One Hour One Life Forums
a multiplayer game of parenting and civilization building
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#26 Re: Main Forum » Ideas for improving the life limit » 2019-06-22 02:28:46
Redcomb, I don't expect them to get through the tutorial in one life.
I also don't expect anyone to run out of lives in the tutorial, right? Earning one life every 20 minutes and all that.
It's not a question of if they are going to run out of lives in the tutorial.
It's the frustration that they are losing a limited resource while trying to learn basic mechanics of the game, then when they get to the real game, they might die quickly because they still don't really know how to play and lose even more of what they see are limited lives.
It creates a feeling of anxiety and frustration to see the 12/12 going down (even if you get one every 20 minutes), when you still don't even understand basic mechanics, let alone how to play the game.
I cited a review that complained about this very issue. He burned through 3 lives in the tutorial and couldn't even get passed it. He got frustrated, uninstalled, and refunded.
Whatever you expect people to know and be able to do is irrelevant if they are unable to do so (regardless of the reason). People should not be penalized when they are learning the very basic mechanics and UI of the game.
If you take away lives when they are learning, it will only add insult to injury when they start playing the actual game and die because they get abandoned, or they don't know what they are doing, or other things that are common mistakes new players make.
You are a dev of the game with a mastery well beyond a new player, and there are very experienced players who can't put themselves back into the shoes of somebody who is totally new and still learning the very basics.
Stop applying your own proficiency to new players and negating what they experience when learning your game.
Reasonable or not, I can tell you, there are going to be new players who will struggle in the tutorial, struggle in the first few lives of the real game, and give up in disgust because all they see is their lives dropping while they don't know wtf they are doing. It will feel incredibly tense and unfair to *SOME* players. To add to that, when they realize that several of those lives were lost when they were literally learning the very basics of the UI and gameplay mechanics will tell them that this game is hardcore and they either "sink or swim." Then having a dev who reinforces that sentiment, and community members who pile on the insulting derision, creates a toxic environment that that gamer would be wise to avoid.
Those who feel they are sinking and that the dev doesn't care (and community thinks they are stupid idiots) will leave and possibly badmouth the game.
You can just callously tell them to light firebrands all you want (and your community can chastise them for not following directions), or you can actually put yourself in their place mentally and realize that counting lives for the tutorial isn't conducive to people feeling like they have a chance to learn the very basics before being thrown into the deep end and being expected to swim!
If I was a swimming teacher, I wouldn't look at a toddler who is barely dipping their toe in the water and start holding them to the same standard I would for a proficient swimmer! I would realize like any sane human being that those are the first steps that kid has ever taken into the pool, they are going to need time to learn the very basics like how to float, how to hold their breath, how to kick, how to use their arms for a stroke, but mostly importantly: it is important that they feel comfortable enough with the experience to even get into the water.
IF they feel comfortable and learn some of the very basics, they will get better and will eventually be swimming around the pool like little fishies. But, if I held them to the same standard I would hold a proficient swimmer to, if I made them feel like failures with every new thing they were experiencing and learning in the shallow end, how likely do you think they would stick around to even bother trying to swim into the deep end?
If I treated somebody learning to swim like that, I would be an ass and everybody would see how foolish it is to hold a new swimmer to that kind of standard.
Saying that holding someone who is learning to swim by the same standards meant for proficient swimmers because it "makes sense to get kids used to the "deep end" right away" would be utterly ridiculous.
#27 Re: Main Forum » Ideas for improving the life limit » 2019-06-22 00:52:51
The tutorial warns you at the very start that it is "real" and that "you can die in here, so be careful."\
It is operating in the real game world.
I think it makes sense to get players used to the "real game" right away, whatever that is.
Fair enough. I'm just saying, not all people will breeze through the tutorial on only one life. I know that's incredible to consider, but it's just the way it is.
The tutorial is merely familiarizing people with the mechanics of the game. People are still learning the very basics, but you are making their time spent learning count for real.
This is like a kindergartner being taught basic arithmetic, but while they are still just getting used to writing with their pencil and following along with what the teacher is writing on the whiteboard, the teacher is grading the student's output the whole time and putting down "Fails" in the grade book because "it makes sense to get students used to the 'real grading process' right away"....
You should teach to teach, and try to do so in a low stress way that removes the affective filters students commonly experience (e.g., fear of failing, fear of being embarassed, anxiety of not understanding, etc). You should assess only to determine if the teaching was effective, not as part of presenting new concepts and knowledge.
Imagine starting a unit on World War II with an assessment that asks students a bunch of stuff they've never heard about before (e.g. Battle of the Bulge, D-Day, Island hopping, Battle of Midway, Operation Overlord), but instead of just counting it as full credit when they complete it because it is a "pretest" that you will compare to a later assessment to see if they made meaningful progress, you actually count the first test as a legit grade. Unsurprisingly, many of the students will fail that first test because they don't know anything about World War II until you've covered the relevant material with them, but hey, it's okay to count the grade anyway because they are getting used to the way they will be assessed right away!
And this is just one example of what I'm warning about: https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/765 … ed/595690/
Your response (and the snarky response from the community member who blamed the reviewer for not following the game's instructions) are extremely smug and ignore a problem with your tutorial and counting the lives spent completing it against people. For whatever reason, some players will struggle to complete the tutorial and burn through more than one life to do so.
Maybe it's a language issue (not everybody who plays OHOL speaks/reads English fluently, or even if they do, some people have legit problems with literacy and might struggle with following written directions)... This sad fact is something classroom teachers have to deal with everyday because, despite the fact that many non-teachers just expect that everybody should be able to read and follow written instructions without issues, there are people who can't because of issues with the language or verifiable learning disabilities like dyslexia, ADHD, etc. Then, when they get to playing the actual game (and still know next to nothing about how to do so because the tutorial is based on teaching them basic mechanics, not actually learning how to survive and play the real game), they will likely die quickly and burn through even more of their already partially depleted lives.
I was a Jr. High English teacher for 5 years and I can tell you, despite an enormous amount of effort, there were some percentage of students who really did have struggles beyond what a non-teacher might expect (young adults in the 9th grade who could barely read, write, spell, who spoke with speech impediments, who had macular degeneracy and literally couldn't see the stuff they needed to see to progress in the lesson unless they were in the very front, students with hearing problems, students who had suffered a traumatic brain injury and struggled with memory and following along unless the lesson was extremely structured, etc). It is INCREDIBLY obtuse, unfair, and uncaring to blame these individuals for not following directions (or callously responding that all they had to do was light the firebrand) when you don't know what challenges or problems that person might be experiencing to even play your game.
Maybe that person didn't have any issues at all, maybe they were just complaining because they tried to run through the tutorial without reading a thing and the blame truly is entirely on them. But you and I don't know that (nor does the jerk commenter who blamed them for not following directions), and I really urge you to reconsider your "sink or swim" approach to the tutorial because there are often extenuating circumstances that some players might face that a capable person like you might NEVER be able to anticipate.
And, finally, I just want to point out that for every complaint or negative review a person leaves, you can bet there are several other individuals who experienced the same problem but just didn't even bother to say anything. They just refunded, or stopped playing, and moved on. They won't recommend the game to their friends, in fact they might tell them it sucks, and you will never know about it. What's more, that person who left the negative review will certainly NEVER give OHOL another chance because of how he was blamed by the commenter and dismissed by you. You pride yourself on not being a "smiling PR guy", but how about being a decent human being with empathy for others, for heaven's sake!?
As the dev of this game, you need to model empathy and understanding when players express difficulties like this, not imply they need to HTFU and just light the firebrand already. All that does is models for the rest of your community that being uncaring and callous is okay if directed at critical voices, and then we get comments belittling the reviewer and blaming them for not following directions. In a game where players are expected to rely on and learn from others players, this is very problematic.
I'm sorry about the sudden drop in lives, but I tend to move fast and try things out for real. The old system has been in place for 2 weeks now. We need to get past this and move on to other issues.
I don't even care at this point. Most of my lives I live to 55+ (if I even bother to play), so no issues here, but I was just pointing out how some players will react initially when they log in and see the surplus lives they had are gone.
You might just hand wave it away with a fake "i'm sorry... but this train has no brakes!!!" kind of response, but there will be some players who will be pissed because their gut reaction when they log in is going to be "WTF, WHERE DID ALL MY EXTRA LIVES GO!!!?"
#28 Re: Main Forum » Ideas for improving the life limit » 2019-06-21 22:41:52
Okay, this change is live. We'll see how it goes. Everyone has 12/12 lives now, earning one life every 20 minutes.
I also added a feature where I can easily bump everyone back up to 12 (which I will do right before the servers are taken down for an update, etc.)
So you're saying I'll earn lives faster now but I've lost ~14 extra lives I still had (~26/12)?
Please consider that if you're going to change things, even for the better, you need to do it in a way that doesn't seem like it's taking away something from players.
I can only imagine players who were upset with life limits feeling frustrated when they log in and see their surplus lives are gone. Even if they understand they'll earn lives faster, it's still going to feel like you took something away from them. I bet even some of the players who liked the life limit will be upset.
SMH
PS-does the tutorial still cost a life? It did as of two days ago and really shouldn't...
#29 Re: Main Forum » The poll feature, in progress. » 2019-06-20 18:53:35
There should be an option "ask me again later" for when people don't feel like replying right away or just don't have time for that.
Suggested to him by myself and Starknight_One here (see top two quotes).
Pretty disappointed he is already trying to point to the early results of a one day old survey (plagued by convoluted responses) as if they mean anything significant...
https://steamcommunity.com/app/595690/d … 4731837102
Tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, but am losing my confidence he was earnestly looking at what players thought instead of trying to use the survey responses to shame the "minority" of unhappy voices.
#30 Re: Main Forum » The poll feature, in progress. » 2019-06-20 18:40:39
Why is there no option to say that we are satisfied with 18 lives? Now I'm forced to say that I don't have an opinion. There's also no option for in between 12-18.
Said the very same thing to him, in a more roundabout way, on Steam:
This is why it's better to directly ask people "how much do you like the limit on lives?" and then give them a 1-5 scale to express their preference (1=strongly dislike, 2=dislike, 3=neutral/no opinion, 4=like, 5=strongly like). This way, you can look at the results and group them by all kinds of categories (players with almost no play time vs players with tons of play time, long-term players vs newer players, etc). Furthermore, you eliminate all the noise about specific numbers of lives and keep the focus only on the actual question at hand: how people feel about you limiting lines.
If the results warranted it, you could always ask follow-up questions about specific numbers/solutions, but for now, if you're curious what people think of you limiting lives, you need to ask them that and only that and give them a way to respond that allows you to create a distribution (1-5 Likert scale). It is so much better to gauge opinions this way. It keeps people's response focused on what they think about limiting lives, not if they think 18 is enough, or too few, or whatever. It also lets you plot their responses as a distribution and see if it conforms to the 68-95-99 percent role.
As for specific solutions, those are questions for another time....
#31 Re: Main Forum » The poll feature, in progress. » 2019-06-20 13:08:31
@RedComb
How do you take the variance from a nominal scale or is there another way for checking the sample bias for the type of surveys Jason is using? The provided link only shows an example for a Likert-scale which is kinda obvious.
I don't know.
I made my post before I saw that the actual poll responses Jason used weren't based on a Likert scale. I just assumed he would use a Likert scale (and suggested he do so in earlier posts) because it measures preference and can be plotted as a distribution. Just seemed to make sense if gauging the preferences of players was what he was after.
There are ways to check if two categorical variables in a sample are likely to reflect real associations between the variables in the population (chi-squared test), but I don't know much about that or how it relates to determining what degree, if any, of error exists in a sample.
Like I tried to say before, I'm a huge amateur when it comes to this stuff and honestly don't have a lot of grounds to post much about it. I'm not a "math person" at all, and this kind of stuff is way above my head. It's just something that is stressed in the Social Sciences (which Second Language Acquisition research tends to fall under).
I guess the TL;DR of what I was trying to say to Jason is that he should be careful when he looks at his results. They might provide a misleading view of what people think (or they might not).
I think there are a lot of people on this forum who are really familiar with statistics, so they probably could answer topics like this better than I can and maybe they have some good suggestions. I imagine it's probably overly cautious to care about this stuff for something as informal as an in-game poll. I was just worried a poll like this might turn out to be misleading and could be less helpful than intended.
Hard to explain, but last year I got to witness an independent game studio (Portalarium) send out a survey to its most loyal and fervent players, attempting to use the overly positive feedback they were likely to give to mislead one of its then publishing partners (Travian) in the hopes Travian would continue supporting Portalarium. The broader playerbase became aware of this survey (including disgruntled players, of which there are many), and the link to the survey was more widely distributed among the playerbase (much to the chagrin of Portalarium).
When Travian saw some of the scathing responses, I think it was an eye-opening experience for them (and Portalarium was pissed they had been caught doing something like this). Travian had a community manager take control of Portalarium's forums for awhile and it was obvious Portalarium had lost some degree of their autonomy. There were several angry posts made by Portalarium devs following the kerfuffle.
Ultimately, I think the experience was one factor (among many) that convinced Travian to drop their partnership with Portalarium altogether. However, the point remains, if Portalarium had been successful in only surveying its most diehard fans and excluding critical voices, the conclusions Travian might have drawn from such a misleading survey would have been very distorted.
That was clearly purposeful deception though, and I don't think Jason intends anything of the sort. I just think an extreme example like that illustrates how sometimes excluding groups of players (even if unintentionally) presents a distorted picture when it comes to measuring the sentiment of the overall playerbase.
#32 Re: Main Forum » The poll feature, in progress. » 2019-06-20 06:58:58
Well, here's the thing:
What would be the advantage, if I'm going to ask EVERYONE who plays the game in the next 4 days, to randomly (or evenly) sample a subset of them? To get a more representative sample? Representative of what? How could it be more representative of the people who actually play than including everyone who actually plays?
I mean, yes, "Everyone who plays in the next four days" is a sample.... but a pretty unbiased one. If we're sampling in the game, we can't do any better than asking the people who are actually running the game.
And there is no non-response bias, if they are forced to answer (allowing for a "no opinion" option). They simply can't "not mail it back."
Not really sure I understand the first few questions. I'm pointing out surveying everybody who plays over the next 4 days is a sample of the overall population of players. And even then, those who play and respond over the next 4 days are merely a sample of active players within a 4 day time frame. As far as how representative this kind of sampling is: surveying ALL players is most representative (and pretty much impossible/impractical), then sampling a random sample of all players is the next best approach, then sampling a random sample of players who play within a 4 day time frame would be the next best, etc.
I am also pointing out that when you said (in a previous post) that you weren't taking a sample because you are surveying everyone who plays the game, you were in fact were taking a sample because everybody who plays the game might not necessarily play the game over the next 4 days.
This matters because this *MIGHT* skew the results and support an erroneous conclusion. It is good to be mindful of stuff like this because considering bias and sample error is important to researchers when considering how valid their results are.
And you can't be sure it is a "pretty unbiased" sample until you've done the work of looking at variance and checking if the sampling distribution follows the 68-95-99 percent rule. Again, please refer to the section Statistics Sampling for more explanation. This is beyond my ability to properly explain. I am more of an Language Arts person, but I can say, understanding and being mindful of sampling error and bias when conducting surveys is very important if you're going to look to the results for insight into a specific question.
As for non-response bias, I was highlighting that SOME of the target population (players of the game) are not able to take the survey while others can. This is the very definition of sampling bias. Perhaps it's more a case of selection bias/undercoverage since they aren't actually being presented with your survey if they don't log into the game and meet your requirements before the survey pops, but the fact remains, if you want to survey people who are playing your game, anybody who doesn't play within the 4 day window of your survey will be excluded from the survey even if they are otherwise active players of your game.
In other words, you might be inadvertently sampling more "hardcore" players of your game than sampling "casuals" who only play sporadically and randomly take breaks, you might be inadvertently omitting people who are on vacation (summertime), you might be inadvertently sampling more from people who are unemployed or students with time to burn versus those who work 70 hours a week, etc.
https://stattrek.com/survey-research/survey-bias.aspx
Again, it's not a certain thing these types of things will skew your results, but it should be considered when you look at your results. Things like this can and do distort results to all kinds of surveys. If it matters to OHOL, who knows, but that's what looking at variance and comparing sampling distributions illustrates.
That's the only point I've been trying to make. It's incredibly easy to draw inaccurate conclusions from skewed results if you're unaware of factors that might distort those results. I admit I'm no expert on this topic, but I don't think you are either (no offense meant). Just wanted to raise these points because they are the source of a lot of incorrect conclusions when people conduct surveys.
#33 Re: Main Forum » The poll feature, in progress. » 2019-06-20 04:32:54
My understanding is that the point of "good sampling" is to handle cases where you really can't ask everyone due to issues of practicality. So you don't want to just send to age-42 men by accident and assume their results represent the entire population.
But if you can actually ask everyone, you should, right? You don't need to sample in that case. You just ask everyone. This is like the census in the United States. The goal is to actually get an answer from everyone. Or the ideal form of governmental voting.
(Yes, when you count votes, you're sampling the opinion of the subset that chose to vote).
(Obviously, I'm sampling the opinion of people who actually play the game.)
Unless every person who currently plays the game plays it in the next 4-5 days and takes your poll, you aren't asking everyone who actively plays it, just sampling from those who play over the next 4-5 days and who meet the minimum lived hours requirement you set.
By limiting the poll to ~5 days (and 10 minimum lives lived), those who are polled by definition represent a sample of those who happen to play and qualify for the poll while it's available. For whatever reason, they are able to play and respond, while those who still might be actively playing didn't play or qualify to take the poll for whatever reasons.
Maybe they were on vacation, maybe they've been busy at work, maybe they've been engrossed in a different game, etc. Whatever the case, you are not actually asking everyone who plays, just asking those who happen to play and qualify during the time frame of your poll (i.e., sampling from active players).
This isn't always a problem as long as the sample is representative of those who actively play, but the fact that some players will be omitted needs to be kept in mind when looking at the result. Essentially, you need to keep in mind that you are sampling from active players and not asking everyone, so take the responses at face value.
Nonresponse Bias
Sometimes, in survey sampling, individuals chosen for the sample are unwilling or unable to participate in the survey. Nonresponse bias is the bias that results when respondents differ in meaningful ways from nonrespondents. Nonresponse is often problem with mail surveys, where the response rate can be very low.
Also....
Chasing down people who doing play anymore is a separate issue, and easy enough to do (I can see who stopped playing, and send them an email with a web-based poll).
And because only a subset of those people who receive emails will respond (possibly the most passionate), then you get:
Non-response bias – Occurs when the subjects that respond are perhaps different in some way from those that choose not to respond. In this case, it may be that the correct group is being sampled, but some are refusing to respond. For example, an email survey would be more likely to draw responses from those with desk jobs or those that spend more time at a computer than perhaps blue-collar workers or those who use computers much less.
Just important to realize that an email survey (especially for former players) is likely to produce skewed results because the most passionate people will be the ones likely to respond.
However, this is impossible to do for Steam players, sadly, because I have no contact information for them.
And again, through no fault of your own, this means you are certainly sampling and not able to ask everyone who no longer plays the game. This introduces the likelihood of Selection Bias
Not saying a lot of this is avoidable, just that it needs to be kept in mind when drawing possible conclusions from any results you get.
There are ways to test how good the samples are like taking multiple samples and then examining the variance in the responses between the two samples. In truly representative samples, there will be zero variance (and with infinite samples, the distribution of responses will eventually approach a normal distribution).
It's hard to explain what these means (more found at Statistics Sampling). Like I've said before, I'm not a statistician, just a lay person. Still, just trying to caution you that the results of these kinds of polls can be problematic based upon the types of bias and sampling error present.
Apologies for rambling. Might go play OHOL now just to see if I can trigger the poll.
#34 Re: Main Forum » In-game polling feature » 2019-06-19 21:58:50
I responded to you as your post was the newest one in the thread. I thought about quoting multiple people but figured it was unnecessary and that it would come off as a bit hostile.
I did not dismiss your points though! I specifically only quoted the part of your post where you called the example poll bad, as that was the only part I was responding to in my reply.
The points you make are good but also potentially unnecessary - if the poll in the post were real, a good detailed reply such as yours would have been great and very helpful - but in response to a simple text test it seemed kind of... reductive? The edited part is great though, no matter the context.
I get it now. Sorry was too thin-skinned. After the post on Steam about negativity, I've been a lot more on edge about posting anything and people's reaction. Kind of a chilling effect, I guess (except I'm just overly sensitive to how people might take what I'm saying). Thanks for clarifying though and sorry if I misunderstood your response.
Thanks to @CatX and @Starknight_One too for the feedback.
#35 Re: Main Forum » In-game polling feature » 2019-06-19 14:20:03
The big problem is noise. Many people won't care about the questions and will click a random response just to get back into the game. How do you filter those responses out so they don't drown out the valid responses? Ghu knows, I've given random answers to survey people in the mall, just so they'd stop bugging me.
I agree, that's why I wrote the following in the other thread:
Finally, every survey question that pops up after a life ends must offer a quick and painless way for people to opt out of the survey without interrupting their play time (to avoid people making random selections just to bypass the question).
https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewt … 139#p65139
I also agree with @futurebird about sampling, and the need to select a good representative sample, and I tried to discuss that as well.
I saw Jason's post and understood it was just modeling how the poll would look and work, but I still thought it was a good moment to discuss issues like sample size and bias.
Funnily enough, I think like 4 other people responded to Jason's mock poll question by critiquing it as well, but only my response warranted a post from @Twisted pointing out Jason's example was a mock up, seemingly dismissing what I had to say. Why he didn't respond in kind to all the other people who pointed out some problems with the mock example, I'm not sure.
All I know is the issues I presented are important regardless of whether or not Jason's example was real and should be considered when making a poll of this nature. I took a good amount of time to write that post (on my phone, no less) and it sucks to have my post singled out like that when I was not the only person who responded to the example question as if it was real.
Feels bad, man.
#36 Re: Main Forum » The poll feature, in progress. » 2019-06-19 06:30:59
Here's what the poll looks like in the game:
Strangely worded, biased, and imprecise choices for responses.
You seem to ask about two distinct things (how much do you care if you live or die, then how much you care if your children live or die). This is called a double-barrelled question and is a big no no in academic research questionnaires.
While those questions might be related, it's entirely possible a person might feel one way about their own life/death and a different way about their children's life/death. They really should be presented separately so people have the option to respond to each topic.
Also, you include an opinionated statement at the end that doesn't relate to the possible answers of I love it/I hate it. The point about the last girl being treated like a queen, but life seeming to be cheap in all other instances, should really offer responses like "I agree/I disagree/no opinion"
Again, all three of these topics should be presented by themselves.
