These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123
 

When is an Exploit not an Exploit.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Varesk
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2012-10-04 18:16:14 UTC
Xolve wrote:
Cage Man wrote:
Easy to fix, change the limit on CSPA charges.


Pretty sure it maxes out at 1m ISK.


F1F1F1F1F1F1F1F1F1F1F1F1
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#42 - 2012-10-04 18:26:13 UTC
Astroniomix wrote:
De'Veldrin wrote:
Cage Man wrote:
Easy to fix, change the limit on CSPA charges. Then you can set it to 10bil or something and see how many times you get convo-ed. Not sure if this changes lag, but it will soon stop the requests.


Worst case, I'll be able to replace whatever they caused me to lose, and on their dime no less.

Why is it that no one realizes the CSPA charge goes to CONCORD and not the player?
It is REALLY that goddamn hard to figure out?


I actually knew that and forgot when I posted this.

Color me Oops

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
NEONOVUS
Mindstar Technology
Goonswarm Federation
#43 - 2012-10-04 21:37:37 UTC
[quote=Nikk NarrelThis is a straw man argument.

We are not talking about deception on a level between characters at all here. Fraud is not involved here.

This involves a group of players abusing a game function to disable the client of another player, so that they can take advantage of the resulting situation in the game.

Attempts to justify it based off of arguments similar to "He did it to me first", fail to recognize the need to stop the problem.

Don't waste time pointing fingers. Fix it.[/quote]
Ok turn on auto reject then.
Not hard at all.
Then when your client crashes it is your own fault
Or you could blame telecomms for using copperless fiber optics in their quest to save money.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#44 - 2012-10-04 22:23:58 UTC
NEONOVUS wrote:
[quote=Nikk NarrelThis is a straw man argument.

We are not talking about deception on a level between characters at all here. Fraud is not involved here.

This involves a group of players abusing a game function to disable the client of another player, so that they can take advantage of the resulting situation in the game.

Attempts to justify it based off of arguments similar to "He did it to me first", fail to recognize the need to stop the problem.

Don't waste time pointing fingers. Fix it.

Ok turn on auto reject then.
Not hard at all.
Then when your client crashes it is your own fault
Or you could blame telecomms for using copperless fiber optics in their quest to save money.[/quote]


First off, some people claim autoreject doesn't prevent a convo bomb from disrupting your client...

Second, , we should have to turn on auto-reject to NOT be convo bombed....

Convo bombing is just straight up abusing a game feature to inhibit the game client of another player. This is a clear violation of the terms of service.... and it should be addressed by CCP.
Cage Man
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#45 - 2012-10-04 23:49:53 UTC
Xolve wrote:
Cage Man wrote:
Easy to fix, change the limit on CSPA charges. Then you can set it to 10bil or something and see how many times you get convo-ed. Not sure if this changes lag, but it will soon stop the requests.


Pretty sure it maxes out at 1m ISK.



Yep that is why I said change the limit....
King Rothgar
Deadly Solutions
#46 - 2012-10-05 02:55:10 UTC
Some of us like to use the convo system to you know, actually talk with people. That is what it is there for yes? As said many times, disabling invites disables *all* invites from people not in your address book. It doesn't factor standings or anything else. It is an all or nothing deal. And truth be told, I don't just chat with blues. I chat with neutrals, wt's and reds privately at times too.

[u]Fireworks and snowballs are great, but what I really want is a corpse launcher.[/u]
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#47 - 2012-10-18 19:00:10 UTC

There is an interesting article on Mittani's website discussing this.

It includes some GM correspondence, and it appears the Senior GM's are considering this an exploit!
Cage Man
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#48 - 2012-10-18 19:18:09 UTC
King Rothgar wrote:
Some of us like to use the convo system to you know, actually talk with people. That is what it is there for yes? As said many times, disabling invites disables *all* invites from people not in your address book. It doesn't factor standings or anything else. It is an all or nothing deal. And truth be told, I don't just chat with blues. I chat with neutrals, wt's and reds privately at times too.


Disabling the invite doesn't change the fact you will still lag... extract from the link gizznitt above provided...

"It is worth noting that the suggested in-game option to block all chat invites only removes the window from appearing on your screen; the option is client side so the invite still gets sent to you which causes stuttering regardless. This mail has set a somewhat new precedent among nullsec tactics which may change the way hostile fleets interact with each other."

Big null fleet fights where you have hundreds of opposition convoing you is very different from small scale PVP. And yes, I have a null alt, amongst others, and have even on occasion when undocking not been able to even get to warp to an insta because of all the convo's.. perhaps I am mean and people are just friendly and would like to get to know me better :)
This btw not only happens in null, ls but I have seen it used in wh, not as common as fleets are smaller. Never taken part in HS station games... errr pvp.. so not sure there but can guess it does too..
Doddy
Excidium.
#49 - 2012-10-18 20:10:51 UTC
Its an exp[loit, but its ancient and the reason everyone (especially fcs/scap pilots) in 0.0 has autoreject on.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#50 - 2012-10-18 20:26:47 UTC
Doddy wrote:
Its an exp[loit, but its ancient and the reason everyone (especially fcs/scap pilots) in 0.0 has autoreject on.

That is messed up.

The autoreject should be flagged at the server level to stop this, not the client.

Not sure if it can be fine tuned, but you should be able to white list people in order to filter important conversations. Why should your communication ability be compromised simply because others are willing to stoop to underhanded exploitation?

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Angeal MacNova
Holefood Inc.
Warriors of the Blood God
#51 - 2012-10-19 01:07:30 UTC
Having the autoreject server side is only going to create another problem. It basically forces people to use autoreject or you still become subject to it.

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.
Dar Saleem
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#52 - 2012-10-19 06:12:21 UTC
Got to love it.

Goons do it, its not an exploit / our logs show nothing

happens to goons.

Here have your 20 carriers back and 14 day suspension for who ever did it


The best bonus of having goons as devs
Previous page123