Blizzard Punishing Griefing On Warcraft III Ladders

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Blizzard Punishing Griefing On Warcraft III Ladders

Posted by simoniker on Wednesday January 28, 2004 @12:12PM from the on-your-best-behavior dept.

Thanks to RPGDot for pointing to a Battle.net forum post, in which Blizzard indicate they will ban Warcraft III teams for 'griefing'. This requires Blizzard acting on in-game tactics, rather than illicit software mods/hacks - they mention: "We have received reports and observed that certain Warcraft III players have deliberately caused their own teams to lose in team games. This goes against the spirit of fair play on Battle.net, and as such, we will take action on a case-by-case basis. In each case, if we determine that griefing is in fact occurring, the griefer's Battle.net account and access to ladder games will be subject to removal."

85 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Why ban? by El · 2004-01-28 12:14 · Score: 5, Funny

Couldn't they just force all the griefers to be on the same team?

--
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
1. Re:Why ban? by Goldberg's+Pants · 2004-01-28 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  If I had mod points, you'd be modded up for that:) hehehe
  
  I think it's great Blizzard are doing this. Too many software companies take a "Tough shit, fuck you" attitude toward assholes ruining online games.
  
  Let the CDKEY banning commence I say:) Still choked at Blizzard using Securom (which my system hates) and not allowing no-cd cracks anymore on Battlenet, but I admire them for doing what they can to buttheads who ruin the online game.
Uh oh... by NanoGator · 2004-01-28 12:16 · Score: 1

I can't wait to see how this is spun into Blizzard being evil.

--
"Derp de derp."
1. Re:Uh oh... by Kethinov · 2004-01-28 12:51 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  I can't wait to see how this is spun into Blizzard being evil.
  You need not wait longer! :)
  
  Okay well sort of. I'm not exactly a Blizzard-hater, and I don't even play the game in discussion here. But I have played games where "grief tactics" were considered a bannable offense, and in every case it was a completely utterly fucking retarded policy. As a game developer, you make the game. If there are bugs, you fix them. If people aren't playing the game the way you'd prefer they play it, you change it. You don't go around banning people for "misconduct" and "exploits". Fix it or don't bitch, is what I tell developers.
  
  But of course, the "it's not that simple!" argument comes up. Well to that I say too fucking bad. The EQ developers can't force people to roleplay, so they don't attempt to enforce it. This analogy could be a totally bad example for this Battle.net thing, but even still, with my overwhelming ignorance about the specifics, especially having not read the article, I still suspect the developers are more to blame than the players for this "problem".
  
  --
  You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
2. Re:Uh oh... by AuMatar · 2004-01-28 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  YOu don't like it? Go play somewhere else. YOu don't need to use their service. The majority of players of battle.net want to play a certain way, and they don't want to play with assholes. So good for blizzard for making it happen.
  
  --
  I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
3. Re:Uh oh... by tc · 2004-01-28 13:12 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Try this analogy for size:
  
  Imagine you belong to a tennis club where you can play scratch games of doubles. Sometimes your doubles partner just deliberately throws the game. You'd probably try to avoid playing that person, but if he persistently did that he might well be subject to sanction and perhaps ejection from the tennis club for unsporting behaviour.
  
  Does that mean doubles tennis is a broken game? Or does it just mean that you sometimes need extra social or organisational structures to make games work? On the 'net, those problems can be harder to solve because of the relative anonymity, so your range of solutions is narrower.
4. Re:Uh oh... by Teppy · 2004-01-28 13:28 · Score: 1
  
  You have no idea how difficult it is to "just fix it." You're asking developers to write an algorithm that recognizes bad behavior; that recognizes when someone is intentionally playing badly as opposed to unsuccessfully trying to play well.
  
  Furthermore, you're asking them to do this in a domain where writing an AI to just play the game well is an unsolved problem.
  
  Definitely blame developers for bugs, but you're way out of your league on this one.
5. Re:Uh oh... by orthogonal · 2004-01-28 13:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You have no idea how difficult it is to "just fix it." You're asking developers to write an algorithm that recognizes bad behavior; that recognizes when someone is intentionally playing badly as opposed to unsuccessfully trying to play well.
  
  The Athenians knew how to just fix it. Once a year they'd hold an election; the person getting the most votes -- ostrakons, for the shell or potshard used in voting -- would be ostracized, banished, for a year.
  
  Do it monthly, and I bet you'd see a lot less griefing.
  
  --
  Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
6. Re:Uh oh... by Kethinov · 2004-01-28 14:20 · Score: 1
  
  Try this analogy for size:
  
  Imagine you belong to a tennis club where you can play scratch games of doubles. Sometimes your doubles partner just deliberately throws the game. You'd probably try to avoid playing that person, but if he persistently did that he might well be subject to sanction and perhaps ejection from the tennis club for unsporting behaviour.
  There's an easy solution to that one, don't make an ally you can't trust.
  
  Sure it's unsporting and it's griefing. But life, like a game, is not perfect. If you walk into a game and expect everyone to play nice then you are surely naive. And if I worked for a game company and one day they asked me to start policing griefing, I'd tell them it's impossible to do and then I'd likely be looking for another job.
  
  --
  You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
7. Re:Uh oh... by lpp · 2004-01-28 14:25 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'd bring up two points.
  First, this is how they are "fixing" it. Rather than patching to record the behavior or altering the gameworld so that griefing is somehow no longer fun, they are going to patrol their own gameworld and punish griefers. It's a fix with a meat space touch, but still a fix.
  Second, Blizzard isn't just a game developer in this case. They are also a game host. Here they are not just selling a game, but a game world and a (must control gag reflex) user experience. As a result, it isn't enough for them to merely let their game out into the wild as it were. They have to provide the appropriate environment for most of their clients to enjoy their game.
8. Re:Uh oh... by tc · 2004-01-28 14:27 · Score: 1
  
  I was responding to the suggestion that because Blizzard have to ban people, their game is broken and somehow they haven't been doing their job.
  
  My point is that in 'real life' games, the equivalent of being banned by Blizzard exists too. If you regularly griefed in pickup golf or tennis games (you know, where you turn up at the club and get paired with whichever other random member happens to want to play at that time), you might be asked not to renew your club membership. That doesn't mean tennis or golf are intrinsically broken games. It just means that people are assholes and sometimes you need to deal with that.
9. Re:Uh oh... by Entropius · 2004-01-28 14:28 · Score: 1
  
  Except they don't permit people to go play somewhere else--see the bnetd mess.
  
  Griefers should be tagged rather than banned.
10. Re:Uh oh... by August_zero · 2004-01-28 14:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  There's an easy solution to that one, don't make an ally you can't trust.
  
  And here lies the problem: battle.net players are randomly paired with a partner (or 2 or 3 ) for team ladder games.
  
  There is nothing preventing the little griefers from organizing their own games on open or non league servers, so if they want to throw games there is nothing stopping them. But in league games?
  
  Blizzard owns the servers, so you play the way Blizzard wants you to or you can go play by yourself. Getting the boot from battle.net does not make Warcraft unplayable, it just denies access to their matching service which I think is fair. Now is this whole thing going to blow up in their face? It could, we shall have to see.
  
  --
  On Wall Street they say "buy low, sell high" On the pad we say, "buy high, sell high" Isn't that somehow better?
11. Re:Uh oh... by Kethinov · 2004-01-28 15:29 · Score: 1
  
  They're "not doing their job" because there are better ways to handle these kinds of things than banning players. As the second reply to the grandparent pointed out, people are teamed randomly. Well, hello Blizzard! Isn't it obvious that randomized teams is going to cause some people want to throw their game? It's a matter of common sense. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's inevitable. If I were them, I'd be going out of my way to find a solution that didn't involve banning players, which only serves to make them lose customers.
  
  Seems to me it would be a better idea to mark people's accounts down in some way for throwing their game. I don't know how battle.net works specifically, but if you get points or whatnot for winning, you should have your points wiped if you are caught griefing. Penalty is okay. Banning is not.
  
  --
  You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
12. Re:Uh oh... by Bob+The+Cowboy · 2004-01-28 15:32 · Score: 1
  
  Dear God. So it was the Athenians who started this whole survivor mess....
13. Re:Uh oh... by AuMatar · 2004-01-28 15:34 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I agree they should be allowed to go elsewhere. But I'm 100% behind them on banning the assholes.
  
  --
  I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
14. Re:Uh oh... by orthogonal · 2004-01-28 15:53 · Score: 1
  
  Dear God. So it was the Athenians who started this whole survivor mess....
  
  If only they hadn't forced Jeff "Anal" Probst to drink hemlock, they'd be around still.
  
  --
  Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
15. Re:Uh oh... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-28 17:50 · Score: 0
  
  Do you imagine that griefers are too stupid to figure out how to joe-job people, should this bit of mob-rule ever be implemented?
16. Re:Uh oh... by Goldsmith · 2004-01-28 18:05 · Score: 1
  
  You know, an even easier solution is to take down battlenet, then they wouldn't have to deal with any of these types of problems. They might lose players that way too, but they're losing players right now with the way things are.
  
  Removing random player matching takes away one of the the great features of the game. Think about what you're saying. Some people are jerks, so the rest of us should not be able to do something we like to accomodate them. Cooperative play with a random partner is a great idea, provided both people are interested in playing the game.
  
  If this were an ideal world, people would say beforehand if they were interested in actually playing and you could filter theses guys out that way. This being the real world, however, Blizzard is doing the only reasonable thing which is to say that people not wanting to play, can't.
17. Re:Uh oh... by Rallion · 2004-01-28 18:05 · Score: 1
  
  Erm...if they're griefing, it's not likely they're in it for the points. You DO lose points if you lose.
18. Re:Uh oh... by Muramasa · 2004-01-28 20:27 · Score: 0
  
  And here lies the problem: battle.net players are randomly paired with a partner (or 2 or 3 ) for team ladder games.
  
  There are actually two different team ladders, one is the aranged team ladder (play with a friend or clan member), and the other is the random team ladder (play with a newbie or lamer).
  
  If you want a good team game on battle.net stay far away from the random team ladder, and find a friend to play with. Having a random partner takes all the strategy and teamwork out of a team game, it's a really lame feature that they should just get rid of.
19. Re:Uh oh... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-28 22:00 · Score: 0
  
  Themistocles would agree with you.
20. Re:Uh oh... by fuzzybunny · 2004-01-29 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but your analogy falls down on the virtual level. I haven't played B.net, but most of the other online games I've seen don't easily let you see others' IP addresses.
  
  Whereas your tennis partner, well, you can just beat the snot out of him with your racket.
  
  --
  Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
21. Re:Uh oh... by August_zero · 2004-01-29 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  But it doesn't have to be, and in fact it shouldn't be. I think that most people are so used to the worst examples of online gamers, that they forget that things could be better.
  
  --
  On Wall Street they say "buy low, sell high" On the pad we say, "buy high, sell high" Isn't that somehow better?
22. Re:Uh oh... by SandSpider · 2004-01-29 04:55 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The Athenians knew how to just fix it. Once a year they'd hold an election; the person getting the most votes -- ostrakons, for the shell or potshard used in voting -- would be ostracized, banished, for a year.
  
  All right, so I used to work for Kesmai, who the people who are in the know realize that means that I have some idea what I'm talking about when it comes to multiplayer online gaming and customer support.
  
  While your solution sounds hopeful at first, you really have to stop and think about the consequences of the solution in other terms, rather that just the problem at hand. See, you're trying to keep bad players out by making a system that allows for players to rid the system of other players.
  
  Now, do you have some magic way of ensuring that the troublemaking players don't get to vote? Because here's pretty much what would happen: The troublemaking players would gang up and start a concerted effort to ban proper players. If the troublemakers could get a good head start, then they would quickly be able to outnumber the proper players.
  
  The quick rule of thumb is to imagine that you want to make life miserable for other players. Then ask yourself how you can abuse the tools in the game. Presume you can find 30 other players who also want to abuse the system, 'cause you will be able to.
  
  Automatic, player-controlled community tools are a nice idea, but you have to make sure that those tools can't be used to affect a player's experience.
  
  =Brian
  
  --
  There is nothing so good that someone, somewhere, will not hate it.
WTF? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-28 12:19 · Score: 0

Would somebody please translate this gibberish into English?
1. Re:WTF? by hawkbug · 2004-01-28 12:21 · Score: 0
  
  I'm with you - since win is losing something to get banned for? I suck at games like this, so apparently I would get banned quickly :)
2. Re:WTF? by Hedonist123 · 2004-01-28 12:22 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Sure, griefers are players with names like [jerk]IWILLDROP who go into random team games. As soon as a game starts they usually say something rude or racist or what not and then immediately drop from the game. I am sure Blizzard gets tons of reports about these jerks and is looking for a way for random team people to not get stuck with them. Thus, they are looking to ban accounts of people who routinely do this. I doubt this is a viable solution, since these people will just create new accounts, but at least Blizzard is trying.
  
  --
  http://goldysmom.blogspot.com
3. Re:WTF? by kmak · 2004-01-28 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  Easy, all they have to do is ban CD-keys..
  
  --
  
  I'm not the devil.. just his advocate.
4. Re:WTF? by Vaevictis666 · 2004-01-28 12:31 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  This is not banning losing people. This is banning people who join the game to lose on purpose.
  Called Greifers, these people usually tend to haunt MMORPGs but can be found in just about any game. They get bored with the "standard" gameplay, and so attempt to ruin the game for other players.
  In MMOs, this can be anything from following around a newbie and killing anything close to them, preferably after it gets to about 25% health, to building many small cheap buildings in one area to prevent others from building there (a real example from A Tale in the Desert) - the harder it is for the player to get around the greifing tactics, the better it is for the greifer.
  In RTS games, Greifing can range from the passive (disconnecting after 30 seconds (or 2 mins or whatever depending on game), sitting on one's ass not doing _anything_ until someone kills your town center and starting workers) to active (building an army, not attacking with the rest of your allies, then when they're armies are away you force-attack their bases with your anti-building troops) and generally ruin the game for everybody else. The winning team is robbed of a challenge, the losing team robbed of a decent chance.
  I can see this policy only being exercised on solid cases, ie. multiple complaints for the account, with replays available. Just having a partner that sucks isn't greifing (though some greifers do intentionally play crappily to get under the greif radar) and I can't imagine any of those cases holding up to a blizzard staff member reviewing the evidence.
5. Re:WTF? by Goldberg's+Pants · 2004-01-28 12:43 · Score: 1
  
  And unlike other cdkey services, I don't think Blizzard's has ever been cracked, meaning a keygen, assuming it's not a trojan, would probably be useless.
6. Re:WTF? by Tuxinatorium · 2004-01-28 12:43 · Score: 1
  
  that might not be legal unless they put it explicitly in the retail game eula that they reserve the right to revoke multiplayer priviledges at their discretion
  
  --
  Repeal the DMCA!
7. Re:WTF? by Vaevictis666 · 2004-01-28 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  I don't have a copy of the EULA handy, but I'm pretty sure that if that isn't a stipulation already, then there is a stipulation that it can be changed at any time without prior notice. Unfortunately, that's just how things are these days.
8. Re:WTF? by Teppy · 2004-01-28 13:37 · Score: 1
  
  In ATITD we allow grief play because the whole point of the game is to see if players can build a perfect society, including formulating laws that deal with the misfits that every society has (griefers, in an online society.)
  
  However, if I'm playing Warcraft 3, I'm not trying to "build a society" - I just want to play a game of WC3!
  
  So for battle.net, definitely the right thing to do. Way to go Blizzard!
9. Re:WTF? by Tuxinatorium · 2004-01-28 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  IANAL but that sort of "we can change this contract however and whenever we want without notifying you" clause would (should) never hold water in court.
  
  --
  Repeal the DMCA!
10. Re:WTF? by bellings · 2004-01-28 14:41 · Score: 1
  
  Called Greifers, these people usually tend to haunt MMORPGs but can be found in just about any game. They get bored with the "standard" gameplay, and so attempt to ruin the game for other players.
  
  So, they're like Slashdot Trollers, Crap Flooders, and Karma Whores then.
  
  --
  Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
11. Re:WTF? by Vaevictis666 · 2004-01-28 15:15 · Score: 1
  
  Very true.
  OTOH, in ATITD there's a mechanic that the player base can use to deal with this though - laws. I seem to recall that the campfire grefing was worked around quite successfully by player-initiated action.
  RTS games, for the most part, have no way for the players to affect that kind of change, so the developers may well need to step in.
  I'm personally glad Blizzard did this. Well, provided that it's ladder only. Sometimes on the open rooms it's just too entertaining to pass up, especially games of hot-potato allies - every 10 minutes alliances rotate - I miss those good old days of backstabbing my buddies doing that in SC...
12. Re:WTF? by Vaevictis666 · 2004-01-28 15:29 · Score: 1
  
  True enough, but can you honestly see someone suing blizz over this either?
13. Re:WTF? by Cais · 2004-01-28 17:13 · Score: 1
  
  Come on, this is America. Of course someone'll try to sue.
14. Re:WTF? by Rallion · 2004-01-28 18:28 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Actually, after seeing your post, I decided to check out the bNet Terms of Use. Basically, you're not allowed to be an asshole. A few things you can't do, copy-pasted:
  
  "harass, threaten, stalk, embarrass, or cause distress, unwanted attention, or discomfort upon another user of Battle.net or other person or entity;"
  "cheat during game play,"
  "carry out any action with a disruptive effect, such as causing the screen to "scroll" faster than other users are able to type to it;"
  "disrupt the normal flow of dialog in a chat room or otherwise act in a manner that negatively affects other users, individuals, or entities, including, but not limited to, posting "Spam" messages on Battle.net. "Spam" messages as used herein include, but are not limited to, any effort to use a computer or other electronic device to post an unauthorized and/or unsolicited advertisement to Battle.net;"
  
  I'd say griefing is covered by both the first and second ones I listed...Also, it says that if you violate any of those rules, you can be immediately, without warning, banned, permanently or temporarily. Of course.
  
  Heh...I like it.
15. Re:WTF? by Tuxinatorium · 2004-01-28 18:56 · Score: 1
  
  yeah, but the game is purchased with the implied warranty that you'll be able to use it for multiplayer games on battle.net before you can even read the eula. And it's impossible to return any opened software for a refund. IANAL, but Legally, that's fucked up.
  
  --
  Repeal the DMCA!
16. Re:WTF? by Rallion · 2004-01-28 19:23 · Score: 1
  
  I'd wager something similar could be said about nearly any software, really. It's fucked up logically, but I'm pretty sure it's cool legally. Silly system.
  
  Besides, something makes me look a "terms of use" differently than a "license agreement." That's probably because a EULA means that you agree to certain truths on installing a piece of software (ie., we're spying on you now, and you like it!) while a ToU is really just a set of rules to follow.
17. Re:WTF? by mo^ · 2004-01-29 00:16 · Score: 1
  
  damn people who forget the i before e rule.
  
  not enough protEIn in thEIr food i guess
  
  --
  bah!*@%!
18. Re:WTF? by der_joachim · 2004-01-29 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, I'll bite. You can easily ignore slashdot trolls, crap flooders or karma whores. They are merely irritating. Some trolls are even quite funny. :) People who cheat, basecamp, teamkill, greif/grief (sp?) and such, utterly ruin the fun for the real players.
  
  --
  Geek runner, motorcyclist and professional know-it-all
19. Re:WTF? by Ayaress · 2004-01-29 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  You buy the game, you CAN play online. You have to break the rules FIRST before you can't play online anymore.
20. Re:WTF? by Tuxinatorium · 2004-01-29 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  but for the rules to be a valid reason for terminating your license, they would have to habve been publicly available to you BEFORE you baught the game, IMO.
  
  --
  Repeal the DMCA!
21. Re:WTF? by Colazar · 2004-01-29 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  I would say that multiplayer play is warrantied, byt that playing on battlenet is a service that is separate from the game itself.
  Since you can still play WC3 multiplayer if you're banned, I don't see any problem with the terms.
  
  --
  He decided to just watch the government, and kind of scale it down to size, and run his life that way. --Laurie Anderson
22. Re:WTF? by Gleapsite · 2004-01-29 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  While you can craete multiple accounts, you only have one CD-key. Blizzard doesn't ban accounts, they ban this Key, effectivly making the cd single player/LAN only.
  
  --
  face the world with eyes of fire.
It's about time. by Dolemite_the_Wiz · 2004-01-28 12:39 · Score: 2, Informative

This sort of play has been going on since Starcraft first came out.

Dolemite
____________________

--
Save the World! Use a Quote!
1. Re:It's about time. by cicatrix1 · 2004-01-28 14:22 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Yeah, the forum post in question is about a month old (Go Slashdot!), but basically the immidiate reason behind it was because this got to be such a problem that clans were formed that did nothing but backstab* teammates. *Backstabbing includes anything from intentionally going to an allies base and attcking it, to more subtle forms of making nothing but farms, doing nothing at all, walling your ally in with buildings, killing all your units, etc... People were actually proud of the new and interesting ways they could come up with to screw up the game. Teenagers should be branded and avoided :p
  
  --
  
  I know more than you drink.
A noble company? by xgamer04 · 2004-01-28 12:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

Even though a lot of people seem to hate Blizzard, this just proves that they may actually care about their customers. I'm glad there's at least one game company looking out for their user-base.

--
When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
1. Re:A noble company? by ArmyOfFun · 2004-01-28 15:29 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I completely agree. Face it people, public online gaming sucks! When there isn't someone on your team killing you and your teammates or making it hard for your side to win, cooperation is still a rare thing. People make comments just to offend and get a rise out of people. Griefing ruins it for everyone but the assholes griefing. People cheat not just to get an edge but to ruin the experience for other people.
  
  The last thing I want to come in contact with when I'm trying to blow off a little steam after work are people ruining a GAME just because they like pissing people off.
  
  I applaud Blizzard, they are one of the few game studios that (despite all the personnel turn-over) seem to consistently deliver quality games. In addition to their quality games though, they are TRYING to improve the online experience which is currently the wasteland I described. They are actually improving their communities by getting rid of some jerks, or at least making it a tiny bit tougher to be a prick.
  
  Currently the only other way around the common online problems is to join a clan or guild, so it's nice to see a game company be a lot more active in their community than simply encouraging clans.
Way To Go Blizzard!!! by LordYUK · 2004-01-28 13:28 · Score: 3, Informative

This is actually old news, but hey, whatever...

I fully support Blizzards decision, in fact, they just recently banned FFA (free for all) griefers... its SOOO easy to get into a ladder FFA with a "friend" if you click on the play game button at about the same time, since there are relatively few FFA's at any given moment.

Just for clarification, this is your typical griefer:

game starts, they (depending on race) either destroy all their buildings, or hero rush your base, or build nothing but peons.

An older trick was the get this one wand that teleported a unit back to your town hall, and right before you finished "creeping" (killing neutral monsters for gold/experience) they'd teleport your hero back to base, get the item and the xp for your kill...

These arent people that "suck" at the game. These are the asshats that would join your Diablo 2 game with hacked characters and then kill you "because they could".

--
This is my sig. Its pathetic.
1. Re:Way To Go Blizzard!!! by DrDoombender · 2004-01-28 13:39 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I agree with you totally on that. I had to deal with that today. Some nob didn't like me asking him what units he was going for so he killed his base and mine, in a 3vs3 game. This happened not once but twice in a row by the same guy going by the name of "iamthedaddy". In previous days I've encountered Lossbot, and a few others that just magically dropped for no reason.
  So I am glad that Blizzard takes an active stance against this bs because it ruins a great game.The worse part is when people don't understand what is going on. Before they know it their base is destroyed by some jerk.
  I also think that Blizzard has to do this because otherwise there would be no fear of doing this. Its bad enough when people use hacks, but its even worse when they rig a game so that you lose or are severly crippled.
  doubt this is a viable solution, since these people will just create new accounts, but at least Blizzard is trying
  I think that Blizzard bans based on your cd-key. So creating new accounts becomes a problem. Also, some people have some really nice records. We're talking 500+ wins, so losing an account like that is devastating (and this does happen, EG: Iamthedaddy).
Also for CounterStrike by gearheadsmp · 2004-01-28 13:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

Putting all the teenagers who think soloing is gameplay on the same team for CounterStrike is a good thing. I think I played CStrike for about a month back in 2001, then I got fed up with all the teens and cheaters online.
1. Re:Also for CounterStrike by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-29 01:27 · Score: 0
  
  Putting all the blacks who steal in jail is a good thing. Putting all the Mexicans who are lazy in forced labor camps is a good thing. Putting all the Asians who are good at math in laboratories is a good thing. Please don't stereotype.
2. Re:Also for CounterStrike by tiled_rainbows · 2004-01-29 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  you see, this is when being a grammar nazi is actually useful.
  
  You see, "the teenagers who cheat" or "the blacks [sic] who steal" is, technically speaking, incorrect.
  It should either be "the teenagers that cheat" or "the teenagers, who cheat".
  
  "The teenagers that cheat" refers to the "cheating teenagers" subset of teenagers, not all teenagers. I think this is the sense meant by the grandparent poster, and is not stereotyping, as he's not saying all teenagers cheat (although why he's excluding non-teenage cheaters is a valid question).
  
  "the teenagers, who cheat" is, on the other hand, referring to the set of all teenagers, and describing all members of this set as cheats. This would be stereotyping.
  
  So, yeah, throwing all the black people that steal in prison is fine, as long as you also imprison the white people that steal. On the other hand, throwing all the black people, who steal, in prison would be really bad on two counts, as you would be advocating imprisoning all black people, and saying that all black people steal.
  
  --
  
  evil math within Nature's Cubic Creation!
Re:WTF...and new way to be a Griefer. by DrWho520 · 2004-01-28 13:46 · Score: 1

Sounds like Blizzard just provided a great new way for people to grief. Get enough together and you can have Blizzard make the game not fun for you.

--
The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
It's good to know that Blizzard is being proactive by rustycage · 2004-01-28 14:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

I play about a dozen WC III games a week and have encountered griefers on numerous occasions. It doesn't bother me so much when they are on the opposing team, but aggravates me to no end when they are on my team. Blizzard should not have a difficult time identifying the griefers since anyone that wants to report abuse can simply send a replay as evidence.
Now that I am above level 10, I encounter the griefers much more rarely as I am usually matched up with more serious players. However, in the lower levels I would probably encounter a griefer in 1 of every 5 games.
Look me up on BNET: Azeroth / Rusty.Cage

--
No Sig For You
Does Blizzard *have* a marketing department? by Mirkon · 2004-01-28 14:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

I can understand not wanting people to mess up the ladders. So why not have ladder bans? There are systems for this that can work without keeping people off B.net as a whole.

I can understand wanting good players to be able to play with other good players. Which is why said people catch on and play private games with people they know.

What I don't understand is how Blizzard can keep doing things like this, just snapping its fingers and banning thousands of people. Do they really think that by getting rid of those who "don't play nice," those who do will spend enough money to make up for the lost customer base? Banning a huge sum of players on the off chance that other players will have a better time is a flawed business model, and no competent business would ever do it.

And if this trend continues, how long is it until Blizzard EULAs contain rules and guidelines on how you can play the game? How long is it until people who don't play along are just deleted?

Wouldn't it be nice if there was an alternate Battle.net clone for people who want to play on a huge network but don't want to deal with Blizzard's rules? You know, like bnetd.
Whoops.

It keeps happening, a few people keep griping, and the mindless Blizzard junkies who have become zealous followers of every game the company makes keep praising Blizz for allowing them to play with less people. It's bound to crash and burn eventually. Right?

--
Glog!
1. Re:Does Blizzard *have* a marketing department? by cicatrix1 · 2004-01-28 14:29 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Do they really think that by getting rid of those who "don't play nice," those who do will spend enough money to make up for the lost customer base?
  
  Actually, since there is no recurring charge, they lose no business at all. The people who get banned (probably) already bought the game, and depending on how much they care about it, might buy it *again*.
  
  I can't see how this is flawed in any way. Legitimate players pay to play the game in a legitimate way, cheaters and griefers *should* be thrown out. Why should they expect to get away with being assholes and/or cheating?
  
  If Blizzard got terribly overzealous with these rules, then I can see why you would complain. But at this point, you are just being paranoid. Banning cheaters and losers is nothing but good for everyone.
  
  --
  
  I know more than you drink.
2. Re:Does Blizzard *have* a marketing department? by truffle · 2004-01-28 14:35 · Score: 1
  
  This isn't rocket science. Outright ban is a deterrant. The goal is not specifically to keep the ladder clean, it's to have a tough face against griefers, map hackers, and other people who make playing on battle.net less enjoyable.
  
  Enjoyable battle.net play helps sell future blizzard games, i.e. make them money. Even if deterrants don't work, they convinces the non-griefer players that blizzard is trying, as opposed to ignoring the problem. This encourages people to keep buying blizzard games.
  
  --
  
  ---
  I support spreading santorum
3. Re:Does Blizzard *have* a marketing department? by DrDoombender · 2004-01-28 14:43 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Actually, I think there are lots of other companies that are more restrictive in their online play of games. From personal experience I can say that these players be SHOULD banned for what they do. You have no idea how aggravating it can be to play a game thinking you have a fair chance only to find that one of your allies is going to throw the game. Blizzard has done as much as it can do to prevent griefing (EG: give allies control of players units if they drop), but at some point they had to start threatening people with banning.
  I'll tell you right now that I think that your over reacting, like they're some fascist government or something, but I know that people get banned from IRC chat rooms for less. The punishment fits the crime, grief and you get banned. Its that simple.
  Lemme give you an example to highlight my point. if I go into a restraunt and they have a no shoes no shirt no service policy and some guy walks in violating those rules, and to top it off, he starts pestering paying customers, he's going to get kicked out. The Bnet community doesn't want that sort of behavior, and Blizzard is responding.
  Based on your logic, Blizzard should do nothing, let people get away with ruining games because otherwise their being restrictive. Games are supposed to be fun, and griefers really mess that up. The other thing you fail to realize is that this sort of thing also happens outside of the ladder games. Look for my other post on this topic.
  What I don't understand is how Blizzard can keep doing things like this, just snapping its fingers and banning thousands of people Basically, they are NOT snapping their fingers. Like any crime, evidence is submitted (EG: a replay of the game). Blizzard support looks at it, sees the person doing the crime, and they ban that person. This is not an arbitrary ban, these people know what they are doing is wrong and bugs other people. They do not care, for them its funny or a cure for boredom. For everybody else its a loss on their record and an annoyance to gameplay.
  It keeps happening, a few people keep griping, and the mindless Blizzard junkies who have become zealous followers of every game the company makes keep praising Blizz for allowing them to play with less people. It's bound to crash and burn eventually. First off, there are lots of people who want to play without interference. I don't think that Blizzards stance of helping out where problems exist will cause them to crash and burn. By your logic, we should rid our streets of police officers because too many victims gripe, and our society is becoming a "police state" because a few people with the power to enforce the law do so. Blizzard is the police on Bnet, and they respond to victims of a very annoying crime.
4. Re:Does Blizzard *have* a marketing department? by MMaestro · 2004-01-28 14:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Wouldn't it be nice if there was an alternate Battle.net clone for people who want to play on a huge network but don't want to deal with Blizzard's rules?
  You mean like Diablo 2's Open Battle.net which is run largely by hacked characters? Yeah, I tried it before. It sucks. People either cheat or hack... and then they kill you... repeatedly.
  I can understand not wanting people to mess up the ladders. So why not have ladder bans? There are systems for this that can work without keeping people off B.net as a whole.
  Because its not just the ladders. Have you even played Warcraft III online? All regular melee games are setup so that you're randomly assigned teammates and opponents. YOU DON'T GET TO PICK YOUR TEAMMATES. If you're playing a 4v4 and your teammates decide to be assholes and force attack your base, tough luck you just wasted about 20 minutes of time and lost the game. Its not like Starcraft where everyone gets dropped into a room beforehand and can chat it out before starting.
  Banning a huge sum of players on the off chance that other players will have a better time is a flawed business model, and no competent business would ever do it.
  It WOULD be a flawed business model if you weren't ignorant. In this case; Step one, YOU buy the game. Step two, YOU go on Battle.net and get yourself banned. Step three, YOU are now screwed. Now where does Blizzard get YOUR money? The answer: Step one.
  Battle.net is NOT a pay-to-play model. Once you get past Step one, Blizzard doesn't care if you decide to destroy the CD in a microwave, they already have YOUR money. If it wasn't for the advertisement banners and the low bandwidth necessary to run the servers, Blizzard would be in deep financial trouble considing the fact that people are STILL playing Diablo 1 on Battle.net for FREE.
5. Re:Does Blizzard *have* a marketing department? by pezpunk · 2004-01-30 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  And if this trend continues, how long is it until Blizzard EULAs contain rules and guidelines on how you can play the game? How long is it until people who don't play along are just deleted?
  
  have you READ the EULA? it basically already states this. copied from another post:
  
  "harass, threaten, stalk, embarrass, or cause distress, unwanted attention, or discomfort upon another user of Battle.net or other person or entity;"
  "cheat during game play,"
  "carry out any action with a disruptive effect, such as causing the screen to "scroll" faster than other users are able to type to it;"
  "disrupt the normal flow of dialog in a chat room or otherwise act in a manner that negatively affects other users, individuals, or entities, including, but not limited to, posting "Spam" messages on Battle.net. "Spam" messages as used herein include, but are not limited to, any effort to use a computer or other electronic device to post an unauthorized and/or unsolicited advertisement to Battle.net;"
  
  and frankly, that's fine by me. we're not talking about an abridgement of civil rights here. they're just adjusting the rules of their game to maximize its enjoyment. do you play warcraft 3? i do, and i can tell you this small minority WERE ruining a significant number of games for others. self-policing doesn't work. other players just don't have the power. THANK YOU blizzard for taking action more than any other company would have.
  
  --
  i could live a little longer in this prison
old news by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-28 14:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

Wow what old news. I was one of the people banned, and my 1-month ban is already over! Anyway, it was an unfair ban!
I was one of the members of "scbackstab," a group that ran a website (www.scbackstab.com, doesn't exist anymore) where we joined 7v1comp games in starcraft, killed our own teammates, and posted screenshots of the funny reactions we got. I continued this trend in warcraft 3.
Thing is, blizzard was always FINE with it. Even since those early starcraft days. They even posted saying "it's not against the terms of agreement, so we aren't going to punish it" several times. Then, they suddenly banned several hundred people with no warning. It was two days AFTER the ban when they decided to tell everyone in that post that they weren't going to tolerate it anymore. It's like putting people in jail for something before it becomes illegal, totally unfair
1. Re:old news by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-28 14:50 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  next time use your real slashdot name, and list your current battle.net IDs as well. I am guessing there are a number of people that would like to discuss this behavior of yours with you. By "discuss" I mean using a board with a couple of nails in it.
2. Re:old news by chriso11 · 2004-01-28 16:25 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah - there's a lot of 'funny' reactions to that. Personally, I wouldn't mind pissing on your lunch to see your 'funny' reaction. The only good thing about asshats such as this coward was when you were able to take them down. They'd always slink away, leaving a stain on battlenet.
  
  I hope you pick up a 2^n++ month ban each time you are banned. Not that you would learn a lesson or anything, but to at least make battlenet more enjoyable.
  
  --
  No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
Why? by GeneralCern · 2004-01-28 15:11 · Score: 0

I am a little out of touch I guess, what is the benefit to "griefing"?
1. Re:Why? by Incoherent07 · 2004-01-28 15:41 · Score: 1
  
  Who knows... I've run into a few of them, and they claim it's more fun, or more strategic, or whatever. Or, like the guy above, they do it because they can see how people react.
  
  I've also had the opposite happen... one of my teammates once tried to backstab us, failed (because he wasn't trying all that hard), then spent the rest of the game telling the enemy exactly where we were and what units we had. We still won the game, and as we got closer and closer to winning the backstabber got more and more furious with the other team. (He then left, so he didn't get a win for his effort.)
  
  --
  This is my sig. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.
2. Re:Why? by GeneralCern · 2004-01-28 16:30 · Score: 0
  
  Cool, thanks. So it just comes down to old-fashioned #%$$%@ then huh? I didn't know if there was some strategic advantage to lowering your ladder ranking or something.
3. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-29 07:33 · Score: 0
  
  it's no different than why people watch hidden camera shows like Punk'd and Scare Tactics. To laugh at others being misfortuned!
Re:It's good to know that Blizzard is being proact by Rallion · 2004-01-28 18:09 · Score: 1

I agree with everything you said and think, but I have to cringe when I think of the number of replays they'll have to personally go though for this.

And then I applaud them all the more for it, though I pretty much never play anymore.
I can see beginners getting stung over griefing by happyhippy · 2004-01-28 19:40 · Score: 1

like not knowing which units are good against the enemies units and getting blamed for losing.
Heh, an Anti-F*cktard Campaign by AvantLegion · 2004-01-28 22:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

Would like to see a similar "moron clensing" of Battlefield 1942.
I think more games need a simple, easy-to-use "teammates vote moron out" feature like SOCOM 2 on PS2. On some online PC shooter games, I've seen such features, but often they require some typed command at the console that most people never learn.
1. Re:Heh, an Anti-F*cktard Campaign by fuzzybunny · 2004-01-29 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  Don't I agree with you. BF1942's eject feature is a bit lame, especially since (a) most average players have no idea what the console even looks like, and (b) it takes so many people to eject, even if it's a tkick instead of kick.
  
  However, I've seen eject done with lower threshholds in Netrek, with the predictable result that...you can imagine what happens when the twat quotient passes a certain level. Of course, those aren't really games you'd want to be in anyway.
  
  The thing I don't like about the supreme hand of dog kicking idiots out is that it's too subjective. Of course, as we also saw in Netrek, servers with excessively restrictive policies (i.e. server god being too ham-handed) quickly turned into ghost towns. The market decides, and all that.
  
  As it stands, I find the most effective moron cleanser (wipes morons away!) to be a bit of patience and a steady aim. If there's one on the other team, the fair thing to do is to hole up somewhere reasonably safe and make sure you whack them again and again. They're usually not too skilled, and give you easy kills. If they decide to start coming after you, well hey, I've found that it sharpens my attention immensely to have to constantly watch my back from some idiot child who's pissed off at me.
  
  Remember, if you can get them _that_ mad by just playing regularly, they don't shoot straight...
  
  --
  Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
2. Re:Heh, an Anti-F*cktard Campaign by Lord_Dweomer · 2004-01-29 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  " Would like to see a similar "moron clensing" of Battlefield 1942. I think more games need a simple, easy-to-use "teammates vote moron out" feature like SOCOM 2 on PS2. On some online PC shooter games, I've seen such features, but often they require some typed command at the console that most people never learn. "
  Ain't that the truth. In the considerable time I've played bf1942, not once have I seen someone been voted out, only kicked/banned by admin. You're right, part of it IS typing the command, it needs a popup button. But the other HUGE issue is a combination of the fact that you need an insane number of votes to kick someone out, and the fact that your vote stays in the system for a very short time before it resets the vote count. You'd think the mod community might be able to do something about this.
  
  --
  Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
aren't they just being evil? by thexdane · 2004-01-29 07:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

am i missing something here or could these grief players roleplaying an evil character? ok i admit that using a cheat is bad and not good. however using underhanded tactics and killing off your own team is well evil.

i know a lot of the /. crowd is/was d&d players. i'm not sure how many of them played evil characters. i was one who did and at the risk of getting punched out for killing off our own party we didn't but that didn't stop any of my characters from plotting to do it. if any of you got along nice and did nice things, you were good even if you said your alignment is evil.

so in essence, minus the cheating, this is what these people are doing. i've found that a lot of people on the servers have no clue about what playing an evil character is like. i mentioned it to a friend when he played everquest. someone would lead people somewhere and they'd die, he'd bitch about it and i told him they were playing an evil character.

so here's a quick help on how to spot an evil character

no an evil character is not going to give you an item back

an evil character might help you if he need something out of you

an evil character won't think twice about killing you off, so stay useful

an evil character will lead you somewhere to get killed so they can loot you

i know it's not nice, hence being evil, but you can't expect everyone to act all nice, especially in a fantasy world, if you don't like it, leave the game, turn off your computer, walk away, go read /. or something.
1. Re:aren't they just being evil? by Rallion · 2004-01-29 12:50 · Score: 1
  
  Erm...have you ever played a strategy game?
  
  Besides, those evil characters are actually playing the game. They're not being nice about it, but they're working within normal parameters. A person who joins a strategy game and just sits there, or worse? No. They aren't playing. They're hurting their own stats, even.
  
  They're working solely to make the game less fun for others. No more and no less.
Talking out of your ass by gearheadsmp · 2004-01-29 11:09 · Score: 1

Thanks for talking out of your ass, AC. I didn't state that "all CStrike players are bratty teens who don't understand what teamplay is", or that "all teens on CStrike are cheaters". I just said that playing with the certain % of spoiled brats who like to solo ruins the game. So next time you jump to conclusions, and call me a racist, think and start talking with your mouth and not your ass.
not even close by gearheadsmp · 2004-01-29 11:28 · Score: 1

then I got fed up with all the teens and cheaters online.

Having the 'and' between teens and cheaters denotes the two being seperate. "The teens who think soloing..." refers to a specific group of teens.