There is a potential system that would minimize this problem, but I’m not sure how to set the flags.
If someone is found griefing (primarily a PvP suggestion) after a warning or some kind of notice, make him visible on the overhead map as a target. You may be surprised at how many times they will die, just from sport.
I know if I were a designated target in a PvP environment, I might just move servers and learn a lesson.
What confounds me is how to determine if a player repeatedly exhibits this behaviour or if someone is just pissed at him. It may lead to someone being a griefer just by calling someone else a griefer.
Not trying to present a solution, just planting a seed.
Yeah it’s been suggested before, but really it would just mean the griefers would turn this tool into a weapon in their arsenal, nothing more. Is “griefing” really a big deal on PvP though? I thought the ability to “deal with” nuisances was supposed to be one of the prime advantages of that ruleset compared to PvE.
Only if we introduce a purpose to the equation. Without a purpose, there are no results of deviation; no sample sizes that can show us indifference in the pattern between those that aren’t welcome and those that are (if everything is welcome that is, in a way).
Giving something a purpose is to try channel behaviour into having directions with different values essentially.
What I’ve gathered…
To nullify abuse of exploits effectively, as the second best approach, one would need to make sure they don’t code them in. Third best thing is to correct the abused structure. The best one is to actually allow abuse, but channeled in a way that fills a role bringing about a full circle of competitive features. In essence, making the best out of everything is to not only narrow down possibilities and building walls, but housing models of behaviour; unleashing them in a multitude of arenas that cultivate them all, in an equally fun manner, at different times and queues.
