These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Proposal] Declare Convo Spamming an Exploit
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1 - 2012-10-04 03:52:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Gizznitt Malikite
The Problem:

If a player is spammed with a large number of conversations, their client may lock up and become non-responsive. Organized groups of players occasionally abuse this tactic to prevent players from responding to an attack.

According to Xolve,
Xolve wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

It is easily preventable... just turn on auto-reject convo's.


Cap pilots in question had auto-reject on, as well as no-convo's from unknown players.

System still got bogged down, players still lagged out.


The Solution:

1.) CCP should declare this tactic an exploit, and temporarily ban (3ish days) all players that participate in any verifiable convo bombs. Any player participating in these convo bombs KNOW they are abusing and exploiting the conversation feature to create lag and obstruct the client of an opponent. This is a clear violation of the Terms of Service:
Quote:
16. You may not do anything that interferes with the ability of other EVE Online subscribers to enjoy the game or web site in accordance with its rules. This includes, but is not limited to, making inappropriate use of any public channels within the game and/or intentionally creating excessive latency (lag) by dumping cargo containers, corpses or other items in the game world.


2.) CCP should work on fixing the conv feature to prevent this from lagging out a player's computer.

Relevant Threads:
In F&I: When is an Exploit an Exploit
A Mittani Article Discussing GM Correspondence that moreless declare this an exploit.
General Nusense
Doomheim
#2 - 2012-10-04 04:23:19 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
The Problem:

If a player is spammed with a large number of conversations, their client may lock up and become non-responsive. Organized groups of players occasionally abuse this tactic to prevent players from responding to an attack.

According to Xolve,
Xolve wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

It is easily preventable... just turn on auto-reject convo's.


Cap pilots in question had auto-reject on, as well as no-convo's from unknown players.

System still got bogged down, players still lagged out.


The Solution:

1.) CCP should declare this tactic an exploit, and temporarily ban (3ish days) all players that participated in any recent and verifiable convo bombs. Retro-active punishment is more than acceptable, as any player participating in these convo bombs KNOW they are abusing and exploiting the conversation feature to create lag and obstruct the client of an opponent. This is a clear violation of the Terms of Service:
Quote:
16. You may not do anything that interferes with the ability of other EVE Online subscribers to enjoy the game or web site in accordance with its rules. This includes, but is not limited to, making inappropriate use of any public channels within the game and/or intentionally creating excessive latency (lag) by dumping cargo containers, corpses or other items in the game world.


2.) CCP should work on fixing the conv feature to prevent this from lagging out a player's computer.

Relevant Threads:
In F&I: When is an Exploit an Exploit


First you need proof of if this "mythical convo bomb". according to your sources no cap pilot recieved a convo during that operation. There for there is no proof that this actually took place. Lag in Eve is a mystery sometimes appears for no reason.

Made a signature so I am taken seriously on the forums, since thats the only thing they are good for.
Hot-Drop O'Clock
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#3 - 2012-10-04 07:41:16 UTC
I propose that you reformulate this thread to a neutral tone. Right now it comes out as a public cry about your coalition's loss.

Firstly, your boo-boo makes this proposal look like it was motivated by vengeance, not a flaw in game mechanics. Secondly, your tears make it look like what you're really after is CCP reimbursing your carrier losses and banning those who kicked your sorry bottom. Thirdly, your hurting bottom tries to hide the fact that your fleet was lost due to them being 20km away from POS shield and capping out - not "convo spam". Fourthly, your crying shows incredible double morals, as convoing has always belonged to CFC repertoire.

If you want to make a serious proposal, take your personal vendetta out of it.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#4 - 2012-10-04 07:42:32 UTC
General Nusense wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
The Problem:

If a player is spammed with a large number of conversations, their client may lock up and become non-responsive. Organized groups of players occasionally abuse this tactic to prevent players from responding to an attack.

1.) CCP should declare this tactic an exploit, and temporarily ban (3ish days) all players that participated in any recent and verifiable convo bombs.


