BAN from games

[Nick41324]

If you play lower lvl pvp you know exactly what im talking about. there are always those few player that dont like you too much so they rush you every time they see you in pvp. I want there to be a capibility to were i can ban those players from my games.
Now im not talking about the newer players that dont get the rules of pvp... No, im talking about the near pro-players that rush everyone to gain kills then leave before you can boot, then join again, rush AGAIN, then leave...

please make a ban button STS! im begging you :upset:

[Gluttony]

Sounds a bit extreme to me if it's just over a tactic that is frowned upon but not actually "illegal" to use. I mean are there even really rules to PvP,or is it more like an unsaid code that players agree to adhere to. The problem is that some players choose not to play by those set of rules, it's not ban worthy nor should you be able to have them black listed from your games. If these are the same players that use vulgar chat to degrade others, then they will have their day, but if they refrain from profanity and just rush, rinse, repeat, then there is really nothing to do but boot and move on. Maybe these players don't actually know how to respect the code, if no one talks about it how can one really enforce it?

Perhaps a seasoned vet should write up some rules and regs for pvpers, but keep in mind that all players don't have access to the forums so the rules won't be for all to see. It's more like a book that is passed down from generation to generation and if you never got your hands on it, or never had a mentor then you can go weeks even months without any knowledge of how the game is meant to be played. As far as others are concerned rushing works and nets kills, playing fair isn't in everyone's vocabulary. If someone is bigger and larger and going to win then sometimes taking the cheap shot and running away is the winning strategy.

[Hankomachos]

If you play lower lvl pvp you know exactly what im talking about. there are always those few player that dont like you too much so they rush you every time they see you in pvp. I want there to be a capibility to were i can ban those players from my games.
Now im not talking about the newer players that dont get the rules of pvp... No, im talking about the near pro-players that rush everyone to gain kills then leave before you can boot, then join again, rush AGAIN, then leave...

please make a ban button STS! im begging you :upset:


I agree with you 100%. It always struck me funny why there's an ignore button but they can still join your games. Also, it should work for pve games as well. I can think of it now: guy tries to join YOUR game, it says "sorry, he has you on "Game-ignore" or (or something) and send him back to towne. +1

[Gluttony]

I agree with you 100%. It always struck me funny why there's an ignore button but they can still join your games. Also, it should work for pve games as well. I can think of it now: guy tries to join YOUR game, it says "sorry, he has you on "Game-ignore" or (or something) and send him back to towne. +1

There is no "ignore" button as it is a mute button now. Think of how most players get muted, it's usually because the spam Balefort or FH and you get tired of hearing them, now they're permabanned from your games and cannot even say sorry since you cannot hear them. Just sounds a bit harsh to me since kicking someone removes them from your game and doesn't allow them to come back into the same instance. At one point I would have loved if ignore removed the player from my existance since that is what ignore meant to me, but since STS has revamped what that feature was about we have to play nice and just silence those who annoy us. Kicking them is a whole other feature, and I doubt that STS will ever let us ban players no matter the reasons we may have. I could see it getting to the point were certain players will have burned so many bridges that they won't even be able to see any games when they enter the filter screen due to being banned by every player that hosts games.

[Hankomachos]

There is no "ignore" button as it is a mute button now. Think of how most players get muted, it's usually because the spam Balefort or FH and you get tired of hearing them, now they're permabanned from your games and cannot even say sorry since you cannot hear them. Just sounds a bit harsh to me since kicking someone removes them from your game and doesn't allow them to come back into the same instance.

Funny, I find "mute" to sound more harsh than "ignore" but you see; this is all opinion based. What sounds harsh to some may not sound harsh as harsh to others. I for one wouldn't want a jerk joining me because if I have him on IGNORE than why would I want him in my games? Very simple: I wouldn't.

[Nick41324]

I usally host on a lvl 17 account and then hop on my 22 account so no higher than lvl 22 people can join. 'The haters' see it's me hosting on a lower account and come in and rush me while I'm talking to a friend... So THEN... I need to hop on my lvl 17 account to boot them and they end up leaving, so I end up going back on my 22 and they join and rush me again.

STS really needs to make a ban button pronto...

Extremely good point hank. I don't want people I ignore in my games.

[Skeletonlord]

A ban button? I haven't thought of this before. A good idea

[drewcapu]

The logic for disallowing certain people from joining instances that you are in is difficult.

There would be collisions in the logic.

Imagine (using 'Disallow' as the terminology for not allowing a particular player to join an instance that you are in):
Player A has Disallowed Player B
Player C is hosting a run that Player A is in
Player C has invited Player B
Player B cannot join due to being Disallowed by Player A

In this case, would you make Player C's invite supercede Player A's Disallow? Would that mean Player B and Player A would now have to be in the same instance? Or, would Player C's invite superced in a manner in which Player B is able to join and then Player A is auto-booted for having Player B on his/her Disallow list?

Depending on the logic used, you could basically end up with a ton of non-full games due to everybody having each other on their Disallow list.

Messy.

[lilgangster]

i personnally dnt Pvp to much i did at like lvl 10 now tht i went back at lvl 60 there are "Rules?" Of course i got booted multiple times for "rushing" took me awhile to figure out tht even though u battle it out with other players, it has to be organized and controlled for it to be "fun." I personally dnt even like the fact the ppl took upon themselves to make rules for Pvp. I am a fan of jst joing/hosting and killing my fellow PL players. :p

[Nick41324]

i personnally dnt Pvp to much i did at like lvl 10 now tht i went back at lvl 60 there are "Rules?" Of course i got booted multiple times for "rushing" took me awhile to figure out tht even though u battle it out with other players, it has to be organized and controlled for it to be "fun." I personally dnt even like the fact the ppl took upon themselves to make rules for Pvp. I am a fan of jst joing/hosting and killing my fellow PL players. :p
Pretty much every decent player knows the rules of conduct in pvp. I'm talking about the players that know the rules but they hate you an rush you every time they see you in a game. I would like to ban these players from all the games I host.

[Nick41324]

Player A has Disallowed Player B
Player C is hosting a run that Player A is in
Player C has invited Player B
Player B cannot join due to being Disallowed by Player A
No no no... I was talking about who ever is host. Who ever is on the hosts 'ban list' is not allowed in. Not to sound harsh, but nobody else's ban list matters in that lobby, only the hosts.

-Player A is hosting and Player B joins.
-After player B joins, Player C joins the lobby.
-Player C is on Player B's ban list but it doesn't matter because Player B isn't hosting the lobby.

Take that into consideration :)

[Kaarataka]

The logic for disallowing certain people from joining instances that you are in is difficult.

There would be collisions in the logic.

Imagine (using 'Disallow' as the terminology for not allowing a particular player to join an instance that you are in):
Player A has Disallowed Player B
Player C is hosting a run that Player A is in
Player C has invited Player B
Player B cannot join due to being Disallowed by Player A

In this case, would you make Player C's invite supercede Player A's Disallow? Would that mean Player B and Player A would now have to be in the same instance? Or, would Player C's invite superced in a manner in which Player B is able to join and then Player A is auto-booted for having Player B on his/her Disallow list?

Depending on the logic used, you could basically end up with a ton of non-full games due to everybody having each other on their Disallow list.

Messy.

ah someone who understands logic and how it might relate to coding. Oh, and since I'm here, rushing is part of the game. If they wanted to disallow rushing there would be an invincible cool down for when you spawn. This option would keep you from dieing and would also keep you from casting spells.

[im4broke]

I'm kinda with Dru on this, but a different kind of logic. You can password protect games and if you do not, aren't you expecting anyone to just join? Given that premise, you should be prepared for battle at all times when someone joins not chatting. I like reading Sun Tzu and found this quote,

"One skilled at battle takes a stand in the ground of no defeat
And so does not lose the enemy's defeat.
Therefore, the victorious military is first victorious
and after that does battle.
The defeated military first does battle and after that
seeks victory.
And so one who is skilled cultivates Tao and
preserves method.
Thus one can be the measure of victory and defeat."

Nick, honestly you are not prepared for battle if you are chatting. Knowing that in an open game you will get rushers, you should always be prepared by being in the most powerful position of the map and ready for battle as soon as someone drops in. Sorry if this seems too critical, it just seems to me that paying more attention to the "battle" is more important than chatting. You can chat in town without dying.

[Conradin]

Rushing is 100% legal according to tos

[Piosidon]

Just choose 4 major rushers and put /boot somerandomguy reason in the quick chat and if they join you can boot then quickly.

[Nick41324]

Just choose 4 major rushers and put /boot somerandomguy reason in the quick chat and if they join you can boot then quickly.
Most rusher I do that to bring another account and rush me.. By the time I buff, because I don't know who it is, I'm dead -__-

[STINKY]

Nick I know what u mean, players rush other cos they don't like the other player"s name. But u just have to ignore them and move on:)

[Xscoopx]

I thought they added a system so only people within your lvl range can join

[Ellyidol]

Instead of completely "banning" these rushers, which I agree is too harsh an action, why not suggest a system that discourages, if not, removes rushing completely? An in-depth analysis on this behaviour could lead to a mechanism that would completely remove it.

I suspect that this "ban" feature would only fully work towards end-game as well. A 10-20 twink can be made within a few hours.

[Gaunab]

There is propably no way to ever abbandon rushing from PvP, since it is part of it. There are many 'rush' games which are FFA = free for all. So I don't see a way to get rid of rushers in 1v1 maps. (maybe some kind of customized game, where you can set some rules like agreement on fight...)
I must admit that i like the idea of having a list of people who are not allowed in my games since there are some dedicated rushers and smack talkers out there.
Anyways, I am not getting too annoyed of rushers. When the person is new to PvP rushing once is forgivable. If someone joins the game who is known to be a rusher, I am prepared. And any person won't rush me more than once :)

[Ellyidol]

There is propably no way to ever abbandon rushing from PvP, since it is part of it. There are many 'rush' games which are FFA = free for all. So I don't see a way to get rid of rushers in 1v1 maps. (maybe some kind of customized game, where you can set some rules like agreement on fight...)
I must admit that i like the idea of having a list of people who are not allowed in my games since there are some dedicated rushers and smack talkers out there.
Anyways, I am not getting too annoyed of rushers. When the person is new to PvP rushing once is forgivable. If someone joins the game who is known to be a rusher, I am prepared. And any person won't rush me more than once :)

I agree, that there is no complete way to remove it, but maybe if there was a way to discourage it up to the point that rushing is no longer an option to do, then this behaviour may eventually fade away.

What comes to mind is breaking down what exactly rushing is, what makes it unfair, and what differentiates a rush from a normal fight. The first mechanism that came to mind was also some sort of "debuff" that a rusher would get, decreasing their stats (armor, damage, HS/MS, everything) by 50%. That way, if he rushes, he's pretty much lost already.

How that debuff is applied, when, to who, etc, I do not know. But that's the vague concept I had. Something that discourages rushing to the point that its no longer an issue.

[Gaunab]

I think these are the most common ways in which rushing occurs:

- a person joins the game and just tries to kill every person from the other team, who are unprepared. These persons are either new PvPers or simly dedicated rushers. They most likely leave or get killed/booted after killing 0-3 persons.
This has successfully been discouraged by the rule that gives you a death when you leave during or shortly after combat. However, this still happens.

- person looses 1v1 fight and immediatly rushes, while your buffs are in cooldown and you don't expect it. They do that either because they think you didn't fight fair or simply because they are sore losers. They get most likely rushed back or booted.

A debuff rule like you desribed would propably discourage that, but how should it be applied? Since in FFA games all this is perfectly legal! There are no maps especially for FFA or 1v1. In fact, a game can often change between FFA (When there are enough players) and 1v1.

I personally see no possibility to prevent people from rushing. So I just take this as a fact and I have my ways to deal with rushers. They are part of PvP and sometimes I had quite some fun with them ;).*
But I know that many people find them annoying. In low lvl pvp there are Even more problems. When a lvl 15 joins a lvl10 Game and rushes its hard to get him down and I often wished I could get rid of these guys, who are actually good PvPers but intentionally join lower level Games to rush.

I often thought that a customizable levelrestriction for PvP games would be nice :)

The ban-list would greatly help agains trash talkers and generally rude behaving people in PvP.*
And rushers if you don't like them.

Only problem I see with this is, that it might be overused. A new player who doesn't know about PvP etiquette would be on everyones banlist before he understands it. Or if people don't like a specific guild or cant beat a person...
But generally I like this idea! :)

[Nick41324]

I think these are the most common ways in which rushing occurs:

1- a person joins the game and just tries to kill every person from the other team, who are unprepared. These persons are either new PvPers or simly dedicated rushers. They most likely leave or get killed/booted after killing 0-3 persons.
This has successfully been discouraged by the rule that gives you a death when you leave during or shortly after combat. However, this still happens.

2- person looses 1v1 fight and immediatly rushes, while your buffs are in cooldown and you don't expect it. They do that either because they think you didn't fight fair or simply because they are sore losers. They get most likely rushed back or booted.

A debuff rule like you desribed would propably discourage that, but how should it be applied? Since in FFA games all this is perfectly legal! There are no maps especially for FFA or 1v1. In fact, a game can often change between FFA (When there are enough players) and 1v1.

I personally see no possibility to prevent people from rushing. So I just take this as a fact and I have my ways to deal with rushers. They are part of PvP and sometimes I had quite some fun with them ;).*
But I know that many people find them annoying. In low lvl pvp there are Even more problems. When a lvl 15 joins a lvl10 Game and rushes its hard to get him down and I often wished I could get rid of these guys, who are actually good PvPers but intentionally join lower level Games to rush.

I often thought that a customizable levelrestriction for PvP games would be nice :)

The ban-list would greatly help agains trash talkers and generally rude behaving people in PvP.*
And rushers if you don't like them.

Only problem I see with this is, that it might be overused. A new player who doesn't know about PvP etiquette would be on everyones banlist before he understands it. Or if people don't like a specific guild or cant beat a person...
But generally I like this idea! :)
We need more people like you lol!
Those are all very good points and the reason I want this ban from 'my hosted game' rule.
I know a lot of people that do the one I numbered #2 and that's exactly why I want this -_-
Now idk about you guys, but when I die from someone lower than me, I stand in amazement and congratulate them :) I guess others see it as you played unfair or perhaps disrespect (for whatever reason)

[Ellyidol]

We need more people like you lol!
Those are all very good points and the reason I want this ban from 'my hosted game' rule.
I know a lot of people that do the one I numbered #2 and that's exactly why I want this -_-
Now idk about you guys, but when I die from someone lower than me, I stand in amazement and congratulate them :) I guess others see it as you played unfair or perhaps disrespect (for whatever reason)

This ban would need to go deeper than just character banning. Maybe account banning.

Like I mentioned, if character banning is introduced, this will only be maximized as you progress in the game. eg, twinks versus end-game PvP. If you ban a 61, then the ban is maximized since making another 61 is impractical. However, if you ban a level 10, an hour or less later, he could make another level 10 and just rejoin your game.

I don't see a way to prevent rushing anymore, though. I've given it some thought, and there doesn't seem to be a way to differentiate a potential rush versus a normal fight. A dueling system could be implemented, for those that want to have a pure and clean 1v1 fight, but as far as public and general PvP games are concerned, I can't see a stop to rushing.

[Moogerfooger]

Oh yay, another thread about rushing. I am ecstatic. Lemme get some popcorn.

[Gluttony]

The main problem I see here is rushers, and if that is the case I would like to know why rushing is banworthy? If you play any games that have a pvp aspect (think first-person shooters) if the rules state respawn and FFA, then you die and respawn and are vulnerable at spawn point (unless the game has a period of invincibility) otherwise you live and are at whatever health you were at before the death meaning you're extra vulnerable.

The only real way to change things is to make actual rules that one is allowed to click such as health replenish after enemies die in a one on one, periods of shielding after a kill/death, etc. Keep in mind that with the addition of new rules would mean a screen stating the rules and a click to accept said rules button, and when it's all said and done there will still be complainers who don't like the implementation of rules. It would be nice to be able to add a bit of guidelines to a one on one pvp matchup since there is now a tournament feature added to the game, but there are always going to be players who are upset at the system and STS cannot make everyone happy all of the time... I just see way more bad in banning someone from your hosted games than good.