Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 17 post(s) |
|
GM Homonoia
Game Masters C C P Alliance
944
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 11:20:00 -
[1] - Quote
Customer support is making this post to clarify a specific type of case and our policies regarding that type of case. Recently we have seen a rise in reimbursement requests on the grounds of a conversation spam exploit.
Is this an exploit? No, it is not an exploit and we will not be reimbursing any losses on the grounds of conversation spam.
To clarify this point, this used to be an exploit, but the conditions that caused it to be an exploit were fixed a while ago. In the past a conversation request would generate a popup that would take focus within the game client and would not let you continue to play until you made a decision on the request. However, currently the popup will not lock you out of the rest of the game and it will not grab focus. You can ignore the request and keep playing the game. There is also an option to automatically decline any conversation requests sent your way.
Is conversation spamming allowed? No, it is not.
While conversation spam is not considered an exploit, it IS considered spam. Anyone caught doing this (this includes a large group of people each sending only 1 request) will be warned and, if the behavior does not cease, banned. We encourage everyone who is subjected to conversation spam to file a petition under the GÇ£harassmentGÇ¥ category.
Tl;dr If you are the victim of conversation spam you will not be reimbursed as it is not an exploit, but please do report it as we do take action against the spammers; spamming is not allowed.
Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master |
|
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
5321
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 11:44:00 -
[2] - Quote
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
|
|
|
GM Homonoia
Game Masters C C P Alliance
944
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 11:47:00 -
[3] - Quote
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. Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master |
|
Inquisitor Kitchner
Galaxy Punks Executive Outcomes
265
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 12:45:00 -
[4] - Quote
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. "If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli |
|
GM Homonoia
Game Masters C C P Alliance
944
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 13:00:00 -
[5] - Quote
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote: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.
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. Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master |
|
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
377
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 13:25:00 -
[6] - Quote
Separate to the 'popup takes focus' issue, in previous threads some people claimed that the conversation auto-reject might be client-side, meaning a convobomb would still cause a good amount of lag due to the number of requests queued up only to be rejected by the client (to my limited understanding :D)
Was this not true, or is it just not a problem? |
Femaref
Armageddon Day WE FORM VOLTRON
16
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 13:28:00 -
[7] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:Inquisitor Kitchner wrote: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. 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.
It pops up in the middle of the screen and as such, can be a massive distraction, simply because that where the action happens; even more so if you are flying small ships and need to control it manually. Maybe make convo invites only appear in the neocom when you have an aggrotimer? |
Prototype Epsilon
Crimson Wraiths
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 13:39:00 -
[8] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:Customer support is making this post to clarify a specific type of case and our policies regarding that type of case. Recently we have seen a rise in reimbursement requests on the grounds of a conversation spam exploit.
Is this an exploit? No, it is not an exploit and we will not be reimbursing any losses on the grounds of conversation spam.
To clarify this point, this used to be an exploit, but the conditions that caused it to be an exploit were fixed a while ago. In the past a conversation request would generate a popup that would take focus within the game client and would not let you continue to play until you made a decision on the request. However, currently the popup will not lock you out of the rest of the game and it will not grab focus. You can ignore the request and keep playing the game. There is also an option to automatically decline any conversation requests sent your way.
Is conversation spamming allowed? No, it is not.
While conversation spam is not considered an exploit, it IS considered spam. Anyone caught doing this (this includes a large group of people each sending only 1 request) will be warned and, if the behavior does not cease, banned. We encourage everyone who is subjected to conversation spam to file a petition under the GÇ£harassmentGÇ¥ category.
Tl;dr If you are the victim of conversation spam you will not be reimbursed as it is not an exploit, but please do report it as we do take action against the spammers; spamming is not allowed.
Is it a GMs job to figure out what players want and then institute the exact opposite? |
James Amril-Kesh
RAZOR Alliance
1072
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 13:42:00 -
[9] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:However, no one should lose a ship specifically because of this. In a fleet fight you should simply have auto-reject enabled. 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.
I'd test it myself but it's rather difficult to get enough people to agree to try it. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
|
GM Homonoia
Game Masters C C P Alliance
944
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 13:44:00 -
[10] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:However, no one should lose a ship specifically because of this. In a fleet fight you should simply have auto-reject enabled. 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.
We are aware of those claims and they are being investigated. Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master |
|
|
Bruceleeng
The First One is Always Free Test Alliance Please Ignore
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 13:54:00 -
[11] - Quote
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. |
Inquisitor Kitchner
Galaxy Punks Executive Outcomes
266
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 14:05:00 -
[12] - Quote
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.
