Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 17 post(s) |
Sir Marksalot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
192
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 12:39:00 -
[61] - Quote
Gianna Micheals wrote:TLDR.... CFC cry to ccp about loosing ships to one of their very own tactics.. CCP say HTFU CFC cry more
LOL!
English, please? |
Sir Marksalot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
192
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 12:41:00 -
[62] - Quote
Gianna Micheals wrote:Sorry, i do apologise, i read the thread tittle as "conversation spam"........
However, on topic, it would probably help you guys if you maintained some form of consistency within your argument..... how many people do you believe you were "convo spammed" by? i see it differs between "most of a 150 man fleet" to "2-300"
Also (although i know pictures and screenies etc are all admissible from the court of CCP) has anyone actually got any screenshots of the alleged incident? it seems like there is a lot of hurf blurf about an incident where CCP's log's show very little...its not as if CFC have ever tried to game the system before?
I think you got this one right CCP, well done guys :)
CFC = LOL!
"Haha CFC getting their own medicine!!!!"
next post
"Convo spam doesn't happen :colbert:"
NPC alts own. Snipe.
edit: Major Annoyance wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:This is also the point where I have to remind people that you are not allowed to share GM responses as that is considered to be a private communication between CCP and that individual. We always try to be lenient, but if this sort of thing starts to cause undue unrest we may end up having to enforce those rules. Is this meant to be a threat against me?
Do not question the gods, young one. |
Katsami
Sancta Terra
11
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 12:47:00 -
[63] - Quote
Major Annoyance wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:This has been discussed and the GMs in question made a mistake. They were acting on out of date knowledge. Mistakes happen and GMs are not perfect. This is also the point where I have to remind people that you are not allowed to share GM responses as that is considered to be a private communication between CCP and that individual. We always try to be lenient, but if this sort of thing starts to cause undue unrest we may end up having to enforce those rules. If you have discussed this, then why don't you post the result along with the reasons for your decisions? GM Homonoia wrote:This is also the point where I have to remind people that you are not allowed to share GM responses as that is considered to be a private communication between CCP and that individual. We always try to be lenient, but if this sort of thing starts to cause undue unrest we may end up having to enforce those rules. Is this meant to be a threat against me?
That was my initial thought. This thread sure escalated quickly. |
SicSemperTyrannis
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
11
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 12:47:00 -
[64] - Quote
Free Xolve 2012 |
|
GM Homonoia
Game Masters C C P Alliance
962
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 13:23:00 -
[65] - Quote
Major Annoyance wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:This has been discussed and the GMs in question made a mistake. They were acting on out of date knowledge. Mistakes happen and GMs are not perfect. This is also the point where I have to remind people that you are not allowed to share GM responses as that is considered to be a private communication between CCP and that individual. We always try to be lenient, but if this sort of thing starts to cause undue unrest we may end up having to enforce those rules. If you have discussed this, then why don't you post the result along with the reasons for your decisions?
Because internal decision making is not up for external discussion (on top of that, this is a process that happens every single day; we do not have the time and resources to discuss this sort of thing on our forums). Also, personnel performance and evaluation is definitely not something that should be discussed outside the people that are involved. That is the sort of thing that leads to breaches of privacy and nonsensical witch hunts.
Major Annoyance wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:This is also the point where I have to remind people that you are not allowed to share GM responses as that is considered to be a private communication between CCP and that individual. We always try to be lenient, but if this sort of thing starts to cause undue unrest we may end up having to enforce those rules. Is this meant to be a threat against me?
Of course not, that would be silly. Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master |
|
S'No Flake
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 13:34:00 -
[66] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:Chribba wrote:How will we know who initiated the "spam" though, should we petition ever pilot trying to open a convo a the time or how's the though proceedure?
/c Just file a single petition stating where and when you were when it happened and we will figure out the rest. We can see exactly who did this and we will act accordingly.
I hope this means you are only logging the chat request and not what people talk. Right?
|
Chiimera
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 13:37:00 -
[67] - Quote
Thanks for answering my post GM Homonoia... oh wait nevermind. |
|
GM Homonoia
Game Masters C C P Alliance
962
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 13:40:00 -
[68] - Quote
Chiimera wrote:Thanks for answering my post GM Homonoia... oh wait nevermind.
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. Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master |
|
Chiimera
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 13:59:00 -
[69] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:Chiimera wrote:Thanks for answering my post GM Homonoia... oh wait nevermind. 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.
What I am saying is, players are trying to tell you GM's there is an issue and convo spamming still works, you are telling us you are looking into it but at the same time GM's are telling people in petitions there isn't a problem and they aren't going to get reimbursed.
Should I have put a question mark on it? If I make a statement and you disagree then please let me know. If you agree with my previous statement then tell me you are going to do something about it. |
Tiberu Stundrif
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 14:26:00 -
[70] - Quote
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. |
|
Sir Marksalot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
192
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 14:36:00 -
[71] - Quote
Tiberu Stundrif wrote:I remember a day and age when the customer was always right and was dealt with fairly and openly.
Oh god if only I could shoot blues. |
|
GM Homonoia
Game Masters C C P Alliance
962
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 14:57:00 -
[72] - Quote
Chiimera wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:Chiimera wrote:Thanks for answering my post GM Homonoia... oh wait nevermind. 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. What I am saying is, players are trying to tell you GM's there is an issue and convo spamming still works, you are telling us you are looking into it but at the same time GM's are telling people in petitions there isn't a problem and they aren't going to get reimbursed. Should I have put a question mark on it? If I make a statement and you disagree then please let me know. If you agree with my previous statement then tell me you are going to do something about it.
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. Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master |
|
|
GM Homonoia
Game Masters C C P Alliance
962
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 15:01:00 -
[73] - Quote
I am going to comment on only one particular comment here, the rest will be too off topic or require a much more in depth explanation than I can give here.
Tiberu Stundrif wrote:I remember a day and age when the customer was always right and was dealt with fairly and openly.
This has never been true for EVE Online and it cannot be true. This is the type of stance that may work for some business models, but EVE is a competitive game. In any service where customers are in direct conflict you can NEVER apply that principle.
The wishes of a customer must always yield to the needs of the community as a whole. This means that any GM must remain absolutely impartial and must treat every player in a fair and equal manner. The only way this can be achieved is to set up guidelines and abide by them, even if it really angers a single customer.
We also cannot act under full disclosure. We have privacy laws and concerns to deal with as well as security concerns. Game masters especially must be very careful in how and what they communicate. Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master |
|
Aurthes
M. Corp Engineering C0NVICTED
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 17:14:00 -
[74] - Quote
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? |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1601
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 17:28:00 -
[75] - Quote
I find it ironic that the very group who abused this the most are the ones crying on the forums when they get a taste of their own medicine. Don't throw rocks from a glass house.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
|
GM Homonoia
Game Masters C C P Alliance
963
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 17:29:00 -
[76] - Quote
Aurthes wrote:Questions GM Homonoia
1. How many GMs/Developers play Eve? Do you play Eve?
How many? No clue, but there are relatively many GMs that play. Personally I do play.
Aurthes wrote: 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.
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.
Aurthes wrote: 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?
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. Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master |
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1601
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 17:46:00 -
[77] - Quote
usrevenge wrote:they should have auto reject BASED ON STANDING. This is actually a very good idea. Then again I could vomits out, "Stop dumbing down EVE!" like what I see being used against ideas that better the gaming experience.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
James Amril-Kesh
RAZOR Alliance
1090
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 18:25:00 -
[78] - Quote
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. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Pechali
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 18:58:00 -
[79] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:I find it ironic that the very group who abused this the most are the ones crying on the forums when they get a taste of their own medicine. Don't throw rocks from a glass house.
This may detract from the entertainment value of the irony you infer from the situation, but it will help your understanding of it if you can allow for the fact that "the group" is not one homogeneous mass and sub-groups thereof may not condone, let alone participate in, such actions.
|
Sir Marksalot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
193
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:21:00 -
[80] - Quote
Pechali wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:I find it ironic that the very group who abused this the most are the ones crying on the forums when they get a taste of their own medicine. Don't throw rocks from a glass house. This may detract from the entertainment value of the irony you infer from the situation, but it will help your understanding of it if you can allow for the fact that "the group" is not one homogeneous mass and sub-groups thereof may not condone, let alone participate in, such actions.
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 |
|
Sir Marksalot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
193
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:23:00 -
[81] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:I am going to comment on only one particular comment here, the rest will be too off topic or require a much more in depth explanation than I can give here. Tiberu Stundrif wrote:I remember a day and age when the customer was always right and was dealt with fairly and openly. This has never been true for EVE Online and it cannot be true. This is the type of stance that may work for some business models, but EVE is a competitive game. In any service where customers are in direct conflict you can NEVER apply that principle.
I love you. |
Xolve
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
1180
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:51:00 -
[82] - Quote
Xolve wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:It is not allowed because it is spam. However, no one should lose a ship specifically because of this. In a fleet fight you should simply have auto-reject enabled. Even if you have not, you will receive 1 popup that does not grab focus and does not prevent you from controlling your client normally. Simply ignore it. So just for clarifications sake- when was the last time YOU were convo'd by 2-300 people on a non-reinforced node at 10% Time Dilation?
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? Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator. |
James Amril-Kesh
RAZOR Alliance
1091
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:58:00 -
[83] - Quote
Sir Marksalot wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:I am going to comment on only one particular comment here, the rest will be too off topic or require a much more in depth explanation than I can give here. Tiberu Stundrif wrote:I remember a day and age when the customer was always right and was dealt with fairly and openly. This has never been true for EVE Online and it cannot be true. This is the type of stance that may work for some business models, but EVE is a competitive game. In any service where customers are in direct conflict you can NEVER apply that principle. I love you. Let's not let one dumb statement detract from the overall message here. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
88
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 20:04:00 -
[84] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:I am going to comment on only one particular comment here, the rest will be too off topic or require a much more in depth explanation than I can give here. Tiberu Stundrif wrote:I remember a day and age when the customer was always right and was dealt with fairly and openly. This has never been true for EVE Online and it cannot be true. This is the type of stance that may work for some business models, but EVE is a competitive game. In any service where customers are in direct conflict you can NEVER apply that principle. The wishes of a customer must always yield to the needs of the community as a whole. This means that any GM must remain absolutely impartial and must treat every player in a fair and equal manner. The only way this can be achieved is to set up guidelines and abide by them, even if it really angers a single customer. We also cannot act under full disclosure. We have privacy laws and concerns to deal with as well as security concerns. Game masters especially must be very careful in how and what they communicate.
Proof that GM's PvP is finally on the table - they are accomplished gankers. They just don't do it in game. |
Optimo Sebiestor
The Society Calyxes
95
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 00:41:00 -
[85] - Quote
Does this include jita local? |
James Amril-Kesh
RAZOR Alliance
1102
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 01:03:00 -
[86] - Quote
Optimo Sebiestor wrote:Does this include jita local? No. Local is not conversation requests. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Tanaka Atsuko
Double-Down Transmission Lost
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 11:27:00 -
[87] - Quote
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
RAZOR Alliance
1111
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 18:36:00 -
[88] - Quote
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. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
922
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 21:02:00 -
[89] - Quote
TLDR version; It's an issue on our end, but the logs show nothing. Crimewatch 2.0: Protecting stupid people & rewarding lazy people. This hurts the smart & industrious people by making their intelligence & industry provide them with less benefit over the stupid & lazy people. ~ Ruby Porto |
Onyxius Leone DeSilva
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 22:01:00 -
[90] - Quote
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. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |