EVE Search - Is it the customers fault?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Is it the customers fault?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Becca Manns Puppets on Steroids Curse Alliance	Posted - 2007.03.01 13:52:00 - [1] Edited by: Becca Manns on 01/03/2007 13:52:19 The latest wave of ingame rulings has basically followed the logic: "You knew bringing this many people would be risky with server stability so we're not standing by our reimbursement policy". Now, apart from blaming the customer when you don't follow your own rules, I think this is pretty weak since its a direct 180 from what they've always done in the past with node crashes. I have received reimbursement several times in the past specifically because of node crashes, when there were so many people in the system that I knew the game would screw up. So anyway, is this the new policy? snip. Please do not post allegations of cheating. Please raise a petition if you believe cheating is taking place - Valorem In other words, is the burden on the customer to do a server load analysis before committing to combat so they can divine whether CCP will stick by their reimbursement policy?
Eric Hunt Amarr UK Corp Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2007.03.01 13:58:00 - [2] I good question - but will CCP answer it - now that is the real question ?
DarkMatter Amarr Mineral Aquisition Group	Posted - 2007.03.01 14:03:00 - [3] After the JV1V node disaster, I think all EVE players should assume that they will never get reimbursed because of CCP's **** server... I think if you know that going into a fleet battle, it will hurt less when you die and there was not a thing you could do about it except not play their game in the first place, or stay in a station orbiting while your corpmates die due to node crashing, etc... Building the homestead
Jaketh Ivanes Amarr Riggers Incorporated	Posted - 2007.03.01 14:14:00 - [4] Hmm.. looking back in history. 50 v 50 was not possible. People whined and it got fixed. But did people keep the fleets 50 v 50? Nope, they pressed the server and mustered 100 v 100 fleets.. and the whining restarted. In that, it is the customers fault, because they know that the fix works for 50. Going above the fix number was not promised to the customer, and hence not the company's fault. Or said in another way, fillng a glass above the limit, is not the manufactorers fault. That is your (not meant on the OP) fault.
DarkMatter Amarr Mineral Aquisition Group	Posted - 2007.03.01 14:23:00 - [5] Edited by: DarkMatter on 01/03/2007 14:19:49 Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes Hmm.. looking back in history. 50 v 50 was not possible. People whined and it got fixed. But did people keep the fleets 50 v 50? Nope, they pressed the server and mustered 100 v 100 fleets.. and the whining restarted. In that, it is the customers fault, because they know that the fix works for 50. Going above the fix number was not promised to the customer, and hence not the company's fault. Or said in another way, fillng a glass above the limit, is not the manufactorers fault. That is your (not meant on the OP) fault. It's not the customers fault! CCP made this game for corp/alliance building & warfare. You think they didn't know corps/alliances would bring all the ppl they had to important battles? How stupid are they, really? If they thought 2 warring alliances would police their own numbers to save the server from death, well, I guess they are pretty stupid! Players have been asking the DEV's if the servers could handle this way back in beta! They have had enough damn time to figure this out! Building the homestead
Joebarchuck	Posted - 2007.03.01 14:23:00 - [6] There is no way the customer is at fault. CCP has to provide for a working game under any circonstances. The technology exist today so they wouldn't have to tell all the customers, please do not make wars so big, the problem is money, investments and ROI. Are they going to invest in new servers, better and faster bandwith, increase in calc. power? Of course not as they know most people won't leave the game because of node and server crashes.
Jalie	Posted - 2007.03.01 14:28:00 - [7] Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes Hmm.. looking back in history. 50 v 50 was not possible. People whined and it got fixed. But did people keep the fleets 50 v 50? Nope, they pressed the server and mustered 100 v 100 fleets.. and the whining restarted. In that, it is the customers fault, because they know that the fix works for 50. Going above the fix number was not promised to the customer, and hence not the company's fault. Or said in another way, fillng a glass above the limit, is not the manufactorers fault. That is your (not meant on the OP) fault. Ok, if thats how it is then fine. But why has nodecrashing always resulted in reimbursement until the last couple of weeks? If there was a policy change why weren't the customers made aware?
Jaggeh Gallente Furious Angels	Posted - 2007.03.01 14:30:00 - [8] The customer is at fault. For trying to push the game beyond KNOWN limitations. ccp is trying to keep up and exceed what we as playersdo by improving code and infrastructure, but if we as players push it to far too fast then expect to see more things like this happen. you KNEW that the server couldnt handle the number of people you were brining into the situation yet you did it still and expect reimbursment. you are having a laugh. if anything i think you(plural) should be penalised for deteriorating everyone elses gaming experience. boohooo you lost something get over it. --------------------------------------- Furious Angels are recruiting Carpe Pugya Pyga - Seize the Buttocks
Maltitol Gallente Tides of Silence	Posted - 2007.03.01 14:33:00 - [9] its nice the nodes can handle more.. but.. with the upcoming BoB vs EVE war, how does anybody beat them? bigger numbers, what will BoB come with? even bigger numbers, its an exponential effect. the only way to win against bob would be to hope for a node crash, or any large alliance for that matter (im not trying to specically target any alliance, but BoB is the best example) and due to having to have larger numbers, nodes will crash... :( Originally by: Devil Hanzo There is no problem with Jita, there is a problem with everybody going to Jita at the same time...
Becca Manns Puppets on Steroids Curse Alliance	Posted - 2007.03.01 14:39:00 - [10] Edited by: Becca Manns on 01/03/2007 14:36:04 Originally by: Jaggeh HAHA IM NOT GONNA READ , lol QQ Ok, just in case you actually decide to read my post this time: When was the policy changed? Node crashes have always resulted in reimbursements until the last couple of weeks. Also can you point me to where the known limitations are posted? The reimbursement policy does not make mention of them.

Possesive Caldari GALAXIAN Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.03.01 14:39:00 - [11] I would have to side with CCP on this, if you decide that you need 500+ players to fight then its a risk that you have chosen to take, you should already know by now that taking huge fleets into a system is going to cause stress, so why should you be reimbursed for knowingly causing the node to suffer?
Becca Manns Puppets on Steroids Curse Alliance	Posted - 2007.03.01 14:44:00 - [12] Originally by: Possesive I would have to side with CCP on this, if you decide that you need 500+ players to fight then its a risk that you have chosen to take, you should already know by now that taking huge fleets into a system is going to cause stress, so why should you be reimbursed for knowingly causing the node to suffer? Thats fine, when was this changed though? It has never been the policy until the last couple of weeks. At what number are you requireed to stop adding to your gang if you want to qualify for reimbursement? Is it really the fault of the people involved in the largest fights in Eve history, in the largest war in Eve history and if they weren't such awful people then they could be covered by the reimbursement policy in the same way they have been until February 07?
Jaggeh Gallente Furious Angels	Posted - 2007.03.01 14:46:00 - [13] Edited by: Jaggeh on 01/03/2007 14:44:27 Originally by: Becca Manns Edited by: Becca Manns on 01/03/2007 14:36:04 Originally by: Jaggeh HAHA IM NOT GONNA READ , lol QQ stupid assumption i read every word you typed. the simple answer is ccp dont know, hard figures like that dont come out until after the fact. But the general population know that 600+ people on a node puts severe stress and lag on it. thats why jita was given extra runtime to help ease the load and stop crashes. a random 0.0 system isnt expected to have 1000+ players at one time. the fact that you needed 1000 people to take down a 300 strong camp is your own problem. you overloaded the server with your numbers and now you want reimbursement for your folly. tell you what ccp im going to crash a node and lose something and i want you to pay for it is that ok? i dont think so. Now ccp can towards something like this not happening again but dont expect it overnight or even ever. it may never be possible to have a battle with 1000-1500 people involved. Only time and testing will tell. part of the problem on your side is that you dont understand the reimbursment policy. if a node crashes, you get reimbursed. if you(plural) or by your actions cause the node to crash then you arent entitled to reimbursement. --------------------------------------- Furious Angels are recruiting Carpe Pugya Pyga - Seize the Buttocks
Mr Li	Posted - 2007.03.01 14:46:00 - [14] so let's assume that CCP does officially say it is the customer's fault. Does that mean if I defend my home system with 100 pilots and then my enemies invade with 600 that this is an exploit? This is not a comment on JV1V but rather, if CCP is going to blame customers for knowing the server limits but still exceeding them then a line needs to be drawn somewhere. Either it's an exploit (even though it really isn't) or they need to reimburse. The middle ground is inaction and as a company with customers I don't think inaction would be ethical. what sucks is that if CCP is going to reimburse then what's the point of having larger numbers? or why care that 1000 pilots are on their way to the heart of your alliance? But it's the same way for calling it an exploit. Either way, one of those is better than inaction.
Linerra Tedora Amarr The Older Clones	Posted - 2007.03.01 14:48:00 - [15] just slap on a limit of 100 players from each alliance in a system, that would solve most of the problems of overloading... most.. if several alliances attacked together that would ofcourse not limit them... but it would ease some of the tension on the servers... EvE-CCG Spoiler Database
DarkMatter Amarr Mineral Aquisition Group	Posted - 2007.03.01 14:51:00 - [16] Originally by: Mr Li so let's assume that CCP does officially say it is the customer's fault. Does that mean if I defend my home system with 100 pilots and then my enemies invade with 600 that this is an exploit? This is not a comment on JV1V but rather, if CCP is going to blame customers for knowing the server limits but still exceeding them then a line needs to be drawn somewhere. Either it's an exploit (even though it really isn't) or they need to reimburse. The middle ground is inaction and as a company with customers I don't think inaction would be ethical. what sucks is that if CCP is going to reimburse then what's the point of having larger numbers? or why care that 1000 pilots are on their way to the heart of your alliance? But it's the same way for calling it an exploit. Either way, one of those is better than inaction. According to Oveur, they are working on an artificial means to split up fleets... I don't see any way that can work 100% unless they restrict systems to 200 pilots max... And that would suck... More meta-gaming in an MMO that already has too much... Building the homestead
DarkMatter Amarr Mineral Aquisition Group	Posted - 2007.03.01 14:53:00 - [17] Edited by: DarkMatter on 01/03/2007 14:49:47 Originally by: Linerra Tedora just slap on a limit of 100 players from each alliance in a system, that would solve most of the problems of overloading... most.. if several alliances attacked together that would ofcourse not limit them... but it would ease some of the tension on the servers... So if BoB & LV had each put 100 pilots in JV1V (we did) No one else could get in, ever... How exactly do you attack anyone then??? Ok, so you have to have two alliances with bad standing, BoB & LV then make themselves have bad standing to each other, even though working together, etc... Limits will not work... Building the homestead
Maltitol Gallente Tides of Silence	Posted - 2007.03.01 15:02:00 - [18] Originally by: Linerra Tedora just slap on a limit of 100 players from each alliance in a system, that would solve most of the problems of overloading... most.. if several alliances attacked together that would ofcourse not limit them... but it would ease some of the tension on the servers... now it becomes a game of who has the most cap ships included in that 100 Originally by: Devil Hanzo There is no problem with Jita, there is a problem with everybody going to Jita at the same time...
Tonkin Black Lance Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2007.03.01 15:08:00 - [19] snip, omg i did not see the que. FREEDOM OF SPEACH FOR CHRIST SAKE now there gona snip the 2nd sentance now, mite of offended some one.
Linerra Tedora Amarr The Older Clones	Posted - 2007.03.01 15:10:00 - [20] Quote: So if BoB & LV had each put 100 pilots in JV1V (we did) No one else could get in, ever... How exactly do you attack anyone then??? Ok, so you have to have two alliances with bad standing, BoB & LV then make themselves have bad standing to each other, even though working together, etc... Limits will not work... you easily attack.. but only 100 bob, and 100 lv will be inside the system.. then 100 Red's 100 goon and 100 something else jumps in... it would still limit it, and require alot more teamwork to get together huge fleets... EvE-CCG Spoiler Database

Fubear Vogon Heavy Industries	Posted - 2007.03.01 15:11:00 - [21] Originally by: Jaggeh The customer is at fault. For trying to push the game beyond KNOWN limitations. ccp is trying to keep up and exceed what we as playersdo by improving code and infrastructure, but if we as players push it to far too fast then expect to see more things like this happen. you KNEW that the server couldnt handle the number of people you were brining into the situation yet you did it still and expect reimbursment. you are having a laugh. *******s. Why is the customer at fault for attempting to play the game? It is entirely CCP's fault that the mechanics of the game itself present static targets (EG: Titan under construction, POS out of reinforced, station ping-pong) that encourage blobbing both to assault and defend, leading to hundreds of people at the same location in the same system at the same time. I would like to know what these known limitations of the servers are? Exactly how many people have to be involved before the server becomes unstable? Where is this information published that everyone knows about it other than myself? What is the official policy for reimbursement? At the moment it seems like reimbursemsnt is based on whether or not the GM dealing with your claim is having a bad day or not. CCP intentionally created these game mechanics, but have not provided the infrastructure to scale with the size of the userbase, they are one step behind instead of one step ahead. How is any of this the customers fault? On top of this, CCP are taking the wrong path of introducing anti-blob weapons rather than addressing the core issues of why blobs are formed in the first place. This will lead to situations where blobs are still required for alliance warfare, but blobs cannot be formed because of anti-blob weapons, leaving alliance warfare in a sort of limbo. Titans are a good example of this that can be seen at the moment, and things will only get worse as more Titans appear in game.
Heikki Gallente Wreckless Abandon The UnAssociated	Posted - 2007.03.01 15:13:00 - [22] Originally by: Becca Manns is this the new policy? I hope so; CCP has had quite too easy reimbursement line. Although wwould help a lot if CCP had public policies on common issues. Now it depends too much on getting in conctact with right GM. Originally by: Becca Manns do a server load analysis before committing to combat Sounds quite a bit easier than doing the already mandatory 'victory odds' -analysis.. -Lasse
ScreamingLord Sutch Hand in Mouth	Posted - 2007.03.01 15:13:00 - [23] CCP should long ago have realized that the game was heading towards massive blobbage. Back then, instead of implementing game mechanics to discourage this they did exactly the opposite. Dreads are needed to siege POS. Dreads are expensive so they need a fleet to protect them. The opposite side needs a fleet to counter the fleet and so on. Titans escalate this even more. On the other hand, players are partly to blame. They know very well that when they try to cram 2,000 players into a system that something is going to break. However, they do it anyway because the stakes are high. At the end of the day after the nodes have creashed, maybe one side or the other will have enough resources in system to sway the battle while the opposition are staring at a black screen! The result is that neither the playerbase or CCP are completely blame free (if we must point fingers). Whats the solution? I have no idea. I don't want to see metagaming and artificial limitations. CCP need to come up with something bold and creative and they need to do it sooner than soonÖ
Anaalys Fluuterby Caldari	Posted - 2007.03.01 15:14:00 - [24] Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes Hmm.. looking back in history. 50 v 50 was not possible. People whined and it got fixed. But did people keep the fleets 50 v 50? Nope, they pressed the server and mustered 100 v 100 fleets.. and the whining restarted. In that, it is the customers fault, because they know that the fix works for 50. Going above the fix number was not promised to the customer, and hence not the company's fault. Or said in another way, fillng a glass above the limit, is not the manufactorers fault. That is your (not meant on the OP) fault. Sorry, that logic doesn't work. CCP specifically has set this game up, mechanics-wise, for larger fleets. Just take a look at the "gang" system for proof. One "Fleet" can have up to 256 ships in it, and they ALL have to be in the same grid for the bonuses to cascade. Hence CCP is proclaiming their servers can handle it and have purposely given the players the tools to do it. If it crashes because 2 fleets of 256 are in the same system fighting each other, it is 100% CCP's fault hence should be re-imbursed. <-----------> oveur --> Eve is PRIMARILY a PvP game. Primarily != 100%
KIAHicks Caldari Black Nova Corp	Posted - 2007.03.01 15:22:00 - [25] Edited by: KIAHicks on 01/03/2007 15:22:41 Warp in with fleet to continue assault on a hostile pos, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait... obviously something bad is going to happen, start clicking warp out, 30 seconds later, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, over a minute to two later, Maybe I should just log off and hope I auto warp away.. wait, wait, wait, oh hang on something's happening, screen isn't just empty space now, I see 4 freindly ships, wait, wait, wait hmm sheild going down, continue to click warp out, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, warp out and arrive at a planet. Warp to friendly pos and think wow that was bad lag. wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, ship explodes. Look at killmail, only entry is the hostile pos originally been engaged. Awesome fun this isn't it? Losing ships is part of the game, no problems with that, but losing ships when you have no control over it just isn't in the slightest bit fun. CCP have no logs to show the server was overloaded during this time, so no reimbursement. The fleet sizes on both sides were smaller than fleets battles we've fought pre revelations patch, yet the "lag" was much much much worse. In the past lag has been nothing more than 10-30 second module activation delay. Now however it's just complete client lockups for x minutes or repeated lockups for a second every time a ship warps in/decloaks at a gate. Keenon: "After sitting in the system for FIVE hours without even a (go away)"...
Ozzie Asrail FATAL REVELATIONS FATAL Alliance	Posted - 2007.03.01 15:22:00 - [26] Fact is the servers can't really handle more than a 400 person fight in system before the servers start struggling. Push that up to 600-800 and everyone knows things will start falling over. CCP know it something they have to work on, the players know lag happens in big fights. Crying about "omg but the servers should let me fight 10000 v 10000!!!" does not change the fact that it's simply not possible. -----
Soporo Caldari	Posted - 2007.03.01 15:34:00 - [27] Pfft, their ENTIRE focus is on bigger and more of everything, not necessarilty better. Hence the crys from soloists and casuals of late, hence the retorts from blobbists to gang up/blob up/join up "it's a pvp game, not solo city!" There has to be a direct correlation between the sovereignity rules, POS spam, travel mechanics, perhaps Titans, the incessant push to group up and Lagggg. Couple this with the lacklustre or often nonexistent attempts to stop metagaming, sploiting, and win at ALL costs mentality, and here we are. Not a damn bit of it is OUR fault thank you very much.
Andrue Amarr	Posted - 2007.03.01 16:02:00 - [28] Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes Hmm.. looking back in history. 50 v 50 was not possible. People whined and it got fixed. But did people keep the fleets 50 v 50? Nope, they pressed the server and mustered 100 v 100 fleets.. and the whining restarted. In that, it is the customers fault, because they know that the fix works for 50. Going above the fix number was not promised to the customer, and hence not the company's fault. Or said in another way, fillng a glass above the limit, is not the manufactorers fault. That is your (not meant on the OP) fault. Meh, that always happens with a scarce resource. You get a pay rise and a month later you're short of money. You get a faster computer and a month or to later you are playing a new game that it can barely handle. -- (Battle hardened industrialist) [Brackley, UK] Please don't read this signature.
Andrue Amarr	Posted - 2007.03.01 16:05:00 - [29] Originally by: Tonkin snip, omg i did not see the que. FREEDOM OF SPEACH FOR CHRIST SAKE now there gona snip the 2nd sentance now, mite of offended some one. This is a private server. Freedom of speech does not apply. -- (Battle hardened industrialist) [Brackley, UK] Please don't read this signature.
Illyria Ambri Caldari	Posted - 2007.03.01 16:50:00 - [30] Simple answer.. NO Complex answer.. CCP and EVERY MMO company knows damn well that "zerg" tactics are a fact of MMO life.. its their fault for not anticipating it better and adjusting their coding or hardware accordingly ------------ This is not War... This is pest control - Dalek Sek Happiness is a warm railgun, Love is a stocked missle launcher. Sexual extacy is watching that NME Battleship go boom. "Will i



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.