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

So even though it's something players shouldn't do, if I lose a ship because of it I wont be reimbursed?

Do you mind if I just ask you to flesh out the logic behind that a bit? Not saying there isn't logic there, I just don't get it at the moment. Unless you're threatening to ban players outright, what's stopping me from saying to my 256 man fleet "OK anyone who hasn't already got warned about this, send a conversation"? If I say it over TS you wont be able to prove I ever said it, so can't really punish me for suggesting it.

If everyone did that to say, kill a Titan which you know they wont be reimbursed for, a lot of people would think it's worth it.

Have you investigated whether this actually works? I've heard that because the client still has to receive the request before it automatically rejects it, there's still a lot of traffic generated which can cause lag and/or a client crash.

If you haven't tested it I'd strongly suggest you do so, and if you have and you've found it not to be a problem then I agree with the decision against declaring this an exploit.

To be totally honest I have never been convo spammed, so I can't comment on what it used to do compared to what it does do now.

If there was evidence to show it does more then simply annoy pilots, would the GM team reconsider their stance?

I'm only asking because while I appreciate there's a way to block them if they are no more annoying then local chat, if they effect actual gameplay in even some cases I think, in my own personal opinion, telling people to always fly where people can't chat to them is a bit unfair. There's a difference between saying "It's annoying, but you can block it if you wish to trade off not being annoyed for no-one convo-ing you" and "You need to fly with no-one being able to convo you otherwise you MAY be effected by tactics which could result in a player being banned.

Just my thoughts on the matter anyway.

What exactly is your justification for that? How do you define fair in this context? How do you define "fleet engagement"?

In fact, while we're on the subject, what makes something an exploit vs. "not allowed"?

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

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.

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

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.

This is simply wrong. None of the people who were convo-spammed, were able to activate or deactivate any modules or to click into space or overview to align into the force field. BTW: even with auto-reject set to on, the requests reach the client and at least cause lag. Technically, this is a DDoS attack on a player's client.

The spammers have been warned by GM Bunyip for exploit usage (as everyone can read on evenews24, October 11th) and one of the carrier pilots (a member of my corp) has been reimbursed by Senior GM Nova - although he refuses to reimburse the other pilots who died in exactly the same way. So who is right now? You or them?

If you have discussed this, then why don't you post the result along with the reasons for your decisions?

Is this meant to be a threat against me?

Thanks for answering my post GM Homonoia... oh wait nevermind.

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.

I remember a day and age when the customer was always right and was dealt with fairly and openly.

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?