omg effin' griefers, please do something

Sorry, but it seems no one understands how to use the griefer check box thing xD I think more aggressive measures should be taken.

I'm no code expert, but how's this logic...

if (player.actionBreaksAlliedBlock) {

if (player.score < 0) player.kick() else {​

if (player.actionCausesCollapse) player.openKickVoteDialogBox();​

}​

}

tl;dr if the player's score negative and they are breaking blocks, auto-kick, otherwise open a voting box to kick (F11, don't kick, F12, kick, etc.)

There's no reason someone with a negative score who is breaking multiple blocks should be allowed to stay in the game.

 

We the Kag guards are the next line of defense. We've caught quite a few so far. They're like Pokemon, we'll eventually catch most and they'll become too frustrated to keep griefing. We have green names and a green x next to our names on the scoreboard. If you see any one of us, ask us to investigate. We'll be happy to. Otherwise the tickmark is your second best option.

 

Servers should just have a lower % needed to kick someone; or there should be a mandatory test b4 you can play kag, which asks if you know how to kick someone.

 

Remember that there are many other ways of griefing apart from destroying and collapsing. Spike spamming all along the base, for instance. Or random stone spamming everywhere, ruining structures from the inside. A player could also die repeatedly in spikes to lower the lives of the team.
I think that auto-kicking the block-destroyer griefers would only cause them to look for other ways (equally effective) of harming the team. The same happens when a game puts a chat filter for insults and the players just add/replace/remove letters and do it anyways.

I agree in both points, specially the second one. The only way to combat grefing in all its forms is to make sure every player is aware of the base and, more importantly, aware of how to kick.

 

1. Someone joins game.

2. Someone has 0 score, because they've just joined.

3. Someone breaks a block that was intended deliberately to block other people inside their base.

4. Gets kicked.

In short. No.

I agree more people need to do the marking thing though.

 

The same way the anti-collapse feature works, it's based on the block's distance to base.

And instead of "< 0" you could say "< -1000" or whatever amount seems reasonable to be a griefer and not a legit player.

Thanks!

 

This is a very loosely planned out and reckless way of dealing with griefers. I think most of us already know it would never be added, and I understand your frustration toward griefing, but yeah...

There are many different ways to grief, and someone will always find a new way to do so. Making code that tries to determine whether or not someone is breaking the "rules" is a pretty terrifying thought if you ask me.
It's up to the community to get rid of these people.

On a side note, games that are free are subject to rampant griefing and that's just something you have to deal with. Gold servers (servers you can only play on if you've purchased the game) were originally thought up as an anti griefing measure. The thought being that someone would not repeatedly pay $X to have themselves banned and their account deleted.

 

Loosely planned out? I'm just spitballing. That's the idea. But ok, forget it then.

 

i dont think the blocks have so much information in this engine. servers would be lagging like hell.

 

Yeah, nice assumption.

Except, they do.

Each block has a type value obviously, a variable for its state (level of damage/wear), an array position (x, y), a variable for whether it's a red block or blue block (doors, drawbridges, etc)..

Yeah, but let's all just assume it's not possible, that's easier right?

 

no you get me wrong... i somewhere have seen a topic about that and there was the discussion about how much information a block can have =) there is a certain limit to that but you should ask geti or mm =)

 

No, I get you. You said, "i dont think the blocks have so much information in this engine. servers would be lagging like hell."

Did you know there is already an anti-collapse feature to prevent griefing? So apparently there is enough "information" to do that and it doesn't cause lag.

 

anticollapse is around the tent... its a areainfo not a blockinfo

 

what is your point? oh wait, you don't have one, nvm

 

As I said, there is already an anti-collapse/anti-griefing feature in the current engine. When you try to break a block that causes a collapse on your team's structures it is prevented. How that's done, whether by one variable or more, is irrelevant, the point is it already works. So it's not an issue as far as the potential functionality of pseudo-code in the original post.

But I've come to the wrong place for constructive feedback on this issue. I guess people like to focus on why something can't be done, rather than find a way to improve things. Shame.

 

i'm searching the topic for you willyboy, now of shadlingtons post I am sure this was already discussed. my point was with my previous post there is no such thing like antigrief per block = no info per block.


And it doesnt work well because most of the time it can prevent both teams to destroy an area. Also worker cant change bad placed blocks often because of this. its kinda weird

 

Willy: Not without flaws, you can't collapse a skybridge built by your enemy if you captured a nearby outpost there, and sometimes some buildings are designed to be stupid or block people, so collapsing them is the best option.

 

Sorry but thats not true, we were trying to say that there was already somewhere a discussion from the devs about your question
and shadlington did answer you that because of such features they're rewriting the whole engine.

that is a "short and constructive" answer for me