PlaneShift
Gameplay => Wish list => Topic started by: Hirogurth on February 18, 2006, 04:46:28 am
-
I would like to be able to ask more people to join my group before group spamming comes in maybe like two or three at one time.
WHY
because I was talking to a couple guys for 10-15 min. and decided to go hunting with them so I invited one them and then the other boom struck down by laanx for invite spamming and now have -10.00 advisor points!
-
...Wow. That\'s a really messed up system, then. There should be no reason at all to wait an entire minute before inviting people (who accept!) to a group, each time. Depending on how many people you want in, that would mean some 10 minutes of pure waiting before actually doing anything.
This needs a fix.
-
Originally posted by Hirogurth
I would like to be able to ask more people to join my group before group spamming comes in maybe like two or three at one time.
WHY
because I was talking to a couple guys for 10-15 min. and decided to go hunting with them so I invited one them and then the other boom struck down by laanx for invite spamming and now have -10.00 advisor points!
IT WASN\'T ME
IT WASN\'T ME
I SWEAR TO TALAD I DIDN\'T MAKE THIS THREAD.
-
Originally posted by Karyuu
...Wow. That\'s a really messed up system, then. There should be no reason at all to wait an entire minute before inviting people (who accept!) to a group, each time.
If people accept, there is no waiting. I have said this a billion times, and people keep complaining anyway: This system only cares about denys. You can invite all you want if people accept. The system is completely bypassed if the last invite was accepted. If you\'re locked out, you can also just have the other person invite.
People keep forgetting the fact that someone denied an invite. (The system originally locked you out for 5min, even for the first.) If you got \"stuck down\", you\'ve been denied 3 times without any accepts after enough time.
Please also be aware, that this system doesn\'t forget about you. If your last effect was a kill, and come back a day later, and get another deny, be prepared for another kill. This is the part that probably gets most people, and I\'d like to know why I haven\'t got any complaints about it in 8 months...
-
1. The system hasn\'t been in place for 8 months.
2. I know for a fact that people have made complaints.
-
Originally posted by zanzibar
1. The system hasn\'t been in place for 8 months.
>.< ... typo, meant since the begining of October... which is only 8 months ago when you can\'t count. :P Yeah... almost 5 months. Still a long time, still haven\'t gotten any complaints from anyone other than you and Suno. (and this)
-
but I wasn\'t denied three times in a row the first person I asked said yes and then I asked the SECOND only second person and I got struck down.
-
DaveG, you\'re being unnecessarily obstinate about it. A person could start inviting people to a group, when one says in the middle of an invite, \"Ah crap, have to go take care of something, hold on\" and declines. The group leader then has to what, wait five minutes before inviting the rest of the party members? What an absolute hassle.
-
1 minute for first, 5 for second.
I\'m getting annoyed because people are saying \"blah just happens\" when it doesn\'t. And, everyone has forgotten how bad the spam problem was before this system.
-
My mistake! ^^
Then I\'m really sorry for not understanding this immediately, but where are all these penalties coming from?
As I remember:
- Penalties now increase with each decline:
1) 1 min lockout
2) 5 min + warning
3) 10 min + 10 advisor point fine + 10 duel point fine, if duel spam + death
4) 30 point fine(s) + death + kick from server
- Penalties expire with gameplay time, and can be lowered by getting an accept from a player with no penalties and a enough advisor points.
- Penalty level is saved to the player\'s account entry in the database, so repeat offenders can\'t escape it. (relog resets to 3rd level).............
The original poster of this thread wrote:
I was talking to a couple guys for 10-15 min [...]
Surely that\'s enough time for all penalties to cease so that inviting is enabled again? Hirogurth, during those 10-15 minutes, did you get any declines for other invitations you might have made?
I simply have no idea what\'s going on at this point.
-
My thoughts are it is the big pockets of lag we are getting that is some how to blame, if i jump once and a big lag happens my stamina flys down on only one jump, if i move it starts to clime again.
Messages are missing or delayed so long that you lose track of what you are doing, all down to big lags
-
r.guppy: As I already said somewhere else, you can\'t blame any of this on lag. The server isn\'t that fragile when it comes to things like this. There\'s one question object on the server, and regardless of what network junk happens between you and Singapore, only one will be dealt with.
Originally posted by me, way back when
.... (relog resets to 3rd level) ....
Ok, I\'m fond of compromises, so here\'s a simple solution to the whining which I can consent to: Change that to a two. That\'ll remove some of the persistence of the system in a very simple way, and prevent people from getting up to the point of a kill as easily from old spamPoints.
-
That still doesn\'t explain why the poster got a penalty after inviting once a 10-15 minute conversation took place. Seems like the only thing to have legitimized those penalties is another invite of whatever sort that happened during the conversation - but if no such thing happened, then something is amiss..?
Moreover, he was able to invite one person with no problems - the person accepted and became part of the group - but then he sent out another invite (which should have bypassed the system as you said, since it was an accept) and received a penalty. So what exactly is happening?
-
That\'s why these threads are always annoying, there isn\'t enough information posted to honestly know what happened.
-
r.guppy: As I already said somewhere else, you can\'t blame any of this on lag. The server isn\'t that fragile when it comes to things like this. There\'s one question object on the server, and regardless of what network junk happens between you and Singapore, only one will be dealt with.
I can and will explain why i think so.
you invite, big lag invite still on screen sever has clocked it out , you except dosent register because system has registered it time out.
End result you have a minus to your credit system wise but you still end up grouped.
Hope that is plane and under stand-able.
-
No, when the PendingQuestion times out, it is destroyed. If an answer magically arrives after this it would be registered as an error, because the question is already dealt with. The invite system cannot handle more than one answer to a question.
-
- Penalties now increase with each decline:
1) 1 min lockout
2) 5 min + warning
3) 10 min + 10 advisor point fine + 10 duel point fine, if duel spam + death
4) 30 point fine(s) + death + kick from server
- Penalties expire with gameplay time, and can be lowered by getting an accept from a player with no penalties and a enough advisor points.
- Penalty level is saved to the player\'s account entry in the database, so repeat offenders can\'t escape it. (relog resets to 3rd level).............
One last thing is this system auto, and if so how come i got challenged 11 times and had to get a GM to sort it out ?
-
... when?!
Were they all from the same person? (it\'s done via inviter, not invitee) Were they all in a row? (these things expire; they could come back later without penalty) And, are you sure they didn\'t actually get the penalties, and come back anyway?
-
A number of people have reported a 28 minute warning right off the bat, so something isn\'t right.
An easy solution would to add a third option: Decline and Warn, which would be distinct from just declining the invitation. If someone declines, then that\'s all that happens. If someone declines and warns, then the sender recieves penalty point(s?).
-
Same player and all in row, he ran off an a good ten mins before he was struck down, serching logs for when, but not to long ago.
-
Originally posted by zanzibar
A number of people have reported a 28 minute warning right off the bat, so something isn\'t right.
And it\'s usually the people reporting it. Find a reproducible way to get a half an hour wait starting from 0 SP, and get back to me...
Originally posted by zanzibar
An easy solution would to add a third option: Decline and Warn, which would be distinct from just declining the invitation. If someone declines, then that\'s all that happens. If someone declines and warns, then the sender recieves penalty point(s?).
Stop with this. No. Regardless of the fact that the entire question system would have to be rewritten to handle a 3rd option (seriously, it\'s not as simple a thing as you think it is; it could obviously be done, but it\'s just not needed), I\'m not going to give spammers anyone to focus their idiocy on. I also hate the fact that our community is plagued with people who we need to work against, and I\'d prefer not to advertise it in every prompt. (not to mention that it would be abused more than it would be used correctly...)
The sane thing to do is to just not have these damn things be so distracting... Why do we need a giant popup window in the first place?... :/
-
\"I\'m not going to give spammers anyone to focus their idiocy on.\"
You have yet to show how this would happen anymore than it already does.
\"I also hate the fact that our community is plagued with people who we need to work against\"
Paranoid much?
There are plenty of people who think that my suggestion would be an improvement to the game. I never said it would be easy. In fact, I don\'t think anyone has said it would be easy. But are the easy things the only things we\'re supposed to do?
-
Heres my 2 trias.
Dave, why don\'t you just create a normal regular character and go in game, find someone willing to help, there are lots, and invite each other back and forth testing various timed intervals? Why are you both just arguing back and forth when the simplest nswer is to just go in game and test the theory?
And Zanzi, Dave doesn\'t mod the forum so he couldn\'t have deleted Janner\'s post.
Oh and just to be on the safe side, this post has been PM\'ed to a few people, in case someone is actually disgruntled and decides to give me a deletion.
Also, I\'ll be going in game under XXXXXXXXXX and if I find someone willing to help test, I\'ll be testing the theories and report back with my own findings. Just everyone calm down. geez.
Edit: Changed the name of the character I was to use for testing purposes, since it would be easier with that one instead.
Edited to add Findings:
First, thanks to Ogu, for his help. Alright now we begin.
I created a group and had him accept invites from me for 5 staright times, and the invites/accepting were all done within a minute a time. Results: No punishment as expected. This simulates a person asking many peopleto join a group quickly and what happens if everyone accepts.
Next test, this time I had him Declinethe first 2, then accept the next 3.
He declined the first, good. Waiting no longer than 5 seconds to try again, I recieved a penalty of 10 minutes for invite spamming. We waited the 10 minutes (actually we waited 17:23 sec) and he then accepted the next 3 without problem. Results: the code may not be working as exactly as planned.
Next test: This time we were to try decline, accept, decline, accept, decline accept. He declined the first one. Upon sending he second one, again, no longer than 5 seconds passing between the time i sent the second one andthe time he clickeddecline to the first one, I recieved as pounishment for invite spamming: minus 30 advisor points, death, and lockout from the server for a time which it didn\'t say. we never got to finish this round of testing.
So as you can see, it is not remembering the accepts as it should, and is autoatically going to the next level of punishment. The next test I was goingto try was to have ogu decline, wait for 5 minutes and then I wouldsend him another. To see what would happen. Testingwill resume once I can get back into the server. Thanks all.
Oh, also, the character I used was fresh. Never been challenged by anyone, never challenged anyone herself, never was invited to agroup before, never invitedanyone to a group made by here either. She ws fresh out of the box so to say.
-
Thanks to both of you so much for the tests :3
I think this proves that the system needs looking into. It\'s not flawless - and the flaws aren\'t something you could glaze over \"just for now.\"
-
My pleasure to be of help. See what happens when we stay calm and think with our head an not our emotions?
Well, now I\'m off to see about getting my poor fenki out of that mean old dark and scarely death realm and back to the nice warm sunny Hydlaa Plazaa.
-
If spammers are punished, I don\'t care. What I care about are those all too often instances of people being punished when they haven\'t done anything wrong.
Giveing people the choice between declining and invitation and declining and invitation with the attachment of a warning will solve the problem.
-
Good work on testing it indeed tbvp.
-
Originally posted by Karyuu
Thanks to both of you so much for the tests :3
Agreed, but I had already tested this quite a bit before putting it on Laanx. I\'m not an idiot, and I\'m not just saying it\'s working blindly.
Originally posted by tbvp
So as you can see, it is not remembering the accepts as it should, and is autoatically going to the next level of punishment.
Yeah, that\'s what it\'s supposed to do. Your results show EXACTLY what is programmed to happen. If it could just go down with every accept, any idiot would just create a shell account or get a friend to artificially lower their score. (though, I did add some voodoo situations where it could go down if the accepter had enough AP or something) As I already said... it only cares about denies. They will expire after time, if you don\'t use the system for a while.
Originally posted by zanzibar
Paranoid much?
Yes.
-
Am I missing something? The -first- decline gave the third penalty - there was no one minute lockout, nor a five minute lockout with a warning. I was under the impression that it went in some sort of order, which evidently isn\'t the case.
-
You\'d need to create a new character for each test case to do what he\'s expecting. It is going up when it\'s supposed to.
Edited to add:
Personally, as I already said, the better solution to all this stupidity would be to have invites not be such an annoyance. We wouldn\'t need to go through all this if it was just some text popping up, with an option to respond. :/
-
I\'ve never had any trouble with this anti invitespamming system. It would be nice to have an option to block the invites en tells from certain players. You would have 3 buttons uppon invite: accept, deny (no punishment for inviter) and block. With block being denying any current or future tells and invites. If players ever get spammed, they can simply click block and that\'s it, spamming gone. And the spammers can\'t complain because they don\'t get punishment, this would also prevent players from being getting punishment by accident because some guy \"accidentally\" clicked deny. Can someone see a possible \"exploit\" in this? If so, try to think of something to fix it.
added:
Well, you could put the blocks in some kind of log. If a certain person gets blocked very very much, a GM could go talk with him and if possible block his ability to invite or ban him. But this would only be used on extreme spammers.
-
Originally posted by DaveG
You\'d need to create a new character for each test case to do what he\'s expecting. It is going up when it\'s supposed to.
Edited to add:
Personally, as I already said, the better solution to all this stupidity would be to have invites not be such an annoyance. We wouldn\'t need to go through all this if it was just some text popping up, with an option to respond. :/
\"All this stupidity\"? Just because people are suggesting that your system could be improved?
Originally posted by ThomPhoenix
I\'ve never had any trouble with this anti invitespamming system.
I have, but I\'m often making groups to help out new players or to participate in events. Try having several \"5 on 5\" style duels that involve a few green players and see what happens.
-
Originally posted by DaveG
You\'d need to create a new character for each test case to do what he\'s expecting. It is going up when it\'s supposed to.
But I honestly can\'t understand that. Why is the very first decline supposed to give you a 10 minute penalty?
-
I\'m loosing track of this too... I don\'t even care anymore. The penalty was right for the case, I missread part of his long post. I\'m sorry, I should\'ve gone over it in more detail. I shouldn\'t have replied so fast if I didn\'t have the time to go over it better. Sorry.
/me head explodes
I figured out what it was... You can\'t just create a new character, you have to make a new account. It jumpped the gun because you had SP from another character. It was a 10 min penalty, because he started at kill level, and you always get a warning.
I just tested it on my build, and it\'s working fine.
-
If I may ask, perhaps you would like to go into detail on exactly how the system works. It would free up many misconceptions I belive.
I, for one, was misinformed (not saying its any of your fault) about how the system goes down in severity levels. As you see from my testing, I believed that it was based on accepts, not time. But since you say it is based on time, perhaps you could provide detailed information on how long it takes to reduce the severity levels? I was under the information that the severity level would go back down, after I waited the said time of 10 minutes, and recieved a few accepts, but I see that this is not how it works. Perhaps many others are also under this assumption, and that is why you see so many complaints.
Also, I was misinformed and believed that a new character would be good for testing, when as you say it carries over for all characters for every account. That makes much more sence to me anyway, don\'t want spammers just creating multiple accounts to get around the rule.
I\'m a bit curious as to why my account is at the 3rd level to begin with, as I haven\'t used it for months (should have gone down with time a you say) and before that, I seriuosly don\'t ever recall having a time, that on the rare occassion that I did send an invite it, was declined (I never recieved the first warnings ever before on any of my characters that I can recall.), or when the new system was put into effect, were all acounts assigned this 3rd severity level, and if so, why would I still be at this 3rd level when I went to test? Or does it log only hours that you are in game and not actual RL hours? That would make sense to me.
So really, if you\'re not too busy, perhaps you could give us a detailed explanation on how it functions, so we can clear all this misinformation up? Unless, it\'s already stated somewhere. I will admit I didn\'t follow the rule of searching before posting this. Meh, you have permission to shoot me I guess.
Also, I\'d love to actually help with the code rather than just QA tset, but I only have worked with VB and SQL Server 2000 for the past 6 years, so I feel I\'m not qualified to help anymore than I already am. I\'ll learn C, C++, C sharp, whatever variation the game is run on, eventually, I\'m just a bit busy with RL projects ATM. I\'m sure you know how it is. Thanks in advance.
-
The code is quite simple, and as I keep saying (yet no one believes me) it\'s not glitched. A few people (namely the guy that made me want to rewrite this in the first place...) seem to hate the system. SP go up on denies, SP revert to 2 (now 1, as I made that change) on relog, can go down on an accept from someone with enough AP (there\'s voodoo involved... I honestly forget :D ), and will go down on any invite done after the SP+1 lockout time has passed since last invite attempt. Lockout times are: 1, 5, 10, 30, 10. (though, only the first 3 are really lockouts, and the others are just there for expiration times) The system acts on invite attempts, not invitee decisions, because I wanted the system to discourage the people being penalized from using the system at all, for a while, and to prevent these people from focusing their junk on the person that clicked \"deny\".
