uni0 Posted June 29, 2013 Report Share Posted June 29, 2013 Skull griefing has become a recurring issue on survival. As players keep earning them, their displays become larger and replacing them is becoming a burden for moderators since skulls must be fixed manually one by one by typing the players name which sometimes is not available. Another issue is that many times griefers get killed and regular players pick up the stolen skulls which mess up the skull "market". What can be done about this? One possible solution is using LWC on skulls. The downside is that LWC abuse cases may increase, because skulls could be used as wall protection. However, LWC abuse cases are usually promptly reported by players on survival, so it wouldn't be an issue. There is no ideal solution for this as far as I know. If we weigh in the options, it seems to me it would be preferable to have LWC abuse cases once in a while than periodic skull griefing. Let try to get a solution for this, since a new survival rev is coming up soon and making a decision that is effective at the start of the rev would be preferable. Edit: reason for private mod chat is so that AVO doesn't get any ideas of our vulnerability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozomahtlii Posted June 29, 2013 Report Share Posted June 29, 2013 I think having it LWC protectable would be a great idea, and I believe there is a tech admin that talked about this already (not sure if he spoke of it as a decision or as an idea) But it would certainly be good to prevent the grief, and it would also be less of a pain for mods as they won't have to replace them, as they need names of the skulls and it's hard to check wether or not that person was actually beheaded by this person or not. And as you said LWC-abuse is always reported very fast if there is such a case, so having it LWC-protected seems like a great idea to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
totemo Posted June 29, 2013 Report Share Posted June 29, 2013 I think having it LWC protectable would be a great idea, and I believe there is a tech admin that talked about this already (not sure if he spoke of it as a decision or as an idea) I made the initial suggestion. It's about a two line change in the LWC configuration. I require a work order from the S admins to make this happen though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draykhar Posted June 30, 2013 Report Share Posted June 30, 2013 Tharine has okayed it with me via IRC. I too am alright with this, consider this me filing a work order. :P Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
totemo Posted July 4, 2013 Report Share Posted July 4, 2013 Oh.. I just noticed that comment. I'll do it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Former Staff Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 Moving to the archives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts