These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Conversation spam

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tiberu Stundrif
Nifty Idustries
Pandemic Horde
#21 - 2012-10-25 16:23:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiberu Stundrif
Wikipedia: "An exploit, in video games, is the use of a bug or glitches, rates, hit boxes, or speed, etc. by a player to their advantage in a manner not intended by the game's designers."

So, CCP didn't intend for players to use the convo-spam for their personal advantage, they will ban you for it's continued use, yet they refuse to call it an exploit? If CCP says its not an exploit, but its a warn-able (1st) and ban-able (2nd) offense... that's an exploit, sorry guys.

Whether you want to call it that or not for whatever reason, players are using a common game mechanic to simulate an in-game DDOS attack on someone's client.

When a group of individuals DDOS a website, the law doesn't scoff at the victim for not properly placing firewall rules to protect themselves from packet floods... they protect the victim and go after the offender who brought down the victim's website. If I remember correctly, DDOS attacks are illegal in Iceland as well as most other countries.

So... telling a player that they need to block all communication to protect themselves during fleets means that CCP is legitimizing the use of a convo-spam, an in-game DDOS attack as completely fine... but will ban those who use it?

Seriously, let's talk about sending mixed messages.

Either fix the issue so that a convo-spam doesn't lag out a client in any way ASAP and reimburse ships where a convo-spam was used, or ignore it forever and allow everyone to use it as a game mechanic.
Soko99
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#22 - 2012-10-25 16:27:05 UTC
GM Homonoia wrote:


Linking **** in chat channels is not allowed, but it is not an exploit. Basically, everything that breaches our rules (EULA, ToS, etc) is not allowed, but abusing the system in a way that drastically affects the game can be determined to be an exploit once the process has been verified and can be tracked. In that sense there have even been exploits that were "allowed" simply because it was impossible for a player to know that he was using an exploit.



I am really confused now.. If I get enough chat spam that it crashes my client, how is that NOT "drstically affects the game"
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#23 - 2012-10-25 16:30:03 UTC  |  Edited by: GeeShizzle MacCloud
Tiberu Stundrif wrote:
Wikipedia: "An exploit, in video games, is the use of a bug or glitches, rates, hit boxes, or speed, etc. by a player to their advantage in a manner not intended by the game's designers."


tbh i wouldnt quote wikipedia for any kind of reliable information m8... its written by the public for the public so its likely to be wrong or at least inaccurate in definition... find a better site that has a better definition.

Cool
GM Homonoia
Game Master Retirement Home
#24 - 2012-10-25 16:30:16 UTC
Soko99 wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:


Linking **** in chat channels is not allowed, but it is not an exploit. Basically, everything that breaches our rules (EULA, ToS, etc) is not allowed, but abusing the system in a way that drastically affects the game can be determined to be an exploit once the process has been verified and can be tracked. In that sense there have even been exploits that were "allowed" simply because it was impossible for a player to know that he was using an exploit.



I am really confused now.. If I get enough chat spam that it crashes my client, how is that NOT "drstically affects the game"


It does, but as I posted above, the claim that it produces lag is still under investigation. At this point in time it is simply spam.

Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master
GM Homonoia
Game Master Retirement Home
#25 - 2012-10-25 16:31:42 UTC
Tiberu Stundrif wrote:
Wikipedia: "An exploit, in video games, is the use of a bug or glitches, rates, hit boxes, or speed, etc. by a player to their advantage in a manner not intended by the game's designers."

So, CCP didn't intend for players to use the convo-spam for their personal advantage, they will ban you for it's continued use, yet they refuse to call it an exploit? If CCP says its not an exploit, but its a warn-able (1st) and ban-able (2nd) offense... that's an exploit, sorry guys.

Whether you want to call it that or not for whatever reason, players are using a common game mechanic to simulate an in-game DDOS attack on someone's client.

When a group of individuals DDOS a website, the law doesn't scoff at the victim for not properly placing firewall rules to protect themselves from packet floods... they protect the victim and go after the offender who brought down the victim's website. If I remember correctly, DDOS attacks are illegal in Iceland as well as most other countries.

