Reimbursement Policy update revisited

[CCP]

Reimbursement Policy update revisited
5 April 2011, 3:07 pm

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.

 

 

 

Source: eveonline.com | devBlog