Or you know, you could just play the game and see how things turn out. There was already a poll on the number of people who would intentionally go out and destroy things for fun, steal because they need stuff and those who would be pacifists. Guess what, there were more pacifists than anything else.
I don't think any of you "live in a bubble" types have anything big to worry about.
God damn... Just... God dammit. The point of this thread is recognizing what a griefer is in the first place. It's in the title. Look, I'll even quote it for you:
Quote from dugtodeep »
Separating "griefing" from "PvP" in SMP
I know the minecraft fora aren't really known for meaningful debates, but you're failing at basic reading comprehension. At what point is player killing and stealing no longer a valid action in game terms and becomes meta enough to be considered griefing? This thread isn't about how you deal with them. That's up to the admin. It's about figuring out how to make actions that are detrimental to other players justifiable in the game's context.
Also, spawn jails would be redundant in survival. It takes TIME to cause damage, just making a crappy stone sword takes about a minute.
I don't understand why everyone thinks that the "griefer" will somehow instantaneously know where the other players will be the very second they join the server. They would most likely have to do some serious searching before they found at least one person. They could be in some anonymous cave, deep underground or several miles in the opposite direction in a tiny house hidden behind a hill.
You're assuming that signs of player habitation won't be obvious in most cases, it's not hard to stand on a hill and notice large clusters of torches or deforested areas. Or massive towers. I seriously doubt that every player is going to turtle underground in a super secret base just for security reasons, eventually someone is going to want to build aboveground. What fun would that be?
You can't see very far even on a hill in comparison to how big the map actually is. You're assuming people will settle a 5 minute walk away from their spawn. The smart thing to do is settle 30 minutes away where it'd take hours for a griefer to discover.
Do you think that griefers would really go that far by paying 13$ out of their pocket to make a bunch of spambots? Really?
People pay $60 to use aimbots in FPS's.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Survival" is a film/literature/video game genre about survival and self-sufficiency in the wild.
"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase used to paraphrase natural selection.
The primary problem is that you can't use cold hard maths to determine if something is griefing or valid gaming. It's far to abstracted to be a clear cut "this is griefing" and "this isn't". What I tell my mods to do is to evaluate cases of "griefing" on a case-to-case basis. Evaluate it from both points of view and punish as appropriate.
Targetting players? Griefing.
Stealing stuff? Not griefing unless it falls under the above situation.
Harassing players without killing or stealing? Griefing.
That's about as cold as it can get, but at what point do you consider it targeting? 1 kill, 2 kills, 3, 4, 5?
You can't apply maths here because there are so many context-based variables. If the players were having a war then an automatic system wouldn't pick up on it because it's "meta-gaming" and thus would probably kick/ban one of the players for "targetting" even though it was an agreed war.
So, to answer the original question, to separate griefing from PvP, you have to BE THERE and EVALUATE THE SITUATION ON A CASE-TO-CASE BASIS and then obviously the decision rests in the OP's hands. One might declare that blowing a wall in the fortress was griefing another might suggest that it was fair play and you have to just suck it up.
I don't understand why everyone thinks that the "griefer" will somehow instantaneously know where the other players will be the very second they join the server. They would most likely have to do some serious searching before they found at least one person. They could be in some anonymous cave, deep underground or several miles in the opposite direction in a tiny house hidden behind a hill.
You're assuming that signs of player habitation won't be obvious in most cases, it's not hard to stand on a hill and notice large clusters of torches or deforested areas. Or massive towers. I seriously doubt that every player is going to turtle underground in a super secret base just for security reasons, eventually someone is going to want to build aboveground. What fun would that be?
You can't see very far even on a hill in comparison to how big the map actually is. You're assuming people will settle a 5 minute walk away from their spawn. The smart thing to do is settle 30 minutes away where it'd take hours for a griefer to discover.
True. A lot of players may prefer an isolated location, but I think interaction is probably the defining feature of multiplayer. I guess there's nothing to stop people from making an entire village way out back though...
I don't know how much of a problem griefers will be or if they'll even be that many. I don't know or care about that, but it's enough of a concern to a lot of players that I thought I would start a thread for a good way of defining what a griefer is in the first place, and I maintain that a griefer is just someone you can't cause as much damage to as they cause to you. If a player steals your stuff, they should have stuff to steal as well. If they blow up your base, they should also have a base you can blow up. In a creative server this would be called griefing, since, well, it's just virtual legos, but if it's okay to murder people in survival it's sure as hell okay to vandalize - if the server allows it of course. The point is that they should have something of value so you can do the same things to them, there's consequences to doing those things.
Quote from Zuriki »
The primary problem is that you can't use cold hard maths to determine if something is griefing or valid gaming. It's far to abstracted to be a clear cut "this is griefing" and "this isn't". What I tell my mods to do is to evaluate cases of "griefing" on a case-to-case basis. Evaluate it from both points of view and punish as appropriate.
