These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Optimo Sebiestor
The New Eden School of trade
Organization of Skill Extracting Corporations
#81 - 2012-10-27 00:41:21 UTC
Does this include jita local?
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#82 - 2012-10-27 01:03:02 UTC
Optimo Sebiestor wrote:
Does this include jita local?

No. Local is not conversation requests.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Tanaka Atsuko
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#83 - 2012-10-27 11:27:26 UTC
Sooo does this mean is someone or more than one person convos me more than once i can report them?


what number of convos constitutes the threshold for spamming ?
is there a set time limit between convos so its not considered spamming?

also whats CCP's stance on using a local chat shout bot ?
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#84 - 2012-10-27 18:36:44 UTC
Tanaka Atsuko wrote:
Sooo does this mean is someone or more than one person convos me more than once i can report them?


what number of convos constitutes the threshold for spamming ?
is there a set time limit between convos so its not considered spamming?

I'd argue that the threshold for spamming is when you receive more than one unwanted and unsolicited message. This thread is, despite its crappy title, about using massive conversation spam on the order of hundreds of requests in the space of a few seconds in order to cause lag and client unresponsiveness in the recipient.

Tanaka Atsuko wrote:
also whats CCP's stance on using a local chat shout bot ?

You're more likely to get a response to that in Chribba's thread.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#85 - 2012-10-28 21:02:51 UTC
TLDR version; It's an issue on our end, but the logs show nothing.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Onyxius Leone DeSilva
Doomheim
#86 - 2012-10-28 22:01:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Onyxius Leone DeSilva
Bagehi wrote:
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.

There's your way to prove it CCP. And don't run your tests on the test server, do it on Tranq where everyone plays, not just a miniscule percentage. Then you'll get the true results.

And I really don't understand the issue you have with reimbursing a virtual reality item....it's not like your paying us back in real world money. What?
Johan Civire
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#87 - 2012-10-29 01:07:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Johan Civire
Onyxius Leone DeSilva wrote:
Bagehi wrote:
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.

There's your way to prove it CCP. And don't run your tests on the test server, do it on Tranq where everyone plays, not just a miniscule percentage. Then you'll get the true results.

And I really don't understand the issue you have with reimbursing a virtual reality item....it's not like your paying us back in real world money. What?


Yes and no. Virtual items is like real money. If you spend isk in game and you lost it, you feel the same when you buy a second hand car and it broke afther the first day of driving. You lost item you lost ship because"lag/ui bug or other bugs"**** happens dont blame everything on the same thing. We know its a game and a game can have broken thing. Read the faq and user agrement first before trying to insult gm team. People have problems with reading those things the lying always to accept and the have never read it. Thats where the QQ happens when some things are just broken for now or for ever. The game belongs to ccp even if you think a costumer have rights your wrong. Thats where the eula stands for, every time there is a patch a change in the game you NEED to accept that eula for even playing the game so. If you can read the eula you know that you have no change ti get stuff back Even when its ccp fault....

Sorry for the very bad spelling grammer but atleast i can read the faq and eula....
Chiimera
State War Academy
Caldari State
#88 - 2012-10-29 02:31:20 UTC
Johan Civire wrote:


Yes and no. Virtual items is like real money. If you spend isk in game and you lost it, you feel the same when you buy a second hand car and it broke afther the first day of driving. You lost item you lost ship because"lag/ui bug or other bugs"**** happens dont blame everything on the same thing. We know its a game and a game can have broken thing. Read the faq and user agrement first before trying to insult gm team. People have problems with reading those things the lying always to accept and the have never read it. Thats where the QQ happens when some things are just broken for now or for ever. The game belongs to ccp even if you think a costumer have rights your wrong. Thats where the eula stands for, every time there is a patch a change in the game you NEED to accept that eula for even playing the game so. If you can read the eula you know that you have no change ti get stuff back Even when its ccp fault....

Sorry for the very bad spelling grammer but atleast i can read the faq and eula....


It's quite obvious that being able to read the EULA and understanding the EULA are two very different things.
Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#89 - 2012-10-29 08:20:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdiel Kavash
I'm happy for this thread, and it renews my faith in CCP to see you stand firmly behind your no reimbursement policy. Yes, losing a ship to some B.S. sucks, but this is EVE. We expect to lose ships one way or another, B.S. or not. Much much worse is seeing the results of a difficult battle rolled back by a GM just because of something that might or might not have been entirely kosher.

I agree that convo spamming should be punished, to me it is precisely intentionally putting a great deal of strain on the software to disrupt others' gameplay. An yes, I admit I have been in fleets doing it before, and I have been ordered to convo spam somebody too - but I never did so, as I don't believe this "tactic", "exploit", whatever you want to call it, has a place in warfare.

So punish people, ban if necessary - yes. Reimburse - no.
Opertone
State War Academy
Caldari State
#90 - 2012-10-29 21:59:31 UTC
Eve must be clear of spam bots, marco miners and macro ratters, macro haulers.

