Skip to main content

How developers deal with griefers

“What the hell is this guy doing?”

I turned to the lead coder and he just shrugged.

“He’s racked up a mammoth negative score. What an idiot. He’s ruining it for everyone.”

Most of the dev team was gathered round my monitor watching in horror. The fateful words that would haunt us all for the next few weeks rang out.

“He’s a griefer.”

Everyone who plays multiplayer games will have encountered a griefer at some point. Their aim is to deliberately irritate and harass all the other players or sometimes one specific player. The anonymity of the Internet has a definite dark side; for websites it’s trolls, for video games it’s griefers. Multiplayer games, especially in the first-person shooter genre, attract more than their fair share of griefers. Combine their gaming behavior with their immature chatter and provocatively racist usernames and you’ll find that they can usually lay claim to the troll title as well.

Griefers were not a new concept for me, it’s just that when you develop a new game it’s easy to have the naïve idea that people will play it the way you intended.

Influencing game design

It would not be an overstatement to say that griefers have influenced the direction of game design heavily. Any game designer working today has to consider the best way to deal with griefers. In the FPS genre and beyond they’ve forced developers to come up with new spawning systems and new tools to allow players to police the game.

Early FPS releases were positively packed with griefing tactics from spawn camping to friendly fire massacres. When developers reacted by offering server options such as turning friendly fire off, griefers found new ways to exploit that. I can remember a game of Call of Duty 2 where a griefer stood in the doorway of the bunker where his team was spawning in and just prevented anyone from getting out. He demanded his angry teammates should crouch down and simulate a sex act in return for their freedom. Bizarrely enough an orderly queue formed straight away.

Ultimate griefer’s delight

When we designed The Ship it was out of a typical and oft-heard indie developer desire to bring something new to the FPS genre. We all played FPS games from Unreal Tournament and Half-Life to Vietcong and Battlefield. We deliberately tried to design something that felt different and that solved some of the main complaints about the existing multiplayer FPSs on the market. Naturally it sank without a trace, so here’s the central idea to bring you up to speed.

Every player was given the name of one other player and told to kill them. Instead of running around shooting everyone in sight you were supposed to hunt down one person. You also had one person hunting you — all players were effectively in a kill loop. So you could only legitimately kill either your quarry or your hunter.

As hardcore FPS fans, we threw in a lot of other mechanics to combat perceived problems. Players had needs to cater for so they’d have to visit the toilet and eat – intended to prevent camping and create murder opportunities. There was security around so you couldn’t just run round blasting everything in sight — you had to identify your quarry and then stalk them to find an opportunity for the kill. The varied weapon set would reward you with different, constantly updated, scores for a kill and whatever weapons were used the least would earn the biggest rewards – intended to avoid everyone competing for the BFG equivalent.

Played with a group of friends and a clear understanding of the rules it was a paranoid and addictive experience that really felt fresh (even if I do say so myself). Out in the open market it was griefer’s delight. We had inadvertently created the ultimate game for griefers.

Fine line between exploits and griefing

Gamers are like water. They find the path of least resistance quickly and they exploit it. Multiplayer gaming is all about finding winning strategies and for most gamers it doesn’t matter if others might perceive those strategies as negative or exploitative. Remember bunny-hopping? How about firing rockets at the ground to blast yourself to otherwise inaccessible areas of a map?

There’s a fine line between taking advantage of exploits in the game design and griefing. The intention may be different but the principle of not playing the game as it was intended to be played is the same. Sadly in extreme cases exploits lead to great features being dumped completely because they unbalance the game.

Combating griefing

The ShipIn The Ship we very quickly had to cater for griefers who refused to play by the rules, but since we had an in-game security system our solution was literally to throw them in jail and then tell their hunter where they were. The tactics quickly grew smarter so we implemented a bunch of backup systems for booting players who refused to play by the rules. Tracking their behavior and score and setting up penalties had a minimal impact. The trouble is, a lot of griefers are really determined and they’ll pretty much always find a way to ruin things for others.

Since part of the trick was identifying your hunter and countering any attack one majorly successful method of griefing emerged. You could follow someone until you had them alone in an unsecure area and then run at them with a weapon drawn, provoking them to wrongly kill you, assuming you were their hunter, and land them a stay in jail. You’ve got to admire that one – griefers could use the anti-griefing system to grief.

In the end we spent too much time and energy on worrying about griefing and not enough on the bucket load of other problems that the game had. Realistically you’re never going to eradicate griefing.

The obvious answer

There’s only one water tight solution I’ve ever come across for avoiding griefers, and that’s to play in organized groups, clans, LAN parties or whatever, where everyone agrees to play by the rules. I don’t think it’s possible to design a game that completely prevents griefing without seriously limiting it in the process.

Most of us have been stabbed by a knife-wielding maniac in a frenzy at some point, or blocked in a doorway, or had our rightful loot stolen away. Griefing in its various forms is horribly common and it’s still a major problem for gamers. Some people avoid multiplayer gaming altogether because of griefers. I think that’s sad. They should just join a clan or organize gaming sessions with friends. Multiplayer is always more fun when you actually know your victim anyway.

Alternatively, why not engage in some counter-griefing? There are situations where you can actually grief for the greater good. Griefing a noisy troll or another griefer is perversely satisfying. Maybe two wrongs can make a right once in a while.

