Griefers can go unpunished in this game.

Ehm. Isn't kicking them as they join a server just like a perma ban? It's just the same, since as long as they're blacklisted (permanently) they will not join the server. Now, why use auto-kick instead of perma-ban? Because perma-ban doesn't exist and auto-kicking can be simulated with a 'bot', thus fixing our problems hopefully without annoying the devs about it. Ta-Da!

Also, the command that the 'bot' uses should take a few seconds to change (from kick to ban) if you really insist upon it, although it's probably just for one week.

Perhaps I should try hosting a server and look around for its files/logs so as to understand how it works and test the auto-kicking on myself hehe.

 

It seems you are a little bit confused. Yes, perma banning does very well exist. Adding bots to kick people who're on a blacklist (which btw already exists and prohibits them from joining anyway) just sucks up more resources (like CPU and that shiz). Also, it's just unneccessary effort to add something that's totally not needed.

Why would you want to have someone kicked every time they join instead of just not allowing them to join at all? What is the advantage of something like a kick bot compared to bans?

 

Offtopic: Thanks for giving me some information on this kind of stuff

Well, let's consider perma-ban (not allowing them to join at all) = auto-kick (have someone kicked every time they join), since it's nearly the same thing. So, why would I prefer bots that auto-kick instead of admins that use the ban command (which isn't permanent, that being the big problem over here)?

Firstly, because requiring admins to handle the server won't work all the time (imagine that you'd require at least one admin on the server 24/7), when one single bot per server would do it all the time with no trouble.

Secondly, because at the point between two consecutive bans (he gets banned for 1 week, comes again and griefs for some hours - one day and gets banned again) he will be free to do anything. This will be fixed by having the admins to ban him once again (probably an IP ban, meaning he could just change it and rejoin the server), which won't perfectly solve the problem. Guess what? The bot is still there, kicking the toxic player out, without even giving him the smallest chance to scratch any block.

Yes, it's true that the bot will add up a little resource consumption, this does the trick rather quickly and besides, checking one row in the log (which mostly likely happens while the map's already loaded, only having joining/leaving players there) shouldn't take really much time. It's true that there's some moments (like map loading) when the rows flood, but that's fixed by only making the bot active whilst everything's already loaded.

Also, I don't really think this is "totally not needed", because it will make the game be smoother, as a properly coded bot (without bugs) always works better/faster than a human.
(This is similar to a washing machine: instead of having a person to clean the clothes manually, you'd rather have a the washing machine #the bot# to do it all the time, with you only requiring to give it an early set-up #the effort/code#)

 

So it seems that you want it to read through logs to decide who to kick? Well, the thing is, not everyone who for example, collapses stuff is a griefer. The way you'd want that bot to work would mean that it would kick everyone who collapses blocks. Also, those logs aren't accurate at all. A good admin is always better than a bot, because bots can not see the full picture, so to say.

The comparison with the washing machine is interesting, but not really fitting; a washing machine can suck up stuff like socks and they're gone (until you open that thing up and look for em), what I mean is that a bot can easily kick/ban/etc people who have done nothing wrong at all. That's why a bot will never be as good as a (good) admin. Putting people on the blacklist file will have them banned for ever. Same does /rcon /ban <nick> -1. Besides all of that, you even have something called seclevs (security levels). You can set them up in a way which works like a blacklist.

Spoiler

Code:

name = Ban permanently #You can call this whatever you want to call it
users = usernames_go_here; #If you use the admin menu in the game it'll add the names here as well
roles =
commands =
features = deny_join;
assign =

Setting up your seclevs so that you can use this one doesn't even require 5 minutes (if you know what you're doing). So you see, there are already plenty of ways of how you could get rid of bad people. A bot like that could be interesting, but I doubt it would be all too efficient simply because, as I said above, it can't detect if someone who, for example, collapses stuff is a griefer or simply someone who feels like smashing the faces of his enemies by dropping a few blocks on them (this goes for hack warnings as well, you get them even if you mod your server so that e.g. you can mine faster).

 

you are reinventing the wheel right now, just making it square

 

I almost fell off my chair while laughing.


I see there's already what we need. But then, why don't the people just make a topic with "Well-known griefers" (of course, with evidences and stuff) and then have the servers' owners to update their "blacklists" (seclevel files) weekly?
If there's someone who can spare time with managing the topic and players who have the motivation to record the griefers, griefers won't be a real problem anymore, as their names (IPs are changeable, names aren't) would be appear on that topic through editing the first post/stuff.

Apparently, the problem stays in the lack of management or even laziness (the ideal 'permaban' would take a few seconds; managing the topic requests constant updating), rather than not having more punishing bans.

(In fact, the "bot" I was thinking at was suppoused to do the same thing (verifying some lists), not checking collapses or anything complicated. Nevermind about it)

 

I'm not exactly a fan of the votekick system either. One case was when I was playing on the Roleplay Colonization server, and I was building a base with my fellow Humans. Then, these Dwarves came, and destroyed our base multiple times! We kicked them, then 5 seconds later, they were back on with the same profile! Then this Demon comes and starts destroying our base again! The votekick ban needs to be maybe half an hour-1 day ban or something. I'm sick of making something, having it griefed, kicking the griefer, and then rebuilding it, and then having it griefed again! Also, with all of the problems with Steam and the kick/ban system, I'm starting to wonder if it would be better to just detach ourselves from Steam. Sure, our playerbase would decrease by 50%, but we won't have the same problems as we used to. And the Steam guys would already know about the game, and they can tell their friends, who can go to the official website.

 

Actually, I think it was maybe early November. Not sure, but I know it was more than two weeks.

 

I don't really think detaching from Steam would be the best idea; not because that's where I came from , but having KAG there increases the amount of players really much (Which is actually what a game developer wants). I mean, if there's a lot of players, there's even more money; if there's money, the developers become more interested in their game, which brings even more bugfixes and more griefers.

 

You seem to be very confused. It's one thing not to read our explanations where we tell you that there's a perma ban, it's another to acknowledge it's existence yourself, and then go on to contradict yourself by saying it doesn't exist.

 

Well, I didn't really mean to contradict myself - I wanted to answer his question ("Why would you want to have someone kicked every time they join instead of just not allowing them to join at all? "). I also used the "consider perma-ban" phrase as if it existed, although I thought it didn't

I somehow read it as "Yes, perma banning doesn't very well exist". Apparently, reading it again helped a lot.


Basically, I usually manage to mess up multiple ideas and it ends up having everyone wonder "What the hell does this guy want/say?". Yeah, nevermind all this fuss.

 

Ultimately, there is no substitute for a competent and active administration team for a server.

It would be nice if you couldn't light kegs within x distance of a friendly tent, though. No more "lololol I'll blow up our own base while everyone's at the front" or "maybe I shouldn't have rested my thumb on my space bar" incidents.

 

On the topic of servers having better moderation, how does this apply to the Official Severs? I haven't seen an admin on those in ages and am currently going to post a hacker report and a grief report later today, of which happened literally minutes between each other. . .

Maybe it is just because I tend to go on the Official US CTF 2 because 1 is always full. . .but yeah. . .Never admins.

 

They ARE running an admin hiring stint in the forums right now. You could always apply there if you haven't already.

 

In one game, a griefer was actively destroying the other team's defenses, building bridges over traps, and opening the way to the flag while mocking his team in chat. Nobody was able to get a votekick to pass. Probably one reason is that the enemy team gets to vote as well, and what's more fun than voting to kick whoever started the vote while letting the griefer run rampant on the other team?

 

Yeah, there really isn't any good reason (that I can think of) for why the enemy team gets to participate in a vote kick.

 

I just mentioned this in my newest lp yesterday. I think that's one of the dumbest parts of votekicking, becauseobvs the enemy team is gonna be like "No don't kick him, we're winning because of him lol" unless they're good, decent sports, and not to quetion people's credibility but most people, especially pubs, are not good sports.

Also, why doesn't the person who's getting votekicked have their name appear in red or blue, depending on their current team? I suppose that would encourage this even more lol.