1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hey Guest, is it this your first time on the forums?

    Visit the Beginner's Box

    Introduce yourself, read some of the ins and outs of the community, access to useful links and information.

    Dismiss Notice

Anti Griefing measures

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by PainPopsicle, Jul 8, 2011.

  1. PainPopsicle

    PainPopsicle Guest

    Griefing is ruining the game experience. Votekick is not effective to stop it.

    My ideas are those:
    - Background blocks must be indestructible for players of the same team that built them. The same for doors, and as a rule of thumb, anything that is a support and isn't solid should only be destroyed by the enemy.
    - Bombs should not harm friendly constructions. Edited: Bomb should be provided as 1 per spawn / life, to avoid bomb spam.
    - Spikes should cost a lot more, 50 stone for example. Right now flooding paths with spikes is very cheap and griefer-friendly.


    Obviously everything of above can be toggled in the server config on or off.

    It's not fun planning and building a castle for 30 mins, and get it runed in seconds by griefers. It's not fun wasting time mining mats just for seing the whole thing go down by some jerks.


    [​IMG]

    Edited: Just to clarify my post to anyone else I put the image in top post.
     
  2. hansel

    hansel Shopkeep Stealer

    Messages:
    94
    Griefers would then start building indestructable walls all around the spawn.
     
  3. PainPopsicle

    PainPopsicle Guest

    Then you could kick they. Building stone walls is harder than destroying background tiles. At least they would need to mine.

    Usually the problem is that when the votekick starts the castle is nearly down.
     
  4. Neat

    Neat King of the Dead Donator Tester

    Messages:
    1,958

    Then what? You'd still be stuck in the building.
     
  5. PainPopsicle

    PainPopsicle Guest

    Then you mine the solid wall to freedom while your castle intact.

    read the op, you cant destroy non-solid pillars, so you can destroy stone walls.
     
  6. hansel

    hansel Shopkeep Stealer

    Messages:
    94
    Now that I think of it, I can't see any reason why would I want to destroy a background block that another builder put there. As long as you can destroy needlesly placed walls it should be ok. You could always build a stone block on the background one, and then destroy it, but that's a lot of work for a griefer.

    This might actually be a good idea.

    Edit: You should change the first post to say "support" or "background block" instead of "pillar". This is what confused me before.
     
  7. Krux

    Krux Guest

    I don't like idea to assign a team to Blocks. The fun of kag is that all blocks (except doors) are neutral environment, just the shape defines how helpful they are.
     
  8. PainPopsicle

    PainPopsicle Guest

    I don't like it too, but it's better than have all your constructions raped.
     
  9. hansel

    hansel Shopkeep Stealer

    Messages:
    94
    Oh yeah. I forgot about something. When the enemy takes over your building without destroying it. Then your whole team would be royally boned.

    This idea is unusable after all.
     
  10. Neat

    Neat King of the Dead Donator Tester

    Messages:
    1,958
    Pillars to me meant walls, disregarding whatever "non-solid" means, since backwalls are still "solid" in the fact that they are really walls, just in the background. Also a griefer can then put background walls in an enemy base and then you cannot destroy it. It works both ways. I really don't like this idea.

    However I do like the idea of increasing cost of placing spikes, so long as they can't be destroyed easily by the enemy team, thumbs up for that.
     
  11. PainPopsicle

    PainPopsicle Guest

    sorry for the words that I have chosen. english is not my first language.

    non-solid: you can walk through (background tiles, stairs, doors)
    solid: stops you from moving (drawbridges, stone walls, gold blocks)

    If a "griefer" choses to put backrogund walls on enemy territory... just they destroy them as usual. Where is the trouble?
     
  12. Neat

    Neat King of the Dead Donator Tester

    Messages:
    1,958
    Because the background walls in enemy territory are ones created by your team.. meaning with your idea you can't destroy them.
     
  13. PainPopsicle

    PainPopsicle Guest

    haha, you are a twisted man.

    yes, it may be the case. but its better than have your defenses flattened.

    i hope someone in the other team kills the griefer whenever is viewed!
     
  14. ololo

    ololo Guest

    We should be able to register our blocks.Like in Garry's mod.
     
  15. Nippit

    Nippit Guest

    Completely stopping griefing without serious repercussions for the other players is difficult.

    Perhaps all we can do is to try slow them down. It will giving others more time to repair the damage or spotting them in time so they can be kicked.

    Just lobbing an idea here:

    Increase the time needed to remove a background tile by a lot (longer than normal stone blocks) and remove allied bomb damage to background tiles.
    Now the only other option a griefer has is to place normal blocks on top of the background tiles and then remove those, but this requires him to actually mine stone (unfortunately builders now start with 100 stone during warm up), slowing him down considerably.

    I noticed that I hardly ever remove my own background tiles as a builder, except a single misplaced tile once in a while, so this measure should not harm honest players as much.
     
  16. Sarac112

    Sarac112 Guest

    Disable knight's ability to destroy friendly blocks. That will help a bit.
     
  17. PainPopsicle

    PainPopsicle Guest

    About construction property (allied / enemy):

    Maybe Outposts should mark the property of a construction; the closest outpost marks the property with a non infinite radius (1 screen at middle zoom?). Constructions without property claim should be destructed as usual.

    So enemy captures outpost -> gets the property of the fort / castle, and cares about it.

    Its far from perfect but it's a begining.
     
  18. MM

    MM THD Team THD Team Administrator Global Moderator

    Messages:
    327
    This is a big concern and I am constantly thinking about it.
    Unfortunately none of these ideas are good, I can think of 3 ways of griefing for every option you proposed. I appreciate more brainstorming though!
     
  19. hansel

    hansel Shopkeep Stealer

    Messages:
    94
    Here's an idea. I haven't thought about it much, so it might be full of holes I haven't noticed yet.

    How about keeping track of how much of friendly blocks vs enemy blocks a player has destroyed. If he destroys, for example, 10 times more friendly blocks, he's a possible griefer. Maybe we could make kicking him easier then? Lowering percentage of votes needed, or making an automatic vote.

    Once player accounts are implemented, these stats could be kept permamently. They wouldn't be the most important factor in banning/kicking the fella, but would make it easier/faster to do so.
     
  20. saniblues

    saniblues KAG Guard Tester

    Messages:
    418
    Griefers are a very important part of the game, actually. Debugging is a lot easier when you have a league of griefers finding exploits and gameplay flaws for you.

    It's just that the devs shouldn't go out of their way to stop them unless they make use of exploits. That makes their jobs a lot more stressful.