One Hour One Life Forums

The most important rules aren't the problem, you don't need to teach those every time. The less important but more numerous pieces of information that are never the same are what you lose with a poor communication system, and their aggregate value is much higher.

Morti, again, OP's post isn't about new players who don't know how to play, it's about players not knowing the layout and rules of the new town they were just born in.

Besides, lamenting the perceived stupidity of the masses is rarely productive. The whole point of the Stanford prison experiment you mention is that systemic issues should be solved in a systemic way and not blamed on the participants.

You only need one kid to have the next generation.

And the people you're trying to talk to are busy too and have to either ignore other people or think about every phrase in case it's relevant. The more people there are on the screen, the more time is wasted on digging through noise.

I disagree with the conclusion though. Communication just needs to be more efficient.

Edit: or is that what you mean? I thought you mean that the game should enforce rules like "BOTTOM ROW SEED" with no player input.

Right, karma implies that there's a dependency. But it provides zero information about that dependency. Knowing that there's a karma system in the game is useless if you can't somehow guess what exactly this system does. In the context of this discussion we can guess that it's supposed to somehow prevent griefing, but we still have no idea what exactly the given poster wants it to do. Everyone could agree that there needs to be a karma system and have directly opposite or completely unrelated implementations in mind.

My point is, concepts that aren't fictional, like magic or souls, or fully general, like computers, make better metaphors.

Thanks for the post, Joriom.

There needs to be a very cheap wall that can be mass produced. Knee-high piles of dirt or something.
It's supposed to be equivalent to a paper wall, a signalling device, or a piece of police tape: doesn't really protect anything from anyone, but breaking it alerts everyone around that something shady is happening/has happened.

Also, creating in-game incentives for people to destroy other villages could help: griefing can't be a problem if the game is balanced around regular players doing the same thing.

Also, can we please taboo the world word "karma"? It's as vague as "magic".

That was unnecessarily graphic ._.

Switch to another server?

I like this, it's simple, versatile, and you can still be unaware of how it works.

Having temperature above the optimal means trading food for fertility, that's great.

Babies probably shouldn't spawn if the temperature is near zero.

The temperature the baby previously died at could have effect too. The closer to the mother's current temperature, the higher the chances. Less people will die without clothes, more people will get born and die in exactly the same dedicated warm place.

Edit: should have read the whole thread first D:

This, too.

Being aborted might be the only good reason to lift the 60 minute ban.
(A better solution would be giving women more control over childbirth and at the same time making it more costly, so that there's more reason to keep even accidental children.)

That's how the game should have worked from the beginning :0

A simpler version would be banning you from respawning on the same server for 60 minutes after your last spawn. This way you can never meet the same character twice.

For convenience, the client should automatically switch between different servers.

The zombie thing is basically a convenience feature too.

Discussing possible negative consequences is pointless without comparing them to something.

It's most likely already possible for the game to be in a state where there's a walled garden with farmers who just kill everyone who enters on sight. The question is, is that state reachable?

Also, having a guard that kills everyone for breaking the rules isn't enough. (Even assuming that's efficient.) She would also need to educate everyone about the rules before they're broken. I think communication in the game might be too costly right now for something like that to be economically possible.

Was going to write an effort post, but remembered that no one will seriously read it anyway, so here's a shitty short version.

This is about morality frameworks. The game shouldn't try to enforce one, only humans are smart enough. Instead it should give the players tools like murder that let them enforce their own rules. Players need to a) have these tools, b) know about other players using them. The game still isn't smart enough to figure out which actions are rule enforcement and which aren't, but that's fine, the game can be designed in a way that there's a small list of tools that can be used for rule enforcement and can't be used for anything else. This way it's easy to filter information.