Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

Anti griefing mechanics

Discussion in 'General' started by kitsunelegendXx, Oct 20, 2016.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. arctic pirana Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    5
    Even if you do not consider destroying someones castle while they are offline griefing.It still is destroying someones castle while they are unable to defend it.Even if fast travel is disabled and your base is hidden your base can still be destroyed while your offline.I think offline protection should at least be an option for servers.
     
  2. entspeak Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,744
    Will the game know only when you, the owner of the block is online? Or will it know when a member of your faction is online? An ally? How complex is this protection system going to be? Anyone with a key?
     
  3. daze507 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    35
    We don't know yet what mechanics Keen will adopt.
     
  4. entspeak Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,744
    That wasn't what I asked. I was asking what was expected by the people wanting block invulnerability.
     
  5. daze507 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    35
    Ok, sorry, since you used the future I supposed you thought this mechanic would actually be included in the game.
     
  6. entspeak Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,744
    Others do, which is why I asked. My point is that it's just not as simple as turning on invulnerability for blocks while offline. Griefing is a pain, but with sandbox games, it is bound to happen. There are ways to discourage it, but one has to be careful not to impact gameplay or allow for a greater problem by including an anti-griefing mechanic that players can use as an exploit - i.e: I have two copies of the game, build my castle with one, allow access to the other - bam... permanently invincible castle.
     
  7. Scorpion00021 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,410
    So while you are offline, do allies still have access to your castle? And if so, would it still be indestructible?
    If the answer to those questions is yes, then I see a very easy way for people to hole up in unbreachable castles that they get friends to claim for them.
     
  8. Silen Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    246
    It's funny, because I'm currently playing on a multiplayer survival server with planets and no fast travel, we spent days building our castle and village, and there are already people who destroyed each other while offline. It isn't that hard as you might think. Again, I don't see why not having offline protection, I really don't see any pro in not having it. I'd rather have my castle safe when I'm offline, instead of waiting for some random boy to knock it down with his fabolous trebuchet to then come online and realize I wasted days of work.
     
  9. Ghostickles Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,077
    Would rather see things like adding fairly static archer NPC's or some stupid Pike men or guard Dogs (Cyberhounds ftw) for defense, maybe offer up some barbarians for hire to attackers who declare proper war, add the muster timer. Just because a player is offline does not mean the game should stop, solutions should keep things moving.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  10. arctic pirana Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    5
    This is the workaround i've come with for these issues

    The owner of an area would responsible for defending by default but may have a defense treaty with other players.If the owner is offline and an enemy declares war on the area a player with a defense treaty will be responsible for defending the area instead.Along with this the owner may set the defense priorities of the area which decides which will defend by default.

    As for blocking an allies area from a siege.
    If a player does not defend their area for 24 hours their structures will pulled out of play for a few hours,meaning their structures can not be interacted with and can be passed through.
     
  11. Scorpion00021 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,410
    Adding immunities from attack while offline completely ignores the fact that castles need NPC defenders. Even a small castle is far too much to defend for a single player. Even a handful of NPC combatants per claim block is more effective at protecting an area than a single player, meaning your castle would be defendable with or without your presence.
     
  12. Frostik Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    152
    Add a war event. So the server admin can set up a certain time when sieges are allowed. For example every Saturday evening you are able to destroy enemy castles more easily. The rest of the time your structures will only take 10% damage. We had this setting on our ARK server and it was a lot of fun because everybody was online at that time and sieging enemy camps.
     
  13. daze507 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    35
    Indeed, that's exactly what I thought. It's not because you're online that your castle won't be screwed, even against a little faction (3/4 players) who comes with a siege machine, if you're alone, you basically have no chance at all.
    People who play Rust know that pretty much: You are rarely raided by a single person. No doubt it will be the same here.
    No, I too don't share this "offline" idea, we have to find something else.
    --- Automerge ---
    Well, what about the players different time zones? This system is not fair.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Silen Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    246
    Although I would support the idea of having BOTH NPC soldiers to control and offline protections, I believe that currently it's not possible for technical reasons. The server sim speed is already very low with 20 players, add a small NPC army for every player and it goes on the bottom real quick.

    But, in future perhaps, I do think it would be cool for every player to have his small army. After all not all players have friends to fight for or with them, and it would be nice to have your own little NPC army to control.
     
  15. Scorpion00021 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,410
    I dont want players to be able to control armies, just to drop npc guards within grids as defense. The lag shouldnt be too bad because the guards could essentially be unloaded from memory when players arent in or within one claim grid of where the guard is standing. The guards would be limited to 5 or 10 per grid and respawn after like 15 minutes if their spawn block is intact and the area is still owned.
     
