EVE Search - [Issue] Change of policy on reimbursement claims

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Issue] Change of policy on reimbursement claims

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page

Author	Topic
Shinma Apollo The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.09.30 00:53:00 - [1] The current policy of refusing all large scale losses for reimbursement is harmful, illogical, and is in need of reconsideration. Ostensibly, the logic behind this is that CCP does not wish to put the man hours behind having to investigate claims. In reality, this policy is spiteful, derisive and is a horrible business model towards its customers. A carrier is approximately 1.2-1.3 billion isk with fittings. If we take the 20-40 mil an hour bench mark, that's 120 manhours through missioning or ratting. This may be lessened through other income gathering methods (which is outside the purview of this debate) but the fact is that most fleetfights will see several thousand manhours expended and then wasted because of a desync or black-screen. This in itself is quite frustrating, and perhaps the single most unappealing aspect of the game. The fact that it is blatantly obvious moderators do not even examine the complaints shows a sign of callousness well beyond that. The policy should be changed to as follows: If evidence of a desync can be provided (no modules activated, no hardeners on, not warped out and evidence of similar circumstances occuring in the same system) The hull should be replaced, along with the destroyed modules, and any insurances payments should be reversed. from an immediate perspective, this does not change the immediate balance of power. These ships are still rendered ineffective while the pilot has to replace them. They suffer the cost of replacing modules, and the parties fortunate enough to find the wreck get the dropped modules. Coversely, it reverses the long strategic advantage gained from server performance failure. Pilots concerned do not lose their killmails, or the loot acquired, and they get the momentary benefit of those ships removed. Afflicted pilots' disaffection for Eve is lessened, reducing net outflow of players from the game, and improving this particular point of customer/client relations. Player's patience with hardware limitations is not unlimited. CCP can at least indicate that their GMs can spend three minutes on a customer for several hundred man hours put into a system, instead of callously showing appreciation for their patrons' time and money by simply sending pre-scripted responses.
Shinma Apollo The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.09.30 00:53:00 - [2] The current policy of refusing all large scale losses for reimbursement is harmful, illogical, and is in need of reconsideration. Ostensibly, the logic behind this is that CCP does not wish to put the man hours behind having to investigate claims. In reality, this policy is spiteful, derisive and is a horrible business model towards its customers. A carrier is approximately 1.2-1.3 billion isk with fittings. If we take the 20-40 mil an hour bench mark, that's 120 manhours through missioning or ratting. This may be lessened through other income gathering methods (which is outside the purview of this debate) but the fact is that most fleetfights will see several thousand manhours expended and then wasted because of a desync or black-screen. This in itself is quite frustrating, and perhaps the single most unappealing aspect of the game. The fact that it is blatantly obvious moderators do not even examine the complaints shows a sign of callousness well beyond that. The policy should be changed to as follows: If evidence of a desync can be provided (no modules activated, no hardeners on, not warped out and evidence of similar circumstances occuring in the same system) The hull should be replaced, along with the destroyed modules, and any insurances payments should be reversed. from an immediate perspective, this does not change the immediate balance of power. These ships are still rendered ineffective while the pilot has to replace them. They suffer the cost of replacing modules, and the parties fortunate enough to find the wreck get the dropped modules. Coversely, it reverses the long strategic advantage gained from server performance failure. Pilots concerned do not lose their killmails, or the loot acquired, and they get the momentary benefit of those ships removed. Afflicted pilots' disaffection for Eve is lessened, reducing net outflow of players from the game, and improving this particular point of customer/client relations. Player's patience with hardware limitations is not unlimited. CCP can at least indicate that their GMs can spend three minutes on a customer for several hundred man hours put into a system, instead of callously showing appreciation for their patrons' time and money by simply sending pre-scripted responses.
Treelox Amarr Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party	Posted - 2008.09.30 01:01:00 - [3] our logs show you should not fly what you can not replace.
Treelox Amarr Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party	Posted - 2008.09.30 01:01:00 - [4] our logs show you should not fly what you can not replace. --
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.09.30 02:50:00 - [5] Originally by: Shinma Apollo The current policy of refusing all large scale losses for reimbursement is harmful, illogical, and is in need of reconsideration. Ostensibly, the logic behind this is that CCP does not wish to put the man hours behind having to investigate claims. In reality, this policy is spiteful, derisive and is a horrible business model towards its customers. It's not spite if it's truth. Investigating these claims takes a lot of man-hours, and CCP likes spending money on customer service staff as much as any other company - i.e., not at all. And given the ubiquity of desyncs, it would really be a monumental expense for them to investigate them. I'd rather they used the time and money to fix the problem - which, if the last dev blog is to be trusted, they're well on their way to doing - than to fix the symptoms. Besides, for better or for worse, desync is a known concern when you warp into a big fleet op, and being lagged and killed happens. And more importantly, it has always happened. A known risk, with a known lack of reimbursement, should not be a surprise. Of course, ity's somethign that should be fixed, but as I said above, fixing the lag is the right solution, not putting a band-aid on.