I've already mentioned possible sample error/selection bias, as well (because you are not including people who may have stopped playing recently, eg the 13% drop in Steam players over the last 30 days), and I think your already small pool of respondents doesn't benefit from narrowing the field even more by only offering the question to those with a certain number of lives left.
If you want to really capture some statistically significant results, you should be trying to randomly sample as many players as possible and sampling from a representative range of players. Those with many lives left, those with few, those with a moderate number, and so on... And you should be asking current players of the game, as well former players of the game (perhaps delineating between those who quit very recently versus those who have not played for more than a month).
As long as you have a means of determining who is who, you can still group the results as you see fit (e.g. those who are actively playing vs those who aren't).
But if you are going to rely only on responses from active players of the game who fall within a very narrow range of possible respondents, your results are likely to be skewed by selection bias and the incredibly small sample size.
I admit that even sampling from players who quit playing is problematic because you will have to actively convince them to participate via email or steam posts, which introduces voluntary response bias. Even so, you might be able to mitigate this and still get a sense of what kind of response potentially disgruntled players might give by creating a flag that groups any player who has returned to playing after more than three weeks of not logging in, so when they respond, they're results can be looked at separately from those who have been actively playing (and might respond differently because they are likely to be happy with the game )as shown by their continual play).
Furthermore, I think if a player logs in after a long hiatus (eg, more than three weeks without a log in), it could trigger an extra survey question asking them to give the reason for their extended absence from the game. This could include some premade answers, some not directly related to the game (eg, too busy at work, was on vacation, needed a break, wanted to play another game), some being more about dissatisfaction with OHOL (too many griefers, bored with late game, didn't like a recent update -- with a prompt to name/describe the disliked update), or simply a choice that says "other" and let's them write a very brief reason, say 120 characters).
Finally, every survey question that pops up after a life ends must offer a quick and painless way for people to opt out of the survey without interrupting their play time (to avoid people making random selections just to bypass the question),
What can I say, though? My graduate degree (applied linguistics) only had us focus on the basics of statistics as it related to the methodology behind some of the research in second language acquisition we had to understand, so I don't really know much about this topic beyond that. Certainly not as much as a statistician or actual peer-reviewed researcher with years of experience crafting valid questionnaires and mitigating bias in their selection of samples.
Still, if you want meaningful results that actually give you an insight into these kinds of topics, you need to have sound questions and methods for sampling/collecting data (and not expect an amateurish exit poll to tell you a whole lot).
Edit to add:
Tips for creating good research questionnaires
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/atd-h … -research/
https://psr.iq.harvard.edu/files/psr/fi … heet_0.pdf
https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science- … n-a-survey
https://opentextbc.ca/researchmethods/c … ionnaires/
https://www.pewresearch.org/methods/u-s … re-design/
^many of the above mention things I've said, like keeping questions and responses to one issue at a time, using direct language, avoiding opinionated questions, including a large enough scale of responses (eg, Likert scale 1-5, where 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree or disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree)
On bias:
https://cirt.gcu.edu/research/developme … s/sampling
https://stattrek.com/survey-research/survey-bias.aspx
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Sam … pling_bias
https://web.ma.utexas.edu/users/mks/sta … pling.html
All of the above are just random resources found from googling while on my phone so it's not easy to be picky or summarize their best points.
Still, I hope Jason will take this stuff into consideration when creating a survey or poll about certain issues in the game.
If he wants statistically significant results with correlations that actually mean something, crafting good questions and sampling a representative set of respondents is vital.
If he only intends the survey to provide something he can point to as justification that players like feature xyz so the critics should be silent, well... then only selecting from a very specific group of current players (and omitting those who may have quit because of a given feature) and using imprecise, double-barrelled questions laced with opinion will certainly suffice.
#37 Re: Main Forum » In-game polling feature » 2019-06-18 00:05:47
When looking at the results of such a poll, I hope you will bear in mind the people who have already quit out of frustration/boredom/whatever other reasons (e.g., Breezeknight, Tarr, myself, etc).
It will come across as pretty disingenuous if you use a poll like this to suggest people support particular features when, in reality, many who would vote against such features have already done so with their feet.
#38 Re: Main Forum » What I actually, generally need when you give me feedback about OHOL » 2019-06-01 02:31:42
Good to know the time and effort I put into giving my genuine feedback was wasted because it didn't conform to some preconceived notion about what is useful and what isn't. And here I thought just giving my honest, heartfelt opinion would be worth something, but now I find out all you care about is what fits your narrow view about what is helpful.
Haven't played your game in weeks and still won't. My negative review on Steam, with 52 helpful votes, lays out what I think the problem is: a game that cynically exploits the worst aspects of human behavior is not fun and, in fact, is depressing to play.
The cooperative and nurturing side of the game is were the magic is, not war and xenophobic conflict, but since I'm just some lowly player and not some high and mighty Dev, wtf do I know and why even bother?
My feedback isn't valued and my brief participation in the community was meaningless. Thanks so much for hammering home just what a fool I was for taking the time to share my thoughts.
I realize a lot of people dislike spoonwood, but thanks for putting that Raph Koster quote, because I instantly thought of it when I read Jason's OP. I still believe it is correct, but obviously Jason doesn't, so there's no need to keep hoping just one of the things I've shared might be a pearl.
#39 Re: Main Forum » Rampant Eve griefing has made the game unplayable » 2019-05-29 01:51:26
The worst part of all this is what it's doing to the game's community. It's turned extremely toxic and unwelcoming, which pushes away potential new players and is a sure recipe for slow death. And this damage to community is permanent, I think even if the Come Together update was reverted right now the community would never go back to the friendliness level we had before.
As somebody who bought the game just a few days prior to this so-called "Come Together" update, I can attest to the fact that I no longer play. I did try to view playbacks of some of my recorded games, but I can only see the menu screen when I view the game (maybe a result of using a zoom mod???).
In any case, I haven't played the game for probably two weeks now and don't plan on playing it again. I tried to give it a go one more time and had mixed results, but my last session convinced me whatever magic it had was gone and Jason had poisoned the well with this update and his naive attitude toward griefing.
I'm sorry this is long. I know people won't read it because it's long, but here it is anyway (because I think it documents what a disgusting feeling this game inspires now, at least for somebody who is newish).
I was in a small village and birthed some good kids, they all seemed productive and hard working and seemed to appreciate me even though I told them I was pretty new and apologized for not giving them the greatest start with clothes and backpacks/etc. When they asked me what needed to be done, I just was honest and told them I didn't really know and to just do what they thought best. They seemed okay with this and most stayed in this village and were working hard.
I think the village was doing okay and people were making good progress in some of the starter stuff that needs to be done, but then a random Eve pops up. I instantly started saying "Outsider! Stranger Eve!" to any who would listen, feeling kind of bad to be so alarmed and paranoid at this newcomer's arrival (but I had seen so many scenarios like this where an Eve showed up and then everything descended into murder and chaos).
Very few people even took notice. Those who did notice her and what I said ignored me, saying she was "peaceful," so I let it slide. Most of my kids were on the periphery or out gathering things for the village, and I had just gone infertile at this point, so most of the people near the fire were newborns or not my direct children. Since I was a newer player, I left it up to their better judgment about how to react to the Eve and I tried to keep working.
As I tried to focus on making some backpacks, I kept an eye on this newcomer. She suspiciously disappeared to the North for a little while (after all this happened, I'm pretty sure she was making a short shaft out of sight of everybody and hiding it behind a tree). At this point, I think this village didn't even have knifes or a bow and arrow but had some metal set aside for such things when the time was right. I honestly don't know much about smithing or making pumps and stuff, so I think people had been preparing stuff for that but hadn't gone all out in making things with the steel yet.