  16. Silen Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    246
    Of course I don't mean an army in actual size, I meant the same thing as you, 5 or 10 NPCs of yours, "soldiers" or "guards" (same thing). Regardless I'm not an expert but I do believe that even with this system it would affect the server. Server owners tend to keep barbarians, animals and any NPCs turned off because of this reason, and I believe if that system worked the devs would've thought about it and implemented it already.
     
  17. Kill3rCat Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    19
    Faction X consists of Player A, Player B and Player C. Offline protection would still work if:

    T± DD:HH:MM
    T+ 00:00:00 - Player A, B and C log off.
    T+ 00:00:30 - 30 minutes later, Faction X's structures become invulnerable to all forms of damage.
    T+ 00:10:00 - 10 hours later, Player A and B log on. Structures become vulnerable again (though possibly only taking 2/3 the damage?)
    T+ 00:22:00 - Player A and B log off later, and after 30 minutes their structures become invulnerable again.
    T+ 01:00:00 - 24 hours has now elapsed, and since Player C has not logged on for 24 hours, he is removed from the 'offline protection' list.
    T+ 01:10:00 - Player A and B connect to the server, structures become vulnerable (this time taking 100% damage)
    T+ 01:11:00 - Player A and B leave the faction, and because Player C is no longer in the 'offline protection' list, the faction's structures become vulnerable again, even though no faction member is online.

    The reason for the 30 minute delay between a faction going offline and their structures becoming invulnerable is so as to protect against exploitation of the mechanic; i.e. 'we're under siege, everyone disconnect now!'.
    The reason for the 24 hour period before Player C is discounted from the protective list is to try and protect against exploitation of the mechanic (though said exploitation would still be possible).

    I can't believe people are more concerned about the 0.01% of the MP playerbase who might have multiple copies of the game being able to exploit the system, than the 75% of the MP playerbase (assuming a potentially unrealistic 50-50 split between survival and creative, and 25% playing both modes) who can potentially be griefed when they don't have an opportunity to protect their structures (heavens forbid people prioritise real life over virtual buildings in a videogame). Sieges are cool, mindless griefing is not. It's also much easier for server admins to combat the exploitation of one guy on the server abusing the system to have permanently invulnerable structures.

    Saying 'it's their fault for being offline' is hardly fair, nor a valid point of argument, especially when a faction could wheel a catapult into a nearby forest and specifically wait for a faction to go offline before relogging, spawning next to their catapult and demolishing your work (quite common currently for people to have 5 days, or more, of work in a creation, which can easily be demolished in a hundredth of the time... or stolen by having the claim blocks replaced in a much, much shorter time).

    Again, I'll reiterate: Destroying structures or stealing territories is called PvP, not griefing, but only when they're online and able to protect their investments of time. And on the realism argument, in 'real life', it'll take probably a day, if not more, to get through a castle wall with hand tools. Also, in 'real life', you would probably wake up if half your castle came crashing down thanks to a good treb hit. When you're offline, there're no text notifications to say 'you're getting ----ed over'.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 4
  18. entspeak Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,744
    This is why I asked the question. I actually like this idea (except the damage being scaled by the number of faction members online - invulnerability should either be on or off, IMO.) In addition to factions, ME has keys that you can give to non-faction members. How will that play into your idea?
     
  19. Scorpion00021 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,410
    The problem with that being that if I keep inviting new players to my faction and they give up and stop playing on the server, the damage scaling would be incredibly small on all of my structures.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. SIliconpot Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    7
    I would say offline protection is much needed.
    For the time being it could simply be "If no faction member is online, said faction's claims are invulnerable after T time of logout", until a new, more involved system would be in place.
    Since claims wither away in 7 days should the owner remain offline for so long, the claims would then be free for grabs - or destruction.

    Running a server, the most people talk about (besides the dying and the dying simspeed) is the offline grief.
    I also do understand that there are people who don't want offline protection, so this most definitely should be an option to turn on or off, either in server settings or per faction by faction leaders.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  21. ManOfArt Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    51
    devs were talking of castles being indestructible while owner is offline. NPC "guards" would be the best option i think.
     
  22. Helaton Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    207
    The 24 hour war timer doesn't really work either. If a person for example doesn't log on for 7 days, their claim dies from tax evasion anyways. So no reason to force a person who won't be online anyways into a war. Multiplayer gameplay only benefits when you encounter other players. Otherwise its just a 'dynamic' single player experience.