Shinma Apollo The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.09.30 05:07:00 - [6] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Originally by: Shinma Apollo The current policy of refusing all large scale losses for reimbursement is harmful, illogical, and is in need of reconsideration. Ostensibly, the logic behind this is that CCP does not wish to put the man hours behind having to investigate claims. In reality, this policy is spiteful, derisive and is a horrible business model towards its customers. It's not spite if it's truth. Investigating these claims takes a lot of man-hours, and CCP likes spending money on customer service staff as much as any other company - i.e., not at all. And given the ubiquity of desyncs, it would really be a monumental expense for them to investigate them. I'd rather they used the time and money to fix the problem - which, if the last dev blog is to be trusted, they're well on their way to doing - than to fix the symptoms. Besides, for better or for worse, desync is a known concern when you warp into a big fleet op, and being lagged and killed happens. And more importantly, it has always happened. A known risk, with a known lack of reimbursement, should not be a surprise. Of course, ity's somethign that should be fixed, but as I said above, fixing the lag is the right solution, not putting a band-aid on. I also take flights, but should one I take crash, my next of kin would have little issue successfully taking suit against the airline in question, nor would my knowledge of the risk mitigate this in any way. People weren't desynced warping in, we had a fight going, and then the entire node died. Following this, everyone was shafted by CCP seeing as how best estimated put the active players at 60 total, with the remaining ~900 people being unable to do anything except die or stare at a black screen. I agree the solution is to fix the lag itself, but that doesn't mean that when servers deprive people of their labor with nothing in return, they shouldn't be remunerated.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.09.30 08:49:00 - [7] If the logs do not show anything, then *fix the logs*. It's blindingly obvious that there are desynch/black-screen/etc problems in this game, and pretending they don't exist is not going to change anything.
Another Forum'Alt	Posted - 2008.09.30 12:24:00 - [8] Originally by: Treelox our logs show you should not fly what you can not replace. Being able to afford to replace a ship != losing it in a desync. Even if you can afford it, its hugely frustrating when you are in warp while seeing your hull reduce, knowing there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING you can do. Losing a carrier (or whatever) in an actual battle is less annoying, just slightly inconvenient.
Jade190	Posted - 2008.09.30 13:06:00 - [9] If you are tired of de-syncs, lag, blackscreens, etc., then why do you blob? You know the servers can barely handle 300 people in a system. So why do you get upset when, BIG SURPRISE, a system with 900+ people in it suffers from those problems? CCP should actually increase lag and desyncs, that way you blobbers never get the chance to fight in the first place.
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.09.30 15:08:00 - [10] Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 30/09/2008 15:08:05 Originally by: Merin Ryskin If the logs do not show anything, then *fix the logs. It's blindingly obvious that there are desynch/black-screen/etc problems in this game, and pretending they don't exist is not going to change anything. Now that I can agree with. Originally by:* Jade190 If you are tired of de-syncs, lag, blackscreens, etc., then why do you blob? You know the servers can barely handle 300 people in a system. So why do you get upset when, BIG SURPRISE, a system with 900+ people in it suffers from those problems? CCP should actually increase lag and desyncs, that way you blobbers never get the chance to fight in the first place. Spiteful much?

Shinma Apollo The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.09.30 15:18:00 - [11] Originally by: Jade190 If you are tired of de-syncs, lag, blackscreens, etc., then why do you blob? You know the servers can barely handle 300 people in a system. So why do you get upset when, BIG SURPRISE, a system with 900+ people in it suffers from those problems? CCP should actually increase lag and desyncs, that way you blobbers never get the chance to fight in the first place. I think you are either unfamiliar with the situation, or are just simply so poorly versed on the mechanics that you seem to equate a simple reality of forces necessary to counter an opposing group with some malicious decision to use numbers capable of destroying the system. There was a hostile force of ~450 in system. this force had close to 100 capitals, 300 support, including 4 motherships and two titans. The intitial allied forces that breached were roughly 600, not including the ships we held in reserve. of the roughly 1000 people who loaded, 920 were looking at black screens for 4 hours. 80 people at most were able to play. It would not have mattered who held the system prior to the battle, as the node crashed everyone had to load up because the node crashed and ejected every player from the system. There is no way around this situation in the mechanics of the game. When 90% of your customers are unable to access the game, this comes down to a design flaw. Screaming 'fix the lag' doesn't change this systemic flaw. I empathize with the difficulty of making such a scenario playable, and I'd be willing to allow CCP the time to make it playable; but in lieu of a working scenario, asking the majority of participants in a fight to bare the brunt of a broken mechanic is simply unnacceptable.
