search | Login Forums | New posts | Last 24h

TECHNICAL SUPPORT / WEB APPs BUGS
uiWebPrevious123uiWebNext

#21 Added by Irfidel 1 decade ago Report | Quote[en] 

{translate}
@Gibini: I believe that with such a tight budget and limited personel, _asking_ should and can be directed _first_ to the peer players. As we all know lot of information is in our heads (often this is =old forum discussions). If we know it already, it's one question less forwarded to the volunteers who are our second level of support. If they know the answer, the devs have more time to develop.

The more questions we direct directly to the devs, the less time they have to actually develop. There are only so many hours in the day.

I believe what you refer to is that it is the dev's (or the company's) role to issue the policies, and communicate them properly. I believe we are in agreement on this.

My point is just that any support requests should be staggered and directed at players first, csr's second, devs/Winchgate third for the benefit of all of us. I believe that this order was communicated as well by csr's.
E.g. by Sywindt: http://app.ryzom.com/app_forum/index.php?page=topic/view/9197/1#1

#22 Added by Gorran 1 decade ago Report | Quote[en] 

{translate}
Irfidel (atys)
My point is just that any support requests should be staggered and directed at players first, csr's second, devs/Winchgate third for the benefit of all of us. I believe that this order was communicated as well by csr's.

Wrong. I am a paying customer therefore, any support question I have regarding billing will definitely NEVER be directed to players.

Sywindt, I know that Nakari submitted a ticket on this Saturday and that <Guide> Tiximei received it. Nothing has been done to resolve the situation. I will send email to support. If that does not resolve the situation in a timely manner, I will proceed with my complaints. Ryzom has a long history of sloppy communication but this crosses the legal boundary into fraudulent activity and trying to fix it after the fact does not justify what has happened here.

---

Eldest, Order of the White Lotus

#23 Added by Entendu 1 decade ago Report | Quote[en] 

{translate}
My opinion is 4 characters for 1 person is enough but I think this IP rule is a bit of a mess and I really sympathize with Gorran and Yakapo. I don't think we should be forced to change the way we play because a small very opinionated group finds it unfair that we have alts but not a single person from Winchgate will complain that someone is paying for all of these accounts.

A side note.. I have worked in retail for like 8 years now and if a customer brought something back and said it didn't work and I said our return policies have changed but its not written down anywhere because we're translating it still that customer would have a right to be upset just like we have a right to be upset that so many rules and changing behind the scenes and we find out afterwards. Please everyone from the Devs to csrs realize we are customers and we appreciate being taken care of and receiving good customer service just like you would when you purchase a product.

#24 Added by Timna 1 decade ago Report | Quote[en] 

{translate}
Gorran (atys)

Wrong. I am a paying customer therefore, any support question I have regarding billing will definitely NEVER be directed to players.
[...]Ryzom has a long history of sloppy communication but this crosses the legal boundary into fraudulent activity and trying to fix it after the fact does not justify what has happened here.

I agree with part 1.

Concerning part b, as I said, there is nothing illegal here. ToU are saying that various account/user is a fraud, then protecting themselves against fraud is something they must do.
And believe me, no answer for a question that is still only a week end old (You know? The days you aren't working? Guess what? People in Winchgate aren't working neither) is nothing reprehensible. I'd say a week is the smaller delay you can wait before complaining of any customer service on the web. So be patient, and don't expect things to change as fast as you want them to, or you'll go from disapointment to disapointment in your life

#25 Added by Sliar 1 decade ago Report | Quote[en] 

{translate}
Timna (atys)
terms of use
Only natural persons who have reached their majority may open an account

AN account not accounts... so it's 1/person
nonsense. As has been pointed out before this wording in no way excludes multiple accounts, your preferred reading not withstanding. Besides this,there is precedent. While I agree multiple alts can be excessive, I agree that changes (yes it really is) should be properly communicated. However I also see an increasingly negative dialogue here, both between players and players and csr/Winchgate. Can we just quit with that and find solutions instead? Thanks

---

#26 Added by Neela 1 decade ago Report | Quote[en] 

{translate}
Timna (atys)
And believe me, no answer for a question that is still only a week end old (You know? The days you aren't working? Guess what? People in Winchgate aren't working neither) is nothing reprehensible. I'd say a week is the smaller delay you can wait before complaining of any customer service on the web.

Nonsense, that's not even remotely a valid excuse. Where does it state in a SLA that support is provided Mon-Fri 9-5? Where does it state that responses will take more than X amount of time? They are providing a product/service (the game) 24-7 so support should also be 24-7. Being on the web is NOT a valid excuse for poor/slow customer service. If you are not providing 24-7 support, you have to state that in an SLA or in an auto-reply to an email*. It's called proper customer service and managing expectations.

Having said that, I can see both 'sides' to this situation. Winchgate, for their part, want to (rightly IMHO) close a loophole that they feel allows players to abuse the ToU by using multiple accounts to gain an advantage. They have provided a case-by-case solution for large families. However, if the response to a whitelist request is not done in a timely manner then we, as customers, have a right to complain!

Do I think Winchgate are right to apply this limitation (including the white list)? Yes I do.
Do I think players having multiple accounts is wrong? No, Ryzom needs the money but it depends how many and how they are being used.
Do I think 1 person having more than 2 chars loaded at once is wrong? Sure do.
Do I think this has been handled badly? Yep, yet again.


* e.g. "thank you for contacting support, we will endeavour to respond within 3 years." j/k but you get the idea.

---

Elder Of Atys

Chasing the DING!
katriell
You can't "complete" the mainland. If one thinks one has seen or done everything there, one is kidding oneself. But be prepared to "get out what you put in," because the mainland does not coddle or hold hands.
Remickla (atys)
Other games - they give you a cookie whether you succeed or not, in fact you don't even have to participate. Ryzom takes your cookie, eats it in front of you, and slaps you 2 or 3 times for bringing a cookie in the first place.

#27 Added by Azarael 1 decade ago Report | Quote[en] 

{translate}
Neela (atys)
Nonsense, that's not even remotely a valid excuse. Where does it state in a SLA that support is provided Mon-Fri 9-5? Where does it state that responses will take more than X amount of time? They are providing a product/service (the game) 24-7 so support should also be 24-7. Being on the web is NOT a valid excuse for poor/slow customer service. If you are not providing 24-7 support, you have to state that in an SLA or in an auto-reply to an email*. It's called proper customer service and managing expectations.

Hm i think you got something wrong. By your account you gain the right to play on the server. Nothing more. As you sayed before support is a SERVICE provided by volunteers an WG. So theres no way to provide support 24/7.

And to the multi account thing... I just see it like cars. You can have 10, registrated and payed for all. But you will never ever convice a police officer in your country that this means you are allowed to drive two or more at the same time :D (would be a funy picture see guys jumping from one car inside the other while driving and back)

Even if there is no explicit law against it ^^

Last edited by Azarael (1 decade ago)

---

Azarael
Keepers of Darkness

#28 Added by Yakapo 1 decade ago Report | Quote[en] 

{translate}
And to the multi account thing... I just see it like cars. You can have 10, registrated and payed for all. But you will never ever convice a police officer in your country that this means you are allowed to drive two or more at the same time :D (would be a funy picture see guys jumping from one car inside the other while driving and back)

That is one poor analogy.

---

#29 Added by Azarael 1 decade ago Report | Quote[en] 

{translate}
Only if you dont get what i mean.

---

Azarael
Keepers of Darkness

#30 Added by Holina 1 decade ago Report | Quote[en] 

{translate}
Azarael (atys)
Even if there is no explicit law against it ^^
There is a law against it since you are required by law to drive your vehicle in a (safe) manner authorized by the relevant agency in you country. You have to know this law to get a driver's license. If you do not abide by the above and are caught you can be fined, your driver's license can be revoked and you might even go to jail.

I hope you are a law abiding, responsible driver :P

On the topic of 'the Contract'
6. SUBSCRIPTION AND BILLING OF OUR MMORPG
... Payment of the subscription fee enables the User to access Ryzom without limit during the subscription period and any continuation by renewal. ...

The above should have been corrected before the limit was put in place. You can ask for a charge-back and your bank will handle the case for you (do note that's it's usually a lengthy, multi-tiered process). Of course as with all contracts between parties it's usually expected that they try to reach a peaceful resolution before asking for a charge-back and/or going to court -- but it's not a requirement.

#31 Added by Azarael 1 decade ago Report | Quote[en] 

{translate}
Holina (atys)
There is a law against it since you are required by law to drive your vehicle in a (safe) manner authorized by the relevant agency in you country. Y

Thats exactly what i meant. But its not explizit "You are not allowed to drive 2 cars at same time".

And thats also ment with Ryzom. You can make as many accounts as you want as long as you pay for them. But tht does not automaticaly mean you are allowed to play them at the same time. This is just some interpretation by some/many ( i dont know how reality looks like) players. So the rules have never changed but perhaps the interpretation. And no one can ever say: "hey i didnt know" now because sofware is changed to prevent it.

I admit this is not an optimal way but it was comunicated before and it showed that some didnt care or didnt get it.

And you are abolutly right that this last rule is formulated in an non fitting way. It is clear what is ment (you can play your char as lpng as you want) but it in fact realy indicates that using multiaccounts is legal. Well, no but you can interprete it this way. This has to be changed.