After I had been processing rabbits and making solid progress, giving some backpacks and clothes out, I noticed this Eve started messing with the smithing stuff in a very deliberate way. She was obviously no noob and seemed to be up to no good, but being new, I wasn't 100% sure. I raised the alarm again hoping a more experienced player would be able to better judge, and some old lady in our village noticed too and shouted "kill her!" before she died. Me and one guy (my brother?) clearly saw what was happening, but everybody else was oblivious. They seemed to not notice or just thought she was being helpful, like she was just making necessary tools, but the way she was moving around was really strange, especially the way she disappeared earlier.
She quickly made a blade blank. Most people were oblivious, but I noticed what she did (and so did my brother). I luckily noticed there were two files sitting nearby. I managed to snatch them up in my BP before she could use them to make a blade. She picked up the blade blank and went to the spot where the files were, but since they were gone, she kind of moved around weirdly and my brother and I were right on top of her the whole time. As she scrambled around while holding the blade blank, most of the people were still obvious to what was happening, but my brother and I saw what was going on and kept trying to yell out to people what was going on. Eventually, the Eve had to drop the blade blank to eat something and I think my brother grabbed it.
She moved away, and I told my brother I had the files. I quickly made a short shaft, he dropped the blank and I filed it, he made a knife and he was armed. While we did this, she had made ANOTHER blade blank, but when she saw my brother with the knife, she started dancing around and ultimately had to drop the blank to eat again (and couldn't pick it up because he was trying to stab her). I managed to pick it up, moved away from them, made a short shaft, filed the blank, and made a knife of my own... Now my brother and I danced around with this Eve and eventually managed to stab her. When we did, some younger boy tending berries instantly cries out "WHY!?" like we were monsters for killing this poor innocent Eve. I explained "she was trying to make a knife, it was weird" and I guess that seemed okay to him because he didn't say anything afterwards.
Even so, it was stressful. It was not a "rich and interesting dynamic." I'm a fairly new player and I barely know how anything works and this kind of crap is getting dumped on my plate while so-called experienced players are oblivious and just sit there talking or zoning out while they work!? NOT COOL! What really soured me, though, was shortly after this... suddenly another Eve shows up. Possibly the same player we had just killed (the first was a brunette, this one is a Latino character model). My brother is instantly saying "KILL HER" and I'm fed up at this point. I'm so sick and tired of outsiders, or Eves showing up and killing people or starting problems (or their kids doing it without fear of punishment because of the stupid nerf to the cursing system). So, I killed the Eve.
She had done nothing wrong except she was an outsider. She may have very well been a peaceful Eve who would have helped the village and worked hard (and her kids might have too). But, after all the bad experiences I've had with random Eves (and their griefer kids or grandkids getting hold of weapons, war swords in particular), I had no patience or trust anymore. I killed her without provocation. My brother thought it was good, he obviously understood the new meta, but people started insulting me, calling me a names. One baby spelled out CUNT at me letter by letter.
Here I had worked hard in this village for 40-50 minutes. I had raised several productive children, produced a lot of backpacks and even some loin clothes (for a village that had started with NONE of this stuff). My kids were doing great getting farms set up and sheep and all the foundations of pumps and whatever. And these people who didn't have ANY context were calling me cunt and griefer and a horrible person. I was frustrated beyond belief.
I found my daughter over by the sheep pen. She was sweet and seemed glad to see me. I gave her the knife, told her to use it to protect he village. Told her there were two files in my BP and that I was going to starve because this village was shitty and the people in it thought I was bad for defending them. She said NOOOO! and seemed really sad I was dying early. She stopped moving after I said this and I don't even know if she afk starved or not. It sucked.
I was merely reacting to what I had seen in life after life following the update. Maybe they were right and I was a bad person. Maybe I am a cunt. Maybe I should have trusted the second Eve (and who knows, maybe that first Eve was making a saw or some shit, idk at this point and I don't care!). I don't like playing a game that plays on my paranoia and makes me apt to distrust people! I felt really shitty, feeling like I went from playing a game where I dug the cooperative vibe, where it seemed like players cared for and about each other and appreciated what you contributed (even if you're doing your own little thing), to playing a game where I hated outsiders, had to stress about killing them and learning about making knives before I knew more basic/important stuff, and I was starting to embrace a "kill on sight" mentality when it came to all outsiders because I had seen so much go so wrong in the past whenever outsiders arrived or were present.
I think out of all the villages that I experienced with more than one family, 70% of the time it ended in murder and chaos. With random Eves, 90% of the time it ended in murder and chaos. I think only 20% of the time did I really enjoy it and feel the way I felt when I first played the game prior to the update.
Sorry again this was so long, but I still feel bad for my daughter and that village. Maybe I could have kept contributing. Maybe I should have let the first Eve make a knife and kill them all so they learned a lesson. I don't know and I guess this isn't the game for me, especially when the dev thinks this kind of shit makes for a "rich and dynamic" game.
And if that doesn't drive the point home, here's something that might be a little more TL;DR (some recent negative reviews mentioning the war sword, several which are from newer players... the very last one is from me with FORTY FOUR "helpful" votes, which I think makes it one of the most "helpful" Steam Reviews for this game, if not the most upvoted review for it overall!):
https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/765 … ed/595690/
https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/765 … ed/595690/
https://steamcommunity.com/id/a-miki/re … ed/595690/
https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/765 … ed/595690/
https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/765 … ed/595690/
https://steamcommunity.com/id/MIMdiplom … ed/595690/
There is a common thread in those reviews about what people are complaining about. The fact that FORTY FOUR people upvoted my review in just a little over two weeks should also speak volumes. Read through the 27 comments people left on it too. Several people said they won't even try the game because of this change (even after I told them the dev planned to nerf it and fix it).
Jason believes griefing is important and necessary, and some of the players seem to think those of us who are critical of this change are just carebears or need to HTFU, but A LOT of people honestly don't like this change and feel it is antithetical to what the game was or what they found fun and charming about it. It's already alienated a lot of good hearted people and it's convinced a lot of people with similar mindsets not to even try the game. More and more, the only people who will play are griefers or those who are callous enough to not mind the murder and mayhem (and who can adapt to the new meta of killing strangers without it bothering them).
Griefing is not creating a rich and dynamic ANYTHING if people aren't even going to bother to play the game! It's not FUN and it's not interesting except maybe to the dev and some of the players with sadomasochistic tendencies!
#40 Re: Main Forum » /die baby bones delete items left on the ground. » 2019-05-21 11:43:46
I have also seen /die babies delete the items they are wearing. Have seen it at least a few times.
#41 Re: Main Forum » lets talk in our OWN LANGUAGE! will be so much FUUUN! ich mach deutsch » 2019-05-17 12:44:30
de ontwikkelaar van dit spel is een debiele klootzak. verwijder oorlogszwaarden of laat je neuken!
#42 Re: Main Forum » Should the sword kill everyone from other families or only foreigners? » 2019-05-17 11:24:29
Finally tried to play some again tonight. I think about 75% of the lives I had were going smoothly until
1) a strange Eve would arrive, blend in, and ultimately go on a murdering spree
2) a mixed town would be humming along peacefully until a bad egg baby would start chaos and everything would descend into murder
My very last game, I was Sweden Swedenburg in a settlement where many Archers had showed up and integrated well. I noticed an Eve Wang show up and tried to tell others about her and to keep an eye on her, but her character model made her blend in.
She seemed to be playing normally, feeding the sheep, so I let it go because I had seen other non-lineage players do the same thing, but then out of nowhere she started murdering people.
I had a knife on me and me and another person (an Archer) chased her around.
I got lucky and managed to stab Eve Wang, then some old Archer granny who spoke nothing but gibberish picked up Eve Wang's war sword and stabbed me. Eve Wang smiled as we both died. Infuriating.
This is not fun. It is aggravating as hell that 3/4's of every village I played descended into this Mad Max Thunderdome bullshit.
I'll check back into this game in a month to see if anything has changed for the better because this is 100% shit and I for one don't find "Frustration the Game" fun to play.
If this is what counts for "more interesting," then you can shove interesting up you smug, condescending ass!
#43 Re: Main Forum » Having foreigners in your town is not worth it. And I hate that. » 2019-05-16 22:40:54
I absolutely hate that this whole language update is all for nothing since having foreigners in your town is just a ticking time bomb ready to go off if one bad egg is born.
This is what I was trying to get at HERE.
And then at 13:19 he explicitly talks about the the importance of a persistent identity system, and how problem players can and will use anonymity to get away with their bad behavior with impunity if you allow them to.
If your social VR or AR system does not have a persistent account system with persistent identity that players invest into, you're effectively making every player get away scott free because all they need to create a brand new account every single time they log in.
^With OHOL, they don't even need to go to the trouble of creating new accounts, the anonymity and ability to come back completely unknown is baked right into the game's spawning system.
The fact that every spawn is a new identity, that you can't control who will be your baby, that a new person born into a lineage could start a war and end generations of peace, it totally negates the following assertions:
(Griefing) gives the good guys in the game something to fight for. It gives them a villain that they can all agree on. And it motivates certain pro-social behavior and organization.
And...
(Griefing) allows people to forge relationships of deep trust, which are only possible when not everyone can necessarily be trusted. I don't trust you because it's impossible for you to harm me. I trust you because you are fully capable of harming me, but you choose not too.
And this is doubly true with the new war swords and language update. Here is this outsider who can't necessarily be trusted. You can't even communicate your intention to them directly. But if you can establish a trusting relationship with them, that trust will be very deep and meaningful indeed. That is a place where the human spirit can really shine through. I've built an enormous wall for the two of you to climb over. If you can forge a friendship in the face of those odds, it will be amazing.
How can you determine who is the villain vs who is your friend in a game where identity is fleeting? How can anybody all agree on who is the bad guy or the bad lineages when people have no persistent identity, lineages are constantly changing, and one bad apple can ruin the bunch?
As soon as somebody respawns, they are somebody totally new and might not care one bit about the peace brokered between your two families. The "amazing" friendship and trust built over generations could be dashed in the blink of an eye by one war sword-wielding menace who kills 20+ people without retribution.
Your guard was down because, for generations, that other family was working with you, learning your language, showing no sign of hostility. But, then a xenophobe is born into their midst and chaos erupts, annihilating BOTH families in the process. All those players had their progress and fun ruined and one person, the perpetrator, laughs at all the mayhem he caused.
So, the answer as always, distrust everybody and be on edge all the time. Better yet, you should just kill every stranger to avoid the inevitable time bombs going off down the road because at least you can curse problem actors in your own lineage and can avoid trojan horse conquest by letting a potential enemy have access to your settlement.
The distrust and endless conflict sounds pretty inevitable and important to me 
#44 Re: Main Forum » Jason there is an error » 2019-05-16 22:05:43
Some jerks are inevitable and important.
They give the good guys in the game something to fight for. They give them a villain that they can all agree on. And they motivate certain pro-social behavior and organization.
(In all seriousness, I'm pretty sure the people building these Eve traps are trying to highlight the problems with the current way some Eves are forced to repeatedly spawn at unviable Spring sites or something along those lines. I've seen people post and explain it, but I honestly don't really understand the spawning mechanics in this game, so it's above my head. Still, these traps are a way to exhibit the problems with the current way things work, not just people being jerks, which is arguably inevitable and important anyway....)
#45 Re: Main Forum » its a griefer- + racism-update!!! I HATE IT!!!! WANT MY MONEY BACK!!! » 2019-05-16 04:21:54
Wow! RedComb I'd never even consider buying any of those other games from the description! Not my personal idea of fun (but I can understand how other people enjoy it, so no real judgement here)
I don't mind that OHOL has some violence and conflict but to me it was always supposed to be a consequence of the inevitable friction that you get between people even when they are mostly working together. And a way to deal with persistent bad actors. In fact, I really like that OHOL isn't all safe and flowers and roses. If I wanted to play farmville co-op... um I'd do that. It's relaxing. That isn't this game.
But I think that everything needs to lead back to the goal that always excited me "Build Civilization!" So build tech, and farms and human institutions-- And when I saw the description I was super excited since it sounded like my kind of game. And mostly it has been!
I just don't think it'd be great if it morphed in to rust. I don't want to eat people or dominate anyone. That sounds awful and kinda... boring (if I'm honest)
I agree with what you're saying. I don't mind there being some danger or even hijinks in this game. In my short introduction to it, I've seen griefing and people being murdered. Didn't bother me too much because the mechanics of the knife, bow, and cursing seemed to provide some balance and chance for people to react. At one point, I even managed to use a sterile pad on somebody, but didn't know about stitching them up.
However, what I experienced of the war sword pre-nerf, and from what people like Tarr have shown, doesn't seem to give the same agency to the victims of that kind of aggression. This kind of wholesale slaughter rubs me the wrong way and seems more fitting for a hardcore pvp survival game, or a battle royale, not a game selling itself on parenting, rebuilding civilization, and passing something down to the next generation.
I only pasted those descriptions of other games to explain why there are complaints about OHOL not fitting the way it seems to be described.
Having personally put over 400 hours on a primitive PvP ARK server, and dozens of hours playing other games like it, I can understand the appeal of these kinds of games. However, when I bought and played those games, I knew exactly what I was getting into and wasn't surprised when I was killed or griefed by other players. I wanted that kind of conflict and thrill of hunting others and being hunted.
Yet, based on the marketing descriptions of OHOL, the gameplay videos I watched (which included murders), and the simplistic two button controls, I was surprised to buy the game, and just a few days later, get to witness a town I had just been born into get massacred in a matter of seconds by an outsider with a war sword because this kind of carnage would supposedly make us "come together"....
I imagine this is part of OP's frustration. Game's like RUST are very clear in their description that you will likely have to fight other players if you play. ARK mentions dominating other players, DayZ explains society has collapsed and survivors are hostile. But OHOL? Is described as a simulation of parenting, rebuilding civilization, and leaving something for the next guy....
Sure, one might infer that Rome wasn't built in a day and we might have to break some eggs if we're going to make this omelette, but... Considering the game's aesthetic style, controls, and description, it is easy to see how some of us feel duped after starting to play and learning about what seemed to be a relatively chill game, only to have an update like this subvert our expectations.
Hope that makes sense. Merely wanted to share those game descriptions in relation to OHOL's description because I think it highlights how clearly those games communicate the presence of pvp and competition in their game, while OHOL doesn't really communicate anything of the sort.
#46 Re: Main Forum » its a griefer- + racism-update!!! I HATE IT!!!! WANT MY MONEY BACK!!! » 2019-05-15 23:50:10
Let's compare the OHOL Steam description to other sandboxy survival titles where players know before they even buy the game that conflict is at the forefront and others players will likely be a threat:
A multiplayer survival game of parenting and civilization building. Get born to another player as your mother. Live an entire life in one hour. Have babies of your own in the form of other players. Leave a legacy for the next generation as you help to rebuild civilization from scratch. ~OHOL Steam store page description
vs.
The only aim in Rust is to survive. To do this you will need to overcome struggles such as hunger, thirst and cold. Build a fire. Build a shelter. Kill animals for meat. Protect yourself from other players, and kill them for meat. Create alliances with other players and form a town. Do whatever it takes to survive. ~RUST Steam store page description
vs.
Stranded on the shores of a mysterious island, you must learn to survive. Use your cunning to kill or tame the primeval creatures roaming the land, and encounter other players to survive, dominate... and escape! ~ARK: Survival Evolved Steam store page description
vs.
The post-soviet country of Chernarus is struck by an unknown virus, turning the majority population into frenzied infected. Fighting over resources has bred a hostile mentality among survivors, driving what’s left of humanity to collapse. You are one of the few immune to the virus - how far will you go to survive? ~DayZ Steam store page description
vs.
An online multiplayer survival game set in the lands of Conan the Barbarian. Survive in a vast open world sandbox, build a home and kingdom, dominate your enemies in single or multiplayer. ~Conan Exiles Steam store page description
Does that make it clearer now?
#47 Re: Main Forum » its a griefer- + racism-update!!! I HATE IT!!!! WANT MY MONEY BACK!!! » 2019-05-15 23:19:38
Where was the game marketed in a way that's different from how it currently is?
I don't get where people have that idea from.
Here:
This game is about playing one small part in a much larger story. You only live an hour, but time and space in this game is infinite. You can only do so much in one lifetime, but the tech tree in this game will take hundreds of generations to fully explore. This game is also about family trees. Having a mother who takes care of you as a baby, and hopefully taking care of a baby yourself later in life. And your mother is another player. And your baby is another player. Building something to use in your lifetime, but inevitably realizing that, in the end, what you build is not for YOU, but for your children and all the countless others that will come after you. Proudly using your grandfather's ax, and then passing it on to your own grandchild as the end of your life nears. And looking at each life as a unique story. I was this kid born in this situation, but I eventually grew up. I built a bakery near the wheat fields. Over time, I watched my grandparents and parents grow old and die. I had some kids of my own along the way, but they are grown now... and look at my character now! She's an old woman. What a life passed by in this little hour of mine. After I die, this life will be over and gone forever. I can be born again, but I can never live this unique story again. Everything's changing. I'll be born as a different person in a different place and different time, with another unique story to experience in the next hour...
And here...
A multiplayer survival game of parenting and civilization building. Get born to another player as your mother. Live an entire life in one hour. Have babies of your own in the form of other players. Leave a legacy for the next generation as you help to rebuild civilization from scratch.
Hey folks, I'm Jason Rohrer, and I've been working on One Hour One Life for more than three years. I've been doing everything myself---I drew all the graphics on paper with pens and markers, I coded the entire engine from scratch, I composed and performed all of the music, and I even made all of the sound effects. It's a very personal game, and it's really unlike anything else that's out there. It's also a huge game---over 1300 fully interactive, craftable objects already. And it's only getting bigger, with weekly updates adding new things all the time. The game was initially released on my own website in February of 2018, and over the intervening months, I released 29 updates off-Steam. I've promised to keep releasing weekly update for at least the next two years, with the end goal of making the largest, most comprehensive crafting game in history.
Okay, so what about the game itself?
First of all, you only live for an hour, where each minute marks a passing year. You join the game server as a newborn baby, and some other randomly-chosen player is your mother. You depend on her for your survival. And why will she be willing to waste her valuable time and resources to keep you alive? Because she's going to die in an hour just like everyone else, and if she wants what she accomplishes in her lifetime to have any meaning, then the next generation (aka, you) is her only hope. And if you survive into adulthood, you may get the chance to have babies of your own---other players, just joining the server---and those babies will be the next generation that gives meaning to your own life accomplishments.
Across this ever-growing family tree of generations, players are collectively conducting an enormous project: they are rebuilding civilization from scratch. The online game world starts out as a near-infinite expanse of wilderness (four billion meters wide from east to west, and four billion meters wide from north to south, with a total surface area of over 18,000,000,000,000,000,000 square meters, or 36,000 times bigger than Earth). The very first player to join the server is Eve, and she starts out in the wilderness as the root of the family tree. Eve and her immediate offspring lay the foundation for the future civilization, perhaps making a few primitive tools, cooking basic foods, and starting a small farm as they scrape out a meager existence before dying. Future generations will build on this primitive foundation, eventually mastering more and more advanced technology, including domesticated animals, metal working, permanent buildings, and transportation networks.
But as real-life history has shown, civilization is fragile. A generation that is born into the lap of luxury---on the backs of their ancestors' hard-won accomplishments---can just as easily squander their inheritance as build upon it. Key resources run out over time, so careful management, planning, and organization are necessary to prevent an inevitable collapse. Thus, the game graduates from the individual challenge of primitive survival in the early stages to a group organizational and leadership challenge in the later stages. How do rules and procedures for group survival propagate across multiple generations? What did our great grandparents have in mind for this village?
The main mode in the game involves being born as a helpless baby to another player as your mother, but you can also play with your friends as twins, triplets, or quadruplets. One baby is hard enough to take care of---any mother that can successfully take care of quadruplets deserves the eternal gratitude of you and your friends.
All of this is happening on my own centrally-managed, persistent servers, and your purchase includes a lifetime account on these official servers. After you buy the game, you can instantly connect to this world with no configuration or server set-up. It all just works. You also get access to the full source code, including the server code. Technically-minded folks can run their own private servers, or even use the powerful content editor to make their own mods.
I hope you'll join us as this sprawling civilization-building experiment continues to unfold. Many thousands of players have already collectively lived over 400,000 hours in this endlessly-changing world so far. Before the Steam release, the average playtime for each player was 17 hours, with dozens of players logging over 500 hours each, and 94% positive off-Steam player reviews. This is a deep and rich game already, and there are still hundreds of content updates to come.
No two lives are ever the same, and a new story always awaits on the other side of the [GET REBORN] button.
Jason Rohrer
October 2018
Davis, California
And, finally, the trailer on Steam (and don't try to say an Atomic Robot killing Jason at the end of the 3+ minute trailer means war swords and griefing was always planned for this game!):
#48 Re: Main Forum » Swords...... Aren't as bad. » 2019-05-14 08:13:08
It's a human civilisation simulator get over it
At what point in the history of human civilization was a magic sword ever developed that could only harm outsiders?
Humans can also see more than 5 feet in front of their face, so they would be able to spot potential enemies in the distance and react to threats moving toward them before the aggressor is almost right on top of them. But, in this human civilization simulator, that kind of FOV is not welcome, so if you're going to base your argument on things being based on real life examples, how about addressing some of the basic limitations inherent to the game's mechanics and controls.
And, as for the language changes, humanity certainly has a diverse number of languages that seem mutually unintelligible to the casual observer, but there is still some inherent common root words in MANY of the European languages (see: Proto-Indo-European language for more, or check out a brief segment about the topic from THIS OLDER SERIES ON THE STORY OF ENGLISH 2:09 - 6:00, turn down volume headphone users!)
Furthermore, a great amount of meaning is conveyed non-verbally through body language and tone of voice. There are several facial expressions that humans use, many that are understood across cultures, with some even occurring in remote tribal communities that have had almost no contact with the outside world. An example would be the facial expression for disgust, or the myriad of expressions humans use to convey happiness.
Last I checked, the limited number of emotes and simple character models in game cannot convey this nuanced aspect of human communication. In fact, you can't even hold your hands out and open/empty as a sign of non-aggression, or put your hands up, or approach somebody meekly to communicate that you are not a threat, and typing to communicate does not really communicate tone the same way a calm or aggressive voice would (be it gibberish or not).
