200: Wanted: Ganked or Alive

[Socken]

There's a thing not totally unlike the Bounty Hunter thing in an MMO I played. Players would be marked with a special skull for a month after a certain amount of unjustified player kills, and they could then be attacked by anyone without punishment. Death would cost them all their gear.

 

[Ruinx]

This article has to be a joke. Allen Varney wrote PARANOIA, for goodness sake. There is no possibility that he is as naive and silly as he portrays himself.

The projected solutions to griefing are kind of hysterical, and seem rather PARANOIA-ish in themselves. But the idea that player-run government will eliminate griefing? That has to be satire/humour, surely? Everything we've ever seen from online communities (which tend towards, with all due respect, being petty-natured, vindictive, clique-y, and generally like the High School from Hell), and from people suddenly handed power, and, if one is even a little cynical, from human nature and history flies directly in the face of that. The Judge Dredd reference, I mean, come on, you're kidding right, Allen? This is all a big a joke at the expense of The Escapist's readership, right, right? With players in charge, the main things we can expect are anyone the leadership dislikes being labelled a "griefer", and genuinely horrid individuals who are "in" with the leadership being given virtually free reign to do what they like.

 

[Unusual_Bulge]

The first few ideas remind me of similar things that were implemented in the Unreal Tournament 2004 mod 'Jailbreak' (I believe there are other versions of Jailbreak mods for other games, but this is the one I'm familiar with).

The basic idea of the game is you've got two teams, and when you kill a player of the opposing team they get put in jail. Players who are still alive battle to release their teammates by standing on a release button in the enemy base, or try to capture the whole enemy team before they get caught themselves.

Now the system was open to griefing. If a player just stood around by the prison door, he could just kill anyone coming out of the prison, were they released. Furthermore, him being free and them being in prison meant he'd have access to powerups and superior weapons, making escapees easy prey.

To get around the issue, the Jailbreak mod implemented essentially the first two ideas here. If a player killed several players just realeased from prison a loud voice would announce 'There's a Llama in the house!' and the offending player would become marked on the maps of everyone on the server (even his own team). Their avatar would change to that of some bizarre bipedal Llama, so there's no missing them. Furthermore, the player would be worth bonus points to the person to take them down. And just to make sure they did go down, the game modified the griefer's view, by having their screen fill with bright white light so they could barely see, and sway in a drunken manner.

It was really quite effective, you'd generally be competing with a number of people to take down the 'Llama'.

In summary; I really wish I was playing Jailbreak right now...

 

[cainx10a]

Seriously just make more carebear servers. Let the pvp servers be no holds barred and have the whiners move to carebear servers.

This. The "Age of Conan" Example is so effing bad, their "outlaw system" just didn't seem to promote PvP, oh and, PvP for level 80s was only in that goddamn Stygian place, Kheshetta or whatever the correct spelling was for that god forsaken brownish reddish uglish outlandish land.

And I have yet to read an article that covers griefing in EVE Online: Band of Brothers demise was certainly at the apex of Griefing in any game.

 

[MorkFromOrk]

There is actually a "Griefer's Hell" already. It's called EVE Online. Unfortunately many people unaware of this fact get sucked into playing the game and end up being grist for the mill.

 

[NoTroll]

a) Alliance newbie is in the starter area, killing trolls. They go to kill one troll, only for that troll to turn around and slaughter them. Little did they realize it was a level 70 player from the Horde, dressed up just like the other mobs. They also don't realize that they have now been PvP flagged for 5 minutes, which means the second they respawn, the griefer will be waiting to take them under again. The PvP flag was put in place to prevent newbies unwittingly being entered into PvP combat, but the mechanics of it leave them quite vulnerable to provocation and scams like this.

This is brilliant!

 

[The Potato Lord]

honestly?, I know griefing can be annoying and might cause a few newbies to quit but is it really that big of a concern? The newbies who quit would just quit later because of some different problem. I think the current system works well, your account gets banned and you need to start over. It works well with the idea of games being a form of escapism, If you're having a crappy day and feel like doing a little newbie killing, should you get a permanent ban from the game from any account? Also, the banning all IPs idea doesn't take into account people living in the same place who both play. Should I be banned because my roommate decided to do a bunch of team-killing? The punishment should fit the crime, and right now it fits about right.

but that's just my opinion.

 

[APVarney]

(((Allen Varney wrote PARANOIA, for goodness sake. There is no possibility that he is as naive and silly as he portrays himself.)))

On the contrary, I really am as incredibly naive and silly as that!

(((the idea that player-run government will eliminate griefing? That has to be satire/humour, surely? Everything we've ever seen from online communities (which tend towards, with all due respect, being petty-natured, vindictive, clique-y, and generally like the High School from Hell), and from people suddenly handed power, and, if one is even a little cynical, from human nature and history flies directly in the face of that.)))