Yes, this is very strict. You couldn\'t walk into the plaza for more than a second without getting challenged, before. However, most people have had no problems with this. The only valid complaint was the fact that I made SP save to DB per account, which makes this system very persistent. Saving only 1 point (which means first deny bumps to 2nd level), instead of up to 2, should aleiviate this.
Edited to add:
I might as well paste the voodoo :P
if (accepted)
{
if (inviter->GetSpamPoints() && invitee->GetSpamPoints() <= 1
&& invitee->GetAdvisorPoints() >=
3*INVITESPAMBANTIME[inviter->GetSpamPoints()]*INVITESPAMBANTIME[invitee->GetSpamPoints()] )
{
// Lower spam points on accept from a sufficiently \"reputable\" player
inviter->DecrementSpamPoints();
}
}
else
{
inviter->IncrementSpamPoints();
}Where:static const int INVITESPAMBANTIME[5] = {1, 5, 10, // Ban times in minutes
30, 10}; // spamPoints expire based on SP+1\'s ban time
If you want to look at the invite manager code in more detail, just click on the link in my signature. ;)
-
Ah ok, that clears up my confusion. And yep, from little C I know, you look solid on the code, but you already knew that, didn\'t you? :P
-
I hate your code? Putting words in my mouth again, I see.
Maybe it\'s bugged. Maybe it isn\'t. Maybe the penalties are too harsh, and maybe they aren\'t.
Whatever the case may be, there\'s still fundamentally the potential for people to be punished who don\'t deserve to be punished.
And to me, the best way to solve this is to put the power of punishment in the hands of human beings!
-
And to me, the best way to solve this is to put the power of punishment in the hands of human beings!
Please,do me a favor and play Battlefield 2, then you\'ll see what DaveG means. When you\'re killed by a team mate everyone automatically presses punish, even if it was their own fault. In PS it would probably be the same, someone\'s training somewhere, he\'s invited by someone and he automatically punishes him. Or things would go like this:
>Hi!
-Hello
>Want to join my group?
-Ofcourse
>*invites*
-*clicks punish*
>Erm, why?!?!
-Lol, u n00b.
Ofcourse this would also be possible with DaveG\'s system, but there\'s no perfect system, is there? Keep it as much automatic as possible seems the best thing to me, or my ignoring system should be implemented :D Noboby responded to it by the way, what do you think of it?
*points to a few posts above this one*
Ofcourse there\'s also the possibility to use DaveG\'s system, but instead second or more deny\'s would cause the players\' skills to be debuffed. So he will get very weak if he spams a lot. This debuff would be temporary ofcourse.
-
Working as intended.
-
Originally posted by ThomPhoenix
Please,do me a favor and play Battlefield 2, then you\'ll see what DaveG means. When you\'re killed by a team mate everyone automatically presses punish, even if it was their own fault. In PS it would probably be the same, someone\'s training somewhere, he\'s invited by someone and he automatically punishes him.
That\'s still better than the way it is right now.
Originally posted by ThomPhoenix
Or things would go like this:
>Hi!
-Hello
>Want to join my group?
-Ofcourse
>*invites*
-*clicks punish*
>Erm, why?!?!
-Lol, u n00b.
It\'s already possible for people to do this the way things are, since every decline counts as a warning.
-
It\'s already possible for people to do this the way things are, since every decline counts as a warning.
I said that in my post :O
Anyway, DaveG and Acraig both say that it\'s working as intended, and too few people are complaining (only 3) to have it changed.
Until lots of people complain or someone comes up with a really good system, this is pretty much end of story I guess.
-
Originally posted by ThomPhoenix
It\'s already possible for people to do this the way things are, since every decline counts as a warning.
I said that in my post :O
Anyway, DaveG and Acraig both say that it\'s working as intended, and too few people are complaining (only 3) to have it changed.
Until lots of people complain or someone comes up with a really good system, this is pretty much end of story I guess.
I\'ve spoken to a lot of devs behind the scenes who agree with me though... it\'s unfortunate that Acraig is shooting down the idea.
And in my opinion, the system I proposed IS really good, and the system which is in place is NOT working as intended. But hey, Acraig has spoken.