retrieve because you woke up in a clone 10+ jumps away and your enemy holds the field. This definitely needs changing so a reimbursement is exactly that, and not just a token gesture/apology. We all know you have the power to take away these items, or is it just that much hassle once it's gone on the market?
Taedrin Gallente The Green Cross Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.03.11 16:51:00 - [33] 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? NO. There are SEVERAL in-game mechanics whereby you can dock at a player-owned station. You can: 1) Re-contract the items to someone who has access to the station 2) Join an alliance or corporation who has access to the station 3) Attack the system and claim the station for yourself You need to look at this from CCP's perspective of "normal gameplay parameters", not your own personal set of parameters. I believe what this statement is saying is that you will be refunded if the courier contract fails to give you the courier items, or if the courier contract somehow has a destination which is impossible to reach without dev powers (i.e. Polaris or Jove Space). ---------- Originally by: Dr Fighter "how do you know when youve had a repro accident" Theres modules missing and morphite in your mineral pile.
Ban Doga	Posted - 2011.03.11 17:06:00 - [34] Originally by: Matalino Edited by: Matalino on 11/03/2011 16:06:05 Originally by: Ban Doga 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? Courier missions to player outposts CAN be completed using normal game mechanics. You have the ability to avoid the scam using regular game mechanics. No refund! Selecting a courier contract to a station where you do not have docking rights is no different than selecting a contract where you do not have sufficient cargo capacity. Just because you personally cannot complete the mission because of your personal limitations does not mean that the contract cannot be completed through the use of normal game mechanics. And you are saying this in your official role as a GM of EVE Online? I'll quote the relevant part of the new rules again so you might see the important detail: Quote: or if the mission was impossible to complete within normal gameplay parameters available to the player. Doesn't matter if it's available to someone else. Doesn't even matter if I'm the only one who cannot complete it. If I cannot complete it, then the above statement applies. Very simple.
Ravcharas GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.11 17:30:00 - [35] Originally by: Vuk Lau Quote: 5. Any losses of any kind resulting from a large-scale player engagement are not covered by this reimbursement policy. Pathetic altering of Reimbursement policies to cover your inability to do your job related to fleet fights, because its just easier to send generic reply to hundreds of players instead of actually doing your job - to provide customer support. Also, can the GM department please define large-scale player engagement?
biggie fluffy	Posted - 2011.03.11 17:33:00 - [36] 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. Kev.

GM Guard	Posted - 2011.03.11 17:40:00 - [37] 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.

Matalino	Posted - 2011.03.11 17:40:00 - [38] Originally by: Ban Doga And you are saying this in your official role as a GM of EVE Online? I would be happy to help you test this policy. If you want I will create a courier contract to a player owned station with 5 billion ISK collateral. You can then file a petition and document the results for us all. Of course, in order for this to be a realistic simulation, I would be unable to return the collateral without GM intervention.
mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.11 18:00:00 - [39] 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. (also all the contradictions are interesting and sums up to tl;dr we'll reimburse however we happen to feel like right then so stop your *****ing.)
Matalino	Posted - 2011.03.11 18:10:00 - [40] 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.

Kalissa Sacred Templars RED.OverLord	Posted - 2011.03.11 18:44:00 - [41] "We approach each petition with the mindset of trying to find a reason to fulfill the player's claim" That statement is perhaps the biggest load of **** I've heard in a long time. I've had petitions in the past for people in exactly the same fight, in exactly the same fleet at exactly the same time and had them dealt with by 2 GM's, one GM reimbursed, one didn't So as you may expect I am a little cyncical about CCP's reimbursement policy to say the least. Granted this was quite a while ago, but it's left such an awful taste in my mouth that to this day it still annoys me. Infact among the friends I have ingame there is a general feeling that a reimbursement petition is a waste of time as you have an exceptionally small chance of success. But at least they're being upfront about the rules and if people do read this the amount of petitions that get submitted should decline quite a bit, because CCP have in effect told people that 90% of the reasons people may file a petition will be rejected out of hand, so you may as well save yourself and CCP the time and effort. But don't get me wrong here, CCP's GM's do work hard and if you have a problem that is non reimbursement related I have always found them to be helpful and in most cases have sorted out the problem (even if the petition did take a bit to be replied to)
Louise Achura	Posted - 2011.03.11 18:48:00 - [42] It be nice to have a simliar list of ingame "mechanics" you can't use (droping loads of cans for lag, etc).