If "human civilization simulation" includes magical swords, but not the innate tools that the human body has provided us for generations to non-verbally communicate with others, then I guess it is simulating the aggression and none of the peacemaking stuff... ::shrugs::
I realize there is more to be developed, but I'm merely making my case on why these changes are problematic for this particular game. I just don't think it fits the aesthetics or the control scheme, but obviously many people don't mind these changes or even possibly think my feedback unwelcome and want to see more things like magical swords that only hurt outsiders, so... yeah....
Anyway, as for the prickly "get over it" sentiment, well... no problemo, chap. It seems this is not the game I was looking for after all.
In any case, so long and thanks for all the fish!
#49 Re: Main Forum » Swords...... Aren't as bad. » 2019-05-14 05:37:02
@RedComb That was a great read! Futurebird shared it on discord and I would really recommend Jason to take a look at those articles if he gets a chance! They're really insightful.
Thank you and Futurebird for sharing it.
I also wrote a different post on the WE NEED TO BUILD A WALL thread primarily discussing how some of the game mechanics are problematic and not only empower griefers, but allow them to get away with abhorrent behavior scott free.
I realize he's super busy and ain't nobody got time for walls of texts like these, or to listen to hour long GDC presentations, but maybe the fact that a lot of the suggestions and feedback I'm making are coming from an expert in the field (Koster) and not just me might make it worthwhile for him to check them out.
I think I read somewhere on here where he posted about attending GDC, so I have to imagine he is open to these kinds of presentations and the knowledge they contain.
FWIW, I joined the discord a few days ago, but didn't post anything there because I'm just not really a discord person.
I'm just a noob who found this game really intriguing, and really enjoyed playing it, right up until I was killed (and saw the rest of the town get killed) when I was only 7 and had barely had a look around at all the progress that town had made (I was there 15 generations prior and it was my first time spawning back into someplace I had made a positive contribution to, so it was cool to see the progress made, but a real shock to be stabbed by the war sword... an item I didn't know had been implemented into the game as of that moment).
It just left a really sour taste in my mouth when what had seemed like a rather chill game built around cooperation was suddenly going full nihilistic, featuring conflict and drama because humans are killers and the world is built by killers, etc....
#50 Re: Main Forum » WE NEED TO BUILD A WALL » 2019-05-14 05:07:44
Even with another family which is seemingly friendly or genuinely friendly being accepted, there is bound to be a griefer born some time or another and then you have double the deathtrap.
This is the problem with this whole concept of war swords and changing the curse system.
It is already incredibly easy to grief and cause strife between two otherwise peaceful families because your life in this game is so brief, you are likely to be born to various locations, and there is inherent anonymity when playing.
Since there is no persistent identity tag from one life to the next, players will never know if you are baddy or not.
Griefers, or those who just like to stir up shit can game the system, can grow up in one town, discover another settlement within travel distance, /die until they spawn at the other settlement, go to the first town and start killing people. Start a war for no reason between the two, no repercussions, nobody will know who they were, just frustration and chaos for the people who were trying to accomplish stuff in both towns. AWESOME~! /s
To me, that is one the glaring problems with this game (if the curse system is nerfed and there is no "report" or "mute" features).
Players can be bad apples and you can never learn to be on the lookout for them because in their next life, they will be somebody totally different (unless they are an Eve and always name themselves with a particular surname and name children a particular way, and even then, that is them voluntarily making it obvious who they are).
Griefers and bad actors can just hide behind the RNG and anonymity and wreck all the progress of others in the name of their fun, all because of the game's mechanics.
There is no persistent identity tag, there is no way to flag people or report shit that crosses the line. I understand there is not really the infrastructure for that, but if you're going to create a virtual sandbox, you have a responsibility to address issues like this.
This is a serious problem, like when I saw people spouting N words and racist crap right after the change to genetic diversity in offspring. I was dismayed that there is nothing that can be done about reporting them even though I probably wouldn't have in the first place.
I'm normally very pro-free speech, even tolerating disgusting and racist speech as long as it doesn't take away the rights and agency of another person, but when there is absolutely no recourse for players to report problems, it creates a huge issue with harassment and griefing in this game.
You can't even mute people, which is merely a bandaid for really bad issues, and not only is there no purposeful answer to this question, things like nerfing the curse mechanic and empowering griefers with war swords just seems to add powder to the keg.
@ Jason Rohrer -- please see the segment starting at 6:45 of the following 2017 GDC presentation by Raph Koster discussing responses to harassment in virtual realms titled Still Logged In: What AR and VR Can Learn from MMOs
If you host an online community, you are on the hook.
If you don't have the wherewithal to be on the hook,
don't host an online community.
Also, at 12:53 he discusses the harm a single player can inflict upon retention, potentially driving away THOUSANDS of players:
The worst offenders can chase away actual thousands.
And then at 13:19 he explicitly talks about the the importance of a persistent identity system, and how problem players can and will use anonymity to get away with their bad behavior with impunity if you allow them to.
If your social VR or AR system does not have a persistent account system with persistent identity that players invest into, you're effectively making every player get away scott free because all they need to create a brand new account every single time they log in.
^With OHOL, they don't even need to go to the trouble of creating new accounts, the anonymity and ability to come back completely unknown is baked right into the game's spawning system.
Granted, this talk is geared toward moderating social VR and AR communities, but it is taking lessons from MMOs (which I think share a lot of commonality with OHOL, at least sandbox MMOs).
And at 13:50, he discusses why blocking or muting doesn't wholly address the problem because others can still see the problem actor doing and saying things that might be way over the line (see: "A Rape in Cyberspace" by Julian Dibbell or the book My Tiny Life). His point here is that when trolls do abusive stuff, it isn't entirely on them if you as a designer lack the adequate means to respond to problem behaviors.
Every feature must be looked at as a weapon.
(and here you are, actually creating magic weapons for people to use against non-lineage players... creating weapons for griefers to potentially use against your own community... dafuq?)
Time 19:09 = discussion of the mistake in the UO alpha when they allowed people to spawn in the Inn (with players colliding with each other), and how players would use this mechanic to PK from within the Inn (which the player who was attacked could not reenter).
And he points out something really important about the generation of these kinds of stories: "we laugh about them, they're fun... until you're pincushioned with a 100 arrows in your back."
Perhaps you and some in this community will laugh about war sword massacre sprees, but that is at the expense of another player's enjoyment of the game or even the enjoyment of whole groups of players. This kind of stuff is predatory and deeply cynical because it is based on victimizing other people for fun.
The sad part is that you are coding this kind of stuff into a social game, a game without any kind of report or block/mute feature, because "muh vision".... and one of the very few mechanics that could address something like this, the curse system, is now disabled for non-lineage players.....
In short, you are creating a griefer's paradise.
I urge you to watch the rest of the presentation, there are other good nuggets in there about this topic, but I will stop now. I've already written enough posts and walls of text about this topic trying to address what I see going wrong with it, trying to speak to you and citing experts in your field so it's not just some bullshit opinions of a noob player posting on your forum.
From all I can tell, it's fallen on deaf ears and me and others like me might be in a small minority with these feelings, but I will still express myself because like the "On Getting Criticism" blog post by Koster points out, a dev and their game won't improve if people don't give them their genuine impressions or feedback about it, even if you disagree with what I'm saying.
I honestly hope you'll consider all of this when looking at things like the war sword, changes to the curse system, genetic and language changes, and when considering the possibility of implementing some kind of persistent token or user ID that will stick with a player from life to life.
For the bit I played your game, almost entirely pre-"Come Together" update, I thoroughly enjoyed myself and found the community to be awesome (yes, there were some murders and griefers, but I've played hardcore FFA pvp games since the late 90's, so this community is paradise compared to most).
However, I think if you're not careful in nurturing the sandbox players and "carebears" here, you will upset the ecology of this community and drive all the "sheep" away, ultimately leaving nothing for the wolves and fighters to do either, thereby killing what is a promising title.