Brilliant Idea!!!

[deleryn]

Okay, I thought this up while "IMASPAMMER" was prodigiously spamming the Armageddon Lobby with "@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@...".

Make it so that if a single chat message contains more than a certain number of the same character (as in, letter, symbol, number, punctuation, etc.), that person automatically gets disconnected without their message being shown, as if he had typed "sex" or another restricted word. Then make it so that there is a maximum limit on the number of characters in a message, such as the amount of characters that could fit on a single line of chat, just to keep people form making long chats that might set it off.

I think that would *really* discourage spammers and have a very low chance of setting off for the average player. It would also go into effect regardless of whether the spammer would alternate between characters. Of course, new scamming windows would open up (I'm thinking, type assassin five times to get a second assassin!), but we could deal with that in different ways. I also think that losing multiple lines of chat would't be so bad, there are not very many messages that are longer than one line. Reducing the maximum size of messages might prevent some spam in itself.

What do you all think? Would it work? Am I too late for Bills to get this?

Edit: Revised a little. The changes you find the fifth to eighty-fourth time you read something, you know?

[Megabyte]

I like it. You could actually make it simple, like 5 of the same of any character would = a dc.
But what about spams that are just single characters?
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a

[Realist]

It's a good idea. Grey spammers can't do single lines very quickly, the real annoying ones are those who put a ton of chars on a single line.

It won't prevent spam, but its a nice additional barrier.

[deleryn]

Hmm....

It would be annoying to keep track of the number of messages someone sends for any duration of time, though if someone has 3 messages in 10 seconds, that would do it...

Edit2: Actually, "ok", "sure", and "no" would be three messages that could easily be typed in ten seconds, so that's a no-go. And like Realist mentioned, grey accounts have an 8 second delay on chat in the lobby, so spamming good has a 5$ fee with this.

Hmmm.... Think, think...



I'll just have to wait for another stroke of psuedo-brilliance and hope the spamming world doesn't advance.


Mega, why can't you post last? You know, right after the dumb ones congratulate and rep me?

Edit: Thank you, Realist! See mega? I AM smart! I just didn't know it! You have to make a gold account to spam, with that! Cha-ching, schling!

Edit2: Mega made another good point.

[Megabyte]

I did say I like the idea :p


and I kinda frown on the whole messages per second thing. I'm a VERY fast typer, and sometimes I bam out several short messages pretty quickly. Granted its not exactly a common thing to occur, but it does happen. Bah, whatever, I would live with that sort of restriction.

[Lonely Tylenol]

That idea sucks. I often hammer out huge messages that will result in VERY MANY of the same character being used.... Does that mean I'd have to shorten it to half-liners?

You could do something like the AIM thing.... Where if a member posts something repeatedly, the little bar allowing for messages depletes and if it goes into the red, you can't post until it's restored to full. Replace the grey 8-second rule with this more detailed chat check.

You could set the number of bars and how long it takes for each to restore... For instance, if you have 4 bars that restore at 2/second, and a grey message instantly knocks out 4 bars, then you have the basic 8-second rule applied, BUT golds are also checked... They can only make a message on average every two seconds.... If they were to try posting four spam messages at a time, they would be checked by the time-activated bars and would be unable to say anything for 8 seconds.

EG:
Goldspammer111: 1
Goldspammer111: 1
Goldspammer111: 1
Goldspammer111: 1
*** Goldspammer111 has exceeded the post-rate limit, and will not be able to post for 8 more seconds. ***

EDIT: It doesn't have to say the spammer exceeded the post-rate limit, just kick him from making messages for 8 seconds.

Or if you wanted to be more lenient on golds, you could have 8 bars that restore at 1/second, which would allow for one a second or 8 at a time once every 8 seconds, which would allow golds to spam, but ALSO to be caught in the act.... However, since the bars restore at one a second, this would also allow for a gold to simply post a long message every second or two, which is basically just "slow spamming".

I would advise the first one, since golds wouldn't be that likely to actually post serious messages more than four at a time or more than four over 8 seconds.

[Megabyte]

That idea sucks. I often hammer out huge messages that will result in VERY MANY of the same character being used.... Does that mean I'd have to shorten it to half-liners?



I think it was meant the same character being used repeatedly, not simply a certain number of characters being used in a message. Currently, the filter works on a combination of letters being used. We're all familiar with the side problems that can occur, what with words like sex being used inside usernames and such.

This proposal would add simply add new "words" to the filter. For example, they could make it so that combos of 5 or more of the same character together would cause the user to DC automatically. One can hardly claim that they would often repeat the same letter that many times in casual chatting. This would also be a lot simpler to implement that your suggested means.

[Jeffery]

Why not just install the same spam filter as Seed already installed on Legends?

[deleryn]

I think it was meant the same character being used repeatedly....if a single chat message contains more than a certain number of the same character....It would also go into effect regardless of whether the spammer would alternate between characters.
Mega's take on the idea is a good one, but then a spammer could just alternate between two characters "@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#..." and once they figure out, greys can once again spam the lobby as easily as before.

The chat isn't for typing out novels in LT, it would still serve its purpose in one line. I'm also interested in saving space, not converting TAO into a public chat. Would you type fifteen or twenty of the same characters in a fifty to sixty character message?