Targetting players? Griefing.
Stealing stuff? Not griefing unless it falls under the above situation.
Harassing players without killing or stealing? Griefing.
That's about as cold as it can get, but at what point do you consider it targeting? 1 kill, 2 kills, 3, 4, 5?
You can't apply maths here because there are so many context-based variables. If the players were having a war then an automatic system wouldn't pick up on it because it's "meta-gaming" and thus would probably kick/ban one of the players for "targetting" even though it was an agreed war.
So, to answer the original question, to separate griefing from PvP, you have to BE THERE and EVALUATE THE SITUATION ON A CASE-TO-CASE BASIS and then obviously the decision rests in the OP's hands. One might declare that blowing a wall in the fortress was griefing another might suggest that it was fair play and you have to just suck it up.
No, I agree. Most games with PvP have a set of rules for defining harassment. If you're just being a jerk to everyone then you'll get unpopular pretty fast and people aren't going to welcome the sight of you, but if you're just annoying a single player who has never taken initiative on you it's harassment. That would probably be the most notable exception to this rule. Insults and verbal attacks would also fall under harassment unless you're roleplaying. That's just too meta.
The way I see it, if a player performs an offensive action on you, you should have the right to kill them or perform a similar action on them in retaliation, however, this does not give them the right to retaliate back. After all, they started it, they deserve whatever revenge is exacted on them.
Also, I never said anything about an automated system. That's sort of complicated. Players should be able to voice their grievances to an admin. The admin should have the final say in what's griefing and what isn't, and the offending player could get a warning.
Are you suggesting that people walk in a straight line for 30 minutes before they can safely play the game?
That is incredibly boring.
A 30 minute walk to find the perfect place to permanently settle down isn't bad at all.
You're right, it's not bad, it's horrendous.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Survival" is a film/literature/video game genre about survival and self-sufficiency in the wild.
"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase used to paraphrase natural selection.
I don't understand why everyone thinks that the "griefer" will somehow instantaneously know where the other players will be the very second they join the server. They would most likely have to do some serious searching before they found at least one person. They could be in some anonymous cave, deep underground or several miles in the opposite direction in a tiny house hidden behind a hill.
You're assuming that signs of player habitation won't be obvious in most cases, it's not hard to stand on a hill and notice large clusters of torches or deforested areas. Or massive towers. I seriously doubt that every player is going to turtle underground in a super secret base just for security reasons, eventually someone is going to want to build aboveground. What fun would that be?
Good point. Personally, I'm just not used to building homes in Survival since I'm always moving around, so I often don't envision lots of buildings along the landscape.
Still, the players could be in any cavern gathering ore or something. There wouldn't be much to do just sitting about in their house most of the time. Again, I'm making assumptions, but until Multiplayer arrives and we see how it works out, I think people are just being a bit too paranoid about "griefers" being able to instantly detect exactly where they are.
I think real greifing is going to be intertwined with PvP. It's just that the greifer is going to think it's fair and the victim will shout greifing, I don't really see a way around that.
As long as they've established a presence on the server and have something to lose, you can *always* do something about "griefing." Even if you're too weak to take them on by yourself, you can team up with a friend and take them out, put a bounty on their head. I think I also mentioned that orgs could offer protection to their members and keep an eye out for each other... Getting blacklisted by a militant org =/= good.
The admin should have the final say in what's griefing and what isn't, and the offending player could get a warning.
Thus rendering the entire discussion moot because in the end, it's down to the individual and nothing anyone else says matters.
No. That statement does not naturally follow. You're saying 4 + 4 = 5. That's for dealing with exceptions when they arise such as harassment (probably not often), the admin will use the basic guidelines most of the time. Did the player attack first while on probation? Then they're a griefer. If not, it's just PvP. It's stupidly simple, and VERY clear. This system is very open, as long as it's not meta anything goes. Total anarchy. I'm not even sure where you got that, you're either misinterpreting me or just twisting what I say into what you want to hear.
I think we are distracting ourselves from the real problem: that destroying and stealing are easier than building and mining. It's not so much griefers that are a problem, because in many cases, they will be indistinguishable from legit invaders. The problem is it's too easy and too rewarding to attack, which encourages griefing-like behaviour. I think the best way to deal with griefers is the same way with any other hostile player, and that is by simply killing them on sight or chasing them out. Trying to sort these things out on a case by case basis would be difficult.
The admin should have the final say in what's griefing and what isn't, and the offending player could get a warning.
Thus rendering the entire discussion moot because in the end, it's down to the individual and nothing anyone else says matters.
No. That statement does not naturally follow. You're saying 4 + 4 = 5. That's for dealing with exceptions when they arise such as harassment (probably not often), the admin will use the basic guidelines most of the time. Did the player attack first while on probation? Then they're a griefer. If not, it's just PvP. It's stupidly simple, and VERY clear. This system is very open, as long as it's not meta anything goes. Total anarchy. I'm not even sure where you got that, you're either misinterpreting me or just twisting what I say into what you want to hear.
I actually agree with Zuriki... I think that no matter what happens, the admins on the server will always be forced to look at the situation and decide on what the consequences should be. Sure, there might be some guidelines for what they should do in such and such a situation, but when it comes down to it, the admin still needs to look at the situation and decide what to do. Maybe some servers will be run differently, and they have an extremely long, strict set of rules that lays down every situation, but most admins will still need consider things separately, no matter what.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Neodymius »
Quote from ZarroTsu »
Quote from Zruku »
If someone makes a large castle/building/whatever completely out of flammable materials they DESERVE to be killed, robbed, or "griefed".
when isntide the flag aera you dont die and you cant be attacced but u can attac other peropl e so and nuthing can br destroyed in the aera because tHTAT SN NO FUN ONLY DUMBASS GRIEFERS ATTACK BASES and ill BAN ANYWONE WHO GREIFS IN ANY SErVER RAWRWAWARWRWARWR
Do you think that griefers would really go that far by paying 13$ out of their pocket to make a bunch of spambots? Really?
People pay $60 to use aimbots in FPS's.
well the ppl that do that are usually going to gain something with that aimbot (real quick EXP, game money to buy guns ETC...) whereas a griefer in SMP is going to get a quick laugh. but why grief to get a good laugh for 20$ when u can watch chris rock on youtube for free?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
put your hands in the air and scream **** THE WORLD!!!
IMO SMP griefing is/isnt ---
1) Harassing -
1a) Killing someone a million times - That is how some people play the game, and if you want to get revenge, kill him... if hes camping by the spawn point, do as much damage as you can, die, respawn, so forth until he dies. And when he dies, you can grab his weapons and run.....
1b) Destroying everything you build - Hit him once, if he does not understand, and continues, hit him again, repeat until he dies, or attacks back
1c) Harassing VIA chat - THIS is the closest kind of griefing possible in the harassing section, and this person should be banned from the server...
2) Ganking (A large group vrs 1 person) - if this group is aiming for one person, and one person only, and is unkillable, and is camping by the spawn point, then they should be warned/kicked/banned (In that order :tongue.gif:) If it is a group patrolling a large area, and is killing anyone in the way, role-play and say it is some dark group, trained by Hades to kill everyone in their path, and offer their souls to him.....
3) Suicide-bombing a huge town - Its very resource draining on both sides, so this is technically fair.....
-Simple answers-
PvP - Not Griefing
Being a retarded 7-14 year old - Griefing
(I have nothing against them, its just that the majority of the 7-14 year olds that I know.....)
I don't think any of you "live in a bubble" types have anything big to worry about.
God damn... Just... God dammit. The point of this thread is recognizing what a griefer is in the first place. It's in the title. Look, I'll even quote it for you:
I know the minecraft fora aren't really known for meaningful debates, but you're failing at basic reading comprehension. At what point is player killing and stealing no longer a valid action in game terms and becomes meta enough to be considered griefing? This thread isn't about how you deal with them. That's up to the admin. It's about figuring out how to make actions that are detrimental to other players justifiable in the game's context.
Also, spawn jails would be redundant in survival. It takes TIME to cause damage, just making a crappy stone sword takes about a minute.
You can't see very far even on a hill in comparison to how big the map actually is. You're assuming people will settle a 5 minute walk away from their spawn. The smart thing to do is settle 30 minutes away where it'd take hours for a griefer to discover.
People pay $60 to use aimbots in FPS's.
"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase used to paraphrase natural selection.
Targetting players? Griefing.
Stealing stuff? Not griefing unless it falls under the above situation.
Harassing players without killing or stealing? Griefing.
That's about as cold as it can get, but at what point do you consider it targeting? 1 kill, 2 kills, 3, 4, 5?
You can't apply maths here because there are so many context-based variables. If the players were having a war then an automatic system wouldn't pick up on it because it's "meta-gaming" and thus would probably kick/ban one of the players for "targetting" even though it was an agreed war.
So, to answer the original question, to separate griefing from PvP, you have to BE THERE and EVALUATE THE SITUATION ON A CASE-TO-CASE BASIS and then obviously the decision rests in the OP's hands. One might declare that blowing a wall in the fortress was griefing another might suggest that it was fair play and you have to just suck it up.
A 30 minute walk to find the perfect place to permanently settle down isn't bad at all.
True. A lot of players may prefer an isolated location, but I think interaction is probably the defining feature of multiplayer. I guess there's nothing to stop people from making an entire village way out back though...
I don't know how much of a problem griefers will be or if they'll even be that many. I don't know or care about that, but it's enough of a concern to a lot of players that I thought I would start a thread for a good way of defining what a griefer is in the first place, and I maintain that a griefer is just someone you can't cause as much damage to as they cause to you. If a player steals your stuff, they should have stuff to steal as well. If they blow up your base, they should also have a base you can blow up. In a creative server this would be called griefing, since, well, it's just virtual legos, but if it's okay to murder people in survival it's sure as hell okay to vandalize - if the server allows it of course. The point is that they should have something of value so you can do the same things to them, there's consequences to doing those things.
No, I agree. Most games with PvP have a set of rules for defining harassment. If you're just being a jerk to everyone then you'll get unpopular pretty fast and people aren't going to welcome the sight of you, but if you're just annoying a single player who has never taken initiative on you it's harassment. That would probably be the most notable exception to this rule. Insults and verbal attacks would also fall under harassment unless you're roleplaying. That's just too meta.
The way I see it, if a player performs an offensive action on you, you should have the right to kill them or perform a similar action on them in retaliation, however, this does not give them the right to retaliate back. After all, they started it, they deserve whatever revenge is exacted on them.
Also, I never said anything about an automated system. That's sort of complicated. Players should be able to voice their grievances to an admin. The admin should have the final say in what's griefing and what isn't, and the offending player could get a warning.
You're right, it's not bad, it's horrendous.
"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase used to paraphrase natural selection.
Good point. Personally, I'm just not used to building homes in Survival since I'm always moving around, so I often don't envision lots of buildings along the landscape.
Still, the players could be in any cavern gathering ore or something. There wouldn't be much to do just sitting about in their house most of the time. Again, I'm making assumptions, but until Multiplayer arrives and we see how it works out, I think people are just being a bit too paranoid about "griefers" being able to instantly detect exactly where they are.
Thus rendering the entire discussion moot because in the end, it's down to the individual and nothing anyone else says matters.
Grey for attacking a non-criminal/non-aggressor player.
Red for murdering four non-criminal/non-aggressor players (down from UO's 7).
But most servers will be for sissy-baby Trammies and won't need such a system.
No. That statement does not naturally follow. You're saying 4 + 4 = 5. That's for dealing with exceptions when they arise such as harassment (probably not often), the admin will use the basic guideline
smost of the time. Did the player attack first while on probation? Then they're a griefer. If not, it's just PvP. It's stupidly simple, and VERY clear. This system is very open, as long as it's not meta anything goes. Total anarchy. I'm not even sure where you got that, you're either misinterpreting me or just twisting what I say into what you want to hear.I actually agree with Zuriki... I think that no matter what happens, the admins on the server will always be forced to look at the situation and decide on what the consequences should be. Sure, there might be some guidelines for what they should do in such and such a situation, but when it comes down to it, the admin still needs to look at the situation and decide what to do. Maybe some servers will be run differently, and they have an extremely long, strict set of rules that lays down every situation, but most admins will still need consider things separately, no matter what.
when isntide the flag aera you dont die and you cant be attacced but u can attac other peropl e so and nuthing can br destroyed in the aera because tHTAT SN NO FUN ONLY DUMBASS GRIEFERS ATTACK BASES and ill BAN ANYWONE WHO GREIFS IN ANY SErVER RAWRWAWARWRWARWR
[/stupidity]
well the ppl that do that are usually going to gain something with that aimbot (real quick EXP, game money to buy guns ETC...) whereas a griefer in SMP is going to get a quick laugh. but why grief to get a good laugh for 20$ when u can watch chris rock on youtube for free?
put your hands in the air and scream **** THE WORLD!!!
1) Harassing -
1a) Killing someone a million times - That is how some people play the game, and if you want to get revenge, kill him... if hes camping by the spawn point, do as much damage as you can, die, respawn, so forth until he dies. And when he dies, you can grab his weapons and run.....
1b) Destroying everything you build - Hit him once, if he does not understand, and continues, hit him again, repeat until he dies, or attacks back
1c) Harassing VIA chat - THIS is the closest kind of griefing possible in the harassing section, and this person should be banned from the server...
2) Ganking (A large group vrs 1 person) - if this group is aiming for one person, and one person only, and is unkillable, and is camping by the spawn point, then they should be warned/kicked/banned (In that order :tongue.gif:) If it is a group patrolling a large area, and is killing anyone in the way, role-play and say it is some dark group, trained by Hades to kill everyone in their path, and offer their souls to him.....
3) Suicide-bombing a huge town - Its very resource draining on both sides, so this is technically fair.....
-Simple answers-
PvP - Not Griefing
Being a retarded 7-14 year old - Griefing
(I have nothing against them, its just that the majority of the 7-14 year olds that I know.....)