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. "If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli |
|
GM Homonoia
Game Masters C C P Alliance
945
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 14:11:00 -
[13] - Quote
Inquisitor Kitchner 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.
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.
We will, of course, review our stance if new evidence comes to light. However, situations where these tactics are usually used are complex and the conversation spam is not the only factor weighing in. For example, in fleet engagements we do not reimburse for any reason; we punish people abusing our systems, but we do not reimburse because there is no way to do so fairly. It is most likely that when it is proven that convo spam causes significant lag that the punishment for using such a tactic will grow harsher.
As I said above, reimbursement is a complex issue and simply the fact that someone used something that is not allowed does not automatically mean that you will be reimbursed. It DOES mean that the perpetrator will be punished.
It's really simple, we want everyone to play by the rules and people who don't want to can take a hike; forcefully if need be. Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master |
|
Katsami
Sancta Terra
10
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 15:26:00 -
[14] - Quote
So the command ships my fleets have lost in the past, due to insane standstill lag generated from convo-bombing, are not reimbursable?
Seems like there is something you guys are missing about what happens when very large gangs focus on specific players in opposing fleets. |
Jim Era
5794
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 15:39:00 -
[15] - Quote
This thread made me lose hope in ccp |
Inquisitor Kitchner
Galaxy Punks Executive Outcomes
267
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 15:44:00 -
[16] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote: As I said above, reimbursement is a complex issue and simply the fact that someone used something that is not allowed does not automatically mean that you will be reimbursed. It DOES mean that the perpetrator will be punished.
So essentially while dying when convo spammed doesn't automatically equal reimbursement it doesn't mean that ship reimbursement is totally ruled out, just dependent on circumstances? (Presumably like every other situation) "If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli |
Prototype Epsilon
Crimson Wraiths
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 15:45:00 -
[17] - Quote
Jim Era wrote:This thread made me lose hope in ccp
I wish they consulted CSM about these things |
James Amril-Kesh
RAZOR Alliance
1076
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 15:59:00 -
[18] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:For example, in fleet engagements we do not reimburse for any reason; we punish people abusing our systems, but we do not reimburse because there is no way to do so fairly. 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"? http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Prototype Epsilon
Crimson Wraiths
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 16:11:00 -
[19] - Quote
Quote:In fact, while we're on the subject, what makes something an exploit vs. "not allowed"?
what ever their reason is, it has little to do with the way the rest of the world uses these world and more closely resembles just a GMs bias against an issue. |
|
GM Homonoia
Game Masters C C P Alliance
945
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 16:13:00 -
[20] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:For example, in fleet engagements we do not reimburse for any reason; we punish people abusing our systems, but we do not reimburse because there is no way to do so fairly. 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"?
What exactly is your justification for that?
That is a discussion that would take too long to have here. The matter is incredibly complex and we have had several long discussions on that, both internally in CS, internally with other departments and externally with the CSM. Basically it is more important to remain fair and impartial and treat everyone equally than it is to see that everyone is happy. This is incredibly hard to do where large scale fleet engagements are concerned.
How do you define fair in this context?
Treat everyone equally; this means applying our reimbursement policies as strict as possible for everyone involved.
How do you define "fleet engagement"?
By consensus and on a case by case basis using internal metrics and guidelines. Yes, this is vague and it will stay that way. It is simply impossible to define this externally in a way that would satisfy the majority of our players.
what makes something an exploit vs. "not allowed"?
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. Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master |
|
|
Tiberu Stundrif
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
15
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 16:23:00 -
[21] - Quote
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
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 16:27:00 -
[22] - Quote
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
228
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 16:30:00 -
[23] - Quote
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.
|
|
GM Homonoia
Game Masters C C P Alliance
945
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 16:30:00 -
[24] - Quote
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 Masters C C P Alliance
945
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 16:31:00 -
[25] - Quote
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
228
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 16:41:00 -
[26] - Quote
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
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 16:51:00 -
[27] - Quote
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 consider it an exploit until the investigation has completed? |
Jim Era
5808
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 16:53:00 -
[28] - Quote
How about we just spam convo one of the dev's, then you will see the lag it causes. |
|
GM Homonoia
Game Masters C C P Alliance
947
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 16:55:00 -
[29] - Quote
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
Gunzerkers
74
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 17:01:00 -
[30] - Quote
"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. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |