A constructive talk about griefing in multiplayer

[iEatRazorz 24]

Ugh rewriting this for the second time... I was gonna post this in another topic, but it's a wall of text and I want to discuss the solutions to the possible problems.

Maxis gave credence to our fears of multiplay trolling. Laughed even, imagine that. Honestly though, who wouldn't chuckle at some of the stuff they are probably seeing. We're all gamers here, we know how we can be. For better or worse, it's human nature to practice the occasional dickery. This is a good thing though.

"... wait ... why?" you might be asking.

Well simply put, it's better that Maxis sees this stuff now. It's gives them time to come up with solutions. Maybe even creative ways to punish those who wish to practice this sort of thing. Given what they are trying to create it has to make sense within the context of the game. They can't just cobble together some stuff and be like that's that. No, I think the prevention should land in our laps...

"?????????"

It's okay, you can throw those hands down. Hear me out. It is a simulation after all. I want the gavel. This is what I propose:

Offsetting Costs:

If someone is polluting a boarder of my city the game should be able to determine what percentage of that is coming from their city. This would give the game a number on how many parks I need to offset that pollution. The neighbor would pay the monthly bill of all parks built in that area up to the determined number. This could go for water pollution and crime as well. Fires, well you should be taking care of that on your own.

What if fires spread city to city? A fire starts in mine, destroys $350 worth of next doors stuff, guess what happens. I give them $350. These options could be voted on every time a new player enters the region.

or

Tax EM!:

You could be confronted with a menu upon region creation. There you could set up tax options for all aforementioned problems. Whenever someone new comes into the region a vote is taken on these options. The taxes are proportionally split between those affected.

Next on my list is city abandonment. Someone comes into the game, spends a few hours building a hellhole. They then disappear forever. Leaving a scar on the region. If they don't come back within a set time frame (voted on) the remaining players take a vote:

1: to demolish it.

2: to assume control, and who takes it on.

That brings up a new concern. What happens if your not on for awhile and your city is foreclosed on? It's moved to the server and you can plop it down in a new region. Of course, this bring ups the question of do people what to really get rid of any benefits that city is actively providing.

Voting would prevent a governor figure and keep us all at mayor level.

Honestly I am looking forward to hearing some horror stories and how people creatively deal with it. That's all I got for now. I'm sure I'll think of some more.

What ways do you think are appropriate for dealing with trolls, or atleast deterring them?

[Mark Waybill 242]

'Voting would prevent a governor figure'

And if a stalemate arises? Who has veto power?

[iEatRazorz 24]

Perhaps it could come down to a simulated vote of the population. If the vote is on pollution, Sims living cities affected by someone else's pollution would be more like to vote for a rise in a pollution tax. Sims in a city producing it less likely to want an increase.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Well, MezaCorp Industrial, MezaCorp Coal, and MezaCorp Disposal would love to set up shop wherever there is any demand.

[Wiecher 192]

But can you force others to pay, when they are independent players?

I don't think so.

You have to make them pay by excluding them from your inter-city trade, so their city can't prosper and will never get the money or resources to build big polluting stuff at your borders. Something like a trade embargo, and you have to get other players on your side too, else it won't work.

This way there will thousands of city-states or micro-nations, all interconnected on the virtual planet.

For this to work, the economic systems need to be very well programmed...

Since all things happen at the border, another solution would be to just make the size of these 'micronations' bigger, so there is relatively less border-land, you can then protect the central areas. This will result in individualism and undermine the interconnected economic system though.

[Mootilda 76]

If you punish people for having bad cities, you'll be punishing most noobies. This will discourage people from wanting to learn to play the game. I doubt that this fits in with EA's plans.

[Mr_Maison 2,426]

I still just want nukes.

Just give us the power to send disasters to neighbors and things would get interesting. I guarrantee we wont be focused on building cities for any long term enjoyment.

[catty-cb 4,381]

I still just want nukes.

Just give us the power to send disasters to neighbors and things would get interesting. I guarrantee we wont be focused on building cities for any long term enjoyment.

The latest news http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/games/6800989/Preview-SimCity-for-PC

we can add worrying about arsonists from other cities setting our cities on fire

[Thetford 22]

The time limit thing may not work, as there could be cases where someone is unable to access their city for a while, for example, those going on holiday for a long period, or those who are hospitalised.

Plus there is the question of how new players will be affected by this, if for example a proficient player may deem a "griefer".

Also, a polluting city isn't persay a griefing one, as in, I believe it was stated that industry that produces the most pollution also produces the most profit. Plus all the commercial services need it.

But also remember: giving you the tool to grief griefers with disasters, will also give griefers a tool to grief you. Good grief that's a lot of grief.

[Wiecher 192]

If you punish people for having bad cities, you'll be punishing most noobies. This will discourage people from wanting to learn to play the game. I doubt that this fits in with EA's plans.

No, griefing is deliberately destroying other peoples creations and the environment only for the fun of it, not having bad cities.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

If refreshing is only every 4-6 weeks, then there should be no problem among the demographic and VAST majority of SimCity players.

On another note, MezaCorp is a future partner of Global Trust from the years 2070 to 2071 though whether MezaCorp is the founder of Global Trust energy cartel in 2013 is yet to be revealed. In other words, I would like to join an energy and fuel cartel or found one and call it Global Trust. It would be funny if clean "Green Cities" join a union of city journals called the Eden Initiative.

[Craig-Abcvs 1,595]

If you punish people for having bad cities, you'll be punishing most noobies. This will discourage people from wanting to learn to play the game. I doubt that this fits in with EA's plans.

No, griefing is deliberately destroying other peoples creations and the environment only for the fun of it, not having bad cities.

Ok so initially I thought that this was just another topic about the 'griefing' or whining that is going on over multiplayer... :: yawn ::

I have now learnt a new internet gaming word and definition...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefer

So basically a griefer to an online multiplayer game, is similar to a troll on an internet forum. Well I stand educated.

As for how you deal with it... well I really do hope that this multiplayer business for SC13 will allow you to choose who you play with, not just get thrown on some random map with a bunch of 'griefers'.... that is not what I would call fun.

Actually the wiki article talks about minecraft and terriria.. yup now I understand... I have heard the howls coming from the other room when my two boys are playing minecraft multiplayer on the same map on separate laptops... 'get out of my house' ... 'stop stealing my stuff' .... mhm... now I understand...

[Jazzmaster 716]

If you punish people for having bad cities, you'll be punishing most noobies. This will discourage people from wanting to learn to play the game. I doubt that this fits in with EA's plans.

No, griefing is deliberately destroying other peoples creations and the environment only for the fun of it, not having bad cities.

Ok so initially I thought that this was just another topic about the 'griefing' or whining that is going on over multiplayer... :: yawn ::

I have now learnt a new internet gaming word and definition...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefer

So basically a griefer to an online multiplayer game, is similar to a troll on an internet forum. Well I stand educated.

As for how you deal with it... well I really do hope that this multiplayer business for SC13 will allow you to choose who you play with, not just get thrown on some random map with a bunch of 'griefers'.... that is not what I would call fun.

Actually the wiki article talks about minecraft and terriria.. yup now I understand... I have heard the howls coming from the other room when my two boys are playing minecraft multiplayer on the same map on separate laptops... 'get out of my house' ... 'stop stealing my stuff' .... mhm... now I understand...

You will get to choose who you play with, for up to sixteen players in one region. Maxis have confirmed this.

[Wiecher 192]

If refreshing is only every 4-6 weeks, then there should be no problem among the demographic and VAST majority of SimCity players.

On another note, MezaCorp is a future partner of Global Trust from the years 2070 to 2071 though whether MezaCorp is the founder of Global Trust energy cartel in 2013 is yet to be revealed. In other words, I would like to join an energy and fuel cartel or found one and call it Global Trust. It would be funny if clean "Green Cities" join a union of city journals called the Eden Initiative.

So regions will be deleted/refreshed after 6 weeks?

That's horrible, considering I've been working on a single city tile since 2008 and it's still unfinished...

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Of course if refreshing is NEVER EVER done but actually LOSING the game is possible (lose all population from zoned residential, debt or deficit too high, arson/fire burning down over 50% of your city) and all cities that you lose in are lost from the server (or up for grabs for the rest of the players) and that as an online game, you can lose while not playing, that might be superior. If you are running a deficit in your city and you do not play it for a month, you will see "Your city went into so much debt while you were away, your neighbor [insert name here] has bought it."

[Thetford 22]

Or perhaps an option just to lift your city from the region to a new one if things get too bad. Plus a readily built city may help neighbouring ones to blossom and bloom.

[vortical 0]

There is a way to solve almost all the issues with the multiplayer that people have raised here, but it would require giving up some of the 'realism' that Maxis seems to be pushing for. Simply put, you only incur the consequences of your neighbors actions (good or bad) if you have established an appropriate deal or connection with them. Since setting up the deal or connection would require consent from both players, there would be no way of casually griefing another player. On the flip side you would have to make sure that directly trading with a neighbor is more profitable than simply getting what you need from the 'world market' or auction house. The simplest solution would be to impose a tax on any transactions with another city you are not neighbors with. Anyone see any holes in this idea?

[Mark Waybill 242]

I imagine you could possibly have a inter city quarantine system, only allowing trade intra-regionally to the extent your cities wish?