Customer Service is good

mpqr7

A lot of people post here to complain that they don't like the customer service, so I wanted to counter that by stating that I've always thought they did a good job.

Sometimes I get the in-game compensation I requested, and sometimes I don't, but regardless, I find their responses to be timely and reasonable. And I am not a whale, so I'm not getting special treatment.

SangFroid

Well I can honestly say I have had the complete opposite experience. Canned answers that don't answer questions that are clearly stated, followed by a person answering but not addressing the actual question, followed by more canned answers that neither address the issue nor recognize any of the previous e-mails that have come before them in the chain of events.

If Websters's is ever looking for a real life example of "Phoning it in" D3 CS is it

thanos8587

happy they helped you. i got the "were sorry you didnt get what you want but we cant do anything (lie)." "please take a survey on your customer service experience".

after badgering a little more they gave me a "well give you 25 cp one time, take it or leave it and dont bother us again."

so yeah.

dsds

Yeah customer service is overall good. I had one negative response and one positive response.

The negative one was expected since it was regarding a tie. Apparently for a tie, it's a lot more complicated than it is. So it isn't the first one to hit the score and stay there. I don't remember what it was but it was something really complicated like if someone had a higher score than you and got knocked down to your score, they would place higher than you even though you stayed at that score longer etc. But anyway it wasn't well explained beforehand but I guess that is the only fair way to break a tie, so i can't really fault them for it.

The positive one was about a bug with me being booted out of my alliance first time I log in for the day and me missing out the iso rewards. Yeah that one ended well and I got what I deserved.

broll

I've only opened 2 tickets with CS. One was a very good interaction, the other one was considerably less.

1st instance -
Civil War Event 2. I opened a ticket when it was apparent the rounds weren't apparent for everyone. In addition to the ticket I, posted on the forums, messaged their Facebook account, messaged their twitter account, public posted on twitter and facebook. I did everything I could to try and make sure they knew and try and get some official confirmation that they knew about the problem and were fixing it. It got fixed without them ever acknowledging the issue. The only thing I got any response to was the CS ticket and that response came after the event was over. All they said is since this effected everyone we can't compensate you anything. 1st off I wasn't looking for compensation, just trying to get the issue acknowledged and fixed in timely manner. 2nd if something major like that happened that negatively impacted a major event, why not give everyone a little something for the oops our bad. I rated this support very low.

2nd Instance -
This just happened this week. I was playing on steam account while another desktop game was downloading. I got an error from steam and/or MPQ saying that I didn't have enough available disk. So I took some time and cleaned up enough disk and kept playing. I cleared the DDQ and logged off for the night. The next day I found that my account had reverted to before I started DDQ. Levels I spent in the middle were gone and the ISO was back. Covers I bought with CP I spent was back in my wallet. Most frustrating the cover I won from the Big Enchilada (Cyclops) was gone. I opened the CS ticket and they responded by giving me everything I lost, all the ISO, the 2 taco tokens, and the Cyclops cover. In addition to this they gave me a black Cyclops cover giving me all 3 moves for that character (where I would have only had 1 if they had not fixed my issue). This was a very good and very fast fix for my issue and it was great support.

I'm willing to give them a partial pass on the 1st incident as that was a larger issue and occurred after business hours, but the 2nd instance was good CS. So I'm inclined to agree with the OP.

Orion

SangFroid wrote:

Well I can honestly say I have had the complete opposite experience. Canned answers that don't answer questions that are clearly stated, followed by a person answering but not addressing the actual question, followed by more canned answers that neither address the issue nor recognize any of the previous e-mails that have come before them in the chain of events.

If Websters's is ever looking for a real life example of "Phoning it in" D3 CS is it

Yup, this is the experience I have too. A canned response that didn't answer the clearly stated question, with a couple of "what ifs" that contradicted the facts I put in the email. Followed by responses that had nothing to do with the issue at hand or that rehashed stuff that was answered in previous emails. Very disappointing.

DFiPL

I've had generally positive experiences. They took care of me once when I pulled a 5* I wasn't ready for and didn't want to have it be a "wasted" pull, which I appreciated. They've occasionally given me things I didn't ask for. And sometimes they've said "sorry no dice."

Hell, they once kept reaching out to me for *two months* on an issue resolution when my primary email went down. Once I got it back the next day I got a "we're still trying to reach you to see if this resolution is acceptable" email. Two months later.

When's the last time you had customer service from any business spend two months trying to reach you to solve a problem?

