If a griefer is trying to grief a building, and that building is of even the slightest importance to the current game, then there should always be enough people around to votekick the sob. Otherwise if it isn't noticed in time, then it must not have been too terribly important. I like to think of it as accelerated erosion ^^.

Of course, then you get stuff like bridgewars griefers, who take down your entire team's side of the bridge >:. But I think that kind of large scale griefing is difficult enough to simply be considered a part of the game. Bridges get taken out all the time in war. There were saboteurs. The fighters had to deal with it. Doesn't seem all that weird to me.

Basically I think griefers are fine as long as everyone knows how to spell /votekick :p

A decent building should be big enough, that one griefer can't grief it before you kick him.
Im talking about useful buildings like trenches, bridges, spider forts, walls. Ofcourse that doesn't justify griefing itself.
But i don't think this problem can ever be solved, i can't think of a good solution, that wouldn't screw up the game itself.

@Influx
I think destroying the opposite team's building (i mean destroying blue stuff while being green all the time), is not griefing at all, its a legal strategy.

@deadtaco
my thoughts exactly

>small bridge in middle of map that can be useful for both teams
it gets destroyed

>random bunker on map that could be used by both teams
gets destroyed

people love ruining other peoples bunkers/towers/huts ect. its like rednecks shooting deer and just leaving them to rot in the woods.

i think a map with lots of bridges/bunkers/sniper towers/bases/ect would be cool. then there would be so much crap out there griefers wouldnt know where to start. they would be occupied the entire game while the rest of us played.

People on the enemy side who destroy your buildings are alright by me, because I know I'd do the same to them given half a chance.

This.

Also, I have seen that people who overbuild and then whine about other teams destroying their fort actually attract greifers, and cause the situation to escalate.

Just ask for them to be kicked, and quit whining when they are actually on the other team. If you can't protect it with guns, don't try to do it with words. It's terribly annoying.

if you are talking about me, thanks jackster
i absolutely hate when those griefers(aka blue spies!) destroy our indestructible and perfect fortress for jealousy

Very nice.

look at my avatar

Personally, if it's an enemy building, it's fair game. I tend to employ a 'scorched earth' policy when I come across enemy buildings.

However, destroying your own side's fortifications, unless it's during the process of improving a building, is a big no-no to me.

Griefers on your own team don't make it "unplayable", but they do annoy me to no end and I always votekick if I see one. People on the enemy side who destroy your buildings are alright by me, because I know I'd do the same to them given half a chance.

If you want to build peacefully, I suggest you find a Build-only server.

It really depends on the servers I guess, on good servers most griefers get votekicked before they do big damage. The problem is with servers where people don't really care or pay attention to chat. There griefers can just roam free which makes it really hard to build useful stuff like spider towers.

I don't mind if stuff gets destroyed by the enemy because that is part of the game I do mind if stuff gets destroyed by people who just do it because... they enjoy the reaction from people I guess.

Does this happen to you?

You're one of those players who like to build bridges and towers. But you can't play because Griefers take joy in demolishing what you build?