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 [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Ephemeron Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.14 15:43:00 - [61] 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.
Tarminic Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand	Posted - 2008.03.14 15:45:00 - [62] 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. ---------------- Tarminic - 33 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.79.2
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.14 15:47:00 - [63] Edited by: Avon on 14/03/2008 15:51:02 Originally by: Tarminic 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. 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. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Eventy One Magellan Exploration and Survey	Posted - 2008.03.14 15:52:00 - [64] Edited by: Eventy One on 14/03/2008 15:54:50 Edited by: Eventy One on 14/03/2008 15:52:55 Originally by: CCP Prism X 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". I rarely ask for compensation, and so this thread doesn't apply to me a whole lot; however I saw your point here Prism and I had to bring up something that happened to me when I did ask for compensation in a particular instance. There was a previous patch deployment that resulted in unexpected downtime after the patch deployment itself which was made worse by a planned hardware upgrade on the cluster. I put in petition when the outage ran into the hardware upgrade causing me to lose a particular mission which was part of a set. I only wanted the mission reset, nothing more. My request was initially denied on the grounds the logs showed nothing. There was no downtime when I claimed that there was! The GM's response was that the logs did not show anything surprised me, and so my petition could not be honoured. I pointed out in response, that logs or no logs, the cluster uptime graph that use to be shown on this very site showed the downtime for hours, as well as a news item that explained the outage and stated clearly how long the cluster was down and for what reason. How could the logs show nothing? I found it humorous that the GM that replied to my petition couldn't find evidence in the logs, and yet the news and the uptime graph provided evidence enough. After I pointed these bits of evidence out, the ticket was elevated and eventually my petition granted. I believe that this poster here is confirming an observation that I suspect; basically some who reply to petitions do not do the foot work to confirm a users claim and simply use lack of evidence in the logs as an excuse to close the ticket. I mean, how could a GM possibly try to deny that logs did not show hours of down time? All in all, I'm not sure this is completely broken, but I think that petition review, needs to be a bit more active to ensure tickets are not slipping by the wayside.
Ephemeron Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.14 15:52:00 - [65] 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.
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.14 15:57:00 - [66] Originally by: Eventy One I believe that this poster here is confirming an observation that I suspect; basically some who reply to petitions do not do the foot work to confirm a users claim and simply use lack of evidence in the logs as an excuse to close the ticket. I mean, how could a GM possibly try to deny that logs did not show hours of down time? All in all, I'm not sure this is completely broken, but I think that petition review, needs to be a bit more active to ensure tickets are not slipping by the wayside. This isn't a reason to change the system in general though, spending that much time evaluating every single claim. It is good that you can esculate a petition which has come to the wrong conclusion where facts (ie, evidence directly available to CCP) have been overlooked, but I think it is more important the resolution of the majority of petitions are handled as quickly as possible and leave the more detailed investigations to esculations. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Ephemeron Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.14 15:57:00 - [67] 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.
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.14 15:59:00 - [68] 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. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Eventy One Magellan Exploration and Survey	Posted - 2008.03.14 16:00:00 - [69] Originally by: Avon This isn't a reason to change the system in general though, spending that much time evaluating every single claim. It is good that you can esculate a petition which has come to the wrong conclusion where facts (ie, evidence directly available to CCP) have been overlooked, but I think it is more important the resolution of the majority of petitions are handled as quickly as possible and leave the more detailed investigations to esculations. Yes - you're right; it has to be a balance - thats a given, and every dollar CCP spends on support staff, and support issues, is one less dollar spend on game development or what ever.
Ephemeron Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.14 16:12:00 - [70] 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.
Esmenet Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.03.14 16:22:00 - [71] I'd rather have them stop reimbursing anything at all, instead of a timeconsuming jury system open "judgement" calls.
Ephemeron Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.14 16:32:00 - [72] 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.
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.14 16:40:00 - [73] 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? Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Dramund Atonement Arms	Posted - 2008.03.14 16:41:00 - [74] Originally by: Avon How would you feel if someone was given 4 billion they claimed to have lost, even if there was no evidence? Happy? I would certainly cancel my account with the knowledge that too many resources were being passed out on a silver platter to whiners. I think the proper petition response would be "What the hell were you doing undocking with a ship you can't afford to lose anyway?"
Ephemeron Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.14 16:53:00 - [75] 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.
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.14 17:00:00 - [76] 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. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Ephemeron Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.14 17:00:00 - [77] 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 - [78] 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.
Dramund Atonement Arms	Posted - 2008.03.14 17:10:00 - [79] Originally by: Ephemeron 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. You twisted the words to make it illogical. No one says "don't fly what you can't afford to replace," they say "Don't undock with what you can't afford to lose." Affording the loss means many things but the shortest way to put it is "have a backup plan - no matter what"
Ki Tarra Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.03.14 17:15:00 - [80] Edited by: Ki Tarra on 14/03/2008 17:15:49 The problem is that players expect that lag is a valid reason for reimbursement. I think that CCP need to be more forceful in establishing that players need to be responsible for putting them selfs in harms way. If you go to Jita and lose your ship because you were ganked while lagged out. Too bad. If you lose a ship in a mission because you lag out. Too bad. If you lose a ship in fleet combat because of lag. Too bad. Instead of responding to petitions those with "our logs show nothing", they should respond to those petitions with something to the effect of "You have cited latancy/desync/disconnection as the reason for your loss. Lag related issues are not valid reasons for reimbursement. If your loss was the result of some other issue or defect, please clarify the nature of that issue." Optionally they could add some text about how they try to minimize those issues, but that nothing can ever prevent them completely. If there is a legitimate defect in the game that causes lag that should not be there, reimbursements could be granted, if and only if a bug report was filed and a defect registered for fixing. In those cases, the bug report would need to be cited and the GM would need to be able to verify that bug was relevant to the situation.
Esmenet Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.03.14 17:21:00 - [81] 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. The game revolves around shiploss. I dont care if its a 100.000 isk frigate or a titan. If you cant handle loosing ships then i'd say maybe EVE is not the game for you. Sure it sucks if you loose something to lag but get over it. Unless ccp is incredibly stupid i dont think they will ever start reimbursing ships for "lag".
Tsanse Kinske WeMeanYouKnowHarm	Posted - 2008.03.14 17:25:00 - [82] Completely ignoring ship loss petitions would actually be a big improvement, I think. It would hurt, but I believe it would do more good than harm in the long run. It's the perception of inconsistency that sucks, and if ship loss petitions were just categorically denied, everybody would know where they stand. I might still have a very few exceptions, for instance for very new players. Anything more than a few weeks, and anything outside of hisec though, and the exceptions would be rarer than chicken teeth. * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. -Douglas Adams, writing about EVE
Vanessa Vasquez planet eyeQ Ultio Animi Causa	Posted - 2008.03.15 11:15:00 - [83] For me it's not only about reimburstment. I find the whole customer care very very unsatisfying! Maybe i should tell you the outcome of my few petitions so far? Simple questions about corp management (rights management)or the buggy LP store (couldn't buy items but had all the LP+ISK) don't get a response for some days, and after that the GM's repley goes like this: "Since some time passed, i want to ask if the problem still occures". Happend twice! A petition about the behaviour of heavy drones (2 of 5 kept ignoring my commands all the time) was answered after a week, stating that the GM is not for forum issues, i should consult a webmaster ... After mission looting my bookmark was moved to another system. 100% sure, as i deleted all bookmarks the day before and named this one specific. "Nothing on our logs" ... When we had setup our corp the first time, there was stuff missing out of deliveries. 2 days after the petition it was back, another day later it was gone again! And that's what i mean with visual judgement. The GM's response was, that someone took it, but he couldn't tell us who. Even if i doubt that, it would have helped so much to know who to properly configury members rights as we thought only 2 ppl had access to that. As far as i'm concerned, customer support is the worst thing in EVE. And i know for sure, if i loose stuff cause of bug/lag whatever, wich i worked months for to obtain it, i'll quit.

Pages: 1 2 [3] :: 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.