334 replies to this topic

[Hawkeye 72]

Red Beard, on 20 March 2012 - 01:59 PM, said:

There are not even really battlemechs in the real world

Yet...thinking about doubling in ME just to make that happen.

For future contributions to this thread, I would like to see more than a simple "friendly fire/no friendly fire" argument. My original post as I stated wasn't to single out only people who team kill, but also those who glitch/mod/exploit in-game errors. I was wondering if PGI would have a system set up to take care of individuals who break the confines of the game, not just become vulgar TK'ers. It is a lot easier to make small mods for PC games than the 360, and lots of people love to break those open. Too often online support is dropped in a game and it hampers the quality.

Also, lets assume that those who TK will be a minority (>~5%). I am more concerned about those who break the game in other ways and find other unsporting manners of play besides killing a teammate. (hence the "miscreants" in the thread title...should have named this better).

[John Wolf]

Red Beard, on 20 March 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

I see this happening like once in every one hundred thousand games. Seriously. Not worth the effort of even debating.

Hmm...a new thought is coming to me...this may be a new strategy. I will call my new strategy...the Jolly Roger! Stand in front of my friends and shield them from enemy fire whilst they cool!!! See, it's not grieving, it's shielding....Perspective is everything...

Whoa whoa whoa....! Just hold it right there big guy! Take a deep breath. Accounts are tied to credit cards and that makes getting more than one account tough for many folks. To ban a player from the game would, in most cases, mean that that player cannot return, at all. I know what you are saying..."But Red Beard, that's the idea of a ban!" And you are right, which is why I would hope that nobody here really thinks that just because you go into a game and get in the way that you should be banned. Banning a player should be for something really off the hook bad. I really don't even know what kinds of things fall into that category, but certainly not anything that has been listed in this entire thread. Grieving, FF abuse and the like is not anywhere close to an offense bad enough to ban a player. I don't care if you are a 47 year old man with high blood pressure and anger issues who cannot put up with even a single instance of this or not. Banning is super serious, and the offenses that this thread is talking about are not.

I would compare this thread to going before congress to petition for the death penalty for anyone caught loosening the lid to a salt shaker in a restaurant. Laughable, at best.

Red,

While I appreciate your input on the subject, you've done nothing to provide an alternative to my view other than perspective is everything. Which in this case its really not.

To cover your responses to my post.. yes, it will likely be rare that a commander role is filled by a griefer however it will have a serious impact on the players in that game.

Yes, taking incoming fire for a friendly is a great idea if you've got the spare armor.. but its not a matter of perspective its a matter of intent. Your comments only make an excuse for the griefer which makes it sound like you support the idea. (Not an attack, just an observation since you don't provide an alternative) If you draw fire from enemies and get out of the way for the player to reengage after, great.. thats teamwork. The example I provided is not that, no matter how you look at it.

I'm not saying that because you happen to get in the way for a couple of shots you get banned. If I gave that impression then my mistake. However, if a player account has been reported numerous times, in numerous events, and staff validate that the player is simply griefing, then yes, why not ban that player to improve the community?

If you would like to say, but money is money and why would people want to remove potential income from the game? If everyone is paying, and people quit because of the griefers, which community do you want to have? One full of respectful players, all enjoying the content, or the first person shooters full of abusers where no admins are present and the game is unplayable all in the name of some laughs for the griefers involved?

Again, feel free to provide your opinions but provide some examples to help STOP griefing, not make excuses for the players who try to disrupt other people's enjoyment of the game. Be helpful, not a hindrance.

Thank you.

[DeformedSlowest]

Volthorne, on 19 March 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

Alright, here's some options that no one seems to have considered yet:

1) ANY FF fine is split 50/50 by offending party and receiving party. This way, you can't really get away with not paying for FF whether taking it or dishing it out.

2) A built in mechanic similar to those dumb aim-helping-things often found in FPS titles (which always end up making snipers miss their shots while trying to lead a target, go figure) EXCEPT it would work in reverse, where your reticule would automatically drift AWAY from teammates, so that you had to actually try and shoot them (wouldn't be that hard, the drift is usually fairly slow), or that they could only get hit if they walked into your line of fire AFTER you pull the trigger. Note that I don't mention auto-lockout from firing anywhere in this passage (which would require an advanced targeting computer and an advanced IFF).

3) Optional forgiving of FF/PK incident (with no timer, so that s*** can be sorted out, as rushed decisions are always wrong) for accidents/random crap that might occur due to the Black Lady, or for martyrs calling barrages down on themselves to nuke an enemy strike team (as a side note, anything within an incredibly short distance (100m? 200?) of a friendly that gets marked for arty fire should require a second confirmation from another scout to stop idiots from getting themselves killed for trolling or other purposes - this would rely on the Commanders, though).

I'm with the confirmation example but not with the target reticle trying to sway away from friendlies. I would suggest lockout on firing on friendlies being build into the mech's system with a confirmation needed to commit FF.

John Wolf, on 20 March 2012 - 01:57 PM, said:

There are a LOT of posts in this thread and I'll admit I haven't read them all on this so sorry if its been covered. Having no FF in a game would NOT solve griefing. Which is the core of this conversation, not just Friendly Fire. I mean, what happens when a griefer gets the command role? The effected team is at a serious handicap.

Another example, you cannot damage friendly mechs, so the griefer in question stands in front of you a blocks your travel and weapons fire. You can't do damage, and need to back up to move, plus you cannot destroy the object in your path, you're forced to continually back up to try and disengage, meanwhile any hostiles are lighting you both up.

If there was a way to completely remove griefing from games, it would be implemented already. Report systems, active staff reviewing logs, and account bans are probably the best way to go. The better coordinated and active the community is reporting and communicating the problem players the less common griefers will be.in the game.

A banning system would be nice to have but can be easily abused. I would suggest that all matches are "monitored" or that damaged done be logged. I mean logging damage would also be a nice thing to have so that we know how well your Gunnery Skills stack up against other players per weapon, mech, etc used. Also some type of damage percentage ratio should be added in if not. What I mean by that is, for exmample, Player A did 40% of the total damage to the opposing team, with a breakdown of how much damage Player A did to each opposing team's mechs. That is besides the point. However since damage given to whom is being tracked, you can tell who are TK'ers from those players who are not more readily.

[Voidreaver]

Hawkeye 72, on 17 March 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

This is something I have yet to see addressed but is critical when working with any MMO. Now most of us here have respect for the game and see something morally wrong with pumping a gauss rifle into the rear of your lancemate. However we are also a minority. Any online game runs the risk of seeing a swath of destruction by players hell-bent on ruining your day. This isn't limited to team-killing either, but any actions which ruin the spirit of the game.

Now obviously the role warfare aspect of this game encourages communication, so you probably won't be dropping into a combat zone with your scout/recon unit unleashing all manner of threats and obscenities to his teammates. But what happens when you pick up a lone wolf player who just had his cheerios pooped in? Or face an opposing lance of mechs spamming the game in a manner we haven't figured out yet?

The internet is littered with a$$holes, so obviously this game will need some enforcers. The dedication of the PGI team so far gives me confidence, but what does the community think? My own suggestions:

Reporting system: This goes beyond just filing an online report. Instead games should display players ratings so others can see if someone has a reputation for foul play. It's on the developer just as much as the community to ensure unwanted play stays away. I am also in favor of bans for players causing problems or c-bill reductions.

Moderators: Just like the forum, it wouldn't hurt having a small number of trusted individuals who play the game to spot foul play and step in. In-game police? However this runs the risk of power abuse. In that case maybe the removal of players from the House or Merc unit?

Kill switch: In the event of a rogue unit, maybe give a commander the ability to shut down a rogue team member? Not so much boot him from the game, but keep his mech shutdown so he suffers for his transgressions lol. Once again I recognize the window for such a feature to be abused. Just throwing out ideas for now.

If you have any experience with online games, you know people exist whose sole purpose in the game is to sabotage their teammates and break everything. Too much behavior like this can ruin the fun.

Thoughts? Ideas? Should we start forging our own lovely ban-hammers? Nothing says street justice like a well placed PPC

I would agree with any of the "***** control" options you've put out there. But make the kill switch, as it were, a touch more literal. Namely by blowing their 'mech sky-high with a time-lock on any respawn opportunities for a set timeframe... say a 10 minute lock on respawning for first offense, 20 minutes for second, 30 for third, etc... needless to say, by 10th kill-trigger, they'd be having major issues.

[wwiiogre]

Like I said 8-10 pages ago, we have IFF and we have multiple level of locks. All weapons can only be fired with a level 1 Lock, meaning you have a mech targeted. Note, you cannot target a Friendly/Teammate Mech. This means you cannot intentionally shoot your teammate.

But, it does mean that if your teammate gets between you and the enemy and takes damage its either his fault for not paying attention or your fault for not paying attention. Either the shooter has no fire discipline or the friendly taking damage walked into it. Simple, no reporting, no fees, suck it up and watch where you are at on the battlefield. This also stops targeting friendlies at the beginning of a match. This will only happen when there are enemy targets, plain and simple.

Now, how does this work with jamming and the sort? Or ECM or Ghost targets? Who knows, but it stops intentionally shooting your teammate in the back. And if a griefer or noob wants to hang around a match and then maneuver until he can shoot one of his own teammates, then at least he had to work hard for it. Get into combat with the enemy and then intentionally or obliviously shoot his own team. As this will make him a target of the enemy and bring him into range of the enemy and if he damages his own teammates so bad that they lose the mission it will also cost him in his own repairs and such.

It is enough for me, no reporting needed, Suspension of disbelief? Well in the military they train people for a very long time and evaluate them for a very long time before trusting them with destructive power. This is a game and we will have 10 year olds and people that act like ten year olds playing. No training, no psych evals, just here go blow stuff up. So if they cannot target friends, and the trigger pulling does nothing. Guess they need to go find the enemy to make the trigger work.

Could this be a toggled switch? Sure or even a server/mode switch. Drop Ship mode where you get respawns could do away with it, Solaris could do away with it. Just seems an easy fix at this point. If you have IFF and Targeting computers why not have then not allow you to target your friends. On the other hand, if your friends happen to walk between you and the enemy, well live and learn and do better next time.

chris

[Voidreaver]

In regards to griefer/team-killer control... hm. Admittedly, friendly-fire negation would do alot towards stopping team-killers in the direct sense, it wouldn't stop the indirect should they keep getting in your way... even there, Jump Jets go a long ways to going OVER the problem, in a literal sense.

In regards to artillery and other LRFS options... watch your Recon and keep a healthy distance from their targets. Perhaps a team-visible target marker, so you don't bomb yourself by walking into friendly warheads. Or not-so-friendly warheads...

A target alarm of sorts should your would-be lancemates open on you directly, namely via the heavier stuff, like PPCs and Gauss Rifles.
Say what you will, but unless you're a Light-class recon, anything under a Large Laser is gonna have issues cracking your armor, be it not-so-friendly fire or not.

[Black Sunder]

Do people really think this is going to be that much of a problem? I hardly ever see it in games.

[wwiiogre]

I havn't played BF3 in weeks cause every time I attempt to play the pubs are filled with griefers, stealing vehicles, team killing even on disabled friendly fire servers (crashing into you with a vehicle and jumping out right before it hits people, crashing helos and planes into people and on hardcore, well they just shoot or blow you up then), or the little dirt bags just sit in the base and kill all the vehicles. In a game with unlimited respawn well what do you do, in a game where there is no respawn and you have to repair your mech, it sucks.

chris

[rafgod]

I'd rather the Devs figure out a penalty system for TKers as opposed to taking out friendly fire. Considering that a good portion of this board would rant and rave until they are blue in the face if PPCs don't sparkle enough, ER Lasers have a range slightly off the table top, or the eyes on the Atlas aren't precise to the 1/8th millimeter.... you can't ask for something as realistic as FF to be removed.

[movingtarget]

one thing i think should be factored in is if you call for fire support on a danger close target it should remove the penalty for anyone who provides the support fire,say if a scout jenner gets ambushed by a atlas and calls in a lrm strike he dosnt get cbills if he eats a stray lrm rocket and the one who fired it does not get a black mark(or gets a ff mark thats noted as requested by the one who died)

[Red Beard]

John Wolf, on 20 March 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:

Red,

While I appreciate your input on the subject, you've done nothing to provide an alternative to my view other than perspective is everything. Which in this case its really not.

To cover your responses to my post.. yes, it will likely be rare that a commander role is filled by a griefer however it will have a serious impact on the players in that game.

Yes, taking incoming fire for a friendly is a great idea if you've got the spare armor.. but its not a matter of perspective its a matter of intent. Your comments only make an excuse for the griefer which makes it sound like you support the idea. (Not an attack, just an observation since you don't provide an alternative) If you draw fire from enemies and get out of the way for the player to reengage after, great.. thats teamwork. The example I provided is not that, no matter how you look at it.

I'm not saying that because you happen to get in the way for a couple of shots you get banned. If I gave that impression then my mistake. However, if a player account has been reported numerous times, in numerous events, and staff validate that the player is simply griefing, then yes, why not ban that player to improve the community?

If you would like to say, but money is money and why would people want to remove potential income from the game? If everyone is paying, and people quit because of the griefers, which community do you want to have? One full of respectful players, all enjoying the content, or the first person shooters full of abusers where no admins are present and the game is unplayable all in the name of some laughs for the griefers involved?

Again, feel free to provide your opinions but provide some examples to help STOP griefing, not make excuses for the players who try to disrupt other people's enjoyment of the game. Be helpful, not a hindrance.

Thank you.

John,

First, thank you for addressing my post with respect. Respect is a commodity rare today, and to have some to give others is really cool.

I understand that you would benefit from some examples. I will try.

If I am closing in on a fight that broke out between a friendly and an enemy off to the periphery, I may be inclined to break off and engage the enemy. If I see that the enemy mech has an upper hand and that my buddy is overheated, I might be so inclined to "Jolly Roger" for my teammate and take a few hits to keep him alive. If that happens, should my teammate get all ticked off and say I am grieving? An extreme example, to be sure, but the idea is that whether an action is good or bad is in the eye of the beholder.

As far as the commander role being filled by a "loser", all I can say is, you are going to have bad games no matter what. It is going to happen so seldom that to get upset over a single game going south once in a while is not worth it.

In your last statement, you mention that I am a hindrance because I have not provided an ezample of how to stop grieving. I am guessing then, that you have not read the entire thread in an interest of gaining "perspective". I have said all along that I do not think there is a way to stop grievers, AND, that I believe that grievers are rare enough that nothing should be done. Period. No example needed.

Thanks for a respectful post. Others on this thread should take notes.

[Red Beard]

Black Sunder, on 20 March 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

Do people really think this is going to be that much of a problem? I hardly ever see it in games.

No, it isn't. This thread just has a bunch of grievers grieving about grievers. Heeeyyyyy....we agreed on something Sunder. Look at that. I still don't like you....grrrrr.....

wwiiogre, on 20 March 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

we have IFF and we have multiple level of locks. All weapons can only be fired with a level 1 Lock, meaning you have a mech targeted.

I am laughing out loud at this idea !!!

Oh no, I might have been too harsh here....I hope I didn't offend anyone's delicate sensibilties...

[ENDMYSUFFERING]

Hawkeye 72, on 17 March 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

Now most of us here have respect for the game and see something morally wrong with pumping a gauss rifle into the rear of your lancemate.

Kill switch: In the event of a rogue unit, maybe give a commander the ability to shut down a rogue team member? Not so much boot him from the game, but keep his mech shutdown so he suffers for his transgressions lol.

About the gauss rifle, that's actually the best thing to do to a TKer. Especially if crits are in game. just use him as a nuke against the enemy 'mechs.

And about the kill switch, maybe have trusted "server admins"/PGI (On the extremely rare chance they're in the server) get the ability? A commander would definitely abuse it. And it would be nice to make him spawn with low armor in the largest group of enemies on the opposing team. Free scrap, anyone?

[Red1769]

Red Beard, you've done nothing to give alternatives to reduce the chance of griefers/TKers. In fact, you think this entire thread is a waste of your time and is laughable. I don't see why you're still here. Some people are worried about it, some are not. We all agree that over enforcement is a bad thing, right? But too little is also a bad thing, correct? Yes, we know it's a game, but obviously people don't have fun in games that allow backstabbing SOBs free reign. Self-moderation can't be wholly relied upon, especially if you can't see a record of some kind. If you do have a record that anyone can see that tracks it, then I can see it somewhat, but it's still liable for heavy abuse just because you don't know a person or they're new. But you're against fining them for the TK yet you quote it as "quote of the hour." Which one are you? For something to make TKers even more of a minority or against anything of the sort? Now agreed that banning someone is a little extreme for this, if it's only a few times. But extreme numbers, like hundreds of possible reports or something, I would say that's enough excuses for a temp ban for so many days, and then increase it if it happens again and again. Key word in there is temporary.

You're gonna have bad games no matter what, true. TKers are more common than you think, obviously, but not as common as what other people are making it out to be, again obviously. A little extra work for a system that isn't too overregulating yet isn't too loose that may or may not have a significant impact sounds good. It'll be a failsafe plan. Do you believe in failsafe plans? If you do, what's wrong with having one? It's not necessarily a waste of resources...just something good to have to make you feel safe.

As far as respect goes, you could have taken notes before this point. Oh, look...I guess you haven't taken notes...nevermind then. Before you start harping about respect, you better show it too. Just saying is all, and no disrespect intended in any of my comments.

Quote

I am more concerned about those who break the game in other ways and find other unsporting manners of play besides killing a teammate.

There is also that. I have no experience in this field, so I have no comment. But I guess it's a possibility.

Quote

I'd rather the Devs figure out a penalty system for TKers as opposed to taking out friendly fire.

That is the true quote of the day/of this thread. Can we leave it at this?

[wwiiogre]

Yep,

There is no way to stop sub human arses, especially topic grievers who just proclaim everyone is wrong. Never offer a solution and continue to measure their puny epeen by trying to insult, belittle or impugn anyone else's ideas. While not actually contributing in a positive way whatsoever to any topic while in their own signature are proclaiming another game than this one as more important in their life. I imagine there is no way to stop grievers cause there is no way to stop topic trolls either. They just appear, do what they want, say what they want and in no way actually attempt to make things better.

How many times has someone posted in this thread just to insult or belittle others ideas? How many solutions has that person offered? All I have seen is blah, blah, blah, blah if you punish others for bad behavior the game will suffer and people won't pay money for the free game. Blah, blah, blah, blah everyone should be able to play anyway they want. Blah, blah, blah, blah people worrying about problems are a waste of time so I continue to troll this topic and insult them.

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah my epeen is bigger than yours. I love mechassault cause that is in my signature.

chris

[Hawkeye 72]

Flametrace, on 20 March 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

About the gauss rifle, that's actually the best thing to do to a TKer. Especially if crits are in game. just use him as a nuke against the enemy 'mechs.

Agreed. I have no problem dispersing justice on my own as long as the only person who suffers is the offending party.

Quote

And about the kill switch, maybe have trusted "server admins"/PGI (On the extremely rare chance they're in the server) get the ability? A commander would definitely abuse it. And it would be nice to make him spawn with low armor in the largest group of enemies on the opposing team. Free scrap, anyone?

This was closer to what I was getting at rather than every commander having free reign. If one guy in every match had power over the other 11, no doubt some would find it funny to shut down everyone in the middle of an ambush.

[Red1769]

I talked to my brother a little bit about this, and CoD MW 3 did this on some game modes, he wasn't real specific. They get four FFs. The person does it once, probably an accident. Twice, possibly an accident. Three times, really iffy. Four times, they get kicked out of the match unable to get back in. Just a thought is all. Perhaps modify it to work better here? like no rewards for participating? Those that intentionally run into friendly fire would be an issue...I don't know, I'm just throwing that out there.

Yeah, on the kill switch thing, that would be a very bad idea to leave it to the commander for the reason you stated, Hawkeye. But also keep in mind that they might have to hire a person to do just that. I don't really know, but it could be costly to do that.

[Red Beard]

Flametrace, on 20 March 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

About the gauss rifle, that's actually the best thing to do to a TKer. Especially if crits are in game. just use him as a nuke against the enemy 'mechs.

And about the kill switch, maybe have trusted "server admins"/PGI (On the extremely rare chance they're in the server) get the ability? A commander would definitely abuse it. And it would be nice to make him spawn with low armor in the largest group of enemies on the opposing team. Free scrap, anyone?

This is, by FAR, the best example of self moderation that anyone has yet to come up with! New quote of the hour!

Red1769, on 20 March 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:

Red Beard, you've done nothing to give alternatives to reduce the chance of griefers/TKers.

Have I been unclear? I don't think there should ANY measures taken at all to reduce the chances of grievers or team killers. I thought that was clear in my opinions. So, what example can I give if I do not think it should be done?

Quote

In fact, you think this entire thread is a waste of your time and is laughable.

I hereby redact my originally stated opinion. I have come to see value in this thread. I will replace my stated opinion with this:

I believe that entertaining the "IDEA" of expecting the developers to moderate the game to these ends is a waste of time.

Do I get to do that? You are right. My statement made no sense before, and I do value the fact that somebody brought it up!

Quote

I don't see why you're still here.

I am still here for the same reason you are. To have my opinion on this subject heard, whether folks agree with it or not. I just happen to be of the opposite opinion, and you seem to not like that. Should I have started a thread saying "No TK penalties!! Yay!" ?

Quote

We all agree that over enforcement is a bad thing, right? But too little is also a bad thing, correct?

ANY enforcement by the devs is a bad thing, IMO.

Quote

Yes, we know it's a game, but obviously people don't have fun in games that allow backstabbing SOBs free reign.

I don't really think of it that way.

Quote

Self-moderation can't be wholly relied upon, especially if you can't see a record of some kind.

I agree and I believe the devs will have a stat tracker of some form that includes "things of this nature", but not specifically just for this.

Quote

But you're against fining them for the TK yet you quote it as "quote of the hour."

Yeah, I could have carved that dudes post up a bit better. I meant to chop that part off, I didn't agree with that portion. I see why that would be confusing.

Quote

Now agreed that banning someone is a little extreme for this, if it's only a few times. But extreme numbers, like hundreds of possible reports or something, I would say that's enough excuses for a temp ban for so many days, and then increase it if it happens again and again. Key word in there is temporary.

I agree, extreme stuff like that, though rare, may need a bigger hammer.

Quote

You're gonna have bad games no matter what, true. TKers are more common than you think, obviously, but not as common as what other people are making it out to be, again obviously. A little extra work for a system that isn't too overregulating yet isn't too loose that may or may not have a significant impact sounds good. It'll be a failsafe plan. Do you believe in failsafe plans? If you do, what's wrong with having one? It's not necessarily a waste of resources...just something good to have to make you feel safe.

I can go with that. What you said there is a good, subtle compromise.



I have shown respect in all of my posts, to those who deserve it.

Thank you for a well thought out post. I enjoyed responding to it and I do respect your opinion.

[HeIIequin]

So many walls of text. My will to catch up on the last 2 pages is ...low. Feel free to bash me for not wanting to read it all. Heres my take on it all at any rate, and in bullet form for much easier access. Ideally, I'd like to see something similar to these ALL added:

*- Shoot teammates x' enough damage and offender is penalized c-bills (more FF more c-bills)
*- After match, you can choose to FORGIVE a player of any FF they did to you. If not, they pay a penalty. They just pay a set penalty, not the victims total repairs (would be costly on bigger mechs)
*- Damage caused to you by FF is free Tryg's post below made me rethink, as you could get someone to TK you so you didn't have to pay repairs from enemy dmg you may be about to take.
* Any damage you take from FF must still be payed by you. Nuts.
*- IFF locks - Point at a friendly mech, guns wont fire, missile cannot achieve lock, etc.
*- FF from lock on ordinance doesn't count as FF (you don't have control after they fire after all)
*- Unguided ordinance DOES count as FF (splash damage, leading targets, etc)
*- After a match you can choose to "Avoid" a player, and you never see them again.

In summary, I figured I'd avoid any of the easily abused player rating or self moderation abilities. I figure, add in enough mechanics and FF would be cut down on. Course this won't stop them from griefing by other methods, but them getting killed everytime your team loses would mean make em broke, so it would solve itself eventually. It's a rough brainstorm at any rate. Cool if anyone could help flesh it out. (bulletform please, for the sake of my eyes).

Edited by HeIIequin, 20 March 2012 - 07:36 PM.

[wwiiogre]

Let's see, we have a topic discussing ways to stop team killing, team damaging griefers or mission griefers (yes I know plural is grievers but just doesn't work right). A nice open discussion, with people randomly throwing out ideas. Nobody intellectually beating up anyone over the free floating of ideas.

Then a person joins the discussion and states repeatedly. That any idea is wrong, the person putting forth the idea is stupid and doesn't deserve respect. The only thing the person agrees with is nothing should be done. So he posts 20+ times repeatedly telling people their ideas are horrible and that nothing should be done.

Let's recap. This thread was about ideas to deal with specific bad behavior. Everyone except one individual discussed the topic freely. One individual says all ideas are bad, do not do anything to team killers or grief players and that the community should deal with it. Is it just me or are we the community discussing ideas on how to deal with it?

I personally do not like banning players except if they use hacks. Aim Bots etc.

The best ideas I have heard so far on this subject have been stated several times. Leave friendly fire in for the sim value, charge the offending player by having their account pay for the exact amount of damage they cause. A minor accounting programming code. Or because you already have targeting locks including diffderent levels of lock, have weapons not arm until at least a level 1 lock is achieved before weapons can be fired. A few others have been stated and all are ideas I would like to think about some more.

or we could just take dissenter number one's plan, DO NOTHING, Don't EVEN TALK ABOUT IT, it's just a waste of time, besides dissenter number one only respects people that agree with him/her.

chris