---

Azarael
Keepers of Darkness

#32 Added by Sliar 1 decade ago Report | Quote[en] 

{translate}
Sorry Azarael, but you are just repeating yourself without giving anything to support your intetpretation.
Your analogy is flawed too, it is not physically possible to drive two cars at once ( yeah sure I can imagine how it could be done) while playing more than one char is easy as can be.
Once people start arguing how rules are meant to be read my hackles rise. A subscription is a contract. Show me where this is expressly forbidden and I will change my mind. Interptrtation shouldn't play any part whatsoever in deceiphering this. As for the earlier clause which speaks of 'an account' ( look it up in the thread) only says that when you enter into an agreement you get one account.

I am not against the limit which has now been imposed (though it will inconvenience some people that I know and which WG will still need to redress) but if you want to convince people come up with a solid argument to prevent accusations of trolling.

Last edited by Sliar (1 decade ago)

---

#33 Added by Irfidel 1 decade ago Report | Quote[en] 

{translate}
Interpretation is always part of what follows a contract. That's why we have so many folks suing each other. Both parties usually claim that something is "obvious". But obviously the only obvious thing is that they obviously disagree (pun intended).

Interpretation always goes along with any communication. Even if you don't want to use subjective interpretation, you always do when you listen to someone or read some text. It's your context, your bringup, your education, your cultural, your linguistic knowledge that shapes your thoughts and understanding about things. It's only natural e.g. that I read the part of the terms of service that Holina cites differently than you do.

And it's neither bad nor good, it's just the way it is.

Misunderstanding this basic principle is often what leads to frustration and rage and prevents detecting and resolving miscommunication.

Last edited by Irfidel (1 decade ago)

#34 Added by Holina 1 decade ago Report | Quote[en] 

{translate}
Well, if we want to get technical the world 'limit' (without specifics) is too vague/broad to safely use in a contract. An advisor/auditor well versed in IT service delivery would tell you to expand on it or split the clause into 4-5 parts each detailing an aspect of the service, for example
- availability in terms of time (24/7, 24/5, 8/5 etc.)
- availability in terms of client location (country, IP subnet, IP address, blacklisted, whitelisted etc.)
- availability in terms of delivery channel (internet, intranet, mail pigeon etc.)
- availability of disaster recovery site, hot backup, cold backup etc.
- expected recovery times
- procedure for planned outages
- procedure for unplanned outages
- contact lists for specific issues
- etc.

Granted, stuff like the above I've only seen in professional contracts, not even Blizzard, SOE or NCSOFT have guarantees for service recovery times for their gaming customers. Which by the way nicely illustrates the state of gaming industry in this regard.

Oh! THIS COMMENT IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS COMMENT, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. Sorry, couldn't resist. :)

On the topic of multiple accounts per controlling person my opinion is that unless they are used in PvP or prevents other players from gathering sup mats I don't really see a problem, even if it would be 4+ accounts.

In the above two scenarios I'd say 1 account per person for PvP (unless both parties agree to have no limit in place in which case they should contact a CSR beforehand to avoid any misunderstanding) and 2 for supremes digging.

For supreme boss hunts I'm torn between imposing a limit or not. If there is no direct competition for the boss then I don't see a problem but if there is then I'd say PvP rules apply. Edit: By direct competition I mean the scenario when two (or more teams) are gathering for a supreme boss and both could realistically take down the boss on their own. If they do not want to work together and split the spoils then I'd go with PvP rules for the "nuke-race".

Last edited by Holina (1 decade ago) | Reason: Add explanation to last paragraph.

#35 Added by Azarael 1 decade ago Report | Quote[en] 

{translate}
Sliar (atys)
A subscription is a contract. Show me where this is expressly forbidden and I will change my mind. Interptrtation shouldn't play any part whatsoever in deceiphering this. As for the earlier clause which speaks of 'an account' ( look it up in the thread) only says that when you enter into an agreement you get one account.

I brought arguemts to show my personal opinion. If you dont like them this doesnt mean they are wrong. No u did not sign a rule where stands "You are not allowed to play...". There you are right. But if you just would read with a bit less prejustice waht i wrote you would perhaps understand that there are rules wich can be interpreted this way. Like in RL to there are rules that were made for all cases. Could you even imagine to set up rules wich would include anythin that could happen in 10 years of gameplay? So for sure a publisher makes rules and after something strange comes up they must decide wether it is ok or against the law.

So no its not me repeating myself on and on, but what you wrote i read in every third post. I respect everybodys opinion and i try to understand you too.In some points i would even say you are right but i also try to under stand WG and i have to admit in some cases they are right. In the end its their game and they make/interprete the rules and enforce them.

But to say it clearly, i never justified you, i just wanted to give another point of view. Use it or not, its your choice.

Edited 2 times | Last edited by Azarael (1 decade ago)

---

Azarael
Keepers of Darkness
uiWebPrevious123uiWebNext
  
Last visit Tuesday, 26 November 19:14:26 UTC
P_:G_:PLAYER

powered by ryzom-api