Another Forum'Alt	Posted - 2008.09.30 15:37:00 - [12] Originally by: Shinma Apollo 90% Closer to 40% IIRC. Not to mention not all 0.0 players are regularly lagged out and unable to login the majority of the time.
Jonas Vinthyn Cassandra's Light Caeruleum Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.30 15:47:00 - [13] (sniped the comments about getting evemails about my loss 10 min before I saw my ship getting destroyed because it doesn't really matter anymore...still give my support to this issue)
Shinma Apollo The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.09.30 16:53:00 - [14] Originally by: Another Forum'Alt Originally by: Shinma Apollo 90% Closer to 40% IIRC. Not to mention not all 0.0 players are regularly lagged out and unable to login the majority of the time. In this particular battle, local was at 600 and change, 1021 prior to the crash. however, given the privileged position of being a lazy FC who wasn't actively in charge of either support or capitals, I was able to tally up the numbers on both sides through straw polls, Killboard stats, and contacts with BoB and NC/allied forces.
Serenity Steele Dynamic Data Distribution Ministry of Information	Posted - 2008.09.30 18:02:00 - [15] Can someone explain to me in simply terms (other than epic fun) why it is necessary to have 1000 pilots flighting in a single system? What tactical/strategic advantage does that serve, and are there no alternatives? If I was losing ships to the lag monster, I'd adjust tactics to some other means of conquering the universe; Are you saying this simply isn't possible? ≡v≡ Strategic Maps in Eve-Online Store \| eve-maps.com
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.09.30 18:36:00 - [16] Originally by: Serenity Steele Can someone explain to me in simply terms (other than epic fun) why it is necessary to have 1000 pilots flighting in a single system? What tactical/strategic advantage does that serve, and are there no alternatives? If I was losing ships to the lag monster, I'd adjust tactics to some other means of conquering the universe; Are you saying this simply isn't possible? The advantage it serves is simple - if you have a fleet big enough to drop a capital in 20 seconds, and they have a fleet big enough to drop a capital in one minute, you're going to inflict three times the damage upon them that they are upon you - possibly more, since their relative fleet size will also drop faster. The bigger fleet usually wins against the smaller, and that's true in virtually every context, in both real war and fictional. Just like the American navy could crush the Canadian, the 500-man blob can crush the 50-man with massively disproportionate losses. About the only way to avoid this is AoE weaponry - it doesn't matter how big your fleet is if I nuke it in harbour. But Eve only has three varieties of AoE - one overpowered(Doomsdays), one very narrow(smartbombs), and one vastly overcosted(bombs). The only one of these that can be targeted usefully is the one that's most useless, because it's an easily interdicted weapon system on an easily destroyed ship. Perhaps there are ways of avoiding this - give some T2 ammo a splash radius, perhaps? - but at present there is no conceivable way for a small, well-built fleet to beat a big, well-built fleet. As for countermeasures, you can try, but the problem is that if you try to avoid lag with a 100-man fleet, the enemy's 500-man fleet that doesn't care about lag will show up and pulverize you. Besides, you may be losing ships to the lag monster, but so is the enemy - it's not like you can eliminate lag for your fleet while keeping it for the enemy's. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Raymond Sterns Utopian Research I.E.L. The ENTITY.	Posted - 2008.09.30 18:37:00 - [17] Edited by: Raymond Sterns on 30/09/2008 18:37:43 Originally by: Serenity Steele Can someone explain to me in simply terms (other than epic fun) why it is necessary to have 1000 pilots flighting in a single system? What tactical/strategic advantage does that serve, and are there no alternatives? If I was losing ships to the lag monster, I'd adjust tactics to some other means of conquering the universe; Are you saying this simply isn't possible? If there are 100 people willing to fight each other, then coming to a compromise is useless because neither side trusts each other. There's no such thing as tactics when it comes down to this because numbers usually make the most difference. _
Shinma Apollo The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.09.30 19:22:00 - [18] Originally by: Serenity Steele Can someone explain to me in simply terms (other than epic fun) why it is necessary to have 1000 pilots flighting in a single system? What tactical/strategic advantage does that serve, and are there no alternatives? As an employee, you should know that such a concept rests solely around the prisoner's dilemma, insofar as both parties seek to to get the other to co-operate whilst allowing themselves to defect. No group is going to accept a numeric disadvantage, even if scaled down as you propose, nor does it mathematically make sense to. (I'll leave it to you to learn Lanchester's laws, unless you'd wish to trade your polaris frigate for tutoring lessons) Simply put, it's against both the mechanics and scope of the game-play to seperate battles. Essentially, the only way your proposal is viable is if the party who must take the system volunteers to jump in one at a time, thus providing a lag-free experience for all parties involved, and often with the same results. So, tl;dr version, no the mechanics of the game do not permit splitting a battle.
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.09.30 19:40:00 - [19] Originally by: Shinma Apollo As an employee, you should know...your polaris frigate... Serenity is not an employee of CCP. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Shinma Apollo The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.09.30 19:55:00 - [20] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Originally by: Shinma Apollo As an employee, you should know...your polaris frigate... Serenity is not an employee of CCP. Let's not confuse that arguement with such trivial things as facts :D Moreso, this is not the thread for discussions on tactics resulting to such lag, the lag itself, or anything of that nature. This thread is predominantly concerned with CCP's policy on reimbursements, and its interaction with game mechanics.

Drake Draconis	Posted - 2008.09.30 20:01:00 - [21] I'm not sure whats funnier... the fact he assumed he was CCP or the fact that its totally random and off the wall. I for one can't make the connection. As for the discussion... even if CCP manages to fix the so called problem... its going to exponentially get out of hand. Feasibly the only way you could have a lag free massive battle... is to make sure both parties have an equal number of pilots of sufficent "epic size" to insure the battle actually takes place. In other words.... 300 ships on either end or something. Because I don't know about you guys.... but crashing nodes to win is not what I call... fun. If all the massive wars for 0.0 where like that... hell id quit... wheres the fun in that. Id rather get my @$$ kicked in live time... not blacked out.
Shinma Apollo The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.09.30 20:32:00 - [22] Originally by: Drake Draconis Feasibly the only way you could have a lag free massive battle... is to make sure both parties have an equal number of pilots of sufficent "epic size" to insure the battle actually takes place. In other words.... 300 ships on either end or something. Unless the bulk of advertising, devblogs, and information regarding conflict in Eve online is false, warfare is never about a fair fight. If a GM were to state to both sides, "Alright, the servers are not intended to fight at this level, so my calculations are that X BS, X Dreads, X Caps, etc, from this side and Y BS, Y Dreads, Y Caps from that side are a reflective distribution of numbers arrayed, and I will be willing to move all those outside this number to a staging ground/away from the combat zone" and allow the reflective portion to duke it out, I'd be happy with the outcome, whatever it may be. This isn't something that the onus should be put on the players. This is a fault in the mechanics of the game, and I simply feel that CCP should own up to their responsibility and take the necessary steps to rectify their shortcomings, rather than let their playerbase arbitrarily suffer. Suggesting that battles should be divided into even numbered engagements simply evidences an abject ignorance of warfare and conflict to the point that I'd like to ask Drake that if he and I are fighting, and he has more isk than me, perhaps he could send me some because it's unfair of his financial advantage.
Cosy Ceaon Aliastra	Posted - 2008.09.30 20:59:00 - [23]
Scagga Laebetrovo Evil Bastards	Posted - 2008.09.30 20:59:00 - [24] Just saying, if one side had 600 frontline ships available to confront a 450 ship-fleet, with further reserves available - they could have gone and sieged 3-4 other locations and left enough forces to camp the enemy where they stood. In the best event, the smaller enemy would be able to counterattack one of those 3-4 locations, but would have to charge through a camp and jump in through cynos, loading grid second. Accepting the loss of a system while striking numerous others surely is something that would work better in the future.
Drake Draconis	Posted - 2008.09.30 21:27:00 - [25] Originally by: Shinma Apollo Originally by: Drake Draconis Feasibly the only way you could have a lag free massive battle... is to make sure both parties have an equal number of pilots of sufficent "epic size" to insure the battle actually takes place. In other words.... 300 ships on either end or something. Unless the bulk of advertising, devblogs, and information regarding conflict in Eve online is false, warfare is never about a fair fight. If a GM were to state to both sides, "Alright, the servers are not intended to fight at this level, so my calculations are that X BS, X Dreads, X Caps, etc, from this side and Y BS, Y Dreads, Y Caps from that side are a reflective distribution of numbers arrayed, and I will be willing to move all those outside this number to a staging ground/away from the combat zone" and allow the reflective portion to duke it out, I'd be happy with the outcome, whatever it may be. This isn't something that the onus should be put on the players. This is a fault in the mechanics of the game, and I simply feel that CCP should own up to their responsibility and take the necessary steps to rectify their shortcomings, rather than let their playerbase arbitrarily suffer. Suggesting that battles should be divided into even numbered engagements simply evidences an abject ignorance of warfare and conflict to the point that I'd like to ask Drake that if he and I are fighting, and he has more isk than me, perhaps he could send me some because it's unfair of his financial advantage. Wow.... you really do think things through don't you. epic fail. 1: CCP owns up to it and fixes lag by getting more servers more hardware. 2: Fleet battles numbering twice if not thrice there size before shows up. 3: Server Node Crashes 4: Rinse, Dry, Repeat Care to try again?
Somealt Ofmine	Posted - 2008.09.30 21:30:00 - [26] Edited by: Somealt Ofmine on 30/09/2008 21:35:12 You should not lose ships in this game while staring at a loading screen, period, whether its a Frigate, or a Titan. That's just about the epitome of crappy, ill-coded game play. If their logs can't show them that the player wasn't actually in the game when their ship died, they damn well need to enhance their logger. Having a ship replaced that died before you loaded shouldn't even require a petition. It's a defect in how the game is coded, and if they can't fix it, they should at very least fix it so that players aren't disadvantaged by it.
Shinma Apollo The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.09.30 22:03:00 - [27] Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo Just saying, if one side had 600 frontline ships available to confront a 450 ship-fleet, with further reserves available - they could have gone and sieged 3-4 other locations and left enough forces to camp the enemy where they stood. In the best event, the smaller enemy would be able to counterattack one of those 3-4 locations, but would have to charge through a camp and jump in through cynos, loading grid second. Accepting the loss of a system while striking numerous others surely is something that would work better in the future. Once again, this isn't a question of choice of tactics. Moreso, you're saying that Once you have 400 in fleet, the jump button should change to the "I win" button on the overview?
Shinma Apollo The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.09.30 22:12:00 - [28] Originally by: Drake Draconis Originally by: Shinma Apollo Originally by: Drake Draconis Feasibly the only way you could have a lag free massive battle... is to make sure both parties have an equal number of pilots of sufficent "epic size" to insure the battle actually takes place. In other words.... 300 ships on either end or something. Unless the bulk of advertising, devblogs, and information regarding conflict in Eve online is false, warfare is never about a fair fight. If a GM were to state to both sides, "Alright, the servers are not intended to fight at this level, so my calculations are that X BS, X Dreads, X Caps, etc, from this side and Y BS, Y Dreads, Y Caps from that side are a reflective distribution of numbers arrayed, and I will be willing to move all those outside this number to a staging ground/away from the combat zone" and allow the reflective portion to duke it out, I'd be happy with the outcome, whatever it may be. This isn't something that the onus should be put on the players. This is a fault in the mechanics of the game, and I simply feel that CCP should own up to their responsibility and take the necessary steps to rectify their shortcomings, rather than let their playerbase arbitrarily suffer. Suggesting that battles should be divided into even numbered engagements simply evidences an abject ignorance of warfare and conflict to the point that I'd like to ask Drake that if he and I are fighting, and he has more isk than me, perhaps he could send me some because it's unfair of his financial advantage. Wow.... you really do think things through don't you. epic fail. 1: CCP owns up to it and fixes lag by getting more servers more hardware. 2: Fleet battles numbering twice if not thrice there size before shows up. 3: Server Node Crashes 4: Rinse, Dry, Repeat Care to try again? Care to troll again? This isn't a decision-making discussion on behalf of the players. CCP being unable to produce the product as advertised and paid for should result in some form of compensation. It should not be left to the players to 'speculate' what the server's capable of and then find some way to 'negotiate' with the enemy to make a game playable. We're not playing Alternative-dispute-resolution-online. This is simply a question of CCP taking responsibility for its errors, even if it means an increased workload.
Hebachica	Posted - 2008.09.30 22:17:00 - [29] Agree very much
Iwone	Posted - 2008.09.30 22:17:00 - [30]

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.