Okay, Firstl of all, If we add Anti-Griefing programming, Then it will ruin the freedom of Minecraft.
I really enjoy the trap idea, Simply because you can have fun making traps and such.
And ^ To nebbs idea, I don't understand what you are trying to say.
Well I wasn't talking programming, I was talking some way for a base to defend itself. Anyways, in MP survival griefing is harder and arguably doesn't exist but is instead raiding. The tactics are legitimate in it. Clan warfare isn't griefing, for one.
Traps are possible just fine in indev, and with infdev's amount of sand (where there is sand, there's a whole lot more) and a suitable water supply, airlock traps would work just fine. Since your digging rate gets very slow under water, it doesn't take a lot to drown someone. Then you just add in chance, have one "switch" (A torch) open a door (Have a sand door drop down to a sand walkway) and the other flood the room, using multiple vents that seal shut when the room fills. 50/50 shot of drowning, and having to go back to spawn. Things like that. Can still tear up the place, it's not perfect, but for really bad cases of just plain malice, I wouldn't want to have them on my server, and they'd get the ban.
Point being if you make well thought out, and easily resettable traps, it's a one time investment that's probably worth it, depending on the server. A more complex defense system would be nice too though, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying with the tools at hand, you can kill players with their own foolishness.
We're talking about survival here, I very much doubt a Griefer would be much in the mood for tunneling after falling intoa chasm of lava...
I was just playing Killing Floor the other day, and there were 2 players who were blocking the trader.
They stood to gain absolutely nothing. There was absolutely no reason for them to do that, they were screwing over the other 4 players. Yet they persisted, just to annoy people.
People can, and will, throw themselves at defenses until they are down. Even if you do nothing but build defenses the entire time you are logged in, there will be SOME way inside them, if they can place or remove blocks.
Area denial is the only tenable option, everything else will require OPs to do nothing but patrol constantly, and when THEY are offline, there would be no stops in place at all.
(Oh, and as it turns out, I am far far better at griefing than they were. After getting sealed behind a door I welded, both pulled a ragequit. :biggrin.gif: I just don't bother doing it usually.)
Quote from The Real Marenkon »
Okay, Firstl of all, If we add Anti-Griefing programming, Then it will ruin the freedom of Minecraft.
I really enjoy the trap idea, Simply because you can have fun making traps and such.
And ^ To nebbs idea, I don't understand what you are trying to say.
...Ruin the freedom? Please expand that. A persons claim flag would not have infinite range. You could place your own in an unclaimed area, and have complete freedom to do anything you like in your own area.
Unless you mean your "freedom"... to impose your gameplay on others, limiting their freedom instead? That can't mean much else- you want to go to peoples areas, and do things that they don't want you to do.
It's not much of a debate in my opinion. One persons freedom to an area of their own should easily trump anyone else's "freedom" to invade that area and build/destroy against the desires of the earlier claimer. What gives you a right to someones property?
And as an aside: I'd suggest that you stop attempting to understand nebb. It will only lead to headaches and tears.
One persons freedom to an area of their own should easily trump anyone else's "freedom" to invade that area and build/destroy against the desires of the earlier claimer. What gives you a right to someones property?
But this is exactly the kind of freedom we want. The ability to make our own choices and face the consequences. Granted, there will be misunderstandings and border disputes, there will be people devoted to tearing down all of creation and what is beautiful to fulfill a void in what little heart they have remaining.
We, the free peoples of Minecraft, could not and would not tolerate the inherent tyranny imposed by such a system as removes such base moral decisions. For decisions are what make games immersive and fun. Without choices, we would be playing 1984, YOU MAY NOT PLACE A BLOCK! PLACING BLOCKS IS PERMISSIBLE AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN!
LOVE THY CREEPER!
As long as claim flags are capturable, and able to be group owned by clans I'm fine with the idea, it could work as until you capture claimed land from someone you're not aloud to build there. This shouldn't mean you cannot destroy as if a claim flag is completely surrounded on all sides by blocks it would be impossible to capture the area, and impossible isn't something we want now is it?
Also if your server is having night griefer problems when no one is on then DON'T LEAVE YOUR SERVER ON IDIOT!
Smoo: Private servers then. Or guest status. Those aren't people you want on your server as it is. And your assertion that OPs will have to baby sit a server as much as you claim is wearing thin, I suggest that with everything else that I and others has mentions, an OP can do their job. There are already solutions to griefers that work moderately well in creative, and it's so very easy to do in creative. Between applying the same methods and the others, it's enough. Land claim flags DO hurt fairness, because I've yet to hear a fair way to implement them. And I've looked, even though in general I don't like the idea. They're either expensive, have to be owned by groups, too easy to place and far to easy to use as a grief tool, etc. etc. And frankly, you're trying to impose YOUR play style on people who would otherwise not like it, including the people who AREN'T the griefers you're trying to thwart.
On a side note, the very notion that a person can "claim" land on a server someone else owns bugs me. The ultimate right or "claim" lies in the server owner, who actually owns it. That's both a benefit and responsibility. Getting there first isn't some sort of magical right. Single player, creative, private servers. Or host your own. Having OP administered "land claim flags" could be acceptable for special purposes.
(Keep in mind this is me being opposed to claim flags locking block editing to a single player or group, or white list)
It pretty much boils down to this; No system of traps will ever be clever or thorough enough to stop someone who has time on their hands and access to your empty base.
Want a mode where people can create and destroy whatever, whenever?
Last time I checked, Creative Multiplayer fits this bill, and it has walls of paranoia and anti-griefing measures so thick it gets hard to actually enjoy the game. If the game has no built-in anti-griefing measures, they will be implemented by players. I would like to choose. Choose if someone can destroy my stuff while I'm sleeping, mining, or going to the bathroom. Choose if I'd rather not worry that 10 hours of work went down the drain due to the 10 minute efforts of some random guy. Want to make an ingenious trap fort? Take measures so that you don't need the flags to defend your stuff? Then don't put up flags, no one has ever said that they were mandatory.
Smoo: Private servers then. Or guest status. Those aren't people you want on your server as it is. And your assertion that OPs will have to baby sit a server as much as you claim is wearing thin, I suggest that with everything else that I and others has mentions, an OP can do their job. There are already solutions to griefers that work moderately well in creative, and it's so very easy to do in creative. Between applying the same methods and the others, it's enough. Land claim flags DO hurt fairness, because I've yet to hear a fair way to implement them. And I've looked, even though in general I don't like the idea. They're either expensive, have to be owned by groups, too easy to place and far to easy to use as a grief tool, etc. etc. And frankly, you're trying to impose YOUR play style on people who would otherwise not like it, including the people who AREN'T the griefers you're trying to thwart.
On a side note, the very notion that a person can "claim" land on a server someone else owns bugs me. The ultimate right or "claim" lies in the server owner, who actually owns it. That's both a benefit and responsibility. Getting there first isn't some sort of magical right. Single player, creative, private servers. Or host your own. Having OP administered "land claim flags" could be acceptable for special purposes.
(Keep in mind this is me being opposed to claim flags locking block editing to a single player or group, or white list)
Just because you don't like hearing an argument doesn't make it wear thin. A system that requires constant intervention by people (OPs) to work right is a poor system. A system that "works moderately well in creative"? I'd like a system that is better than mediocre, thanks. I would like to remind you that the PRIMARY SYSTEM for creative grief prevention is WALLING OFF THE SPAWN POINT. That's not even an anti-grief system, that is a stop-gap band-aid solution that the players came up with, for a problem that wouldn't go away.
And a properly done land claim flag mechanic is BY DEFINITION a fair system. There are plenty of ways to completely avoid the negatives.
[*:3fyzfn2s]Too expensive- give each player one starter flag to get going, until they mine out some gold or whatever.
[*:3fyzfn2s]Owned by groups- who ever said that? Group ownership should be an option, sure, but not a requirement!
[*:3fyzfn2s]Too easy to place- you're complaining that a system would be easy to use? If you mean easy to over-place, then each player could easily have a max-flag-limit, settable on a server configuration basis. Plus, more flags = more expensive.
[*:3fyzfn2s]Grief tool- I have no idea how it could be. Just place your own flag first, and no other flag would be usable in your area. Though the system would require minor teleport abilities, to keep players from getting stuck inside claim-flagged areas.
Edit>(That, and for PVP and game flags, the ability to teleport to a common flag, play a game, and then teleport back to your claim flag, or from one of your flags to another, would be nice. Especially given that some of these things could be FAR apart, and nobody wants to wait hours for players to show up for a Spleef game.)
And what am I trying to impose on people, exactly? I'm suggesting a system that they could use just as easily as me, to keep me out of their areas, or keep me from breaking their stuff. A system that anyone can use, to keep anyone else from destroying their efforts. That seems fair, to me.
The only people who should have a problem with this system are the ones who want to destroy/steal/burn other peoples work. Those are the people who want to impose- they impose their play style by forcing other players to try and build traps, or guard, or whatever. If they don't, their construction could be destroyed. THAT is what imposing is.
And yes, the server owner has ultimate control. They can turn off the server, delete the map, set player_max_claim_flags to 0, etc. All kinds of stuff. Though, I would like to know exactly what metric(s) you think is fairer than "got there first." Some guy spawns in, walks to a nice location, and places his starter claim flag. Ok, now what gives you or me a "magical right" to take/destroy his stuff?
Sure, a flag should probably require the player to log in, something like once a week, time negotiable. Then, if the player wanders off, the flag fades and the location is up for grabs. Besides, it's not like you can't just walk somewhere else and place your own.
Point 1: Indev/infdev WILL be survival when Notch is done with them
Point 2: It all depends on the server. Learn each rules, choose the one that best fits what you want to play as, or, make your own one.
Point 3: I see it as a little community walled with wood and a fountain in the middle, houses surrounding it. On top of each corner of the wall are players, hired by the community to guard it. Players take shifts, work different jobs, amass armies, conquer other villages, make alliances, protect themselves, etc. It's like a MMO like Envoy or Ikariam, just a shitload more creative and 3d.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Betrayel to the hairless, swedish god!" -Halofannr1
For all the people who think that finding somebody in infinite multiplayer would be hard, I strongly suspect you are underestimating the actual surface area that will be populated, which is orders of magnitude less than the theoretical max. It will not be hours between people.
I have a hybrid system to propose:
Cooperative play should be encouraged, but that doesn't mean everyone has to cooperate with everyone else. The game should be able to support competing groups of people, but not require you to be part of one.
Hence, a group needs to be able to build bases effective against both PCs and NPCs. This does not mean indestructible, but slow enough that it can be countered. However, if every block was this slow, or even every player-created block, the game would merely be tedious. So you need to be able to distinguish when destroying blocks would be slower.
This lead you to the land claim. A person, or a group, can mark an area as theirs. They can assign privileges to people, probablty somethis similar to this: co-owner, trusted, or disallowed. Co-owners have full privileges, and if any of them are logged in they can work with it. Trusted members can build and destroy normally, but a owner must be logged on first. Disallowed would build and destroy much slower. Guild members could either all be co-owners, or merley trusted while guild leadership are owners. This means that a dirt wall still doesn't do much to deter an attacker, but a stone wall would stand for a bit. Enough to make it feasible to respond to the enemy. You can still have traps, and by-passing them be very time consuming, so the owner of the land claim would have time to return and counter-attack if they have a decent fortress.
If all owners of a land claim are logged out, modification of it is not possible, and your creation is safe from random destruction. To prevent people from logging out to protect against legitimate attacks, and people present on the land claim will have a short time period where they can still operate before being locked out.
If you want your area to be open to anybody, you mark it, and set trusted as the default for unspecified people. This prevents other people from claiming the area and blocking you out of it, and if someone starts greifing that area you move them to the disallowed list and they have a much harder time of it.
Land claims would also be non-permament. If no owners log in on that server in some amount of time, then it reverts to open, unclaimed ground. This prevents areas from being cloged with old-unused claims.
Ops would be able to remove land claims, hence helping to curtail blatantanly greifing landclaims.
Servers can also specify variations, such as disallowed have no modifying ability whatsoever, or prohibiting landclaim's altogether.
Disallowed people who are killed on your land claim get locked from it for a long time(hours or days). They cannot harm you on your claim, destroy blocks, place blocks, or pick up resources until this timer finishes. This prevents the repeated suicide greifing attempts, without locking people out of the game altogether.
Implications:
If you want a freindly, cooperative game, you can not use land claims, or use the open version that can counteract greifing.
If you want to primarily build without worrying about people destroying what you have, you chose a server that does not allow others to modify your claim
If you want to work as a group, you either set your freinds as trusted or co-owners.
If you want to play a theif, you have to deal with their fortress as it is. You can't just delete everything in your way, you have to slowly break in, run the guantlets of their traps. If a trap kills you, you can't try to rob that fortress again for a long time, in which time the owner(s) has plenty of time to repair/expand their fortress.
If you want a free for all, go to a server without land claims.
I dislike land-claim flags. Not sure what it is about them, but they seem to not be in the spirit of the game (specifically the survival mode). I think I have an alternative solution.
When you place a block like stone or wood planking, anything of that player-derived type. Not a dirt block.
When you do this, the block should take much longer for other players to destroy it than you. This would require that blocks have a little extra info, saying who placed them, but I think it's worth it. You can still destroy structures created by other players, but it makes castles much more effective. No longer can a player just doze through your walls, but it'll take a WHILE of holding down the mouse button. It limits greifing and makes defences more effective, while removing the necessity of land-claim flags.
Feedback? Like it? Hate it?
Griefers will use this mechanic to grief by building rather than destroying. They'll drop some obsidian in front of your entrances, or surrounding your whole base in cobblestone. They'll drop lava through a hole in your roof. Land claim flags could potentially fix this by strengthening or making your blocks invincible (depends on the server) while preventing others from building in your area. To prevent the claims themselves from becoming a griefing tool, they should not be craftable - everyone gets a limited amount as determined by the server administrators.
Griefers will use this mechanic to grief by building rather than destroying. They'll drop some obsidian in front of your entrances, or surrounding your whole base in cobblestone. They'll drop lava through a hole in your roof. Land claim flags could potentially fix this by strengthening or making your blocks invincible (depends on the server) while preventing others from building in your area. To prevent the claims themselves from becoming a griefing tool, they should not be craftable - everyone gets a limited amount as determined by the server administrators.
This would be a big problem, but another issue with this idea is that it would prevent people working together to build stuff.
Posting "There is a mod for that" is a warnable offence
Suggestions is a place to suggest things to add to the base game. Posting "There is a mod for that" is not only unhelpful it is very off-topic so don't do that.
I dislike land-claim flags. Not sure what it is about them, but they seem to not be in the spirit of the game (specifically the survival mode). I think I have an alternative solution.
When you place a block like stone or wood planking, anything of that player-derived type. Not a dirt block.
When you do this, the block should take much longer for other players to destroy it than you. This would require that blocks have a little extra info, saying who placed them, but I think it's worth it. You can still destroy structures created by other players, but it makes castles much more effective. No longer can a player just doze through your walls, but it'll take a WHILE of holding down the mouse button. It limits greifing and makes defences more effective, while removing the necessity of land-claim flags.
Feedback? Like it? Hate it?
I really enjoy the trap idea, Simply because you can have fun making traps and such.
And ^ To nebbs idea, I don't understand what you are trying to say.
They asked me how well I understood theoretical physics. I told them I had a theoretical degree in physics. They said welcome aboard.
I support this message.
Point being if you make well thought out, and easily resettable traps, it's a one time investment that's probably worth it, depending on the server. A more complex defense system would be nice too though, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying with the tools at hand, you can kill players with their own foolishness.
I was just playing Killing Floor the other day, and there were 2 players who were blocking the trader.
They stood to gain absolutely nothing. There was absolutely no reason for them to do that, they were screwing over the other 4 players. Yet they persisted, just to annoy people.
People can, and will, throw themselves at defenses until they are down. Even if you do nothing but build defenses the entire time you are logged in, there will be SOME way inside them, if they can place or remove blocks.
Area denial is the only tenable option, everything else will require OPs to do nothing but patrol constantly, and when THEY are offline, there would be no stops in place at all.
(Oh, and as it turns out, I am far far better at griefing than they were. After getting sealed behind a door I welded, both pulled a ragequit. :biggrin.gif: I just don't bother doing it usually.)
...Ruin the freedom? Please expand that. A persons claim flag would not have infinite range. You could place your own in an unclaimed area, and have complete freedom to do anything you like in your own area.
Unless you mean your "freedom"... to impose your gameplay on others, limiting their freedom instead? That can't mean much else- you want to go to peoples areas, and do things that they don't want you to do.
It's not much of a debate in my opinion. One persons freedom to an area of their own should easily trump anyone else's "freedom" to invade that area and build/destroy against the desires of the earlier claimer. What gives you a right to someones property?
And as an aside: I'd suggest that you stop attempting to understand nebb. It will only lead to headaches and tears.
But this is exactly the kind of freedom we want. The ability to make our own choices and face the consequences. Granted, there will be misunderstandings and border disputes, there will be people devoted to tearing down all of creation and what is beautiful to fulfill a void in what little heart they have remaining.
We, the free peoples of Minecraft, could not and would not tolerate the inherent tyranny imposed by such a system as removes such base moral decisions. For decisions are what make games immersive and fun. Without choices, we would be playing 1984, YOU MAY NOT PLACE A BLOCK! PLACING BLOCKS IS PERMISSIBLE AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN!
LOVE THY CREEPER!
Peace out...
They asked me how well I understood theoretical physics. I told them I had a theoretical degree in physics. They said welcome aboard.
Also if your server is having night griefer problems when no one is on then DON'T LEAVE YOUR SERVER ON IDIOT!
On a side note, the very notion that a person can "claim" land on a server someone else owns bugs me. The ultimate right or "claim" lies in the server owner, who actually owns it. That's both a benefit and responsibility. Getting there first isn't some sort of magical right. Single player, creative, private servers. Or host your own. Having OP administered "land claim flags" could be acceptable for special purposes.
(Keep in mind this is me being opposed to claim flags locking block editing to a single player or group, or white list)
Want a mode where people can create and destroy whatever, whenever?
Last time I checked, Creative Multiplayer fits this bill, and it has walls of paranoia and anti-griefing measures so thick it gets hard to actually enjoy the game. If the game has no built-in anti-griefing measures, they will be implemented by players. I would like to choose. Choose if someone can destroy my stuff while I'm sleeping, mining, or going to the bathroom. Choose if I'd rather not worry that 10 hours of work went down the drain due to the 10 minute efforts of some random guy. Want to make an ingenious trap fort? Take measures so that you don't need the flags to defend your stuff? Then don't put up flags, no one has ever said that they were mandatory.
Just because you don't like hearing an argument doesn't make it wear thin. A system that requires constant intervention by people (OPs) to work right is a poor system. A system that "works moderately well in creative"? I'd like a system that is better than mediocre, thanks. I would like to remind you that the PRIMARY SYSTEM for creative grief prevention is WALLING OFF THE SPAWN POINT. That's not even an anti-grief system, that is a stop-gap band-aid solution that the players came up with, for a problem that wouldn't go away.
And a properly done land claim flag mechanic is BY DEFINITION a fair system. There are plenty of ways to completely avoid the negatives.
[*:3fyzfn2s]Too expensive- give each player one starter flag to get going, until they mine out some gold or whatever.
Edit>(That, and for PVP and game flags, the ability to teleport to a common flag, play a game, and then teleport back to your claim flag, or from one of your flags to another, would be nice. Especially given that some of these things could be FAR apart, and nobody wants to wait hours for players to show up for a Spleef game.)[*:3fyzfn2s]Owned by groups- who ever said that? Group ownership should be an option, sure, but not a requirement!
[*:3fyzfn2s]Too easy to place- you're complaining that a system would be easy to use? If you mean easy to over-place, then each player could easily have a max-flag-limit, settable on a server configuration basis. Plus, more flags = more expensive.
[*:3fyzfn2s]Grief tool- I have no idea how it could be. Just place your own flag first, and no other flag would be usable in your area. Though the system would require minor teleport abilities, to keep players from getting stuck inside claim-flagged areas.
And what am I trying to impose on people, exactly? I'm suggesting a system that they could use just as easily as me, to keep me out of their areas, or keep me from breaking their stuff. A system that anyone can use, to keep anyone else from destroying their efforts. That seems fair, to me.
The only people who should have a problem with this system are the ones who want to destroy/steal/burn other peoples work. Those are the people who want to impose- they impose their play style by forcing other players to try and build traps, or guard, or whatever. If they don't, their construction could be destroyed. THAT is what imposing is.
And yes, the server owner has ultimate control. They can turn off the server, delete the map, set player_max_claim_flags to 0, etc. All kinds of stuff. Though, I would like to know exactly what metric(s) you think is fairer than "got there first." Some guy spawns in, walks to a nice location, and places his starter claim flag. Ok, now what gives you or me a "magical right" to take/destroy his stuff?
Sure, a flag should probably require the player to log in, something like once a week, time negotiable. Then, if the player wanders off, the flag fades and the location is up for grabs. Besides, it's not like you can't just walk somewhere else and place your own.
Point 2: It all depends on the server. Learn each rules, choose the one that best fits what you want to play as, or, make your own one.
Point 3: I see it as a little community walled with wood and a fountain in the middle, houses surrounding it. On top of each corner of the wall are players, hired by the community to guard it. Players take shifts, work different jobs, amass armies, conquer other villages, make alliances, protect themselves, etc. It's like a MMO like Envoy or Ikariam, just a shitload more creative and 3d.
I have a hybrid system to propose:
Cooperative play should be encouraged, but that doesn't mean everyone has to cooperate with everyone else. The game should be able to support competing groups of people, but not require you to be part of one.
Hence, a group needs to be able to build bases effective against both PCs and NPCs. This does not mean indestructible, but slow enough that it can be countered. However, if every block was this slow, or even every player-created block, the game would merely be tedious. So you need to be able to distinguish when destroying blocks would be slower.
This lead you to the land claim. A person, or a group, can mark an area as theirs. They can assign privileges to people, probablty somethis similar to this: co-owner, trusted, or disallowed. Co-owners have full privileges, and if any of them are logged in they can work with it. Trusted members can build and destroy normally, but a owner must be logged on first. Disallowed would build and destroy much slower. Guild members could either all be co-owners, or merley trusted while guild leadership are owners. This means that a dirt wall still doesn't do much to deter an attacker, but a stone wall would stand for a bit. Enough to make it feasible to respond to the enemy. You can still have traps, and by-passing them be very time consuming, so the owner of the land claim would have time to return and counter-attack if they have a decent fortress.
If all owners of a land claim are logged out, modification of it is not possible, and your creation is safe from random destruction. To prevent people from logging out to protect against legitimate attacks, and people present on the land claim will have a short time period where they can still operate before being locked out.
If you want your area to be open to anybody, you mark it, and set trusted as the default for unspecified people. This prevents other people from claiming the area and blocking you out of it, and if someone starts greifing that area you move them to the disallowed list and they have a much harder time of it.
Land claims would also be non-permament. If no owners log in on that server in some amount of time, then it reverts to open, unclaimed ground. This prevents areas from being cloged with old-unused claims.
Ops would be able to remove land claims, hence helping to curtail blatantanly greifing landclaims.
Servers can also specify variations, such as disallowed have no modifying ability whatsoever, or prohibiting landclaim's altogether.
Disallowed people who are killed on your land claim get locked from it for a long time(hours or days). They cannot harm you on your claim, destroy blocks, place blocks, or pick up resources until this timer finishes. This prevents the repeated suicide greifing attempts, without locking people out of the game altogether.
Implications:
If you want a freindly, cooperative game, you can not use land claims, or use the open version that can counteract greifing.
If you want to primarily build without worrying about people destroying what you have, you chose a server that does not allow others to modify your claim
If you want to work as a group, you either set your freinds as trusted or co-owners.
If you want to play a theif, you have to deal with their fortress as it is. You can't just delete everything in your way, you have to slowly break in, run the guantlets of their traps. If a trap kills you, you can't try to rob that fortress again for a long time, in which time the owner(s) has plenty of time to repair/expand their fortress.
If you want a free for all, go to a server without land claims.
Griefers will use this mechanic to grief by building rather than destroying. They'll drop some obsidian in front of your entrances, or surrounding your whole base in cobblestone. They'll drop lava through a hole in your roof. Land claim flags could potentially fix this by strengthening or making your blocks invincible (depends on the server) while preventing others from building in your area. To prevent the claims themselves from becoming a griefing tool, they should not be craftable - everyone gets a limited amount as determined by the server administrators.
This would be a big problem, but another issue with this idea is that it would prevent people working together to build stuff.
Here you go, have another quote.
You completely missed that the "blatant thread necromancy" was actually someone pointing out a major issue and suggesting an effective alternative.
tnt could be used...
Not really, considering that this would probably block explosions started by other players as well.