So... telling a player that they need to block all communication to protect themselves during fleets means that CCP is legitimizing the use of a convo-spam, an in-game DDOS attack as completely fine... but will ban those who use it?

Seriously, let's talk about sending mixed messages.

Either fix the issue so that a convo-spam doesn't lag out a client in any way ASAP and reimburse ships where a convo-spam was used, or ignore it forever and allow everyone to use it as a game mechanic.



As posted earlier in the thread, the claim that it produces significant lag is still under investigation. Right now it is not allowed because it is spam, just like repeatedly EVE mailing someone is spam and not allowed.

Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#26 - 2012-10-25 16:41:21 UTC
An Exploit - u get banned once the investigation into your individual case confirms you were using an exploit
Not allowed - u get warned not to do it again and if you persist u get banned.

Much like being almost parasitically drunk and causing 'drama' in a bar will get you banned if you do it persistently.
In the same manner if u smash a bottle on an employees head whilst wasted in that bar you'll be banned and probably be charged for assault.
Prototype Epsilon
Crimson Wraiths
#27 - 2012-10-25 16:51:13 UTC
Quote:

As posted earlier in the thread, the claim that it produces significant lag is still under investigation. Right now it is not allowed because it is spam, just like repeatedly EVE mailing someone is spam and not allowed.


Can it at least be considered an exploit until the investigation has completed?
Jim Era
#28 - 2012-10-25 16:53:11 UTC
How about we just spam convo one of the dev's, then you will see the lag it causes.

Wat™
GM Homonoia
Game Master Retirement Home
#29 - 2012-10-25 16:55:56 UTC
Prototype Epsilon wrote:
Quote:

As posted earlier in the thread, the claim that it produces significant lag is still under investigation. Right now it is not allowed because it is spam, just like repeatedly EVE mailing someone is spam and not allowed.


Can it at least be considered an exploit until the investigation has completed?


No, declaring something an exploit requires verifiable proof that can be reproduced. We do not warn and ban people on a hunch or because someone promises that they are telling the truth.

Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master
Styth spiting
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#30 - 2012-10-25 17:01:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Styth spiting
"This user has a pending chat request".

And problem solved. In fact make the pending chat request response return to the chat requester in the form of a pop up window that takes focus, and problem solved.

I don't know why instead of trying to classify what this is (exploit, spam, etc) or in what situation you will classify it as Spam this whole situation is just fixed and unable to occur.
Bagehi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#31 - 2012-10-25 17:01:57 UTC
Jim Era wrote:
How about we just spam convo one of the dev's, then you will see the lag it causes.


May I suggest, Homonoia, that you come to one of the null staging systems and ask for an FC to organize one of these attacks on you. Easy to test it that way (as long as you promise none of the participants will get bans for helping you). Try it with and without the message block. It is my understanding that your client will get mashed equally either way.
Lucius Exitius
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#32 - 2012-10-25 17:17:15 UTC
I never have any issues with lag, went on 150+ man roam, bashed a pos until the enemy cyno'd in while running anoms with my other character and at no time did my computer lag, I only have 30Mb internet service, though I do have a great computer. Seems to me that most of the issues are client related which means either A, lower your settings. Or B. Get a new computer.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#33 - 2012-10-25 17:31:26 UTC
Lucius Exitius wrote:
I never have any issues with lag, went on 150+ man roam, bashed a pos until the enemy cyno'd in while running anoms with my other character and at no time did my computer lag, I only have 30Mb internet service, though I do have a great computer. Seems to me that most of the issues are client related which means either A, lower your settings. Or B. Get a new computer.

Congratulations, that has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Soko99
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#34 - 2012-10-25 17:36:32 UTC
Lucius Exitius wrote:
I never have any issues with lag, went on 150+ man roam, bashed a pos until the enemy cyno'd in while running anoms with my other character and at no time did my computer lag, I only have 30Mb internet service, though I do have a great computer. Seems to me that most of the issues are client related which means either A, lower your settings. Or B. Get a new computer.


