IMO, if players can grief, that is the fault of the developers.
Let's take a simple example, kill stealing.
If you don't want a player to be able to "steal" the loot from another player, then why would you put that feature in the game?
It's poor design to have game features where you simply tell players what they are not allowed to do, and then the game design allows them to do it.
Don't click on the loot after someone else kills a mob and take!
Why not?
If I'm not supposed to do that, then why did you put it in the game dumb ass?
It's not like that ability magically appeared. The developers had to put it there.
Because some (not saying Kill stealing) griefing things are abuse of mechanics that have a purpose in the rest of the game.
If you want to add more tactical depth to a game, add friendly fire. This means you have to keep in mind where your friends are in a PVP match, you can't throw a fireball at a guy who also has your friends beating him up....you'll blast them too. In an FPS, it means you have to be careful where you aim, so that you don't hit your own guys.
Griefers use these exact same things to deliberately kill their own side. Its an abuse of system for something that is supposed to be in there for a very different purpose.
IMO, if players can grief, that is the fault of the developers.
Let's take a simple example, kill stealing.
If you don't want a player to be able to "steal" the loot from another player, then why would you put that feature in the game?
It's poor design to have game features where you simply tell players what they are not allowed to do, and then the game design allows them to do it.
Don't click on the loot after someone else kills a mob and take!
Why not?
If I'm not supposed to do that, then why did you put it in the game dumb ass?
It's not like that ability magically appeared. The developers had to put it there.
Because some (not saying Kill stealing) griefing things are abuse of mechanics that have a purpose in the rest of the game.
If you want to add more tactical depth to a game, add friendly fire. This means you have to keep in mind where your friends are in a PVP match, you can't throw a fireball at a guy who also has your friends beating him up....you'll blast them too. In an FPS, it means you have to be careful where you aim, so that you don't hit your own guys.
Griefers use these exact same things to deliberately kill their own side. Its an abuse of system for something that is supposed to be in there for a very different purpose.
I disagree.
What happens when you use friendly fire on your own team in a game like Call of Duty?
They kick you off the team.
You'd have a point if they could not kick you off the team, which would be poor game design.
It's not hard to design features so that abuse is minimized, and doesn't require any action from game masters.
One game I've played that had an interesting FFA pvp orientation that actually worked really well was Rohan: Blood feud, I know its not a sandbox but, there was little to no pvp restrictions on that game and 'guilds' formed up and actually defended the weaker players from gankers. They had a revenge tool that allowed you to port yourself and a group of buddies to someone who's pk'd you and own them in retaliation and it made lots of would-be gankers give pause. They were constantly being rick-rolled and hunted by the guilds. From what I remembered, if you were unguilded folks tended not to mess with you unless you were higher leveled that way they could impress upon you to join their guild, once you picked a guild then rival guilds may pk you because of it. All guilds hunted lowbie gankers though, and no matter how good a single ganker is, if you're constantly being interrupted by a party of people retaliating against you, you tend to stop being a d-bag. What kept people pvp'ing was the ingame taxation system that made it so that the top guilds were able to receive taxes from every other player who had to buy stuff from merchants, so this system would never kill off pvp, only punish folks who abused it.
I don't particularly like pvp oriented games, because I don't like being pk'd when doing basic stuff, the awesome random battles to me get boring when they're happening every time you try to pick an herb or make a piece of gear, I'm only mentioning this because the way the guild system works on that game is something the players themselves came up with and not something the devs had to tell them to do. My meaning is that even if things are unrestricted it doesn't mean the players will not rise up and make something work, maybe the retaliation tool is what did it who knows?
Comments
Because some (not saying Kill stealing) griefing things are abuse of mechanics that have a purpose in the rest of the game.
If you want to add more tactical depth to a game, add friendly fire. This means you have to keep in mind where your friends are in a PVP match, you can't throw a fireball at a guy who also has your friends beating him up....you'll blast them too. In an FPS, it means you have to be careful where you aim, so that you don't hit your own guys.
Griefers use these exact same things to deliberately kill their own side. Its an abuse of system for something that is supposed to be in there for a very different purpose.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
I disagree.
What happens when you use friendly fire on your own team in a game like Call of Duty?
They kick you off the team.
You'd have a point if they could not kick you off the team, which would be poor game design.
It's not hard to design features so that abuse is minimized, and doesn't require any action from game masters.
One game I've played that had an interesting FFA pvp orientation that actually worked really well was Rohan: Blood feud, I know its not a sandbox but, there was little to no pvp restrictions on that game and 'guilds' formed up and actually defended the weaker players from gankers. They had a revenge tool that allowed you to port yourself and a group of buddies to someone who's pk'd you and own them in retaliation and it made lots of would-be gankers give pause. They were constantly being rick-rolled and hunted by the guilds. From what I remembered, if you were unguilded folks tended not to mess with you unless you were higher leveled that way they could impress upon you to join their guild, once you picked a guild then rival guilds may pk you because of it. All guilds hunted lowbie gankers though, and no matter how good a single ganker is, if you're constantly being interrupted by a party of people retaliating against you, you tend to stop being a d-bag. What kept people pvp'ing was the ingame taxation system that made it so that the top guilds were able to receive taxes from every other player who had to buy stuff from merchants, so this system would never kill off pvp, only punish folks who abused it.
I don't particularly like pvp oriented games, because I don't like being pk'd when doing basic stuff, the awesome random battles to me get boring when they're happening every time you try to pick an herb or make a piece of gear, I'm only mentioning this because the way the guild system works on that game is something the players themselves came up with and not something the devs had to tell them to do. My meaning is that even if things are unrestricted it doesn't mean the players will not rise up and make something work, maybe the retaliation tool is what did it who knows?
I'm not racist, I hate everyone equally.