    I'm a fan of Planetside 2 with its capture of territory system. It could work ok in ME too with changes. Captured regions generate your ability to have claim blocks. This introduces some new ideas for ME under the caveat that 12-24 players on a server could be typical (Overkill for 1v1, 2v2):

    Territories & Claims
    • You start out with 1 constructed claim block for free. Begin your adventure!
    • It takes a lot of material to build additional claim block pedestals. (At minimum 30 large stone and 30 timbers.)
    • Once built, a claim block cannot be destroyed, but claim blocks can be deconstructed by the owner to be moved or to abandon the territory.
    • The claim block is comprised of 2 pieces. The pedestal, and the statue. A statue needs to be built on the claim block and the statue is the only part of the claim block that can be destroyed. The owner of the statue is the owner of the claim block/territory.
    • Only 1 claim block per territory/area.
    New Mechanics
    • Dirt
      • When digging into dirt (non gray voxels), you collect dirt.
      • Dirt can be used to make cheap earthen walls (with sticks).
        • Dirt structures have low durability & low structural integrity (1 or 2 blocks tall max)
        • Combined with thatch roofs and we have hovels!
    • Plains
      • 'Free' food only grows in grasslands/meadows (potatoes please!).
      • Flat plains make it easier to build and manage farms.
      • More dirt oriented construction, would have to import stone/wood.
      • Hardest to defend.
    • Forests/Groves
      • Easy access to wood
      • Mushrooms and herbs grow in the forest.
      • Mushrooms/herbs/berries are used to make medicines/salves to heal over time.
      • Can build the wood buildings that are available now, including log palisades (like these and this)
      • Would have to import stone, build in nearby plains for farms (or carve out the forest).
    • Mountains
      • Easy access to stone.
      • Only get stone from mountains, boulders or gray rock areas.
      • Most defensible but most difficult to setup and make self sustainable.
    • We would need a farm plot block to plant food on for any territory. (something like this)
      • Only grows during sunlight.
      • Plots need to be connected to dirt voxels.
      • Each plot is large (2x3x1) and would generate 'x food' per x time(say 15 food per hour).
      • You would need multiple plots to sustain a single player (use 4-6 plots as a target to sustain a player for an hour as a measure without starving - 1 food per minute)
      • The limiting factor is its size. 2x3x1 is easier to deal with in plains, but much harder in mountain slopes.
      • Players would need to harvest the food.
      • Makes it difficult to grow enough food in mountains (you'd have to create terraces to make it easier to access), but farms are easier in forests & plains. This would be semi-realistic.
    • Claim blocks are now 'Clang Shrines'. Just because we pay tribute to the wargod Clang. Will refer to them as claim blocks throughout to keep with the current naming. (semi joking, semi serious)
    • Respawn
      • You pay taxes for each respawn.
      • New claim blocks may start with enough 'deposited' for a good number of respawns but will run out eventually. This may be the justification for their 'high' build cost.
    • Territory timer
      • All owned territories get reset to 7 days when the territory owner logs in.
      • When the owner of the territory logs off, the timer counts down.
    • Taxes & Costs
      • Your claim block has coffers/treasury that taxes are deducted from.
      • Any time someone spawns, a tax is deducted. (This also discourages slightly for players from using it as a 'free food refill'.)
      • Every X time that passes (hour, 6 hours, 12 hours, 24 hours?) it deducts X from the claim block coffers for that territory as a tax.
      • If we ever have turrets (aka archers/ballistas), they would deduct from the coffers to keep in place for that time period (1,6,12,24 hours?).
    Combat
    • The goal is to capture territory.
    • The key to capturing territory is to capture the claim block.
    • You can only be attacked by a neighboring territory. A person can't cross from a region and 4 areas over just to grief your base. They or their house need to share a border with your base (based on claim block). If they want to attack you, they need to claim an area adjacent to your own territory. You will know who attacked your territory by who setup adjacent to it.
      • As an attacker inside enemy territory:
        • You cannot build things attached to a voxel in enemy territory (no buildings/defenses).
        • You cannot damage voxels.
        • You can harvest enemy resources (wood/food).
        • You can build things with wheels etc to construct siege engines or mobile defenses/camps.
        • You want to destroy the enemy statue on the claim block.
        • Destroying enemy territory
          • Breaking down materials/walls etc doesn't give you resources.
          • Wood objects (like small wooden doors) can be broken with an iron axe (takes 2 minutes).
          • Stone blocks can be broken with catapults (takes a few shots) or pick axes/hammers (takes very long time per block - almost not worth it) Stone is intended to be very durable. You 'inherit' stone construction more often than you just demolish it all. Which also happened a lot in medieval times where they would take advantage of existing fortifications and build atop them.
          • Siege towers make more sense in allowing players to go 'around' obstacles rather than through them by destroying them (Except when you need to do this).
      • As a defender:
        • You can stop an invasion by destroying/conquering the enemy territory adjacent to yours.
        • By killing attackers and forcing them to respawn, you have a chance of emptying their territory's claim block 'coffers' with each respawn.
      • Barbarians (if enabled in multiplayer).
        • Can't spawn in an 'occupied' area.
        • Can spawn in the surrounding areas that do not have a claim block though.
    • Enemy goal is to destroy the claim statue and replace it with their own.
      • Enemy statues should take a long time to topple. At least 3-4 hammers worth of replacements (takes me about 4-5 minutes of constant beating to destroy a hammer).
      • Once the statue is destroyed, attackers can build a new statue on the pedestal/platform/base to take control of the territory. (Takes attacker resources)
    Why?
    • Doing area by small area control (versus region) keeps construction small and could keep combat interesting via several small engagements.
    • Some people want to build 'masterpieces' that span 10-15 areas but that's really more of what creative is for (or a really hardcore survival group). Medieval times were more practical with hastily constrcted palisades and then stone fortifications in critical positions.
    • If you want to build said castle/masterpiece and keep it intact, then you'll need to buffer/protect it...with territory that your enemies have to conquer to get to you.
    • The time it takes to take one small area might be a half hour minimum. If they want to take several territories, it is going to take several hours worth of time and a lot of resources.
    • Change goal from 'fighting to commit genocide of enemies' to 'fighting to control territories & resources or access points'.
    • People who build adjacent to other areas and conquer them, may 'absorb' them to form a bigger territory, which was common.
    • This doesn't stop griefers who are very determined. But it gives definition/purpose to the multiplayer combat system.
      • Griefers could easily 'raid' border towns by claiming an adjacent area and attacking. (Griefers become raiders/bandits)
      • To take and control territory, takes resources. (Most Griefers don't have that kind of commitment)
      • Most griefers are individuals. You can do things individually but it takes a long time. (Encourage people to join houses to do things quicker)
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  23. Leadfootslim Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,300
    I"m going to have to second the NPC guards. If pathing is a pain, let us manually place invisible AI patrol points for our wall archers, etc. to tailor our defensive needs to our particular castle. We could tell the AI how long to stay in a particular spot, and where to go if they need food (or whatever else is required for upkeep)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. entspeak Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,744
    Realistically, I think many would be incredibly disappointed by NPC performance. We'd be hearing many complaints of people logging in to find their castle destroyed despite NPC defenses and complaining about griefing. Some form of reasonable offline invulnerability (similar to what Kill3rCat suggests), so long as a valid claim exists for the territory, makes sense for mulitplayer. If a claim expires, all structures in that region lose their invulnerability. Actually, this is a mechanic that would work well in SE, too (with modifications to accommodate 3D space.)

    And I'd leave war dynamics to the server admins themselves. Let them decide how their communities declare war. Having Keen decide how war is declared would limit warfare possibilities.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 1
  25. Androox Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    95
    Just make structures immune in claimed areas that a offline faction own, immunity take place 10min after last member logoff to prevent abuse
     
  26. Taemien Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    468
    I think any system put in place should be very very barebones. But with the idea of modularity in API, or whatever mods use in ME. This way each server can have the rulesets, requirements, and restrictions that are right for them. So the system can tell who owns what. What factions everything is. Time limits are modular. And in the case of 'offline' players, what the cooldown is set to (so peeps can't logoff to avoid combat).

    One server might want a mode where you declare war. And pay a fee.
    Another might want it to be faction based.
    Another may want it to be free for all when peeps are online.
    Some may just want it to be the wild west.

    Make the system simple, but modular to accommodate all of the above. Let everyone have what they want. When they want.
     
  27. PhoenixTheSage Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    677
    @Deepflame Have you guys thought of adopting a similar system to 7 Days to Die? In 7DTD claim blocks offer protection that is completely configurable by server admins. It ranges from nothing to a health multiplier (2x,4x,8x, etc) all the way up to invincibility for online and offline separately. It's extremely effective for negating this behavior.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  28. Udrakan Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    111
    Very nice example.
     
  29. DDP-158 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,748
    Since I saw the letters DS there is a tried and true method that you can do now on your own. whitelist your server on steam.
    Write a set a rules that will govern the map. for example if 2 people want to pvp they can talk it over with each other for when is a good time to do so.
    Those who were invited to the server and did not follow the rules gets blacklisted.

    this allows you to vet players to get those who share the same values as yourself. and it's more work for the griefer and with most likely being removed after one attack it's not really worth the effort for them.
     
  30. Udrakan Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    111
    That may work for now, but it's not a solution to the problem of the whole game.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.