Ban Doga	Posted - 2011.03.11 18:57:00 - [43] Edited by: Ban Doga on 11/03/2011 18:58:00 Originally by: Matalino Edited by: Matalino on 11/03/2011 17:49:20 Originally by: Ban Doga And you are saying this in your official role as a GM of EVE Online? I would be happy to help you test this policy. If you want I will create a courier contract to a player owned station with 5 billion ISK collateral. You can then file a petition and document the results for us all. Of course, in order for this to be a realistic simulation, I would be unable to return the collateral without GM intervention. There is also problem of viewed from the perspective of the player creating the courier contract. Some twit accepts a contract that he is unable to complete, petitions the contract and gets his collateral refunded. In the mean time, the player who created the contract did not recieve the items he contracted at the expected location; therefore he uses the collateral he received to purchase the items at the desired location. A few days later, a GM comes along and f**ks with his wallet and inventory. Realisticly, there is no policy that could allow for reimbursement of failed courier contracts. Only defective contracts could be reimbursed. I don't want to test the policy, I just want an official and clear answer what the policy includes and want not. Right now the wording can be interpreted in a way that courier contract scams with player outposts fall under the "can be reimbursed" category. But as you already mentioned yourself, it doesn't really make much sense to do this. So something's strange and the newly formulated rules leave as much to be desired, room for misinterpretation, misconduct and favoritism as ever. A blanket statement in the form of "if anything happens because of bugs in our client you won't get reimbursed" to round it up and there you have a great start into another episode of "Last GM did this - why won't you?" "Because it isn't covered by the policy." "Last GM said it was." "Well I don't!"
Hermosa Diosas	Posted - 2011.03.11 18:59:00 - [44] this will only work when you fix the 'LOGS DONT SHOW ANYTHING' Bullsh*t - thats what annoys people. Because thats the answer you always come up with, your game logging is terrible.
mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.11 19:05:00 - [45] 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.
Lupus Caeli Minmatar Interstellar Arbitrage	Posted - 2011.03.11 19:08:00 - [46] Originally by: Hermosa Diosas this will only work when you fix the 'LOGS DONT SHOW ANYTHING' Bullsh*t - thats what annoys people. Because thats the answer you always come up with, your game logging is terrible. Exactly - this is just another insult to the 30-40 ppl who petitioned not receiving rewards from the Headquarters site of the first Incursion .... Despite the paragraph - this is not all inclusive blah blah blah ...we could not get a decision by a GM - just the sheeplike quote - no server logs due to the bug in question ... CCP - This is an insult !!!
Lithia Tsanov	Posted - 2011.03.11 19:21:00 - [47] Dear Mouthbreather Grimmi, I want to prefix this with message with a couple simple statements. First and foremost, "we pay you". This is important, and I really want this to stay fresh in your mind as you re-read your blog. The second statement is that an item (ship) that is lost due to a bug is 'not' lost to the opposing character. An item lost to a bug is lost to CCP. When I lose a ship to a bug, it is the same as if CCP took ISK from my wallet, and gave it to some other person. So let's tell a story. I'll call this story: "Surprise, He's not jammed". A long time ago in a galaxy far far away, CCP gave us ECM. With ECM, CCP gave us the ability to jam out targets. What CCP did not give us was an accompanying logable action other than module activation. Everyone was happy. People got jammed, people died, etc. Somewhere, a falcon pilot named Kaatt began to notice strange things. Engagements where pilots were "jammed" were lost due to jammed pilots shooting back as if nothing was wrong. Screenshots were taken and bug "92552" was filed. Some of the screens were pretty darn obvious: https://bugs.eveonline.com/files/50972719257.jpg Numerous petitions were filed, but the response was always "the logs indicate nothing" and "have you filed a bug". The response to the bug was worse than abysmal... "We cannot reproduce the issue". After CCP handed about 4 billion isk to Kaatt's enemies, he began to get curious. Just how hard was the bug to reproduce? In a 4 hour session with two accounts, Kaatt managed to reproduce the bug a dozen times, and discovered four other bugs and one exploit involving ECM. All five bugs stem from the same root cause: Jamming doesn't prevent you from targeting. It simply reduces your Max Targets to 0. The calculation for whether you are jammed or not appears to happen in three different places. (both clients, and the server). After about 6 months of CCP BS, and trying to do the right thing, Kaatt happily canceled all of her subscriptions and now pays via Plex. You see, Kaatt got tired of paying CCP real money, so that CCP could take her fake money and give it to her enemies. I guess the moral of the story is that your "reimbursement policy" only works if you actually log in-game actions on the server. If you don't, it's not only pointless, it's immoral. Perhaps if you had a remotely capable QA department, or perhaps if your GMs could actually calculate a binomial equation and determine from the "module activations" that there was a 97.6% chance that a ship was jammed when it wasn't, you'd have a leg to stand on... But you dont.... Basically it comes down to: Your Reimbursement policy sucks because: 1: Your Devs are incompetent 2: Your "Bug Hunters" are incompetent and obtuse 3: Your GMs make matters worse because they cannot escalate issues to your incompetent devs and QA teams. CCP owes me 4b isk. LT What is an OTAL?
Naomi Wildfire Amarr Men Who Stare At Gates	Posted - 2011.03.11 19:24:00 - [48] Remove reimbursements completely or fix your stupid logs, you cant even track the simplest issues. I dont know how much i thought "This time its so clear that its not my fault and its also easy to track" and still got the same answer everytime. The real question is, what do your logs show you? If we can filter out it in advance, we wouldnt be that sad and you wont reveive so many petitions.
Matalino	Posted - 2011.03.11 19:26:00 - [49] Originally by: mkmin 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. Those alts receive the same treatment as the main characters. The trail will be followed. At the end of it, there might be an RMT transaction where the buyer loses the ISK he bought and gets away with a negative wallet and a warning, otherwise, every account along the way is banned. This policy change has no effect on what is done to hackers. Those policies remain exactly the same as before. The policy change only affects those who are careless with their passwords. If you lose your password, you lose your stuff! If you keep anything after your account gets hacked (ie you installed a key logger on your computer, use the same password for something else, gave your password to a "friend", etc) then count yourself lucky that you didn't lose everything as a result of your carelessness/stupidity.
Lithia Tsanov	Posted - 2011.03.11 19:36:00 - [50] Edited by: Lithia Tsanov on 11/03/2011 19:36:28 Double posted due to crappy forum software What is an OTAL?

EB Research	Posted - 2011.03.11 19:53:00 - [51] Edited by: EB Research on 11/03/2011 19:54:06 Originally by: Mr Grim Generally in-game scams are allowed and considered a valid tactic This is what I was told years ago... When he [GRIMMI] take back something like 12 billion I scam, because I "ruin" a whole corp and they all were going to quite!
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE	Posted - 2011.03.11 20:05:00 - [52] wait I thought the GM policy was to not publish things, now they are publishing things p=~p
Duvida Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2011.03.11 20:46:00 - [53] Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton wait I thought the GM policy was to not publish things, now they are publishing things p=~p CCP is becoming more open with their customers. I prefer this change and wouldn't want it discouraged. Responding to the Dev Blog and response to it. "** happens", "That language is rude", "This is a mature game, deal with it", etc. The use of swearing doesn't indicate maturity. Our parents were trying to forbid us from swearing at the age of 5 because they were trying to help us develop an adult vocabulary in place of the use of simple vulgarity. The language used can indicated the tone of the conversation to follow. So the choice of words can be important. The ability to think on that level and express it well is more likely to be an indicator of maturity. As to the concerns brought up about losses due to client issues not being reimbursable, there appear to be exploitables that target the clientside. The client has exploitable issues that can result in losses outside of most player's control. The concern is that 1. There will NOT be a correction of those client issues, and 2. "** happens", and your game client's weaknesses being targeted is not a concern of CCP. We as players aren't likely to be able to write a new client without these bugs, nor would such an activity be welcomed by CCP, so the ball is entirely in CCP's court as to whether their customers are able to have an enjoyable game experience or not when looking at this issue. Learning...