One should really READ the thread before replying..

Just saying..
Wibla
Tactical Narcotics Team
#35 - 2012-10-25 18:09:12 UTC
This is interesting, in view of the RZR capitals that got reimbursed not long ago after dying to convo spam-induced lag (they could not activate modules etc)...
Dradius Calvantia
Lip Shords
#36 - 2012-10-25 18:13:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Dradius Calvantia
I don't understand how you can not reproduce socket closures under chat spam? During the run up to ATX we tested the effects of convo, mail, and wallet transaction spam. With just a few hundred people, we have reliably been able to force socket closure about 80% of the time for some users. The effect of the convo bomb seems to vary greatly based on the geographic location and quality of ISP it was tested over. Thankfully this did not end up being used against us during any matches, however we sure as hell turned on the auto decline.

I have had convo bombs used against me twice since the changes to prevent forced focus. The first time, my socket closed within a few seconds. The second time, I desynced and after re-logging still had inordinate amounts of input lag as well as a having overview and bracket information fail to load in a timely manner. This was under no more than about 50 people spamming convo requests.

You keep saying that CCP does not class this as an exploit as you have not reproduced the problems yet. Have you guys even tried to reproduce them? Secondly, I have a strong suspicion that most of the problems are not caused by how the server handles the convo request, but rather packet loss from the tier 2 and 3 ISPs. If this turns out to be the case, will CCP class this as a non-reimbursable disconnect due to it being an "external" problem even though it is caused by actions taken by others on the server?

PS: Not related, but it seems that the socket close and dysnc bugs from a few patches ago are back. While roaming last night in a 10 man gang we would have at least one or two drops or desyncs every jump.
Chiimera
State War Academy
Caldari State
#37 - 2012-10-25 18:24:45 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Suvetar
GM Homonoia wrote:


No, declaring something an exploit requires verifiable proof that can be reproduced. We do not warn and ban people on a hunch or because someone promises that they are telling the truth.



Edit: Snip - ISD Suvetar

Forum rules wrote:

Private communication between the Game Masters, Eve Team members, moderators and administrators of the forum and the forum users is not to be made public on these forums or by any other venue.
You are not permitted to publicize any private correspondence (including petitions) received from any of the aforementioned.
usrevenge
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#38 - 2012-10-25 19:43:32 UTC
Bruceleeng wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
[...] In a fleet fight you should simply have auto-reject enabled [...]

Best. Gaming. Experience. Ever.


This decision is bad and the GM team should feel bad about taking it. One needs to be able to get convos from scouts, fcs, spies, etc. during a fleet. What you are suggesting is a work-around. I know another work-around for this problem. Don't play EvE.


they should have auto reject BASED ON STANDING.
Sharon Tate
Cutting Edge Incorporated
#39 - 2012-10-25 19:44:01 UTC
And this response surprises people?

It's entertaining, however, to watch the subtle shift from "our logs show nothing" to "our logs show stuff but tough cookies, you're still not getting your crap back".

C'mon, people.

You'll have better luck setting up a controlled test with a 100 people convo spamming someone running log server and logging a bug. I doubt CCP will do anything about it though.
Tiberu Stundrif
Nifty Idustries
Pandemic Horde
#40 - 2012-10-25 19:58:51 UTC
GM Homonoia wrote:
As posted earlier in the thread, the claim that it produces significant lag is still under investigation. Right now it is not allowed because it is spam, just like repeatedly EVE mailing someone is spam and not allowed.


Thanks for completely ignoring the majority of my post and instead write a canned response. We have GM responses which say very clearly that this is an exploit and ships have already been reimbursed because of it.

I highly suggest the GM team actually sit down, grab a coffee and speak to each other about this instead of sending all sorts of mixed messages and responses.

In dealing with the WV- incident, CCP GMs have given VERY different responses to what has been posted here.

I'm tired of this political crap CCP thinks will solve its problems while it tries to fix a broken mechanic.