a multiplayer game of parenting and civilization building
You are not logged in.
Portager wrote:I will say, with this new spawning apocalypse vision that you have, you are going to have to seriously nerf griefing (or give us armor, watchtowers or something). The bottom line is that no family tree can last sufficiently long at the moment, because of griefing. We just need a way to fight back. Then we can really fulfill the true vision that you outlined here, multigenerational families working towards the advancement of our societies.
Yes. Very much this. I'm 100% on board with the vision, but murder griefing should be much more difficult. I look forward to inevitable resource raids, intergenerational feuds, and clan warfare, but we at least need a chance to defend ourselves and save our family line if that's to continue to be the focus. IMO a knife should kill in two hits, not one, with a shorter cooldown than it has currently. This would give victims a chance to run, defend themselves, or carry their only daughter to safety as the victim bleeds out (some fun, dramatic RP possible there). I'd even be OK if arrows still killed with one hit--that'd be the weapon of choice for warfare--but close-range instant death by knife is unrealistic and can be absolutely devastating for a bloodline.
Personally, I strongly disagree with these statements. As much as I hate murderers, I think that things are fine as they are now. We do have ways to defend ourselves, and actually hold more power in our hands than griefers. We all can use the same weapons, plus we can collaborate and organize ourselves.
First, a knife isn't such a useful tool that we need to craft one at all costs. You can say the same for bows, too, as you can catch sheep without the need of killing the adult. As for bears, if they attack a village they can just be lured away, and while their pelts are nice to have, they are not a necessity, and so many people just die trying to get them. And I don't think I need to talk about wolf pelts.
Second, if a murderer is about, people can know that fairly quickly by seeing the dead corpse and spreading the word. Then, they can assign someone to guard duty and protect, for instance, the most populated areas. Also, since names are a thing and a murderer gets heavily slowed down after a kill, any witness can easily identify them and inform the others (or, if they can, kill them on the spot).
Third, if Eves spawn further away, it won't be that easy to get a hold of a weapon and go around killing everyone with pies in your backpack. And in advanced cities, we could also make it so that valuable things are kept safe by an assigned person, and have to be earned through visible contribution. One other person may be assigned to check on the population for needs and, in the meantime, observe how everyone acts.
In my opinion, griefers are not the problem. The lack of cooperation is. This truly is an accurate representation of real life.
And as a side note: I don't mean to be mean, but the idea of knives requiring two hits while bows don't is, honestly, against all balance logic. Melee hits are harder to land than ranged auto-aimed hits; have you never seen those guys that, knife in hand, chase people like madmen without being able to get to them? And have you never seen people killing friends by mistake because they misclicked with a bow in hand? If anything, it's bows that could maybe require two or more hits, but I guess that limited ammo that takes space in your backpack is already enough of a downside compared to knives. Maybe make them sometimes break? IDK, and IDC. Weapons are bad and dangerous, a constant threat to civilization, and that's just how things are. This isn't an action game where you take 20 weapon hits and are left with more than half health. This is a life simulator, where weapons kill and one bad person with a weapon can ruin hundreds of lives. Period. If you want a game where life is easy, don't play one where naked children starve to death.
I hope we'll see more cooperation now that it holds even more importance. More cooperation, and more affection, too. For me, the best part of this game is how heartwarming it is, even when filled with so much sadness.
- Edit: took so long to write that I hadn't read Jason's last post. I like the thoughts he expressed. Leaving this here to maybe have some use.
At first, I was conflicted. My heart was not happy about the update, but my mind knew there had to be something meaningful behind it. I read all the posts in this thread, and I think I finally formed an opinion about this:
This mechanic HAS to exists, it improves the game dramatically, but its current state is really problematic.
I don't feel compelled to play the game if resets are happening so frequently. I know it's just because the update just came out and it's the hot new thing to rush to the apocalypse, but I think there are still some issues that need to be addressed. So here are my thoughts, if you'll indulge me.
- One Apocalypse, Fifteen Hells -
It seems that some people get it: this update is not a death sentence, but an opportunity to have a deeper play experience. Fearing the end of all things, people could team up to protect the monolith, create cultures that fear gold, and even build settlements or assign jobs just for the purpose of defending family and lineage. I love the idea of having a cursed object of immense power that needs to be kept safe for the safety of all humankind, but my fantasies are shattered by a couple of (maybe) questionable design choices.
As others have already said, I think that one apocalypse should not wipe all serves, but just the one it was triggered on. It is incredibly demotivating to think that, as a cohesive community, you could take all the necessary precautions to avoid the apocalypse and still be wiped out by a lone, unhindered griefer on server 13.
The same line of thought applies to another concern, which I'm not sure is justified. If I understand it correctly, there is more than one monolith on each server, meaning that even if wipes were limited to one server at a time, it would still be somewhat meaningless to try and protect a monolith. It would still be effort well spent, as people usually spawn from other people and are therefore more likely to encounter the nearest monolith first, but nothing could stop them from going further away and just find one that's unguarded. And they surely will, sooner or later, and most probably do so sooner that any expedition team you could send, as communities tend to settle down before engaging into risky activities and giving away resources that will not come back. I can imagine a somewhat interesting scenario even with multiple monoliths, but the thought that a naked man could trump all of the efforts of hundreds of more resourceful people is not appealing at all.
And here lies the most crucial problem: accessibility. I get why some people say that "a man in a white house" could kill us all in real life, but there are extremely important differences between RL and OHOL. One is real and affects you every second, the other is a game that lasts as long as you want. In RL, an apocalypse would mean that even who caused it would suffer greatly, while here it makes them giggle and try it again. In RL, access to that "kill all" button is unobtainable by normal people, and requires incredible effort, power and luck, and those who get to it are certainly not going to make all their power and success just randomly vanish.
In OHOL, a naked geezer can destroy fifteen universes by waving his hand for a couple hours. This, in my opinion, is the single most unimmersive and nonsensical thing about the game in its current state. It's like a tumor that makes all of your meaningful experiences also taste like dirt. While it may controversial, I'm not against the idea of simulating such a tumor, but not for every single life of every single player. This is just too much.
But now, to avoid further rambling, I'll just get to my suggestions.
Apocalypse: YES.
Multiple monoliths: MAYBE.
All servers wiped at once: DEFINITELY NOT. (Bonus: Can you imagine how diverse and unique all the servers could be? How they could each have their own civilization and values and really have a story and a soul of their own? This update is the perfect opportunity to greatly expand the potential of this game)
Harder requirements each week: OF COURSE, and there's probably no need to increase the difficulty right now. The trend will die down, as all trends do. In a couple days we'll already see a difference. Just address the most pressing matters first.
Apocalypse requires a same-time cooperation of multiple people: MEH. IDK.
Timer between apocalypse trigger and execution: MAYBE. But I don't think that the game should tell you.
Apocalypse requires multiple lifetimes to achieve: MAYBE? I see the sense in that, but don't really like the concept.
Reward after apocalypse: NO.
Post the requirements for apocalypse on the forum: PROBABLY NO. And probably leave it cryptic. More fun, more challenging, it's content that lasts longer, and it can really attract people other than griefers.
With all of that said, I apologize for the long post, and hope that those that had the patience to read through it have found something worth their time in it. It may not seem like so, but I hate writing, and wouldn't have done it if this game hadn't become one of my favorite and most inspiring ones in such a short time. I am deeply grateful for the experiences I've had with it, and hope to have more great ones in the future.
So thank you, Jason. And thank you, mothers. Love ya.