New Idea: Downgrading instead of Banning ?
together with friends I thoroughly enjoy playing Chivalry and from time to time we come up with ideas about how to make the game better and give it a deep and thorough discussion.
We came to the conclusion that the banning system is somewhat outdated. People should not be (permanently) banned for the following reasons:
- it reduces the amount of people playing the game overall
- people paid for the game, they should not be excluded from playing it
- it punishes people who have a strong liking to the game, even though they may behave in a way that disturbs other players - we shouldn’t ban people who love to play the game
- just like death penalty only exists in underdeveloped parts of the world - a strong reason opposing this ultimate method of punishment is ‘false accusation’ as there exists no 100% certainty - permabanning should not exist in a proper game
We believe, that social rehabilitation would be a better method, instead of distributing bans. If people eligible for a ban would receive a downgrading of some sort, say their attack is reduced to 50% or 0%, would be a punishment that hurts and does not spoil the fun of the game. In contrary, it would even add more fun for other players. Maybe a method of punishment would be that they can only spawn as Filthy Peasants with no means of combat. Much like the best player of the round receives the honour of playing King on some maps, punished players would be forced to run around as Peasants, rather than having AI Peasants only. Obviously they would be muted for chat but they could use Peasant screams to make locating them easier - and to add fun for everybody. This can be limited by an invisible time counter (1 hour, 2 days, 2 weeks, whatever) or a democratic player vote assessment: If after a certain amount of time there were no kickvotes against this player or if the person distributing the ban feels that the player has recognised his wrongdoing and will not behave against the rules of the community in the future, the ban could be lifted. Maybe gradually to ensure long-term adherence.
Same goes for kickbans. Votekicks are a wonderful tool that allows players to keep fighting the way they feel comfortable with and it’s a prime example of the ugly and the beauty of direct democracy. Perfect - don’t touch it. However, being kickbanned is an ultimate if not extremist method, just like death penalty. A player gets completely excluded. Not because he wants to, but because others want him to. Why not implementing multiple levels of exclusion and ways of resocialisation? Like a vote for downgrade. This downgrade could be one of the above mentioned or something completely different. After 1 hour another vote comes up asking the players whether the downgrade shall remain or disappear. But it would be nice to leave players the opportunity to show they have resorted to being better people from now on. Rather than just excluding them from the game altogether by simply getting them out of sight. They are still out there and they want to play with us.
We don’t want less people playing Chivalry. We want more to come.
Skindiacus last edited by
What about bans for hacking? I don’t want hackers on my servers, even if they only do 50% damage.
The same goes for bans for teamkilling and ban evasion. Really, the only defence against teamkilling in this game is votekicks and bans. If someone is willing to TK, 50% damage won’t stop them. I also strongly believe anyone trying to circumvent bans should get no second chances since they are abusing the system.
The only type of bans that I agree shouldn’t be permanent are bans for chat abuse, and those are usually only permamutes or temp bans anyway.
OTS_Johan last edited by
Well said. Banning is bad and when admin ban people for fun its even worse.
Thanks for sharing your point of view.
I agree that it should not be allowed for people alternating the game mechanics to play with people who don’t wish to do so. However, only a very small number does that and they are easily detected. I believe that people who find fun in TKing today may want to play the ordinary way tomorrow. The game already offers a very democratic solution to exclude player behaviour not tolerated by the majority of the players. There is no need for further banning in my opinion. This is just stupid revenge thinking that does not make the game any better. It only makes such people deinstall the game altogether and move on to another game. Before we know it, we’ll remain with only 5 skillful nerds on 2 servers without the joy of a diverse playing community. This happens with games that don’t allow the player to enjoy the game in a number of different ways.
I find that every now and then it is fun playing with likeminded people on a server in a different way than the ordinary. In the end, it is just a game and no serious matter. If TKing is not tolerated by majority, the player’s damage is reduced to 50% and he won’t stop - fine. Let’s do a vote for 100% dmg reduction then. Or a vote for 30 minutes of Peasantry. What is gained by kicking? If he’s annoyed by the restrictions enforced to him, he may leave by himself.
Ultimately, I just don’t think people can be categorised (by means of banning) as there are always individual stories behind each and every situation. And I believe people like to play in different ways at different times. Permabans would exclude such people, even if they like to play the “ordinary” way now. By punishing them through bans, we punish us with a decreasing community. People change. People have bad days. People are dumb at times. Let’s punish them in a less radical and less excluding way. That’s if we want this beautiful game to grow better. Even people alternating the game mechanics (“hacking”) should only be banned for a limited amount of time, not forever. Again, they are easily detected and if they want to come back playing by the rules of majority - fine. That’s what we want, not excluding.
Skindiacus last edited by
Hm. I guess votekicks, 0% damage votes and muting combined does cover all the ban reasons.
Sorry, maybe I don’t get your point. I see a massive difference between restricting (limiting) playability and banning.