Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We all know how difficult it is to stop or even ban Griefers. These players do t care about the consequences or punishments for their actions, they have a different measure of fun than the rest of us. Banning them just makes them reroll a new character or start up a new or second account.
Here is what I believe to be a novel idea. When a new account is created it is issued a pass key code to activate that account. This pass code key is attached to the address, the account name and the computer IP number. The first key for everyone comes with the purchase of he game client.
When a player is banned, their pass key code is what gets banned. Now the griefer, not only loses the remainder of the month's subscription, but he or she would have to purchase a new pass key code. If GW sets this cost at let's say $50.00, now the cost of being banned for griefing just became $65.00!!
If anyone is foolish enough to be a repeat offender, at least GW will be gaining added revenue from them. I seriously doubt there are that many who will take a $$ hit like that just to play like a jerk.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think that's different to how the industry standard is for banning right now. I am not aware of any multiplayer game in this day and age where the character gets banned and not the complete account. So if i'm reading you correctly this approach would increasing the cost by 15 bucks as opposed to introducing a cost of 65 where there was none.
If I misread the proposal then please do elaborate.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think that's different to how the industry standard is for banning right now. I am not aware of any multiplayer game in this day and age where the character gets banned and not the complete account. So if i'm reading you correctly this approach would increasing the cost by 15 bucks as opposed to introducing a cost of 65 where there was none.
If I misread the proposal then please do elaborate.
Most MMOs don't have a cost for the client, you create an account and activate it through a subscription.
My idea is to add that extra cost to activating an account after banning, by requiring a new pass key to be purchased. This would increase the cost for griefing by $50.00.
Another solution is to hit the account, all characters, with a negative wallet account. I have a friend who got caught buying gold in EvE, and they set his wallet to - 1 billion isk, this was back when it took months to make 100 million. It took him 8 months to get back to even.
|
I think a simple way of fixing griefers is send them to a "Court" and let them air their side. If the evidence stands against them, have their characters on the offending account arrested and thrown in lockup for 24 hours. If the log an alt or DT the character would immediately approached by a NPC faction and fast-travel teleported to the jail/courthouse.
I think it fits well in the "24 hour ban" style while still letting the player actually play the game. They are in a cell with no gear, and for the duration of the imprisonment all Company, Settlement, and Party affiliations are temporailly disolved or suspended so they cant use Actions like Lock-Picking cast a teleport spell as they're not "supported" by their groups for the duration. Let them go to the workshop and hammer out nails or break rocks, or whatever tasks they'd put the setting. Let them interact with other "felons" who are playing in lockup, and make the PC bodies exist as NPCs while the player is offline to help populate it.
If they repeat offend, double the sentence every time up to 4 times, with the 5th being as you say, a permanent ban where they have to buy a new account altogether.
I was also thinking that nerfing the players Influence generation for a time would be a sufficient deterrent as it would certainly make accepting a griefer/exploiter into your CC or Settlement wouldn't be useful, and quite possibly even harmful as the groups median Reputation would decrease.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It would be fine with me to add the measure you describe, Bludd, assuming after full analysis it won't harm anyone but the griefer, but only if it is on top of all of GW's proposed anti-griefing measures.
The cost you describe is miniscule for some people. I think you greatly underestimate the magnitude of the disparity between the rich player and the 'normal' gamer. Same with botters: if they are making enough money doing what they do $65 is just overhead, a business expense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like Bludd's idea. I agree that it should be something in addition to the other planned mechanics to discourage griefing. As Being said, if it is a "cost of business" for some there will be no real deterrent, but that is going to be the case with almost any option; if people are making money, they will keep doing it.
I think Bludd's idea could be tied to the Authenticators, which were described in the Heard it Through the Grapevine blog.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
We all know how difficult it is to stop or even ban Griefers. These players do t care about the consequences or punishments for their actions, they have a different measure of fun than the rest of us. Banning them just makes them reroll a new character or start up a new or second account.
Here is what I believe to be a novel idea. When a new account is created it is issued a pass key code to activate that account. This pass code key is attached to the address, the account name and the computer IP number. The first key for everyone comes with the purchase of he game client.
When a player is banned, their pass key code is what gets banned. Now the griefer, not only loses the remainder of the month's subscription, but he or she would have to purchase a new pass key code. If GW sets this cost at let's say $50.00, now the cost of being banned for griefing just became $65.00!!
If anyone is foolish enough to be a repeat offender, at least GW will be gaining added revenue from them. I seriously doubt there are that many who will take a $$ hit like that just to play like a jerk.
I don't think that's necessary. A griefer won't have access to high training, he won't be a great danger.
And you assume that GW will ban griefers, but honestly, I don't see a lot of ban, in the majority of MMOs, except for very obvious and massive exploit use.
Anyway, to add something constructive ! :p
Wouldn't a simple solution, to force any account to be linked to a credit card number, even if you don't actually use it to pay, and just ban said credit card number ? Getting a new credit card is a little harder, than getting a new email address. It's possible yes, of course, but if you have access to an infinite credit card access, you don't care to pay 65$ anyway.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wouldn't a simple solution, to force any account to be linked to a credit card number, even if you don't actually use it to pay, and just ban said credit card number ? Getting a new credit card is a little harder, than getting a new email address. It's possible yes, of course, but if you have access to an infinite credit card access, you don't care to pay 65$ anyway.
It is very easy to get a reloadable credit card today with small fees. You can just walk into walmart or possibly your local pharmacy and there will be a wrack full of options.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the client is free, the only 'cost' is the time it takes to create a new email address and set up a proxy to hide one's IP.
Banning large ranges of IPs may block legitimate customers, and even with broadband, one's IP may be dynamically reassigned on some schedule.
There are credit cards which allow their holders to create and delete dummy numbers. That may be meant to protect holders if they're making an online purchase from a company they don't know if they can trust, but it also means the card number is anonymous to the company.
So since email addresses, IP addresses, and even card numbers can all be made anonymous, how would this pass-key system be different from charging for the client?
Griefers don't grief high level toons, so the lack of power is meaningless.I don't think that's necessary. A griefer won't have access to high training, he won't be a great danger
Several griefers with heavy crossbows and a culture in which 'blues' simply teleported away upon seeing 'reds', made it entirely possible for a pack of otherwise naked newbies to grief max-skill characters in UO, but maybe their power curve was even flatter than GW is planning.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
There are credit cards which allow their holders to create and delete dummy numbers. That may be meant to protect holders if they're making an online purchase from a company they don't know if they can trust, but it also means the card number is anonymous to the company.
I use it a lot, because it's a good way to not be hacked, when buying online.
And there is a very short time limit, and you can't recharge. It would not be a very practical technique.
I think anyway that this is a dead end, to try to stop a multi-billionaire hacker with an expertise in creation of fake ID obsessed by griefing noobs in PFO.
For the majority of the problematic players, Bludd's solution or mine would be efficients, I think.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like the concept of Bludd's solution, but I think that we would need to clearly define exactly what infractions would trigger the pass-key code deactivation and how much reactivation would cost. One problem with the concept of griefing, as we've seen on these forums, is the variation in definition depending on your personal past experiences.
As mentioned above, we also have to realize that Goblinworks will likely be a lean machine and may not have many resources to play police when someone complains about being griefed.
Just read through some of the "Most fond MMO memory thread" to see some examples where there are pretty-funny but grey, blurred definitions. I'll admit to have fun tweaking people with my Enchanter in EQ (like 'accidentally' casting the wrong illusion on someone - which could lead to them dying - or charming a friend/guild party member during a trivial fight, especially in Kedge Keep), but I don't see that behavior as encouraged or acceptable in this day and age...