EVE General Discussion

I hope this means you are only logging the chat request and not what people talk.
Right?

I didn't see a question in there, simply a stated opinion. If you want me to answer a question feel free to post it and I shall try and answer it if it lies within my jurisdiction.

I remember a day and age when the customer was always right and was dealt with fairly and openly. CCP is wrong on this and they have sent out a statement stating the opposite of reality. "But we fixed it already!" is not an answer.

I suggest your statement should have read something simple like this,

"We have noticed the convo-spam tactic can degrade gameplay of the recipient. While we investigate this, all petitions regarding this will be put on hold and players will be update as often as possible with the ongoing results of the investigation. We suggest you block all communications while in fleet until we come up with a fix. Thanks."

Instead you come out and blame the players instead. Poor Public Relations, guys.

I guess this doesn't surprise me coming from a company that has a long history of shooting first and asking questions later.

Being condescending to us about, "noobs you should have had black all chats during fleets duh" is very dismissive of a valid player concern.

Unfortunately verifying this is not something a GM can do. We have collected all available information and informed those who can make a difference on the matter. Until there is some verification we can only act on the information that we do have. I also have to remind people that this issue does not just stand by itself. In most cases there are many more factors involved, any of which could invalidate reimbursement even if an exploit was used. The use of an exploit does not mean that if the exploit was not used that a ship would have naturally survived. These are not black and white situations.

Questions GM Homonoia

1. How many GMs/Developers play Eve? Do you play Eve?

2. It seems odd that this test for lag (even after auto-reject) is involving a lot of bureaucracy. You seem to be saying that it needs to be referred back to some committee that will report back to you in some distant time in the future, hopefully after people forget about it. It seems pretty simple to test. Just go on the server and ask people to convo-spam you. It could even be automated.

3. Could it be that regardless of the lag question, the real answer is that you don't want to reimburse because it is too complex, and therefore #2 is a red herring? or that policing convo-spamming is not within your manpower to police w/o a petition? If so, would you fess up to that?

How many? No clue, but there are relatively many GMs that play. Personally I do play.



It simply isn't that easy. Could I do what you suggest? Yes, but that would not yield any useful data. It simply proves that "something" happened. It may also result in inaccurate data. What is causing it? Distance to the server? Internet lag? Client lag? Is computer hardware a factor? If we take 100 thin clients and test it on an internal network do we get the same results? What about the effect of timing? Proving "something" happens may be easy, but getting enough data to formulate a policy is a different matter. This needs to be properly tested by people whose job it is to test these things and who can draw some accurate conclusions.



Reimbursing is ALWAYS easier than not reimbursing; trust me on this one. When we decide to not reimburse we have exhausted our options to find a way to offer reimbursement. As for policing convo spamming (and specifically doing so without a petition); we always require a petition. We are very much like the police in the real world; it is very unlikely we will act on a case if no one reports it. We cannot smell the mystical ichor that is released into the ectoplasmic ether when someone acts on a dastardly thought. This does not mean we do not take proactive action, but this focuses mostly on botting and hacker activity; where player interaction is concerned you will have to report it.

Honestly I think we might have a better time with this if we completely bypass the whole exploit/GM thing and instead appeal to devs to have conversation request blocking done at the server level, or have no conversation requests sent to a client if there's one pending, or something like that.

Probably better to kill the ability to do it than to tell people they can't do it.

Anyone even vaguely allied to Goonwaffe in any way is part of the Greater Hivemind that is known as "Goon". We all take our orders from the Hive Queen Richard Lowtax "The Mittani" Kyanka who owns and operates "The Goon".



fakeedit: i learned this reading eve-o

I'm quoting myself so I can get an answer to my 'question', also- why would you post any sort of 'official' (you posted on the forums) response regarding this matter if it is still under investigation, and the people conducting said investigation haven't come to a solid conclusion yet.

I know later you said that many GMs play EVE, but how many GMs actually play the game in the context we are talking about, and if they do, why is nullsec so underutilized, and why has it been since launch?

Proof that GM's PvP is finally on the table - they are accomplished gankers. They just don't do it in game.