We_are_Venom

thanos8587 wrote:

happy they helped you. i got the "were sorry you didnt get what you want but we cant do anything (lie)." "please take a survey on your customer service experience".

after badgering a little more they gave me a "well give you 25 cp one time, take it or leave it and dont bother us again."

so yeah.

More then I'd give you especially if I knew you'd come on the forums to complain anyway.

El Satanno

Here's my thing about customer service around here; there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to it. One guy has a legit claim (subjectively speaking, but never mind) and gets zilch, another guy basically whinges about nothing and gets a 5* cover of choice. That's a pile of **** right there.

They may as well just have a CS token that they hand out for all tickets!

Pylgrim

It's like everything in life. Once you add the human factor, the outcome is uncertain. CS has its inner rules established by D3, but it is up to each different operative how to interpret them. Some of them will believe that the "writ of law" must be observed even if it ends in the destruction of the universe, no exceptions. Others believe that rules are guidelines that can withstand some bending to be reasonable and user-friendly. Some fear their supervisor and will screw players if they believe that not doing so will get them in trouble. Some hate conflict and quickly resolve matters in ways that will terminate the issue asap, etc.

That said, I think forumgoers have been slowly pushing CS as a whole into the "follow the writ of law even if it destroys the universe" category, because whenever someone gets a kindness, courtesy or nicer outcome than expected, they proudly report it in the forums, which quickly causes everybody else who believes they should have been shown the same kindness (even in completely unrelated matters or when they were evidently in the wrong) to riot.

TLCstormz

We_are_Venom wrote:

thanos8587 wrote:

happy they helped you. i got the "were sorry you didnt get what you want but we cant do anything (lie)." "please take a survey on your customer service experience".

after badgering a little more they gave me a "well give you 25 cp one time, take it or leave it and dont bother us again."

so yeah.

More then I'd give you especially if I knew you'd come on the forums to complain anyway.

................am I allowed to say "****" to someone on here ?

El Satanno

Pylgrim wrote:

That said, I think forumgoers have been slowly pushing CS as a whole into the "follow the writ of law even if it destroys the universe" category, because whenever someone gets a kindness, courtesy or nicer outcome than expected, they proudly report it in the forums, which quickly causes everybody else who believes they should have been shown the same kindness (even in completely unrelated matters or when they were evidently in the wrong) to riot.

That's an interesting stance to take. Customer service is not a zero-sum situation, and a show of generosity can have an exponential effect on goodwill. Goodwill in turn can have a staggering effect on your company's bottom line. My company prides itself on word-of-mouth advertising. In fact, not long ago one of our ad campaigns proudly trumpeted that 80% of our business comes from referrals. Obviously it's not precisely analogous, but the point stands.

thanos8587

El Satanno wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

That said, I think forumgoers have been slowly pushing CS as a whole into the "follow the writ of law even if it destroys the universe" category, because whenever someone gets a kindness, courtesy or nicer outcome than expected, they proudly report it in the forums, which quickly causes everybody else who believes they should have been shown the same kindness (even in completely unrelated matters or when they were evidently in the wrong) to riot.

That's an interesting stance to take. Customer service is not a zero-sum situation, and a show of generosity can have an exponential effect on goodwill. Goodwill in turn can have a staggering effect on your company's bottom line. My company prides itself on word-of-mouth advertising. In fact, not long ago one of our ad campaigns proudly trumpeted that 80% of our business comes from referrals. Obviously it's not precisely analogous, but the point stands.

especially true when dealing with digital goods that have zero cost associated and no cash value. one act of generous customer service can produce a much longer stream of revenue from that customer and unending positive commentary to both friends and alliance mates, whereas lies and a door slammed in the face can produce the exact opposite.

case in point.

i understand they dont want to open the floodgates, but consistent treatment of all players and well communicated policies go a long way as compared to what they have in place today.

Pylgrim

thanos8587 wrote:

El Satanno wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

That said, I think forumgoers have been slowly pushing CS as a whole into the "follow the writ of law even if it destroys the universe" category, because whenever someone gets a kindness, courtesy or nicer outcome than expected, they proudly report it in the forums, which quickly causes everybody else who believes they should have been shown the same kindness (even in completely unrelated matters or when they were evidently in the wrong) to riot.

That's an interesting stance to take. Customer service is not a zero-sum situation, and a show of generosity can have an exponential effect on goodwill. Goodwill in turn can have a staggering effect on your company's bottom line. My company prides itself on word-of-mouth advertising. In fact, not long ago one of our ad campaigns proudly trumpeted that 80% of our business comes from referrals. Obviously it's not precisely analogous, but the point stands.

especially true when dealing with digital goods that have zero cost associated and no cash value. one act of generous customer service can produce a much longer stream of revenue from that customer and unending positive commentary to both friends and alliance mates, whereas lies and a door slammed in the face can produce the exact opposite.

