a multiplayer game of parenting and civilization building
You are not logged in.
@Jason, it is quite strange for me to see someone who wants in-game drama, conflict and player "driven stories" to then design a system that does not allow players to do actions like: break in a house to steal food; chase a killer to their hideout and kill him; or breaking someone out of prison.
Wasn't one of your initial scenarios a mother with a baby that wants to steal a car from a town? How does this system help with that?
How does this system insensitive wars of any kind?
How can conflicts be resolved if people just tuck in behind their magic fences?
This elder driven magic fences feature serves no solution to any of the scenarios you presented as being evidence of something missing ingame.
I agree with Thaulos here. Jason, do you have a response for this?
I spoke in another thread about personal property being necessary for trade, but I'd like to see a more realistic approach to personal property instead of a magic in-game force field.
I like this idea more than the magic hat. I also prefer not requiring an elder for anything. This still feels like magic though.
I would prefer it if property rights were more of a communication point instead of an absolute “you cannot do this” gameplay restriction. What if a fence just has a sign that is automatically read when you cross it? “Jack’s House, do not enter without permission” would get the point across. Players can still violate the area but that is obviously griefing and could be delt with by the community.
Communication gives an idea of what area you are entering and what can be done there. You can make a pie shop and communicate how much they cost, or a nursery saying only women and children are allowed, or a blacksmith area saying “workers only”.
Every one of these areas would have valid exceptions for entering, but that is up to the players of that area and not restricted by the game with magic words.
Nice idea! The ability to color items would help organize them. It would need to be easy enough to do so we can paint a lot quickly. Perhaps a paint brush we can use on a tool to paint the handle, or bucket, plate, or bowl to paint it. Paint thinner could be added to remove the paint.
The family tree front page isn't loading for me. Am I the only one?
Buildings need their own reasons to exist that don't compete with clothes, and there are plenty of possibilities:
- food (and baskets) that is not in a building decays faster
- Only inside a building can you build shelves and clothes racks (clothes racks make clothese not decay as fast)
- machinery like newcomen devices will eventually rust solid if left outsidePerfectly good reasons to build a building, and they do not compete with clothing for heat bonus. Keep it simple.
A weather system would also give reasons for buildings. Imagine a temporary cold snap or hot spell. Or hurricanes. If you get stuck out in the wilderness you will need to eat a lot more to survive.
If that is added it would be nice to add a tent or temporary shelter object. Something we can setup quickly and hide in while we are out scavenging or in early settlements.
This would completely discourage playing the game without the architect's hat. Not only would it take longer but it would consume more resources for something someone else can do for nearly free. This would certainly add drama over who gets a hat, but not a good kind of drama.
If you want to restrict who can build some objects like walls, consider adding a blueprint system where the person wearing an architect's hat can plan where walls should go, perhaps with a semi-transparent graphic. Then everyone can help contribute to this by filling in the blueprint.
I'm not sold on even that idea, but it feels better than a magic hat.
I've seen personal trading before, but it involved trading a knife in a backpack for someone's coat. Both items were on the person and therefore considered owned by that person. If we improve the ownership situation then I think personal trading will come out naturally.
Locks and signs are the only ways I can think of for declaring ownership, and both are very cumbersome to use.
Regarding signs, what if we could create a Stand object which combines a box with a sign? Make an easier way to write on, perhaps similar to writing a note. One could then say "1 pie for 1 wheat" so customers then take the pie and leave wheat.
Regarding locks, managing keys is finicky. Is there a way to make keys invisible? Basically whoever first "locks" the item (closes the door or chest) would be the owner of the lock and the only one who can open it. If that person dies the lock defaults to its unused unowned state.
I love the idea of certain tech that is unlocked as a reward, it could be purely cosmetic such as special clothing. It would make these items rare and give the player who wears them some credibility and uniqueness.
There is talk in other threads about the lack of trading and how it can be improved, however I think this needs a dedicated thread.
One issue is that every village has access to everything they need, and the work of trading is often more than the work of gathering the resources yourself.
More rare resources would help. I am thinking monolith level of rarity. The resource could be accessed in abundance but is nearly useless on its own. It needs to be combined with other rare resources to reach the next level of tech. This would provide a natural environment for towns to pop up at each resource and trade routes be setup between them.
This brings up another issue of motivation. There simply isn’t a need to do this even if the tech were amazing. The game is about survival and we can do this indefinitely in the current state.
Resources need to be finite to give reason for jumping to later tech. I guess this will happen once that later tech exists.
Yeah, I think that if burial encourages people to come back, pissing on the bones could just as easily ban someone from the family.
But as we saw before the advent of curses, it's just not enough. And it's too unilateral. It just takes one person to piss on the bones, or one person to bury you. This is exploitable by griefing partners (who bury each other), and griefers generally, who piss on bones whenever they get the chance.
The nice thing about the curse system is that it requires some consensus before it actually affects someone, making it very hard for a griefer to exploit in either direction (the number of truly innocent people who ended up in Donkeytown is pretty much 0, except for streamers like Twisted who have been targeted).
So if we just think of burial by itself, there are still some problems. Obviously, it would take time to do, but the dead player is probably already hitting the "get reborn" button. Seems like this would encourage chain-suicide, while they eagerly wait for burial and try to return to their family. Unless they get a 1 hour ban no matter what, and the burial just ensures that they will come back "later" at some point.
What if the tombstone is what allows them to come back? This can easily be added and removed so a griefer cannot permanently force it one way or another.
Chain suicides are the biggest drawback I can think of with this system. If there was some way for players to choose to be reborn in their last lineage then it would solve this.
One thing I’ve learned from role playing games is that failures can often be more interesting than successes. Dying to a bear rampaging through town and witnessing the carnage is more memorable than spending an entire life baking pies so your descendants will have plenty of food.
Most of the ideas presented here reward optimal play, but if that is the case we could all live scavaging off the land because that is an easy way to survive. It also isn’t much fun.
What do you want the goal of the game to be? To have the longest lineage, or to have a unique and interesting story? If it is the latter then the motivation and rewards should reflect this.
These are some wild ideas, and I do like this out-of-the-box thinking, but I worry that if the game changes too drastically then you will lose the audience that enjoys the game as it currently is.
What about dedicating one of the servers to experiment with these ideas? A server with one lineage that I can only play on once per day sounds very interesting. This would make that one life feel special without the expectation of returning to it.
You could have a “Hardcore” button on the main menu to join this server with a little message explaining the limitations.
The server doesn't currently send you a complete name history of every person who ever lived on the server. When you first connect, it sends you names for the living, and then after that, it sends you additional names for new babies as they are given (You are Jane).
Can you store the name in the object's metadata similar to reading a note? This way you don't need to send all graves up front to the client.
Murdered people should not be able to avoid the area ban though.
If a griefer murders a good guy it would be nice to bring them back by giving them a proper burial. If you see a griefer murdered you can hide the bones so no one buries them.
Also +1 on showing the name when mousing over a tombstone.
It sounds like you want both of these statements to be true:
1. Players should care about their lineage.
2. Players should only live one life in that lineage.
These are in conflict because why should a player care about something they will never see or experience again?
In real life children are a clean slate which we can teach our ideas to. They are an extension of ourselves and a way for us to influence the world after we are gone. In OHOL you care for a child until they are 3 and then they are on their own, just another player with their own ideas. They do not feel like an extension of yourself, and I don't think they ever will since it is another human behind the character.
I think for players to care about their lineage more you'll need to loosen the second statement. If their lineage is a way to bypass the area ban then it is their only ticket back into the town. Suddenly players will care a lot more about their lineage and you'll probably see lines live longer on average because everyone is trying to make them survive. Wars will break out and property will be owned by lineages because they will want their line to survive.
Perhaps letting someone return to their lineage at any point is too easy? What if the players can decide if you can return after you are gone. For example, what if burying someone releases the area ban? Burying could be a way to "put their soul to rest" and allow them to return. You will then have an interesting choice after each person dies, should you bury them? Did they improve society, and do you want them to return?
If you do this, burying will no longer become role play, it will become real play like you spoke of. If you see a pile of bones in the wilderness, you'll have the desire to bury them to increase the chance of more players being able to play in your line. Also venturing out yourself will feel more scary because if you are not found and buried you will not be able to return.
What do you think?
Ryanb, this isn't a server bug, it's a client bug.
How would a roll out a buggy client to only some people? People would have to volunteer to test it manually somehow, and then very few would. Also, I just don't have time for that in my process.
Doesn't the server specify which client version should be used? If someone is connected to the beta server then wouldn't it automatically update the client? I might misunderstand how this works.
Griefers are using graves to block doors since they are also unremovable with the bug. I hear the Wonlife mod doesn't have the bug so you can save the day if you have that mod.
Jason, please add a beta server where you release an update early and only push it to the public servers after it has been tested a bit. Game-breaking bugs happen way to often on the weekend which is when most people play.
I just saw Dwarf Fortress will be released on Steam for $20. It will be interesting to see how it does.
What if:
1. More food options added for pork and carnitas (pies, baked ham, etc.)
2. Sheep no longer poop
3. Pigs poop
This would give a purpose to owning both pigs and sheep. Right now sheep are OP.
Looks like the area ban only applies to the birth location. I suggest shrinking it down to 200 tiles and basing it on both birth and death locations.
This solves the situation where a mother is scavenging away from town, has a baby, then returns and the child grows old and dies. It would also prevent someone who sets up a new outpost village beyond the area ban from returning to either village.
While your at it, consider raise the starting spiral radius when a server restarts so the initial eves don't spawn so close. I have spawned in a village after a server restart with a half dozen other eves.
Thank you for adding these clarifications Jason. I have a few questions regarding onetech:
1. Since "One Hour One Life" is trademarked, should I add a ™ when mentioning it in the header?
2. The berry bush is used as the onetech icon, but I assume this is okay since onetech is not considered an online multiplayer game.
3. Does the copyright statement in onetech's MIT license need to specifically exclude your public domain work?
I don’t think the thread or rope recipes should change because it is such a fundamental recipe that everyone knows.
I like the idea of planted milkweed growing more than one plant, just like one carrot seed grows multiple. This could grow two or three milkweed depending on how it should be balanced.
Alternatively we could craft a tool to convert milkweed into string/rope more efficiently. This would make interesting decisions about picking milkweed and converting it instantly or taking it back to base to be more efficient.
+1 on either shrinking the area ban or going back to lineage ban. Not only is area ban bad for Eves and early settlements, it is also bad for people who want to play in a city.
If someone spawns to an Eve near a city and does /die then they will never spawn in that city. It may be the only active city on the server.
I think jason's point is do what you want with his stuff. Just dont tell people his stuff is yours. Its a pretty simple concept. Im failing to see where all the confusion is coming from here
If that is the case then that should be the statement written. The confusion is placing it in the public domain means it is owned by the public, not by Jason. At least that is my interpretation and why I am asking for clarification.
Here is a thought experiment since I think this is a really interesting topic.
Say ACME Inc hires Company A to write a song for them. Later Company A wants to use the song in a video so they license it from ACME Inc. Then Company B licenses the same song in the same way for their own video.
If Company B’s video becomes more popular and the song is known for it, does Company A have any rights to shut them down? Or visa versa, if Company A’s video becomes more popular can Company B shut them down?
Both companies have equal rights to the song. Even though Company A originally wrote it, ACME Inc owns it
Here ACME Inc is the public domain. There is no licensing under public domain, but I feel like the concept of ownership and rights is similar. It is owned by the public for everyone to use equally.
Am I wrong here?