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.

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....

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

They did that to a ton of people during the Jita thing, yet for some reason it is only an exploit when used against them.

It's quite obvious that being able to read the EULA and understanding the EULA are two very different things.

Heh, I actually found the image. This was like, the convos I was getting after I docked.

http://siigarikitawa.com/images/convobomb.jpg

The problems not with the GM's..... its with you.

GM's - for the record... I like the fact you do not reimburse anybody. It makes for an even playing field

EXPLOITS

An immediate permanent ban of an account may result if:

A player has engaged in activity that intentionally causes others to lose connection, suffer latency issues (lag) or to crash to desktop (CTD).

I did not read the whole thread, but it seems that losses due to convo spamm do not get reimbursed because it is possible to pilot your ship as usual even when convo`ed, I am not sure if this has come up but this is not true. If you pilot your ship using hotkeys the focus from the background window is pulled to the convo window at which point you can no longer use the hotkeys and the critical few moments that it needs to take over manual clicking is usually enough to do whatever they want to do.

EXPLOITS

An immediate permanent ban of an account may result if:

A player has engaged in activity that intentionally causes others to lose connection, suffer latency issues (lag) or to crash to desktop (CTD).

.. as I posted above, the claim that it produces lag is still under investigation.

Hi GM Homonoia,

It's been about two weeks since. Any updates?

Thanks!