The problem is that people abuse generosity/good will and make it ht proverbial "that's why we can't have nice things". Example: Some people who legitimately played with two accounts (making purchases in both) wanted to fuse their covers across accounts together once championing went live and CS graciously acquiesced. Grateful users reported it in the forums which sparked a gold rush situation in which people sold and buy accounts to merge together for huge gains. Understandably, the company had to put a stop to merges. Cue angry complaining (from both legitimate users who didn't jump into the bandwagon in time, and the exploiters who could no longer get ahead).

case in point.

i understand they dont want to open the floodgates, but consistent treatment of all players and well communicated policies go a long way as compared to what they have in place today.

But... that's precisely what I'm saying. Following the writ of law without exceptions either good or bad IS consistency. Demanding consistency is precisely what has killed generosity and reasonable exceptions to niche cases where it was warranted. People believe that consitency means "someone got a courtesy treat due circumstances? ALL the userbase should get that treat!" when it's much more logical to go "NOBODY gets a treat".

Phumade

DFiPL wrote:

I've had generally positive experiences. They took care of me once when I pulled a 5* I wasn't ready for and didn't want to have it be a "wasted" pull, which I appreciated. They've occasionally given me things I didn't ask for. And sometimes they've said "sorry no dice."

this is the EXACT problem with CS.

No Consistency or transparency.

I will guarantee you that if I copy your testimonial and submit it to CS in the exact same situation of a surplus 5* cover, I will guarantee you that they will say that your example is not policy and they cant help.

Honest to god, I don't want a CS department that picks winners and losers. Nor do I want things that I didn't ask for. Just be consistent to all players of all spending levels, so that an offer made to one person is the SAME offer made to all other people in the same situation.

DFiPL

Phumade wrote:

DFiPL wrote:

I've had generally positive experiences. They took care of me once when I pulled a 5* I wasn't ready for and didn't want to have it be a "wasted" pull, which I appreciated. They've occasionally given me things I didn't ask for. And sometimes they've said "sorry no dice."

this is the EXACT problem with CS.

No Consistency or transparency.

I will guarantee you that if I copy your testimonial and submit it to CS in the exact same situation of a surplus 5* cover, I will guarantee you that they will say that your example is not policy and they cant help.

Honest to god, I don't want a CS department that picks winners and losers. Nor do I want things that I didn't ask for. Just be consistent to all players of all spending levels, so that an offer made to one person is the SAME offer made to all other people in the same situation.

Few things.

1) If consistency is what you're after, as stated upthread, the easiest way to be consistent is "nobody gets ****." It's much easier to get consistency by cracking down on a diverse CS staff and say "don't give nobody nothin'" than it is to get equal results from a staff that's been encouraged to use their judgment in responding to customer requests.

If Bob does X, and Joe hears about it and requests the same treatment, John may not see Bob's remedy as appropriate. Joe's options are to either grin and bear it or go rep shopping until you find one who gives you what you want. CS' options are to either tell their reps to open the floodgates and everything that goes along with that, or sanction Bob for making it harder on John. Be careful what you wish for.

2) Given the impact the 5* tier has had on the game, I'm not really sure acquiescing to a customer request to downgrade from a 5* to a 4* cover counts as "picking winners," heh.

3) Personally, I'd rather have an environment where I hear "yes" on occasion than one in which I always hear "no." A world where the answer is always "no" is a world where I'm just not going to have occasion to ask (which tbf is probably not an undesirable outcome for CS). A world where "yes" is possible but not regular, I'll ask when it's worth asking, but I'm not going to pepper them with requests. And I think that works for both parties. They don't get inundated and I periodically have occasion to be delighted (rather than universally disappointed).

Phumade

DFiPL wrote:

Few things.

1) If consistency is what you're after, as stated upthread, the easiest way to be consistent is "nobody gets tinykitty." It's much easier to get consistency by cracking down on a diverse CS staff and say "don't give nobody nothin'" than it is to get equal results from a staff that's been encouraged to use their judgment in responding to customer requests.

If Bob does X, and Joe hears about it and requests the same treatment, John may not see Bob's remedy as appropriate. Joe's options are to either grin and bear it or go rep shopping until you find one who gives you what you want. CS' options are to either tell their reps to open the floodgates and everything that goes along with that, or sanction Bob for making it harder on John. Be careful what you wish for.

2) Given the impact the 5* tier has had on the game, I'm not really sure acquiescing to a customer request to downgrade from a 5* to a 4* cover counts as "picking winners," heh.

3) Personally, I'd rather have an environment where I hear "yes" on occasion than one in which I always hear "no." A world where the answer is always "no" is a world where I'm just not going to have occasion to ask (which tbf is probably not an undesirable outcome for CS). A world where "yes" is possible but not regular, I'll ask when it's worth asking, but I'm not going to pepper them with requests. And I think that works for both parties. They don't get inundated and I periodically have occasion to be delighted (rather than universally disappointed).

I say this with complete sincerity and with no hint of irony.

1. You can have consistency with empathy. This comes from constant training evaluation and feedback. I'll let every player decide for themselves on whether CS is consistent or empathetic with their responses. But what is important to note is that a statistically significant portion of the players aren't really confident about the neutrality, fairness, or openness of CS. Its up to D3 to decide whether those customers are worth their efforts, but objectively the symptoms and problems are real. I'll be honest and say that very few companies do CS appropriately. Its a hard skill to develop and execute well. But it is not unrealistic to expect companies to at least internally acknowledge their deficiencies and develop an action plan to rectify it.

2. The problem of course is the slippery slope argument. As a practical matter, the effects of any one single CS encounter, has a negligible to non-existent effect on anyone's roster or placement over time. But the prevailing sense of confusion on how changes are implemented has created unnecessary tension and uncertainty in how players enjoy the game and interact with the community as a whole.

3. As a personal aside, I'd much rather see the community get the surprise reward rather than have a surprise treat for myself. Thats not meant to be slam or a comment on values. My opinion is that a consistent and transparent set of rules for CS interactions would let me focus on how to play the game rather than keep asking alliance mates how did the other play accomplish this or that.

DFiPL

Phumade wrote:

I say this with complete sincerity and with no hint of irony.

1. You can have consistency with empathy. This comes from constant training evaluation and feedback. I'll let every player decide for themselves on whether CS is consistent or empathetic with their responses. But what is important to note is that a statistically significant portion of the players aren't really confident about the neutrality, fairness, or openness of CS. Its up to D3 to decide whether those customers are worth their efforts, but objectively the symptoms and problems are real. I'll be honest and say that very few companies do CS appropriately. Its a hard skill to develop and execute well. But it is not unrealistic to expect companies to at least internally acknowledge their deficiencies and develop an action plan to rectify it.

You are never going to have "consistency" if you allow your reps to exercise their judgment. At best, you can set up a script; the problem with THAT is that once a script exists, people will look to exploit that. And if reps operate off a script, any "empathy" is going to be canned, or at least perceived that way, since we're dealing with CS entirely through email rather than face-to-face or over the phone. How many times have you seen people refer to "the standard 'we're sorry but blah blah' response"?

That's perception - the most vocal elements of the player base have decided that CS are out to get them because (a) previous interaction(s) didn't go as they might have hoped. How are they approaching CS with future requests? Are they being belligerent or approaching CS from what CS might perceive as an entitled stance? Are those people then complaining about a lack of empathy? Are the CS reps responding empathetically but having that empathy dismissed or denigrated because it didn't also come with a tangible make-whole for the player's asserted issue?

"Confirmation bias" gets thrown around in other ways hereabouts, but it's applicable here, too. If you go in expecting that CS isn't going to resolve whatever issue you have, and that colors how you behave towards them, that's also going to color how genuine you perceive their empathy to be if they say "I'm sorry, I know it sucks, but..."

2. The problem of course is the slippery slope argument. As a practical matter, the effects of any one single CS encounter, has a negligible to non-existent effect on anyone's roster or placement over time. But the prevailing sense of confusion on how changes are implemented has created unnecessary tension and uncertainty in how players enjoy the game and interact with the community as a whole.

And, again, there is precisely one "consistent" way for CS to reduce that confusion: nobody gets nothin'. And that includes the whales. If you're a whale, or a megawhale, and you're spending hundreds or thousands regularly on the game, and CS tells you "sorry, if we do it for you we have to do it for everybody," are you going to perceive that as an empathetic response? Are you going to feel like dropping that regular Stark Salary is a good idea? You and I may look at what regular Starks do for a roster and say "there's still benefit there," but now we're right back into the perception territory. People who whale or (especially) megawhale have the perception that their spending means additional benefit beyond what the "peons" get. You see that in all manner of haves/haves-not spending. The "Admiral's Club" in an airport, first-class boarding first and exiting first, being able to roll up to a swank restaurant or club and skip the line to get in, etc.

Full disclosure: I'm not a megawhale. I'm not even a whale, unless whale is defined as "spends money on this game, ever, in any capacity." I've never bought covers with HP, I've never bought ISO, The most I've ever spent in one go was $20, and that was because somebody gave me a Steam gift card.

But I can still see the impossible position into which the nature of freemium games puts CS reps. If they treat their biggest spenders solicitously, the free-to-players or low-level spenders perceive inconsistency/unfairness. If they say "nobody gets nothin'," the whales wonder what good their high-level spending is doing them (because they take for granted the tangible good it does). If the CS reps are given the latitude to exercise their judgment, there's going to be inconsistency by definition, because no two reps are going to respond identically to the same situation unless they're working off a script...at which point you have consistency but you don't have empathy.

3. As a personal aside, I'd much rather see the community get the surprise reward rather than have a surprise treat for myself. Thats not meant to be slam or a comment on values. My opinion is that a consistent and transparent set of rules for CS interactions would let me focus on how to play the game rather than keep asking alliance mates how did the other play accomplish this or that.

No, I dig. I'm not saying "I want the surprise for ME y'all go pound sand." What I mean is that any "surprise reward" for the community is likely to take the form of the periodic free tokens we've seen. Cap 75th, Comic Con, whatever. CS isn't going to say "surprise, folks, everybody who emails us will get 500 HP or two free LTs or whatever!" But in the context of "I'd rather have an environment where I hear "yes" on occasion than one in which I always hear "no,"' I consider myself a member of the community. And speaking not for myself, but as a member of the community, I'd prefer an environment where CS reps can exercise their judgment and, occasionally, say "yes." But the cost of that is a lack of consistency. You can't have it both ways. Either they're consistent and there are strict guidelines (which mean that a small minority of the community will ever qualify to begin with), or they have more latitude and that latitude manifests in "inconsistent" ways.

Given what I've said above about my spending habits, and how minor they are by comparison to high-level players, I don't get "yes" regularly. I think my experience in that respect is pretty comparable to the rest of the community. I remember each of them for precisely that reason - they were both rare and unexpected and so they were welcomed. My contacts were out of hope, not expectation, and so I didn't walk away feeling jobbed. And that's how I handle my CS interactions - not with an expectation that John was able to do this, so they should do it for me, too, but when something happens that's problematic for me, I ask if there's anything they can do. Most times they say "sorry, we can't." Sometimes they say "yes," as with the 5*->4* downgrade example. Once in a very great while, their remedy is over and above what might be considered "reasonable." Not often, but that's happened to me twice in 2+ years of playing.

I'll take inconsistent flexibility over consistency that doesn't yield those 1-2 moments of delight per year.

El Satanno

There are a lot of good arguments to be made on both sides, I think. I guess personally I'd rather get have the "nobody gets nothin'" version of CS. No joke. I'm a big fan of fairness and what we've seen is that there isn't really any because of the latitude afforded to different individuals. Spenders getting preferential treatment really adds fuel to the fire as well.

madsalad

My favorite is when the first canned response asks you for all of the same info you put into the first request. You know: OS, phone, etc... The stuff you have to fill out in order to send the request in the first place. I swear they do this just to buy time, or in hoping people forget about their ticket and don't bother them again.

Also, I don't know what your definition of "timely" is but I typically get one response a day. Sometimes my ticket will go on for a week or so with a back and forth of one response a day. Again, are they just hoping I get fed up and give up on the ticket?

Given the above though, I have had satisfactory end results with CS. If you can look past the canned answers throughout the process, and the amount of times it takes to get a final result, you may actually get a good result.

YMMV.

GrumpySmurf1002

I rarely use CS. Probably to my detriment, but lots of little things I don't complain about. When I finally buckled down and did so, it was frustrating, mostly because of this blatant lie:

"Thank you for contacting D3 Go! Customer Support. Unfortunately, we are unable to offer player's Comic Covers as compensation."

The 'issue' - Pulled my 8th Surfer red and 6th PHX green, which made 4 consecutive 5* pulls that were sold off (during a lengthy streak of zero 5* otherwise no less). Figured I'd ask to swap their colors, willing to accept a two for one if need be.

It's fairly well known that some people in similar situations have received 5* covers as compensation. I'm fine with not getting the cover of my choice as others did (I accepted 25CP after some back and forth, which I think I was lucky to get).

Just don't tell me you can't do it, because dishonesty is a pretty terrible CS model.