These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

1-2 minute cooldown on linking contracts in local.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Major 'Revolver' Ocelot
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1 - 2013-02-26 11:49:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Major 'Revolver' Ocelot
What do you guys think (apart from spammers your opinion is not valid) about having a 1-2 minute cool down in-between a contract link in the chat window.

I don't mind scams, how you earn your ISK is your business I don't really care. It's just annoying when you spam your contracts every 3 seconds.

For Example: If I posted a contract I would have to wait 1-2 minutes before I could post another.
Yolo
Unknown Nation
#2 - 2013-02-26 12:19:08 UTC
When local exceeds a certain number (500?) it should be muted.

- since 2003, bitches
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#3 - 2013-02-26 12:23:10 UTC
5 minutes is excessive and a blunt solution, if you just want to target spamming. It would also negatively affect normal gameplay. It's not actually a problem if someone posts a group of contracts in quick succession in local from time to time. It becomes a problem when they spam it over and over again continuously.
Major 'Revolver' Ocelot
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#4 - 2013-02-26 12:31:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Major 'Revolver' Ocelot
Destination SkillQueue wrote:
5 minutes is excessive and a blunt solution, if you just want to target spamming. It would also negatively affect normal gameplay. It's not actually a problem if someone posts a group of contracts in quick succession in local from time to time. It becomes a problem when they spam it over and over again continuously.


Why would you need to post it more than once every 5 minutes out of interest? I know that in 5 minutes a lot of traffic can come and go from systems but at the moment it's just every 3 seconds and getting ridiculous.

What do you think would be a more reasonable time limit?

Besides the majority of contracts linked in local (trade hubs mainly) are scams and I have noticed the spammers are scam contracts not real contracts. This would make it better for the non scammers who get their fair contract instantly erased from view by scammers reposting their contracts every few seconds.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#5 - 2013-02-26 12:40:50 UTC
I think OP has been spending too much time in Jita with local up. Tell me how you'd differentiate, server-side, a message with a contract linked in it from a message with a ship or item or someone's name linked in it. You'd have to, in order to only time-restrict those specific messages.

Otherwise, the only solution is to simply put a limit on all messages containing links or just all messages. Both of these, naturally, are unacceptable solutions.
Major 'Revolver' Ocelot
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#6 - 2013-02-26 12:51:52 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
I think OP has been spending too much time in Jita with local up. Tell me how you'd differentiate, server-side, a message with a contract linked in it from a message with a ship or item or someone's name linked in it. You'd have to, in order to only time-restrict those specific messages.

Otherwise, the only solution is to simply put a limit on all messages containing links or just all messages. Both of these, naturally, are unacceptable solutions.


I'm no programmer but they all link to different things so surely it can be differentiated somehow. Perhaps making anything that links to the contract window is the way forward? It's true though, all this time in Jita Local is effecting my brain. Big smile
Mikaila Penshar
SISTAHs of EVE
#7 - 2013-02-26 20:33:06 UTC
just block spammers- it's easy and fun- also it fights bad breath and high cholesterol
Khoul Ay'd
The Affiliation
#8 - 2013-02-26 21:03:07 UTC
Perhaps in local, but commerce channels like Minerals, Blueprints, Ships etc this would be major show stopper. If you sell items by contract that can't be sold on the market, 'spamming' is your only option for product visibility. These channels depend on 'spamming.'

I've experimented with spam and non-spam weeks. If you don't advertise your products on the market, cash flow evaporates.

The things we do today we must live with forever.... Think about it
Major 'Revolver' Ocelot
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#9 - 2013-02-26 22:10:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Major 'Revolver' Ocelot
Khoul Ay'd wrote:
Perhaps in local, but commerce channels like Minerals, Blueprints, Ships etc this would be major show stopper. If you sell items by contract that can't be sold on the market, 'spamming' is your only option for product visibility. These channels depend on 'spamming.'

I've experimented with spam and non-spam weeks. If you don't advertise your products on the market, cash flow evaporates.


It would only be implemented in local as that's where the majority of spamming takes place from what I have experienced.

Though it's effecting everyone not just you. So you may only be allowed to post a contract once every 5 minutes but the same applies to other people.

Why do you feel the need to spam? I'll tell you, it's because other people are doing the same and your stuff won't get recognised. So if we remove the reason to spam, you yourself won't feel obligated to spam just to have a place in the market. So instead of just ignoring it and being in an ever increasing spam war I believe this will help reduce spam efficiently and effectively.

Imagine how (more) annoying it would be if on TV ads, when you suddenly saw an advert, another one was advertised and repeated twice before the first one even finished. That's what it feels like in EVE atm, personally I believe more structure is needed.
Zella Polaris
Pitchfork Uprising Holdings
#10 - 2013-02-27 10:41:40 UTC
I think 1-2 minutes is a nice compromise.

Pitchfork Militia, part of Catastrophic Uprising, is recruiting. 0.0 SOV, emphasis on PvP, NBSI
Major 'Revolver' Ocelot
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#11 - 2013-02-27 12:59:12 UTC
Zella Polaris wrote:
I think 1-2 minutes is a nice compromise.


Yes that would probably be more sufficient. I will update the OP to reflect the changes.