The player-run government idea isn't for kids' games, or even teenagers; I've read "Lord of the Flies." But for the many MMOs with an older audience, I suggest the vindictive cliquishness may subside under the weight of genuine responsibility. We see that in, for instance, juries. A group of twelve people handed life-or-death power usually seems to buckle down and try to do a good job.

History shows -- well, history shows a lot of examples of everything. There are examples that show people in power will try to keep their constituents reasonably happy, so as to remain in power. This does require close, continuous contact between governors and governed, and I think MMOs can excel at that.

(((you're kidding right, Allen? This is all a big a joke at the expense of The Escapist's readership, right, right? With players in charge, the main things we can expect are anyone the leadership dislikes being labelled a "griefer", and genuinely horrid individuals who are "in" with the leadership being given virtually free rein to do what they like.)))

I intended it all seriously, albeit speculative and possible only in the medium-distant future. "Players in charge" doesn't necessarily equal "absolute dictatorship." There are many possible systems of government. I suggest once there is a workable identity system and virtual environments that are authentically under player control (as opposed to the total authority of a commercial MMO operator), it is worth exploring different system of player governance.

 

[APVarney]

(((It works well with the idea of games being a form of escapism, If you're having a crappy day and feel like doing a little newbie-killing, should you get a permanent ban from the game from any account?)))

I personally say yes, you should, and I expect the newbies you kill would agree with me. If games are escapism, then what gives you the right to ruin someone else's escape?

I had mail about this article from an actual no-kidding sociopathic griefer, who called me a "carebear" and meant it to sting. He said, "Players like you are killing games for me. Casual, as you are, is killing hardcore, as I am." He sounded like a hunter aggrieved at federal protection of endangered species. No, wait, now that I think on it, he sounded like a gun owner aggravated at the idea of gun control. I wonder if the player government debate will eventually look like the gun debate?

 

[BoredKellon]

Open pvp, best anti-griefer. What better way to get rid of a griefer then to kill him? Also promotes players to take the path of pk over that of a traditional griefer, something that can serve to enhance the gameplay experience by adding a sense of risk and danger. With a proper alignment/flagging system pks can be controlled to the point where they are forced to inhabit the more remote and dangerous areas, and allows for players to know who they are and even hunt them down.

 

[Masochistic Existentialist]

(((It works well with the idea of games being a form of escapism, If you're having a crappy day and feel like doing a little newbie-killing, should you get a permanent ban from the game from any account?)))

I personally say yes, you should, and I expect the newbies you kill would agree with me. If games are escapism, then what gives you the right to ruin someone else's escape?

I had mail about this article from an actual no-kidding sociopathic griefer, who called me a "carebear" and meant it to sting. He said, "Players like you are killing games for me. Casual, as you are, is killing hardcore, as I am." He sounded like a hunter aggrieved at federal protection of endangered species. No, wait, now that I think on it, he sounded like a gun owner aggravated at the idea of gun control. I wonder if the player government debate will eventually look like the gun debate?

I feel like I'm being griefed over the internet by someone who wants to talk behind my back and make assumptions about my mental health. It's comical, it really is. After enduring your rude nature I called you a carebear in response to this:

(((I once talked to a player in EVE who said any "non-consensual"
PvP was griefing. You would be suprised as to how many times players
believe this to be the truth. This thought brings me to this
conclusion, griefing is necessary. Call it a stupid tax.)))

...I will waste a minute or so of my life to inform you,
doubtless uselessly, that you are wrong and the other player is
correct -- non-consensual PvP is indeed griefing. The "stupidity tax"
argument is a classic griefer rationale intended to justify random
cruelty to strangers. From the tone of your note, it's clear you
derive a feeling of superiority from this random cruelty, which is one
mark of the sociopath. Just so you know.

-Alan Varney

The truth is, you have no idea about me or my life. You continue to attack me personally. I make an argument and you not only don't respond to it properly you then attack me personally. When I call you a carebear, I'm not making a comment on your mental health. When you call me a sociopath, you are making a comment on mine.

It is funny it really is, but whatever. People make assumptions all of the time it doesn't mean they're correct. I would like for you to read this article Alan, one of your fellow writers made an excellent article to explain to you things better than I can, and carry many of the same ideas that I proposed to you in our short correspondence.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/6047-Griefmonkeys

I will leave this in closing, if you roll on a PvP server and then say any and all pvp you encounter is not "consensual" then you are wrong.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

I feel like I'm being griefed over the internet by someone who wants to talk behind my back and make assumptions about my mental health.

Normally I try to give new guys a break here, but I have to take issue with that line... your entire post earlier was a defense of griefing, but in this you take exception to "being griefed over the internet". Sorry, kiddo, but you can't have it both ways; if griefing's okay you need to suck it up when you think you're on the receiving end too, and if it's not okay then you shouldn't be dishing it out. Pick one.

I think what's really sad about how widespread griefing has become is how the concept of "fair play" has been perverted into "all's fair for me" with anyone objecting becoming a "carebear". It's like watching two year olds in a sandbox, these days.

-- Steve

 

[Masochistic Existentialist]

I feel like I'm being griefed over the internet by someone who wants to talk behind my back and make assumptions about my mental health.

Normally I try to give new guys a break here, but I have to take issue with that line... your entire post earlier was a defense of griefing, but in this you take exception to "being griefed over the internet". Sorry, kiddo, but you can't have it both ways; if griefing's okay you need to suck it up when you think you're on the receiving end too, and if it's not okay then you shouldn't be dishing it out. Pick one.

I think what's really sad about how widespread griefing has become is how the concept of "fair play" has been perverted into "all's fair for me" with anyone objecting becoming a "carebear". It's like watching two year olds in a sandbox, these days.

-- Steve

Depends on the objection. If you are talking about circulating black lists of griefers in on-line games then yeah, that's a bit overboard.

I agree with you, this is my stupid tax. I am being griefed and I keep trying to win but there really is no possible win in this situation for me. Allen isn't going to change his mind, and I'm really not getting my point across to anyone.

So, Steve, I agree. I am out. Thanks for the post.

 

[olicon]

You know how to make a griefer truly useful? Use them as world boss. Once a relatively advance chain of quests has been completed (to test their competence), the greifer's avatar is transformed a world raid boss (to borrow WoW's terminology). He is confined to within a specific area. The result? Limiting the place that a greifer can be to outside of low level area, and other players get to fight a cunning raid boss. No more special attack every 30 seconds, but rather extremely unpredictable fight. Of course some special control must be put in place to prevent exploits.

Now everyone's happy. The greifer gets his almighty avatar, dev gets ever changing content, and other player gets an ever evolving raid.

 

[Enou]

About the server presenting false information to a character so he's tricked into battles he cant win...

*This is not just about WoW, but stretches to most of the online games I've played*

My best character in WoW is very high percentile, and there are very few people roaming the world that could take me 1v1 (this is to say, not in battlegrounds, where everything is fairly balanced, but in the open world), so if I put my mind to it, no matter what the server throws at me, I can cope, and griefers are the ones that spend a fortune maxxing out their character to be unbeatable in pvp (see Aion level 35 rifters, or some other obscure mmo class-builds) so even if the server says what they are going to kill is weaker, it would hardly impact how a greifer plays.

 

[APVarney]

griefers are the ones that spend a fortune maxxing out their character to be unbeatable in pvp [...] so even if the server says what they are going to kill is weaker, it would hardly impact how a griefer plays.

But the griefer would face a more formidable opponent than he expected, and at least theoretically could face defeat. This reduces the possibility of sadistic gratification that is the whole motive for griefing.

 

[mythgraven]

You know how to make a griefer truly useful? Use them as world boss. Once a relatively advance chain of quests has been completed (to test their competence), the greifer's avatar is transformed a world raid boss (to borrow WoW's terminology). He is confined to within a specific area. The result? Limiting the place that a greifer can be to outside of low level area, and other players get to fight a cunning raid boss. No more special attack every 30 seconds, but rather extremely unpredictable fight. Of course some special control must be put in place to prevent exploits.

Now everyone's happy. The greifer gets his almighty avatar, dev gets ever changing content, and other player gets an ever evolving raid.

Thatd be very interesting to see.


The issue with this article is that we are all operating off of the assumption that griefers are doing these things for any reason other than to annoy people. Yes, ego falls into there sometimes, but more often, its simply a desire to be a butthead. Its why some people snap bra straps, or light bags of poo on fire. Some people just like being assholes.

The above suggestion is a good one... but to be honest? I think a better one would be that in-game, you have the option to ignore people. If I ignore you, regardless of whether or not we share a PvP server, then you cease to exist for me, period. NPC's that you 'kill' remain alive on my side. Auction House posts that you have, I cant see. You are now incapable of interfacing with me, whatsoever.

And make the ban apply to the account that was filed under. No matter how many alts churn out, I never see a single one, until I decide to un-ignore you. I starve you of the attention you want, and I only interact with people whom are new to me, and people whom I have found honorable combat/good friendship with.


Sure... its a little extreme... a little anti-social, from an MMO standpoint... But isnt that exactly what we want these days? MMO's have evolved... As a whole, dev's will tout their "communities"... but the players control those. And anti-social is how we do things these days... No matter which MMO you play.



Whiskey Echo!!
Mythgraven

 

[olicon]

...

Now that's a blast from the past.
While back when this thread was new, I would probably have said such thing is technically impossible.
Then comes WoW's phasing, and account-wide friend list/items/etc.
I don't know if personalized phasing will still be too taxing on the server or not, but I think we've seen a glimpse of the future, and it will be here sooner than we think.

 

[Neural.Rust]

A fair few of these sugestions were implimented in Ultima ONline, it had a jailing system and the PK system red names and titles etc.. "Dreadlord" the second these red flagged players entered a townthe guards would destroy them. alot of the free shards had sifferent variations on tje rules depending on the style of server etc..

edit: just noticed how old thispost is... why the hell did it show in recent topics