First you need proof of if this "mythical convo bomb". according to your sources no cap pilot recieved a convo during that operation. There for there is no proof that this actually took place. Lag in Eve is a mystery sometimes appears for no reason.


I agree, hearsay is not evidence of wrong doing.... CCP has logs, and assuming they can verify it, they should punish it. People that feel they are wronged, should file a petition for CCP to investigate it.

There is no reason for 100 people to suddenly PM an opponent in the middle of a battle other than to disrupt their client. If that ever happens to you, you clearly have the grounds to file a petition, and all those involved should be appropriately punished (like with a temp ban). In truth, CCP really shouldn't need to tell people this is wrong, as it is clearly a violation of the ToS, but some people need to have there hand held.


Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#5 - 2012-10-04 07:48:06 UTC
Hot-Drop O'Clock wrote:
I propose that you reformulate this thread to a neutral tone. Right now it comes out as a public cry about your coalition's loss.

Firstly, your boo-boo makes this proposal look like it was motivated by vengeance, not a flaw in game mechanics. Secondly, your tears make it look like what you're really after is CCP reimbursing your carrier losses and banning those who kicked your sorry bottom. Thirdly, your hurting bottom tries to hide the fact that your fleet was lost due to them being 20km away from POS shield and capping out - not "convo spam". Fourthly, your crying shows incredible double morals, as convoing has always belonged to CFC repertoire.

If you want to make a serious proposal, take your personal vendetta out of it.


Ironically, this hasn't happened to me or my coalition, I just get annoyed when people cheat to win. Agony's not involved in any sov crap, and frankly blues suck balls...

I don't think CCP should reimburse any ship losses, as anyone that takes their ship into a fleet battle should accept its going to die.

Perhaps I'll tone down the post some...

I'm really just peeved that people would attempt such tactics...
Lilja Consideratio
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2012-10-04 08:32:13 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Hot-Drop O'Clock wrote:
I propose that you reformulate this thread to a neutral tone. Right now it comes out as a public cry about your coalition's loss.

Firstly, your boo-boo makes this proposal look like it was motivated by vengeance, not a flaw in game mechanics. Secondly, your tears make it look like what you're really after is CCP reimbursing your carrier losses and banning those who kicked your sorry bottom. Thirdly, your hurting bottom tries to hide the fact that your fleet was lost due to them being 20km away from POS shield and capping out - not "convo spam". Fourthly, your crying shows incredible double morals, as convoing has always belonged to CFC repertoire.

If you want to make a serious proposal, take your personal vendetta out of it.


Ironically, this hasn't happened to me or my coalition, I just get annoyed when people cheat to win. Agony's not involved in any sov crap, and frankly blues suck balls...

I don't think CCP should reimburse any ship losses, as anyone that takes their ship into a fleet battle should accept its going to die.

Perhaps I'll tone down the post some...

I'm really just peeved that people would attempt such tactics...


I agree that the convo bomb tactic isn't making the game any better but worse. But giving retroactive bans - especially when both sides are known to use the same exploit - doesn't sound to me like a "solution" that you claim it to be.
Dirty Wizard
Doomheim
#7 - 2012-10-04 15:24:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Dirty Wizard
+1 in acknowledgement of the problem.
-1 to the proposed solution.

The solution is not to ban players for abusing this mechanic. That would take great efforts by the GMs to enforce and police it.

No, the real solution is a game change that neutralizes the negative impact when bombarded by convo spams. A popup should happen like normal, but with each additional convo request, it should create another tab to add to the initial convo request. Most importantly, players should retain full control and use of their cursor when a convo bombardment happens.

In addition, there should be a convo request limit. You can have as many chat channels open as you want, but the initial convo request popup should have a limit on how many can be pending. Players wishing to convo others who have their limit full receive a brief notice that they're busy ATM or whatever.

Five sounds like a reasonable number I suppose, though it's really up to CCP to determine that. Nobody ingame really needs to be immediately contacted by a dozen or so people at once anyways.

(signature removed due to stupid)
Arduemont
Rotten Legion
#8 - 2012-10-04 16:38:20 UTC
I think CCP should just hardcode it so that if a play is set to auto-reject convos that the data shouldn't reach them at all. Policing this as a matter of policy would be difficult time consuming and unnecessary.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf
Mikaila Penshar
SISTAHs of EVE
#9 - 2012-10-04 17:40:39 UTC
adding "Convo-Bomb" to my bag full of dirty nasty pirate tricks THANKS!!!
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#10 - 2012-10-04 19:21:58 UTC
Dirty Wizard wrote:
+1 in acknowledgement of the problem.
-1 to the proposed solution.

The solution is not to ban players for abusing this mechanic. That would take great efforts by the GMs to enforce and police it.

No, the real solution is a game change that neutralizes the negative impact when bombarded by convo spams. A popup should happen like normal, but with each additional convo request, it should create another tab to add to the initial convo request. Most importantly, players should retain full control and use of their cursor when a convo bombardment happens.

In addition, there should be a convo request limit. You can have as many chat channels open as you want, but the initial convo request popup should have a limit on how many can be pending. Players wishing to convo others who have their limit full receive a brief notice that they're busy ATM or whatever.

Five sounds like a reasonable number I suppose, though it's really up to CCP to determine that. Nobody ingame really needs to be immediately contacted by a dozen or so people at once anyways.


CCP will not be able to implement this in a quick manner.... so until then, how do you suggest CCP deals with players that abuse the convo mechanic??

I figured a quick swat on the ass (like with a 3-dayish ban), is appropriate way to treat kids that misbehave.
Mikaila Penshar
SISTAHs of EVE
#11 - 2012-10-04 22:23:11 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Dirty Wizard wrote:
+1 in acknowledgement of the problem.
-1 to the proposed solution.

The solution is not to ban players for abusing this mechanic. That would take great efforts by the GMs to enforce and police it.

No, the real solution is a game change that neutralizes the negative impact when bombarded by convo spams. A popup should happen like normal, but with each additional convo request, it should create another tab to add to the initial convo request. Most importantly, players should retain full control and use of their cursor when a convo bombardment happens.

In addition, there should be a convo request limit. You can have as many chat channels open as you want, but the initial convo request popup should have a limit on how many can be pending. Players wishing to convo others who have their limit full receive a brief notice that they're busy ATM or whatever.

Five sounds like a reasonable number I suppose, though it's really up to CCP to determine that. Nobody ingame really needs to be immediately contacted by a dozen or so people at once anyways.


CCP will not be able to implement this in a quick manner.... so until then, how do you suggest CCP deals with players that abuse the convo mechanic??

I figured a quick swat on the ass (like with a 3-dayish ban), is appropriate way to treat kids that misbehave.


a swat on my what sir!?! O.o ...hmmmm, how did you know
King Rothgar
Deadly Solutions
#12 - 2012-10-05 13:04:28 UTC
Never convo bombed someone nor has it been done to me, but I am well aware of this non exploit exploit. I agree it needs to officially be deemed an exploit. Obviously a code change is needed as well to make it impossible to do in the future. I disagree with retroactive bans although I agree that you should know such a thing is a violation of the EULA.

[u]Fireworks and snowballs are great, but what I really want is a corpse launcher.[/u]
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#13 - 2012-10-18 16:32:50 UTC

Based on a recent article at themittani, convo spamming is being declared an exploit.

and it should be!!!!
Angeal MacNova
Holefood Inc.
Warriors of the Blood God
#14 - 2012-10-19 00:29:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Angeal MacNova
Good.

I think that a temp ban of a deliberate use of an obvious exploit that is within direct violation of the EULA (to the letter) is actually going easy on the violators.

Every MMO that I've played logs pretty much everything you do and done to you in text format. That is why when you put in a petition, they want some information that they can use to narrow the search through the wall of text to get to the part that matters.

If it happened, there IS proof.

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/goodnight-sweet-prince/

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/the-untold-story/

CCP's true, butthurt, colors.

Because those who can't do themselves keep others from doing too.