And of stupid spam/lag exploits.

Mashing buttons to cause lag is bad. And should be considered an exploit. Especially when it is done intentionally.

Littering at the stargates is not allowed. Dropping 1000 shuttles is not allowed. Why lag inducing targeted spam is not an exploit yet? It is not an intended feature

This post sums up why the 'best' work with DCM inc.

WARP DRIVE makes eve boring

really - add warping align time 300% on gun aggression and eve becomes great again
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#91 - 2012-10-31 16:41:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Athena
A helpful thing, especially if the settings are processed by the server, not the client:

[ ] Accept convos from everyone
[ ] Accept convos from corp members
[ ] Accept convos from alliance members
[ ] Accept convos from those on my watchlist
[ ] Accept convos from those with excellent standings
[ ] Accept convos from those with good standings
[ ] Accept convos from those with neutral standings
[ ] Accept convos from those with poor standings
[ ] Accept convos from those with terrible stndings

Now lets say that CCP suddenly said they would reimburse for losses from convo spam. This would happen:

Alliance leader asks everyone to make a "convo alt account".
When an alliance super if going down, the alliance asks everyone to log in their convo alt and spam the super pilot (note this is a ship on YOUR side, not an enemy ship).
Super pilot lags out and dies.
Reimbursement is requested.

Throwaway convo alt accounts get banned.

Cycle repeats.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Chiimera
State War Academy
Caldari State
#92 - 2012-11-01 00:17:10 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
A helpful thing, especially if the settings are processed by the server, not the client:

[ ] Accept convos from everyone
[ ] Accept convos from corp members
[ ] Accept convos from alliance members
[ ] Accept convos from those on my watchlist
[ ] Accept convos from those with excellent standings
[ ] Accept convos from those with good standings
[ ] Accept convos from those with neutral standings
[ ] Accept convos from those with poor standings
[ ] Accept convos from those with terrible stndings

Now lets say that CCP suddenly said they would reimburse for losses from convo spam. This would happen:

Alliance leader asks everyone to make a "convo alt account".
When an alliance super if going down, the alliance asks everyone to log in their convo alt and spam the super pilot (note this is a ship on YOUR side, not an enemy ship).
Super pilot lags out and dies.
Reimbursement is requested.

Throwaway convo alt accounts get banned.

Cycle repeats.


CCP can link specific hardware ID's and IP's to specific players, they do this with botters also. Your idea of throw away convo spam alts would not work. I do however agree that the convo settings should be server side. :)
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#93 - 2012-11-01 21:42:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
Vincent Athena wrote:
A helpful thing, especially if the settings are processed by the server, not the client:

[ ] Accept convos from everyone
[ ] Accept convos from corp members
[ ] Accept convos from alliance members
[ ] Accept convos from those on my watchlist
[ ] Accept convos from those with excellent standings
[ ] Accept convos from those with good standings
[ ] Accept convos from those with neutral standings
[ ] Accept convos from those with poor standings
[ ] Accept convos from those with terrible stndings

Now lets say that CCP suddenly said they would reimburse for losses from convo spam. This would happen:

Alliance leader asks everyone to make a "convo alt account".
When an alliance super if going down, the alliance asks everyone to log in their convo alt and spam the super pilot (note this is a ship on YOUR side, not an enemy ship).
Super pilot lags out and dies.
Reimbursement is requested.

Throwaway convo alt accounts get banned.

Cycle repeats.


And the reimbursement is denied, the main accounts of the convo alts are warned/banned, the supercap pilot is probably warned/banned for trying to request reimbursement fraudulently, and you'd be wrong.

Also if you think one supercarrier is worth keeping "convo alt accounts" well you're wrong

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#94 - 2012-11-01 23:49:23 UTC
Andski wrote:
Also if you think one supercarrier is worth keeping "convo alt accounts" well you're wrong

100 accounts * 500 million isk = 50 billion isk.
And that's just for one month. So yeah... the math doesn't really work out in their favor.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#95 - 2012-11-02 14:36:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Dinsdale Pirannha
How complicated is this?

CCP is screwing everyone who has lost a ship to this "not an exploit". Fine, people can move on.

BUT....GOING FOWARD.....
CCP, you say you can see who does this spam in your logs. Excellent.
Make stickies in each forum. Make a popup when we log on.
And in those stickies, and logon popups, you state that you will permaban EVERY account involved doing this ever again.
Once you check your logs, you will list every account involved in an attack starting today and will ban them forever.
Not warn, not ban for a couple weeks. Permaban.

This "not an exploit" will be cleared up overnight.

Edit: And in response to throwaway accounts doing it, start banning alliance directors, whether they were involved or not.
You don't think that alliance leaders would not stop this is its tracks if that was the case?
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#96 - 2012-11-02 16:50:59 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
How complicated is this?

CCP is screwing everyone who has lost a ship to this "not an exploit". Fine, people can move on.

