A letter to GOA?

Quinlan · Post by **Quinlan** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 11:31 am

Ankh Morpork wrote:If you read up what I said earlier I didnt bother much with the SLA part but I think its good that the customers unite and send these kind of letters.
I would personally want to see goa give us guarantee that this wont happen again (and yes yes..I know there is no way they can give full guarantee but as I said they can greatly reduce the chance of another incident)

/Ankh

They already posted on the daoc.goa.com site and on FH that they have taken actions to prevent this happening in the future. Isnt that what you wanted?

Ankh Morpork · Post by **Ankh Morpork** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 11:32 am

Quinlan wrote:They already posted on the daoc.goa.com site and on FH that they have taken actions to prevent this happening in the future. Isnt that what you wanted?

I dont read FH.

/Ankh

Quinlan · Post by **Quinlan** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 11:35 am

Quinlan wrote:They already posted on the daoc.goa.com site and on FH that they have taken actions to prevent this happening in the future. Isnt that what you wanted?

Yu dont read FH ok..your choice. John X doesnt read daoc.goa.com and he doesnt read FH. So John X can write all these kind of letters and demand things since he never knew about them cause he doesnt read the pages.

O wait that sounds funny

But basically since you say you read daoc.goa.com you already have your answer right?

Ankh Morpork · Post by **Ankh Morpork** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 11:37 am

I had totally missed it on GOA's page, ok?

/Ankh

Quinlan · Post by **Quinlan** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 11:41 am

Ankh Morpork wrote:I had totally missed it on GOA's page, ok?

/Ankh

Ofcourse that is ok. If you where perfect it wouldnt believe you where human

But am i correct in assuming now that you have the ensures you look for and a letter would be unnneeded?

Ankh Morpork · Post by **Ankh Morpork** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 11:44 am

[quote="Quinlan"]Ofcourse that is ok. If you where perfect it wouldnt believe you where human ]

Kind of yes, but my point was that I think these kind of letters are quite good as they need to see their customers thoughts.

/Ankh

Alexandrinus · Post by **Alexandrinus** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 11:50 am

i think there is already something rolling, because Requiel reads this forum post here and at FH, hope they now hear more to the community.
And tbh what will it help us if the say to us<file xxxx got currupted because of overwriting error yyy......wich affects all the database zzzz>

Sharkith · Post by **Sharkith** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 12:04 pm

Quinlan wrote:Shark,

what would you expect to be in the SLA. let's keep it simple and the SLA will guarantee an uptime of 92% (I actually think GOA is higher then that atm) for a random number.

So if the 92% isnt made we get in to the penalty clauses where we might get free days. This does mean if the make 93% uptime due to being 1 week down they dont have to give you freedays since they lived up to the SLA. And would this SLA also include a reward clause which is not uncommon in this time.

But as said earlier the intent of the writers is good. The execution is worthless

Yes Quin like I said before I am not sure about how this was done - the principal is right. I am not expert in SLA's but I can tell you what trust is. When two parties meet there is an insecurity of expectations trust (in people or systems) helps to develop a “tolerance of uncertainty”. It is directed to the future, it manifests itself in expectations performed in present but oriented towards the future.

So given this definition how could they produce an agreement that helps to resolve the lack of trust a lot of us feel in the service?

Thats the real question - clearly 100% uptime is silly and unreasonable as is an individualised agreement - since the agreement is not made individually but in relation to a system anyway.

Personally it is not the uptime either that is the problem - because that is not what was broken. What was broken was their ability to deliver on an expectation that we would not have characters currupted as a result of what appears to be a fairly routine operation - updating of the system.

I do not want to back you into a corner here but does this sound closer to the issue than what the letter is addressing that started this thread?

Sharkith

Childofkhain · Post by **Childofkhain** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 12:31 pm

Quinlan wrote:Customer is king but not a Dictator and that is what the writers of this seem to want to be. I never said they customer is not important. Only thing i said is that they are not as important as they think.

Normally that is correct however when a product <in this case the game> has issues with losing cusomers due to its poor service it should wake up and listen. The fact that when it only has <appoximatly> 40,000 customers means losing only 400 is 1% of its customer base somthing no company can afford to lose when its customer base is non cyclical as ours is, It would be less of a problem if like WoW they have :lemony: party's and their 3million playerbase can take a hammering as at the end of the day they know more people are out there who could pick up the game and start playing that not. However over the last 2 years the only expansion in customer base for GoA has been opening servers in new countries not by finding them in an existing market. Thus losing any from a current market is a serious loss. If GoA cannot see this then they need their heads looking at as does any one else who fails to see that this is a critical issue. Already as it stands they are clustering 4 servers due to low population, servers that used to have quite a high population.

Ovi · Post by **Ovi** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 12:42 pm

Childofkhain wrote:The fact that when it only has <appoximatly> 40,000 customers means losing only 40 is 1% of its customer base

40 is 0.1% of 40,000, 400 is 1%