Aineko Macx	Posted - 2011.03.11 21:01:00 - [54] Edited by: Aineko Macx on 11/03/2011 21:03:29 Quote: 3. Reimbursement will only be granted if a loss is attributable to a bug or server error. Except you don't reimburse for server errors when they happened in pvp situations "because it would alter the outcome of the battle" even if the outcome was determined exactly by your bugs or server problems. Quote: 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. That is so lame, as it can be applied to anything to refuse reimbursement. "Hey, you got a trojan over your mail client or browser": BAM! No reimbursement for you as its a EULA breach by YOU And CCP can't even state with confidence you were in fact infected with a rootkit or whatever, there are not enough resources by far for a true investigation on the client machine, so they just assume. Quote: 1. If your account is accessed by another player and assets are stolen or transferred to other players, we will investigate and items that we are able to track down will be moved back to the rightful owner. 2. Any ISK stolen from the account may be transferred back to the rightful owner on a case-by-case basis. Of course you suck hard at this, as I witnessed a case of obvious hacking with billions and T2 BPOs stolen, and the reply being "you never owned those assets" altho they could even be confirmed on the test server mirror. One of the key reasons why I and many other players have contempt for the GM department are the rules, which are created to minimize the work for CCP, not to actually help players, and specifically exempt responsibility for the most blatant cases of CCP development incompetence. And in the cases where the rules allow room for interpretation, I have never seen them being interpreted in favor of the player. Except for the no-brainers like stuck characters, the GM department is little more than an unwilling counseling automaton, made to make players feel as if someone gave a ****, which is more frustrating than talking to a wall. ________________________ CCP: Where fixing bugs is a luxury, not an obligation.
biggie fluffy	Posted - 2011.03.11 21:03:00 - [55] I really really like it when I fight with a GM for like 8 petitions about a issue I am having, that "doesn't exist, because there are no logs", and I am refused reimbursement, then they celebrate the issue as "fixed" in the patch :) LOL
Aineko Macx	Posted - 2011.03.11 21:26:00 - [56] Edited by: Aineko Macx on 11/03/2011 21:30:21 Food for thought: If you as a developer had the chance to create new types of logs for issues which you knew would cause an increase of GM workload of say 10%, because you wouldn't truly be able to bounce "the logs show nothing" back to players anymore, would you still do it? Estimate revenue loss because of players quitting as result of the incident (CCP should have enough historical data to model this by now) and compare that to the cost of hiring 10% more GMs. ________________________ CCP: Where fixing bugs is a luxury, not an obligation.
Lithia Tsanov	Posted - 2011.03.11 22:09:00 - [57] Originally by: Aineko Macx Food for thought: If you as a developer had the chance to create new types of logs for issues which you knew would cause an increase of GM workload of say 10%, because you wouldn't truly be able to bounce "the logs show nothing" back to players anymore, would you still do it? The load created by logging an event is computationally trivial when compared to the processing of an event. The workload on the GMs is trivial as the logs are temporally linear, and can be assessed with even the most rudimentary logic skills. Example: 01:01:00 Ship A jams ship B. 01:01:10 Ship B targets Ship A Since a jam lasts 20 seconds, it is easy to assess that Ship B should not have been able to target ship A. Logging is also a tunable resource with varying levels in most development environments (Info, Warn, Debug) and can be adjusted in an ad-hoc and real-time fashion. Logs are easily imported to DB's to make data mining and statistics a cakewalk. It also makes retroactive reimbursement possible. Example: 1: Joe dies to Bug1 and submits reimbursement petition 2: GM says, "We don't know about that bug, but I'll bump up the logging for ActionA" 3: GM lets the logs ride for a day/two/week, takes a look at the collected data. Confirms the bug and it's frequency. 4: GM Escalates bug to Devs/QA 5: Dev/QA confirms discrepency 6: GM reimburses petitions due to Bug1 until a patch is released. Tech is easy. People make it harder than it really is. LT What is an OTAL?
Lithia Tsanov	Posted - 2011.03.11 22:36:00 - [58] 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. You might be new to this. So here's how it goes. Your customers are asking for something. They're paying you money for it. You "do it". Customers are not asking for "edits", we're asking for an entirely new support paradigm. Put bluntly, your current support model sucks, and "edits" aren't going to fix it. If you need a hand with this, stop asking the community and hire a digital commerce support specialist. Stop 'acting' like you care, and start do the right thing for your customers so that you have a job in a year. Please understand that the next semi-decent elite-clone-mmorpg is going to devastate your company unless you provide your customers a compelling reason to stay. LT What is an OTAL?