BUT....GOING FOWARD.....
CCP, you say you can see who does this spam in your logs. Excellent.
Make stickies in each forum. Make a popup when we log on.
And in those stickies, and logon popups, you state that you will permaban EVERY account involved doing this ever again.
Once you check your logs, you will list every account involved in an attack starting today and will ban them forever.
Not warn, not ban for a couple weeks. Permaban.

This "not an exploit" will be cleared up overnight.

Edit: And in response to throwaway accounts doing it, start banning alliance directors, whether they were involved or not.
You don't think that alliance leaders would not stop this is its tracks if that was the case?

I'm sure jaywalking would stop if the death penalty were imposed, but that hardly makes it a justifiable measure.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#97 - 2012-11-02 18:03:36 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
How complicated is this?

CCP is screwing everyone who has lost a ship to this "not an exploit". Fine, people can move on.

BUT....GOING FOWARD.....
CCP, you say you can see who does this spam in your logs. Excellent.
Make stickies in each forum. Make a popup when we log on.
And in those stickies, and logon popups, you state that you will permaban EVERY account involved doing this ever again.
Once you check your logs, you will list every account involved in an attack starting today and will ban them forever.
Not warn, not ban for a couple weeks. Permaban.

This "not an exploit" will be cleared up overnight.

Edit: And in response to throwaway accounts doing it, start banning alliance directors, whether they were involved or not.
You don't think that alliance leaders would not stop this is its tracks if that was the case?

I'm sure jaywalking would stop if the death penalty were imposed, but that hardly makes it a justifiable measure.


Is my suggestion draconian?
You bet it is.

But it would be effective, and I keep hearing about how unforgiving Eve is.

Imagine you have a char that is a director in the executor corp of an alliance.
Precisely how long would you allow alliance FC's to use this tactic if CCP randomly wiped out one of the director chars in that executor corp?
Or perhaps, if the offending fleet was all made up of the same corp, then you wipe out a director char in that corp.

This "not an exploit" tactic would be eliminated overnight.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#98 - 2012-11-02 21:04:04 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
How complicated is this?

CCP is screwing everyone who has lost a ship to this "not an exploit". Fine, people can move on.

BUT....GOING FOWARD.....
CCP, you say you can see who does this spam in your logs. Excellent.
Make stickies in each forum. Make a popup when we log on.
And in those stickies, and logon popups, you state that you will permaban EVERY account involved doing this ever again.
Once you check your logs, you will list every account involved in an attack starting today and will ban them forever.
Not warn, not ban for a couple weeks. Permaban.

This "not an exploit" will be cleared up overnight.

Edit: And in response to throwaway accounts doing it, start banning alliance directors, whether they were involved or not.
You don't think that alliance leaders would not stop this is its tracks if that was the case?

I'm sure jaywalking would stop if the death penalty were imposed, but that hardly makes it a justifiable measure.


Is my suggestion draconian?
You bet it is.

But it would be effective, and I keep hearing about how unforgiving Eve is.

Imagine you have a char that is a director in the executor corp of an alliance.
Precisely how long would you allow alliance FC's to use this tactic if CCP randomly wiped out one of the director chars in that executor corp?
Or perhaps, if the offending fleet was all made up of the same corp, then you wipe out a director char in that corp.

This "not an exploit" tactic would be eliminated overnight.

Again, use trial account alts (free) on virtual machines (so it cannot be traced back to you) and do it to your own ships when you realize they are going to die anyway. Then the other side has its directors banned.

Better to have a filter server side so this method cannot be used at all.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#99 - 2012-11-02 21:21:59 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
Again, use trial account alts (free) on virtual machines (so it cannot be traced back to you) and do it to your own ships when you realize they are going to die anyway. Then the other side has its directors banned.

Better to have a filter server side so this method cannot be used at all.


Yeah because we're totally going to order everyone to obtain a second Windows license for a VM just to try to get a supercarrier reimbursed by GMs by convo spamming it, not that they'd start up those VMs, log in these trials and convo spam the guy before he died (hint: supercarriers melt fast these days)

Thank you for your sage insights

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Siigari Kitawa
Operation Sleepless
#100 - 2012-11-04 22:46:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Siigari Kitawa
I remember back when I was in Jita during the Burn Jita incident I was flying a rather pimped out Damnation to take aggro for a group of people who were then to engage all aggressed targets. As my Damnation creeped lower and lower to structure I prepared to dock.

Just before I went to click dock I got a convo bomb from Goons. There was enough client lag to freeze up my screen, cause me to miss the dock button (no idea how, I clicked it) and I hurriedly realized I needed to dock. Now. I clicked the X closing ALL the convo window popups and clicked dock.

I docked before I reached structure but it was a tense moment. I've got a recent computer with a good processor and video card and the client took a dump on me because of all the requests.

It's called a convo BOMB because it is much like a DDOS. I am glad I didn't explode, but I believe that that is pretty close to harassment.

Need stuff moved? Push Industries will handle it. Serving highsec, lowsec and nullsec - and we do it faster and more reliably than anyone else. Ingame channel: PUSHX