Editors' Recommendations

Simon Hill
Former Digital Trends Contributor
Simon Hill is an experienced technology journalist and editor who loves all things tech. He is currently the Associate Mobile…
State of Play September 2022: how to watch, what to expect
Cloud and Sephiroth looking over a mountain.

Hot off the heels of Nintendo's Direct announcement, PlayStation is holding a surprise State of Play this week. An official PlayStation blog states that the upcoming stream is set to be somewhat of a pre-show for the impending Tokyo Game Show event on September 15-18. There's going to be a lot of focus on PlayStation's Japanese partners as well as some updates on Sony's latest VR headset.

Here's how to watch the surprise show and what to expect from it.
When is State of Play?
The State of Play is to take place on September 13. The broadcast begins at 3:00 p.m. PT. PlayStation's blog also confirms that it will last around 20 minutes, making it half the length of Nintendo's show on the same day.
How to watch State of Play
As always, the event's stream will take place on PlayStation's official Twitch and YouTube channels. There's no word on whether or not it will broadcast on other social media streaming platforms.
What to expect from State of Play
https://twitter.com/PlayStation/status/1569445831614369793

Read more
The Last of Us Part I should launch on PlayStation Plus Premium
Ellie looking concerned.

The Last of Us Part I is one of the most notable PlayStation 5 games to launch this fall. It’s also one of the year’s most controversial titles.
Despite the acclaim associated with The Last of Us series, there is heated debate surrounding the remake’s $70 price tag, which is more than the original release and The Last of Us Remastered cost at release -- even though it's lacking the multiplayer mode that came with both. This situation turned what should be a certified slam dunk for Sony into a divisive release, and Sony could fix it with one key change: making The Last of Us Part I a day-one title on PlayStation Plus Extra or Premium.
This isn’t because The Last of Us Part I isn’t worth $70. In fact, its improved visuals and the vast amount of new accessibility features clearly warrant the price tag in the eyes of some. That said, even defenders of the heightened price can recognize the controversy arising from charging more than ever for a remake of a twice-released game. The Last of Us Part I is in a rough situation, and being a PS Plus game would ease some of those concerns.
Why being on PS Plus would work
As The Last of Us is one of Sony's most popular modern franchises and has a TV show on the way, it's understandable why Sony and developer Naughty Dog eagerly want a modernized version of The Last of Us Part I on store shelves at full price. Still, those who've already bought the game twice and aren't impressed by the visual and accessibility overhaul don't seem as compelled to pick up the game for the third time. Sony would remove this significant roadblock plaguing The Last of Us Part I by putting the game on a subscription service.
The Last of Us Part I Rebuilt for PS5 - Features and Gameplay Trailer | PS5 Games
There are plenty of examples showing why this would be a wise idea. The Age of Empire series' Definitive Edition games showed how well remakes work on subscription services. Several years after their original release, many players are still actively engaged with the first three Age of Empire games. While interested players can still purchase the remakes individually, putting those games on Game Pass for PC on day one ensured that the community didn't have to pay full price for a game they were already playing daily. Instead, they could just get the remake through their subscription and continue.
The Last of Us Part I is in a similar situation, even with the multiplayer content removed. This demonstrates why a subscription service release could lessen some of the negative stigmas around the game. The successful Stray, which was included in PS Plus at launch, shows that day one PlayStation Plus games can still generate plenty of positive buzz. The game's subscription service availability ensured that the conversation stayed on the game's cute cats, not the fact that it was a $30 game that only lasted about five hours.
Sony has recognized the power PS Plus can have on embattled games before. Destruction All-Stars was originally a $70 PS5 launch title, but ultimately launched as a PlayStation Plus game that was free to subscribers. Although The Last of Us Part I seems like it’ll be a better game than Destruction All-Stars, a day one game makes even more sense on PlayStation Plus Premium and Extra now than it did on PS Plus in February 2021.

Despite all of those factors, Jim Ryan made it clear that he does not want AAA PlayStation Studios games on PlayStation Plus Premium or Extra on day one during an interview with Games Industry.
“We feel like we are in a good virtuous cycle with the studios where the investment delivers success, which enables yet more investment, which delivers yet more success,” Ryan said. “We like that cycle and we think our gamers like that cycle … We feel if we were to do that with the games that we make at PlayStation Studios, that virtuous cycle will be broken. The level of investment that we need to make in our studios would not be possible, and we think the knock-on effect on the quality of the games that we make would not be something that gamers want."
His argument makes sense from a business standpoint, but data from Microsoft shows that people play more games (and games they might not have played initially) when they are available on a subscription service. Even if it seems unfair to judge, many people weigh the amount of new, entertaining content a game offers to its price tag. Sony's can't truly say whether The Last of Us Part I is worth $70, but it can shift the discussion in its favor with an act of goodwill.
The Last of Us Part I will be released for PS5 on September 2, 2022.

Read more
Destiny 2 Iron Banner guide: How to earn the Iron Lord title
A group of 6 Destiny 2 players stand in a line, waiting for a match to start.

Lord Saladin, the legendary Titan in Destiny 2, has returned to the Tower and has brought his Iron Banner with him. There are some major changes to how this PVP-focused mode operates, and some of the tasks are, frankly, a bit confusing. Never fear, your friends at Digital Trends have braved the skirmishes and stood over defeated foes to break it all down for you in this guide. We will show you how to complete the Forged in Iron quest and get you started on the path to earning the Iron Lord title.

Read more