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.

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.

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.

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.

[...] In a fleet fight you should simply have auto-reject enabled [...]

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.

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.

This thread made me lose hope in ccp

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.

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

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"?

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.

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."

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.

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?

How about we just spam convo one of the dev's, then you will see the lag it causes.

I never have any issues with lag, went on 150+ man roam, bashed a pos until the enemy cyno'd in while running anoms with my other character and at no time did my computer lag, I only have 30Mb internet service, though I do have a great computer. Seems to me that most of the issues are client related which means either A, lower your settings. Or B. Get a new computer.

I never have any issues with lag, went on 150+ man roam, bashed a pos until the enemy cyno'd in while running anoms with my other character and at no time did my computer lag, I only have 30Mb internet service, though I do have a great computer. Seems to me that most of the issues are client related which means either A, lower your settings. Or B. Get a new computer.

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.

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.

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.

I'm tired of this political crap CCP thinks will solve its problems while it tries to fix a broken mechanic.

What part of requesting a /and/ opening a conversation is considered a game mechanic?

Um, all of it?

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.

Posters with speculative accusations with no basis in reality and an inability to follow basic logic... please go.

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?

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.

TLDR....
CFC cry to ccp about loosing ships to one of their very own tactics..
CCP say HTFU
CFC cry more

LOL!

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.

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.

TLDR....
CFC cry to ccp about loosing ships to one of their very own tactics..
CCP say HTFU
CFC cry more

LOL!

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!

Is this meant to be a threat against me?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

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?

they should have auto reject BASED ON STANDING.

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.

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.



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.

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 love you.

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.



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.

Does this include jita local?

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 ?

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.

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!