GM Grimmi explains some of the new changes to the reimbursement policy.
On 2011.03.11 we published a new version of the EVE Online Reimbursement Policy and posted a blog along with it here. In the comments section we received some good feedback from you guys and a few requests for clarification of some of the items in the policy. We have also made a couple of changes to the policy from the feedback you guys gave.
Thank you all for your observations and recommendations.
To further clarify what was intended in the original document, here are some of the questions we got and our comments on the items in question:
Posted – 2011.03.11 12:12:00
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.
The magic word in that article is “may”. We will reimburse for bugs we can verify, be they server or client bugs. It’s just that client bugs can be hard to verify and are therefore unlikely to result in reimbursement.
Posted – 2011.03.11 12:36:00
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?
Missions that are impossible to complete due to game physics (e.g. courier missions to Jove space) fall under this category. Missions that a player is unable to complete due to player controlled restrictions (e.g. missions to conquerable stations where the player does not have docking permission) are not covered by this article.
Posted – 2011.03.11 16:50:00
Posted by: Versuvius Marii on 11/03/2011 16:50:00
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?
Players may be able to recover items that have been left in the wrecks of their lost ships. Tracking items that were not recovered can still be problematic from a technical aspect or, most common, from an economic/balance perspective since these items may still be in play; creating duplicate items brings the risk of destabilizing the market.
Posted – 2011.03.11 17:33:00
Posted by: biggie fluffy on 11/03/2011 17:33:00
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.
Our logs show lots of things. Regrettably, we are not able to log everything as there must be a trade-off where server performance and logging is concerned. Sadly, this means that sometimes we are not able to verify losses as being eligible for reimbursement by way of our server-side logs. Our logging capabilities are constantly improving, however, and with that we have a better chance of being able to render assistance.
Posted – 2011.03.13 22:01:00
Posted by: Ariane VoxDei on 13/03/2011 22:01:00
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.
Not wanting to be harsh here, but it was never the intention that mission runners should be able to ply their trade without risk of interaction with the rest of the EVE Online community. EVE is hard because our players make it hard, this goes for the mission running bit of it as well.
In EVE there are countless ways to stab someone in the back. For each one there are at least two to protect yourself FROM getting stabbed in the back. It’s a semi lawless, hyper capitalistic universe. It’s not always fair but you can make it a lot more fair for yourself.
Posted – 2011.03.13 02:59:00
Posted by: Firid Soulbane on 13/03/2011 02:59:00
“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?
If it’s big enough to cause the server to hiccup, our fleet fight policy kicks in. A case by case basis is the only way we can do this. Regarding large scale player engagements, a blog is being prepared on that specifically that we hope to be able to publish soon.
Posted – 2011.03.11 22:36:00
Posted by: Lithia Tsanov on 11/03/2011 22:36:00
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.
In a competitive environment where all players inhabit the same virtual world it‘s not always possible to offer reimbursement as it may mean interfering with a player driven economy or potentially removing items from players who have recieved them via in-game market or other completely legit means.
We hope this helps clarify the items that caused concern and to allay any confusion there may have been in regards to meaning and intention.
Finally, we have made the following changes to the Reimbursement Policy as per suggestions and comments provided by you guys:
“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.”
Becomes:
“2. Lost Ships
3. Ships destroyed by use of the “self destruct” feature cannot be reimbursed.”
And:
“4. Recycled Items
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).
Becomes:
“4. Recycled Items
1. Items recycled accidentally may be reimbursed on a case-by-case basis, but only if the minerals received can be recovered.”
Again, we thank you all for the feedback and your interest – greatly valued and truly appreciated.
Recent Comments