Jason Edwards Autistic Sharks Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.03.12 00:00:00 - [59] Edited by: Jason Edwards on 12/03/2011 00:01:52 If a ship is lost because of a BUG... bug by definition says software != working right. So event logs and that ** isnt going to catch jack unless there already is a fail catcher put in place. Most likely this isnt going to be there. So you basically are going to be declining MANY legitimate cases. ALL of which are going to be completely unhappy customers. Moreover you also dont take value into account. On my various of accounts... I have experienced loads of different bugs leading to ship loss and had my claim declined. I have also had many others which were iffy bugs... like they seemed like bugs to me at the time but really hadnt been acknowledged by anymore. Then I get declined... week later they patch the bug on sisi that caused my ship to die. Examples: Rattlesnake just got buffed to be a passive-shield-domi. I fit it up. I go do a bunch of missions which were fine. Then I do one and out of nowhere I start taking armor damage while my shields are basically full... and i pop instantly. Anyone who goes on sisi often and does passive shield ships has seen this bug many many times. I try reimbursement petition and OPPS LOGS SHOW NOTHING. I had another one on another account/character. Basically I had a bug where I was cruising around in a pod in highsec and a wartarget interceptor was following me. No biggie... he cant catch a pod. Then out of nowhere I get to a gate... it pops up JUMPING but it just has me sitting there. Interceptor then locks me and Im smashing jump but nothing is happening. I then die. Reimbursement was like NO GO AWAY FFFFF UUUUU. Then there's another time different account/char again... I hit align to a planet or whatever. It aligns fine. Im doing stuff and they start shooting me and I warp but randomly I just stop moving and dont warp off. Then I die. I thought maybe i screwed up tried to warp to something wrong or something. I go for reimbursement but I mention I could possibly have screwed up. Except I did get reimbursed... they gave me my ship back except 8 high slots, 8 mid slots, 8 low slots, and 3 hp. 1 shield, 1 armor, 1 structure. I also got the ship in some random station Im sure the character has never ever been to. So by the time I ever went to go get the ship.. the petition was long since closed. 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? Here's to hoping that these rules are very soft rules and those doing the reimbursements are actually smart because this is something that **es customers off. ------------------------ To make a megathron from scratch, you must first invent the eve universe.
Lubomir Penev Sausages of Truth S I L E N T.	Posted - 2011.03.12 00:11:00 - [60] Originally by: GM Grimmi If we can verify the cause to be a bug or server issue using server side logs, we'll reimburse. Good policy, too bad you don't log anything relevant... There are no macrominers in EVE

Tobin Shalim Eclipse Industrials Quantum Forge	Posted - 2011.03.12 00:20:00 - [61] 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. ----- Originally by:** Gierling Tech III is going to be "Fully modular" until someone crams the "EW Bonus" modules together with the "8 Midslots" modules...
MagicAcid	Posted - 2011.03.12 00:24:00 - [62] 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
Ban Doga	Posted - 2011.03.12 00:46:00 - [63] 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 - [64] 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 - [65] 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	Posted - 2011.03.12 04:49:00 - [66] 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? ♫ When your ship gets blown to bits ♫ And you lose your Faction fits \☻/ Don't worry ♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ ♫ ♪ ♫ ♪ Be Happy \☻/
tehInventor	Posted - 2011.03.12 09:46:00 - [67] 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 Expanse Security	Posted - 2011.03.12 11:51:00 - [68] 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? ôLife is only a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves.ö - Bill Hicks
Vuk Lau 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.12 13:55:00 - [69] 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 - [70] 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 ------------------------------------------------ Coming soon or never.sig

Batolemaeus Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.12 18:51:00 - [71] 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. Might 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 - [72] 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. --WIS/Incarna/Ambulation where microtransactions come to play, and uh bars.--
Firid Soulbane Kickass inc Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.03.13 02:59:00 - [73] "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 - [74] "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 Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.13 21:12:00 - [75] 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 - [76] 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 - [77] 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 Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.14 07:20:00 - [78] 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 - [79] 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 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 - [80] 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 - [81] 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 - [82] 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 - [83] @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 - [84] 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? ------ Hauling everything... everywhere!!
sc0ut1	Posted - 2011.03.15 21:01:00 - [85] 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 - [86] 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. ============== Office use ONLY ============== BRING BACK EVE TV!!!!!!!
PyroChemist Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.19 17:37:00 - [87] 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 - [88] 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 - [89] Edited by: Alathus Christensen on 19/03/2011 18:07:30 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 K-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. -=- -=- Onoes! Space Miens! -=- -=- Alathus Christensen
Ban Doga	Posted - 2011.03.20 11:02:00 - [90] 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 - [91] 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.
gargars	Posted - 2011.03.22 23:36:00 - [92] This can't be serious: a. Any losses attributable to errors in the EVE client may not be eligible for reimbursement. So if the client I pay for causes me a loss (small or large) you take no responsibilty? I am hoping I am mis-understanding something...
Voltron Caldari Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.23 04:24:00 - [93] Originally by: gargars This can't be serious: a. Any losses attributable to errors in the EVE client may not be eligible for reimbursement. So if the client I pay for causes me a loss (small or large) you take no responsibilty? I am hoping I am mis-understanding something... Nope you're not. Incredible! It's great touching your own dink isn't it? Volt
VE Vengeance	Posted - 2011.03.24 07:27:00 - [94] So basicly you say that the whole 0.0 stuff is not supported anymore? So please go to your Trailer Section and remove every trailer announcing EVE as a game with epic fleet battles. CCP seems to like the news about epic battles and thousands of players, but they don't support even the most simple things about it. Like reimbursement. Players don't ask for much, but with this blog you ****ed off the whole community in 0.0. I hope the big alliances go to jita and camp it to death. Your unsupported 0.0 community can also mobilize numbers to hurt you. If they get 3000 people into one 0.0 system, I wonder how many are needed to crash jita, or any other trade hub in eve.... You're going a dangerours way CCP.
Mekatilili	Posted - 2011.03.26 22:26:00 - [95] We at CCP want to do less, therefore we will not replace your ships. Remove ship replacement petition since you don't care. That's all that needs to be said.
Gibbo5771	Posted - 2011.03.27 20:22:00 - [96] "If we can verify the cause to be a bug or server issue using server side logs, we'll reimburse." 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. Love this part, theres 2 things to this game...The server and the client, they cant work without each other yet any problems with the client (Socket closed, CTD etc etc) you dont reimburse.... Cheers for the update at least, something else useless
YarrMama	Posted - 2011.03.29 15:25:00 - [97] Love this - finally got a response to a petition that I submitted the first of March. The GM's response cites this post and the new policy as the reason for denying my petition. So you have a bugged game that causes me a loss, I file a petition, you wait a week and change the rules, then deny the petition based on the new rules? Am I missing something or does this seem screwed up to anyone else?
lisa herrick	Posted - 2011.03.30 04:12:00 - [98] Originally by: Vuk Lau Quote: 5. Any losses of any kind resulting from a large-scale player engagement are not covered by this reimbursement policy. Pathetic altering of Reimbursement policies to cover your inability to do your job related to fleet fights, because its just easier to send generic reply to hundreds of players instead of actually doing your job - to provide customer support. agreed, as a player who has had multiple 'fleet' based reimbursement petitions declined - just because i was in a fleet, i feel this is not a suitable policy, description or change. how are we able to follow this. i was in a fleet of 10, fighting a fleet of 20, 30 people with maybe 10 more in local, and my petition was declined due to my 'being in a fleet', no question of the faulty mechanic that caused the loss, no lookign to solve a bug issue, no looking to improve logging. just a flat NO. the new wording does nothing. define large. define small, define medium. then define the same for reinforced nodes. THEN if you are going to reimburse caps due to lag, failed mechanics or server shown logs, at least level the playing field for non-caps. seriously - pvp based reimbursment - do it or dont. but do not cherry-pick~
Ankbar Dolmite Cornerstone	Posted - 2011.03.31 17:03:00 - [99] Originally by: guska Cryotank but the whole reason most of us play EVE is because nothing is ever certain, and no-one is ever safe. Got a statistic to back that up? I doubt it. Other good reasons to play Eve: 1) Sci-fi, ship-centered(for now at least) MMO. What other one is out there of this quality? 2) No experience points--ability progression via RL time. That rocks for anyone with a busy life, such as students and adults with involved lives. W/o this feature I never would have played. For me, #2 is the winner. Not the risk lvl. And I'm like you, both in empire and 0.0 sovereignty fighting(not with this char.)

CCP Fallout	Posted - 2011.04.05 15:10:00 - [100] We have made changes to the reimbursement policy based on player feedback. Read the blog here, and join the discussion here. Fallout Associate Community Manager CCP Hf, EVE Online Contact us




Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.