EVE Search - Ignoring ship loss petitions is a bad move CCP

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Ignoring ship loss petitions is a bad move CCP

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Ephemeron Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.14 14:34:00 - [1] Originally by: CCP Prism X I understand that it sucks not getting a fair reimbursement. No argument there. But I hope I can get you to understand that we must be able to defend ourself against accusations of unfair reimbursement. Hence the logs must show something which we can use to say "This was not CCP preference but a clear case of the logs showing a reimbursement in order". It's very true that most of you are asking for legit reimbursements. Only a handful of people file obviously fake reimbursements (that does not make the rest of them legit, the other group is unknown and, as I said, we can't reimburse those). On the flip side there is also a handful of people who would jump at the chance to accuse us of whatever they can and we can't give them fuel for their fire by reimbursing inconclusive losses. It's not 100% accurate justice but at least it's fair in it's inaccuracies as it applies to everyone. I don't think this response will make you feel any better about these blanket repsonses but I hope it clears up the reasons for them. That's better than being in the dark, no? Considering the private nature of GM responces and petitions.. who would know about unfair reimbursement petitions? It's not like the guy who got his ship back is going to tell everybody on the forums and in game about how he screwed CCP for a free ship. It's not like any other player has any tools available of checking how the other player got his ship. The threat to CCP seems minimal. And there comes a point where a little accusation of CCP is less harmful than 100s or 1000s of upset customers. It's not right to push all the suffering on players just to avoid any hint of pain yourself.
Ephemeron Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.14 14:54:00 - [2] Originally by: Avon That is a classic lag death / desync, and it is exatly that sort of thing that can't be reimbursed. You died because, as far as the server was concerned, you were still at the ice belt and never warped away. The logs aren't going to show anything other than that, otherwise you wouldn't have died. Why would he stay at the ice belt long enough for belt rats to kill him? Did the rats scramble him? Did other players scramble him? What sane person would suicide a ship to belt rats and then petition it back? I know that logs don't show everything, but there is also such a thing as common sense.
Ephemeron Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.14 15:26:00 - [3] Originally by: Avon ..With that in mind, they can not reimburse the loss because it is not their fault - the server shows the guy's ship dying at an ice-belt to npcs, nothing more. This is the type of mindset I want to try change. It's the difference between defensive help and assertive help. For example, if you see a car accident happen right in front of you, and there aren't many people nearby, would you stop and help the injured get out of the car? Or would you say "those people were stupid, good thing I had nothing to do with it" and keep driving? You have the right to do that. But what if you were a member of police force, but currently off duty? GMs have a job of helping people, they are not just random CCP employees. They more than anyone should want to be assertive in helping those who are hurt, even if they don't feel like it.
Ephemeron Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.14 15:43:00 - [4] Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: Ephemeron GMs have a job of helping people, they are not just random CCP employees. They more than anyone should want to be assertive in helping those who are hurt, even if they don't feel like it. But how can you do that without opening up the system to abuse? Use common sense and logical reasoning. I wish GMs were more like police investigators. They should take clues, think about what they mean, and then pass a judegement based on the evidence. Logs and petition history of the person should be considered. Someone who is caught abusing the system would get temporary ban, like they would if they tried to use exploits in game or break EULA. Certainly not all cases can be solved by applying logical reasoning to the facts in log files. Some cases would be unanswered. But the amount of postitive outcomes would greatly increase. It's definitely worth doing. If current GMs aren't known for making good judgements, CCP should find some people who can do it. There are people who can do it.
Ephemeron Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.14 15:52:00 - [5] Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: Ephemeron Use common sense and logical reasoning. I wish GMs were more like police investigators. They should take clues, think about what they mean, and then pass a judegement based on the evidence. Logs and petition history of the person should be considered. Someone who is caught abusing the system would get temporary ban, like they would if they tried to use exploits in game or break EULA. Certainly not all cases can be solved by applying logical reasoning to the facts in log files. Some cases would be unanswered. But the amount of postitive outcomes would greatly increase. It's definitely worth doing. If current GMs aren't known for making good judgements, CCP should find some people who can do it. There are people who can do it. That would be nice, but would it be possible without CCP having to hugely expand their GM department? Unless they doubled or tripled the number of petition-handlers, petition time would skyrocket. It would be nice though. I understand that putting petitions thru that process would increase amount of work. But it shouldn't be that much. Right now the GMs have to review all the log data associated with the case. I imaging this is the part that takes most of the time. Furthermore, GMs could prioritize cases. For example, petitions with reimbursement value of under 100 million isk would get standard "our logs don't show anything". But petitions with value over 100 mil could get some analysis of the log data. It may sound a little unfair, but we realize the resources are limited and in real life it works pretty much same way.
Ephemeron Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.14 15:57:00 - [6] Originally by: Avon No, it wouldn't be nice. It still comes down to judgement and opinion, and that just isn't acceptable. Petitions should be decided on the available information only, and if that isn't enough to reimburse, don't. Added for clarity: The value that one GM would give to a peice of subjective evidence, for example petition history, could be different to the weight given to it by another GM - leading to accusations of favouritism. I also understand that. But that's the nature of their work. Man has not come up with a better system yet. There is the judge, there is a jury. Those people have to bear the burden of making a decision. It is hard sometimes to put yourself in situation where your decision influence other people in negative way. But somebody has to do it for the greater good of community. We need people like that. Those who can't handle this responsibility should never be forced to have it. But I know we can find people who would do it. They can never be perfect, we understand that, there is no better system. Current system is much worse.
Ephemeron Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.14 16:12:00 - [7] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Ephemeron Current system is much worse. No, the current system is fair. It may not be optimal, but it is not open to interpretation - and that is more important than a few extra people getting their stuff back, especially if some of them didn't really deserve it. Lets take a look at this issue from a new perspective: CCP are a company that sells a product. There is a community of loyal customers (people paying monthly as opposed to single 1 time purchase) The issues we discussing now relate to customer satisfaction. The effects are 2 fold: 1) keeping a loyal customer from quitting 2) word of mouth advertisement for new potential customers - can be good or bad The current reimbursement system may be fair in some way toward CCP, but it is definitely not fair to many customers. Customer satisfaction goes down - more people quit, EVE reputation gets negative impact - negative advertizing to potential customers. Don't get me wrong, I'm not implying that EVE is going down the toilet, I am just explaining the forces that exist behind the scenes, however subtle they may be, they are there. Because these forces exist, CCP should have additional interest in having a help system that is more fair to the customer. Being helpful is a good thing in general. The positives usually outweigh the negatives - accusations of favoritism and such. And don't use the slippery slope arguement that being more helpful would lead to everyone abusing the system and getting free stuff. There's a way to balance things, not asking for a huge change here.
Ephemeron Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.14 16:32:00 - [8] Originally by: Esmenet I'd rather have them stop reimbursing anything at all, instead of a timeconsuming jury system open "judgement" calls. You'd think different if you lost 4 billion isk to software/hardware issues that logs don't show anything. If it was just 100 mil isk, I wouldn't care either. Even 500 mil is hurting not so bad. But when it's more than that, someone should help.
Ephemeron Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.14 16:53:00 - [9] Originally by: Avon Edited by: Avon on 14/03/2008 16:40:16 Originally by: Ephemeron Originally by: Esmenet I'd rather have them stop reimbursing anything at all, instead of a timeconsuming jury system open "judgement" calls. You'd think different if you lost 4 billion isk to software/hardware issues that logs don't show anything. If it was just 100 mil isk, I wouldn't care either. Even 500 mil is hurting not so bad. But when it's more than that, someone should help. How would you feel if someone was given 4 billion they claimed to have lost, even if there was no evidence? Happy? No, I would just as actively condemn such a decision. I don't stand for "free stuff for all". I want fairness to the people who are really hurting.
Ephemeron Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.14 17:00:00 - [10] Originally by: Dramund "What the hell were you doing undocking with a ship you can't afford to lose anyway?" That idea is often overused in situations it doesn't apply to. It's not logical. For example, lets say you say money to buy 2 battleships with identical fittings. Now you buy one battleship and undock. You play for a while and then you die. Now you can replace that battleship, but you don't have the money to buy a 3rd battleship. Do you undock? You see the inconsistency? Another example: motherships and titans. Corps and alliances have to work hard to be able to buy one, when they do, can they fly one without having another one ready in case the first one dies? Is it logical not to fly one even tho you worked to hard to get it? No. The idea of "don't fly what you can't afford to replace" is logically inconsistent.
Ephemeron Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.14 17:07:00 - [11] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Ephemeron No, I would just as actively condemn such a decision. I don't stand for "free stuff for all". I want fairness to the people who are really hurting. So, how do you tell the difference between the legitimate 4 bil payout and the free ride? Either you have enough evidence to support reimbursement or you don't; there is no place for reimbursement without proof. The only acceptable proof is that which CCP control, otherwise that evidence could be tampered with. So my point remains, reimburse when the evidence supports it, and only when the evidence supports it. Even if you think the player might be right, and you feel sorry for his plight, they are not valid grounds for reimbursement .. no matter how much you may want to help him out, or how much you empathise with his situation. I doubt that CCP have logs that say something like "[14:30] Bug #3456 activated [14:32] Player ship destoyed due to bug #3465" That's silly, right? Logs are good at tracking valid data. People who examine those logs are looking for logical insonsistencies in the pattern of valid game events. For example, lets say that events A and C are valid game events. But event A can never be followed by event C, there has to be event B between them. All logged events are valid, but GM has to make logical deduction that an error has occured between event A and event B. Now this is an overly simplified case. In reality things are much more complex and so are the decisions made by person examining the data. There is no way to avoid that decision making. Somebody has to take responsibility for passing judgement.

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.