Edit: I'm not aware of what Seed is doing...

[Megabyte]

For most of my suggestions and comments on other's suggestions, I work with what's on the boards here and ignore what Legend's has or Seed's current level of work towards updating/developing the game further is. I mean, its nice to have reference and comparison, but if we took in how much work has been done on the game in recent months, or the effort to actually update it, it makes this whole section look pointless.

Anyways..


The chat isn't for typing out novels in LT, it would still serve its purpose in one line. I'm also interested in saving space, not converting TAO into a public chat. Would you type fifteen or twenty of the same characters in a fifty to sixty character message?



You'd have to do a study or find reference material to find that sort of thing out. I'd kinda be interested to see how it turns out, to see how many times we use a single character in a messager.

For a rule of thumb, you could take the maximum length you can do in a message, take the letter E (being the most common letter used in the alphabet, so it'd be the max standard), get it's ratio of use per so many letters (say 1 out of every 12 letters is E on average as a random ratio), then plug that into the character per message limit.

That of course would be just an average use, and you'd want to make the character limit much higher so as not to cause too many problems. That sort of setup would likely keep the accidental DC's to a minimum.

(side note: number of times using the letter E in first parargraph of the message...35, coming in at about a 1:10 ratio)

[ricardu]

That idea sucks. I often hammer out huge messages that will result in VERY MANY of the same character being used.... Does that mean I'd have to shorten it to half-liners?

You could do something like the AIM thing.... Where if a member posts something repeatedly, the little bar allowing for messages depletes and if it goes into the red, you can't post until it's restored to full. Replace the grey 8-second rule with this more detailed chat check.

You could set the number of bars and how long it takes for each to restore... For instance, if you have 4 bars that restore at 2/second, and a grey message instantly knocks out 4 bars, then you have the basic 8-second rule applied, BUT golds are also checked... They can only make a message on average every two seconds.... If they were to try posting four spam messages at a time, they would be checked by the time-activated bars and would be unable to say anything for 8 seconds.

EG:
Goldspammer111: 1
Goldspammer111: 1
Goldspammer111: 1
Goldspammer111: 1
*** Goldspammer111 has exceeded the post-rate limit, and will not be able to post for 8 more seconds. ***

EDIT: It doesn't have to say the spammer exceeded the post-rate limit, just kick him from making messages for 8 seconds.

Or if you wanted to be more lenient on golds, you could have 8 bars that restore at 1/second, which would allow for one a second or 8 at a time once every 8 seconds, which would allow golds to spam, but ALSO to be caught in the act.... However, since the bars restore at one a second, this would also allow for a gold to simply post a long message every second or two, which is basically just "slow spamming".

I would advise the first one, since golds wouldn't be that likely to actually post serious messages more than four at a time or more than four over 8 seconds.

Finally, someone who thinks exactly the same thing as me :)

Why not just install the same spam filter as Seed already installed on Legends?
Cauze it works only when someone spam in a game, i mean with some retard gold just spam in the lobby he dont get filtred.

[Wayfaerer]

It kicks lobby nubs too, would do wonders for those bad apples on Reve

[Moose]

It kicks lobby nubs too, would do wonders for those bad apples on Reve

Really? Then why haven't you been kicked off yet? Last time I checked you were still a nub on legends. :cool:

[Office_Shredder]

Simple solution: Get rid of the lobby chat.

duh :rolleyes:

[Dove]

Why not just install the same spam filter as Seed already installed on Legends?

He got to it too quick for me.

Some variation would be nice... I think on Legends it's like 10 messages in less than 10 seconds... I think.

The important factor in the Legends filter though is that it's a set amount of messages in a set amount of time.

Though people could figure it out and it wouldn't stop spamming, it would definitely slow it down.

And on Legends, it's a 3 day IP ban for triggering that one :cool: .

[Death Puppet]

I'm sad that army has not instituted IP bans it would really help with the people that make multiple accounts to spam. Even if you took a screenie he/she could take on another account.

[Sodamoeba]

The chat isn't for typing out novels in LT, it would still serve its purpose in one line. I'm also interested in saving space, not converting TAO into a public chat. Would you type fifteen or twenty of the same characters in a fifty to sixty character message?

Just cause something is more than one line doesnt make it excessively long...however most of the long messages I type are talking or explaining things in game, or talking to my clan...if the chat restrictions were removed in-game that would make it ok, and if they are removed for clan chat, then a spammer in a clan would get expeled. *bows* :)

[Death Puppet]

There is a cap on the length of your message currently but not enough of a cap....

[Megabyte]

I'm sad that army has not instituted IP bans it would really help with the people that make multiple accounts to spam. Even if you took a screenie he/she could take on another account.

IP bans aren't used because they don't stop those that it was necessary to use thema against. Besides, I don't think TAO refunds money when they ban an account. If the person keeps making new ones and they keep getting banned, makes more money for TAO.

[Death Puppet]

true I see you are very logical.

[Wayfaerer]

Really? Then why haven't you been kicked off yet? Last time I checked you were still a nub on legends. :cool:
I told you before. Trying is a waste of my time, so I don't bother with it :cool: