One Hour One Life Forums
a multiplayer game of parenting and civilization building
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#176 Re: Main Forum » Surviving Triplet Griefers » 2019-02-12 04:53:23
Hi, Izzy.
I was there an hour ago.
Saw you too.
You got snowballed by a blond girl, remember? It was your granddaughter even. You survived.
The last thing I remember is that a snowman you had built started melting.
There was snowbank right next to it. I noticed it was the only one around close to the town.
I told your daughter (my grandmother) to wall it on the spot otherwise griefers will use it. I don't think she wanted to do it though.
That blond girl (Leah) killed me on the spot after hearing me say this.
At first I thought I had simply starved because of the snowball because I was very low on food, but no. She outright murdered me.
I tried to get back into town but it was no use as that was enough to lineage ban me.
Looks like Claire also snowballed to death one of my sisters. No idea why.
I'm not 100% sure but given the fact that there was a snowbank right next to the bakery, I wouldn't hold my breath on the lineage surviving.
#177 Re: Main Forum » One Hour One Life - The Griefer's Game » 2019-02-10 18:18:44
I like the mod too, Jason doesn't though because it does completely change the gameplay. He has a very specific vision for this game, and you bought the wrong one if you dont see that vision too.
If by changing the gameplay you mean improve it then sure.
Don't worry, it doesn't fundamentally changes the gameplay.
Unless you consider "rope finding simulator" part of the gameplay.
With the current level of litter in cities, trying to find lost stuff with the default zoom level is insanely frustrating.
Also helps with dealing with griefers (as in knowing what they're doing).
When I bought the game, I didn't specifically envision myself constantly dealing with griefers and constantly having to look for rope.
When it comes to the "vision of the game" I always love to use the trailer as a frame of reference.
Why? Because at the end of the day, it's what made me buy the game. It's also unchanging (hence the reference part) and always gives the same impression (which is not guaranteed with Jason himself..).
The whole point is that you cant do anything very meaningful in one life( unless your memory and reflexes are sharp, and you have some luck), and that you have to work with others.
I'm not sure if this is still arguing against the zoom out mod since it's just after that.
But if it is, it's not well thought out.
You do realize that the current default zoom level makes cooperating very difficult?
It makes literally everything that can be considered cooperation difficult.
Talking to each other is hard because of the zoom level.
Following each other is hard because of the zoom level.
The only thing that you can consider working is people giving directions (if you can get past the talking issue and the obvious speech limit..) for important resources.
Where is the savanna with rabbits? Where's the badlands with iron?
Even then, I expect most people succeed with this because of the zoom out mod itself.
If perhaps Jason made some sort of orientation update with shared maps and the likes then I would consider zooming out much less often.
I think Jason doesn't realize how much the zoom out mod is actually needed which is what the OP is pointing out.
I'm fairly certain that without it, the player count would drastically decrease which the OP pointed out as well.
Because let's face it, a finding rope simulator is not fun to play. I'm willing to bet money that the majority of regular users who read this forum use it.
As for griefers, that's a "feature" too. This isn't a creative sandbox, you must think of all facets of societal life and that includes managing low productivity people, and dealing with greifers.
I don't remember seeing people kill each other in the trailer.
And frankly if I did, I wouldn't have bought the game.
I don't want to play a new The Forest or Rust.
I bought the game thinking I would help build civilization with other players and that future generations would build up on it.
Having griefers in the game means the exact opposite. Having griefers means the extinction of civilizations and the halt of progress.
In general, I really don't understand people who keep trying to sell me griefing as an intended game mechanic.
No, I do not want that. Nobody other than the griefers want that.
Guess why? Because it's not fun for anybody other than the griefers themsevles.
Only a tiny fraction of people really "enjoy" fighting griefers and usually it's the people who like to call themselves "ultra pro" and have "excellent fighting skills".
The game doesn't even have proper PVP mechanics in place for fighting. So even just fighting in general for any sort of roleplay I wouldn't consider fun.
Without them, all villages are: find spot, make bowls, farm, find iron, make some stuff.
Sure, you can make anything sound bland and boring if you try hard enough.
My turn. With griefing, the game is just all that you listed except you add "dealing with annoying assholes" at the end of the list.
Sounds pretty bad, doesn't it?
This point also makes the assumption that people actually enjoy dealing with griefers which is demonstrably false.
If people dont want to play alone endlessly, they will behave better, or they will get bored of having a couple grief lives and then hours of donkey town and will quit playing.
This implies that the curse system is working as it should and that griefers do spend time in donkey town.
This is also demonstrably false. A lot of griefers are experienced players who learn to avoid donkey town in the first place.
They will get only x amount of curse in y amount of time and as a result don't get to spend a single second in donkey town while their lifetime curse score keeps on increasing.
Work on being a better eve, because the majority of griefers do so on civs and not eve camps.
It's pretty naive of you to assume that griefers only exist in non-Eve camps.
The promise of your argument is also kind of dishonest.
Can't I extrapolate from it that if I want to play without griefers, I'm forced to play Eve camps regardless of what I like or not in the game?
#178 Re: Main Forum » Game Desync / Disconnections » 2019-02-08 22:38:36
#179 Re: Main Forum » How should clothes work heat-wise? » 2019-02-08 22:32:02
Just cranking up the nakedness penalty to make the benefits bigger isn't going to help.
Just to be clear, when Jason said "increase the benefit", I thought that meant just that.
Not "make the status quo for nakedness even worse than it already is so that people have an annoying urge to make full set of clothes".
Some people already have a hard enough time finding food in the wilderness and Eve camps struggle enough as it is.
Let's not crank it up even more.
I'm saying this because I hear the next update will make living on desert edges unviable.
I'm not completely sure myself, I've seen the changes but I'm unfamiliar with the temperature code in general.
Maybe living in the middle of the desert will still be way better than neutral biomes but edges won't average like they do anymore?
This way you can warm up next to a fire quickly, and cool down slowly as you move about. The same concept could be used in reverse, so that standing in a cold place allows you to cool down quickly, and then walking about in the desert you warm up slowly.
This would be fine as long as being naked stays somewhat viable in the game (as stated above).
I don't want another DST where you have to go to the nearest (anti)fire every 30 seconds if you didn't make stupidly expansive clothes beforehand.
That wouldn't fit in this game at all.
All the more reason that simulation is probably the wrong approach (besides, it seems to consume an awful lot of server resources, even after scaling it back from once every server step to once every X seconds). Perhaps you might start with the desired gameplay and reason from there, rather starting with a physics model.
I agree, the whole heat simulation thing seems overkill.
Why even bother calculating per tiles when only the players matter?
Unless you intended to use temperature for other gameplay elements but it's hard to imagine what.
The obstacles to use are high: clothing is expensive, transitions between hot and cold environments are frequent, dressing and undressing is tedious (meaning both time-consuming and uninteresting), and clothing storage is a nightmare.
I also agree on that too. Glad people are seeing the same problems with clothing.
but what if eve clothes (seal skin, mouflon hide etc) would give almost perfect temp in colder biomes (or at least much better than now) but at the same time decay in a couple of generations, this would make clothes a neccessity but at the same time not too hard to get and if the village doesn't advance soon enough in tech or does the right thing it runs out of clothes and dies out.
After the eve clothes, we have the rabbit clothes but they also are not good enough to survive in colder biomes atm, a full rabbit gear should give perfect temp in colder biomes and since they decay it requires work to get them and more advanced tech than eve camps (snares and later ball of thread from sheeps to really give clothes to the whole village), then comes the next tier of clothes that requires more advanced tech but that could give the advantage of decaying slower or more easily accessible than hunting rabbits (or both) while still giving the advantage of perfect or near perfect temp
Every new tier of clothing could give advantages over the previous tier making them part of the techtree and something actually required for the survival of a village and not just purely aesthetic
I have seen a lot of good suggestions and problems pointed out in this thread. Lots of feedback.
This suggests something which I think is interesting: tiers of technology.
I still remember how the official trailer for the game clearly suggested civilization will go through tiers of technology by showing first the usual game structures then roads/cars and finally atomic powered structures.
Why can't that apply to clothing as well? Especially since Jason apparently wants it to be that important.
I find simply using skin as first tier an excellent idea.
A next tier would absolutely be welcome too.
As was already suggested a bunch of times, using the loom to mass produce clothing would be just awesome.
The mass producing part is important because as I said I still won't wear clothes if they get stolen the second I leave them on the ground. That's nonsense and is frustrating.
I've given up on making sure I have a backpack every lives already. This is way too repetitive and also just not fun at all. Why must I catch 5 rabbits every lives and painfully wait for them to get trapped (reminder that one minute is one year, why do I even have to wait..) if I want to carry more than one item in one go.
I just don't get why Jason wants clothing to be SO HARD. You're trying to tell me we can make planes but we aren't smart enough to use a loom properly?
I also found Ferna's post very good.
Making clothes beneficial in deserts by protecting from the sun is a great idea.
If Jason was looking to make clothing intuitive and satisfying, this is where to look.
Having clothing be as painful to make as it is currently is hardly something I would consider intuitive and satisfying.
#180 Re: Main Forum » Do you enjoy killing people? » 2019-02-08 18:31:15
When someone writes something like this it's a blatant request for attention. "Look at me, look at what I've done, I matter! Even if I couldn't make you notice me in game."
It's not worth commenting on. So they try really hard to make a game less fun for other people and some of us have to log back in sooner than 60 minutes. Yawn.
Yes, I know that as well.
The problem however is that people do notice the griefers because you just encounter them extremely often.
And that's because there is a problem with the current curse system that needs to be addressed.
There's also many easily griefable mechanics in the game that need to be addressed as well (snow).
Like with the recent change to freestanding Newcommen towers for example. You can now remove them if they don't have the kit installed yet which pretty much fixed the griefing.
I believe that this discussion demonstrates a much larger issue at hand with this game.
There are simply not enough people role-playing, and the ones who do roleplay often get a lot of flack for it. My theory is that this lack of role-playing leads people to get bored, and so they make their own rp as a murderer/griefer.
When I think about it, all of my most memorable games have featured role-playing. Sure, I get more done when I just put my head down and work, but that gets old and repetitive. It is much more fun to be the uncle that adopts a discarded baby, or in the group of siblings who leave town and build their own society, or the quirky aunt who writes letters about child rearing. In those lives it is still possible to get things done, and have fun, without resorting to societal destruction. Some people will still grief regularly, but if more people rp, I suspect that many more would-be griefers can be assuaged.
I think it's the absolute opposite.
I think there are many griefers like Lu in this game exactly because roleplaying exists.
Just to make my point, here's some quotes of interest:
I like killing females rather men most of the time as I can bask in the feelings of horror and despair that the villagers exhibit as they realize I’ve doomed their village, or that I’ve killed someone they’ll never likely meet again with the same relationship they had before.
And here it is literally laid out in front of you:
So to answer your question, why do I play OHOL for death when there are other games where I can kill people?
Simple, the people I kill have investment and close/familial bonds in this game. When I have the opportunity to destroy that in an instant and watch them despair/get exasperated/ rage, it tickles my ingame heart and makes me wanna do more. It’s like a drug. I don’t think most people can sympathize until they REALLY try it.
Roleplayers in general are seen as an easy target by griefers. It's a guaranteed negative feeling for them. An easy prey, if you will.
As disoculated pointed out, these people fundamentally need the attention you're giving them.
Otherwise they might as well be non-existent.
Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy the whole birth mechanic in this game. I absolutely love what Jason accomplished here and it is unprecedented.
Being born as a baby to a mother, watch yourself and others around you age and eventually die.
And the whole thing is executed masterfully, people are basically anonymous in the game, you only know them by how they are related to you.
It's beautiful. But for me the whole thing stops at calling those people my mom or my brother or whatever.
Because in the end, it's just that. Strangers on the internet. I can't feel anything towards them.
Think of it this way, what if I'm born to a mom who is a griefer who tries to kill everyone?
Well, please, do kill my mom as quickly as possible (and possibly rescue me afterwards)!
I won't and shouldn't feel sad for such a thing.
I also find your theory interesting.
You say people get bored because there is no roleplay.
I expect it's the opposite. People likely get bored first and then turn to roleplaying and rely on their imagination rather than on the game's content to fight off boredom.
And if they don't like roleplaying then maybe they will turn to griefing or if they don't enjoy that either they will likely quit.
#181 Re: Main Forum » Game Desync / Disconnections » 2019-02-08 14:07:43
Jason, did you forget about the ticket opened on github about this issue?
The way you describe it happening to you is exactly what happens to me and the other people who reported it over there.
Recently, "jrudolph" posted what he thinks is the cause along with a patch.
I've been testing it and so far it has fixed the issue every single time for me.
#182 Re: Main Forum » How should clothes work heat-wise? » 2019-02-07 19:54:02
You currently do a bunch of other stuff that takes way more clicks (like cook elaborate foods) because the benefit is clear.
This is very different and not really comparable in my opinion.
If I make a bunch of pies, the pies are made.
They stay a benefit no matter what.
I can just go around and eat pies everywhere I go.
If I make clothes and I'm forced to strip/gear up depending on location, then yes clothes are tedious.
Especially with the way they are right now.
As it is right now, you need a whole outfit to have a good benefit in neutral/cold biomes.
Me stripping each and every single pieces, finding a place to put them on the ground (yeah, that makes it unpractical in cities with the current level of litter) and naively wish no one will take it is just unrealistic.
I think the problem is that the benefit is marginal.
I do agree that the benefit is marginal.
Which is why I generally don't care about clothes in any of my lives.
I make sure I have a backpack (if I have to go out and gather stuff, which is extremely often) and then I'm set.
I'll just stick to eating wild foods and pies while in town (I'll also happily vary when people produce other nice foods like stew).
Part of it is exactly because they become the opposite of beneficial in hot biomes.
Let's also not forget that they are an absolute death trap when it comes to dealing with mosquitoes.
Considering that people are smart enough to build towns in hot areas and that you need an actual full set for it to be a bit beneficial in neutral biomes, I actually consider clothing useless/a negative thing.
I think everyone who's browsing this forum knows that when they see someone make something other than a backpack using rabbit skin this person is new at the game.
That's always my reaction and probably everyone else's.
But let's imagine for a second that you do make the benefit much bigger and that people have a much bigger incentive at using clothes.
I'd like to compare clothing with eating.
In the game, one minute is a whole year.
Yet eating and temperature management is still stuck in real time (for obvious reasons).
For eating, it's very simple. Just take food and click on yourself. Boom you've managed to eat.
With clothing, things are much more different.
If you expect me to strip/wear every time I move somewhere, this is going to get ugly.
First, I have to strip every single piece of clothing one by one and then find a place to put them (which I must remember later on).
If I have to strip in the city, I also have to worry about thieves and litter.
With eating things are way simpler as carrying food is super easy.
So even if you made the benefit bigger, I personally would still not wear clothes.
Because let's be honest, the amount of stuff I would have to worry about every time I decided to remove it would just be too much considering how much people actually move within a lifetime.
I would suggest first addressing this before anything else.
An obvious suggestion would be to allow making complete outfits (by adding the parts together) and allow wearing/stripping of the whole thing in one click.
But even with that I still wouldn't bother because of the stealing problem.
As it is right now it's not a problem with food because there are ways to mass produce it, once a baker has made a good bunch of pies you can expect adults won't starve for quite a bit.
I would consider clothing that you need to wear/strip only if I don't have to worry about it being stolen. And for that to happen, we need a way to mass produce clothing as well.
Maybe it's time to finally consider the loom for a better/upgraded clothing system?
That would mean you could dress your town in a single job and not have to worry about it later on.
There would be enough for everyone and so no stealing problem (like for food).
Adding to that the outfit suggestion I think I would start actually wearing clothes.
It still wouldn't solve the problem of where to put it when you strip (someone already mentioned that's a problem) but would definitely make it not tedious.
#183 Main Forum » Snow griefing. » 2019-02-06 22:05:05
- Léonard
- Replies: 13
I have already made a post about this once.
It was about snowmen griefing.
Here's the important parts:
From this I'd like to point out that I find the whole snow thing extremely dumb and just flat out broken.
First off, you can kill with snow.
You would argue that only people who know what they're doing use snowballs to kill people but this is precisely the problem.
From all the time I've been playing, I have only personally seen people snowballing twice and they were both griefers.
[...]
Also snowbanks are infinite. What?
Making snowmen base is so cheap, what kind of evil person would make those impossible to remove without spending a bunch of resources and time to complete it first and then wait for it to melt and take it appart?
It's almost as if they were designed for griefers (snowballs included).
The post was done after I encountered a griefer who was building snowmen for the first time.
To put things into perspective, I feel a screenshot is in order:
Yup, that really happened..
I think for the snowmen part the screenshot should be self explanatory.
As for the snowballs part, make that three griefers encountered.
Also, something important to mention is that when I first complained about snowballs, I didn't even know how people killed with them yet.
I had simply assumed that you just keep people from eating until they starve eventually using the snowballs.
But today I learned. Today I got killed by snowballs for the first time ever.
but if a player is hit by enough snowballs in quick succession, they will die
Today I was born in a city located completely within a desert and with a snow biome right next to it.
A griefer was born in that city. That's it. The story ends there.
I didn't know you could be completely killed on the spot just with snowballs (rather than slow starvation).
This guy stood on a bank, I noticed he was trying to starve some babies and decided I would chase him (not kill him, that's not possible with the current way PVP works).
Somehow, while I was moving towards him, my hud turned bloody all of the sudden, yet I could sill do anything, as in eating, walking, even carrying objects.
I didn't even see him snowball me a SINGLE time and you're telling me this guy had enough time to hit me so much he killed me on the spot WHILE I was moving?
This is ridiculous. Pure nonsense.
This is me.
This is him. Notice how he killed both his mom and an uncle in the same way by the way.
And who knows how many other babies he starved before I took notice.
He is just 11 and we know he already killed three maybe even more people without any difficulty.
I don't know what prompted him to starve to death, but I must assume after I was dead he didn't encounter much resistance.
What I think most likely happened is he was simply done with his daily griefing session and decided to quit.
His last words particularly makes me think he successfully killed all the females before dying (as there weren't many to begin with).
This is awful. Please remove the snow.
There are so many things wrong with this.
-Snowbanks are infinite.
So if you are an Eve and you happen to build your camp right next to a snow biome, you better expect it will become griefing-central in no time.
-I didn't even notice myself I was being snowballed before I died.
Now maybe there was a bug, maybe this was an exploit but I swear all I saw was the bloody hud (while I was running on top of that) before promptly dying.
Can you even "heal" someone who is dying of "snowballs"?
Because with knives or arrow, you can actually be healed.
The fact that this is impossible to cure (I can't find anything on the wiki about this) and that people can barely even notice it makes it, you guessed it, the perfect tool for griefers.
I mean how is it not? There are no repercussion to killing someone with it, and you can potentially kill ENTIRE lineages with it (as shown by my example).
Why is this in the game at all?
I mean it, really.
I hope Jason reads this and replies to me with an actual argument for why such a griefable thing is in the game.
If you want to argue that you can in real life actually kill people using just snowballs, why not do the same with rocks?
Why not allow griefers to use rock piles and literally stone people to death while we're at it?
I mean it would be much more effective than snow, I'll tell you that.
And it would even be more balanced because with rocks you can actually run out of ammo (no infinite snow banks here, just a rock pile).
Can you come up with a reasonable argument as to why you wouldn't be able to stone people to death but you can kill people using just snowballs?
If you say that you can't implement stoning people because it would be too griefable, then why is snowball death in the game at all? It's even more griefable than stones could ever be because you have infinite ammo for it.
I really hope Jason reads this and replies to it.
#184 Re: Main Forum » Anyone from the Eros family? » 2019-02-06 15:46:53
I was out catching rabbits when I believe Nunzio told me about the bears the twins (he said marchelle) brought into town
Nunzio reporting in.
I didn't realize the girl was part of a twin duo (more twins, go figure..).
I was just on my way to get more iron when I saw specifically her from afar waking up every single bear in the area.
Once I finished my bow the bear was already lured out and enough people seemed to have survived the attack.
I don't stay in eve camps very often but I found my mom (Walruses) kinda funny.
She congratulated me just for following her and also seemed displeased with her babies all the time until Philip was born.
Also my brother (mrbah) seemed to know what he was doing, which was a big plus for me, that definitely made me enjoy this game compared to other eve camps.
I also saw someone mention we should keep planting berries in the jungle biome which, just for hearing, satisfied me.
I see people completely neglecting temperature and jungles in eve camps way too often.
I'm not sure if they're still there though, I haven't played since yesterday, but it's nice to see the lineage survived a whole day.
I really enjoyed this life (except for the griefing part obviously) and I'm glad to see it was all worth it in the end too.
#185 Re: Main Forum » Do you enjoy killing people? » 2019-02-06 03:02:43
A philosophy that is neither quite incorrect, nor quite fully deniable when viewed by the eyes of a murderer yes?
Sure, anything depends on perspective.
To the majority, you are a griefer.
But in your own eyes you are just a desperately bored guy.
That's just rationalizing.
Going by this logic, I could say that you can get better at preventing griefing by banning knives and bows in town and killing those that possess them, blockading all nearby bear caves, and murdering people who you suspect even slightly might be a troublemaker so as to give a few examples. You could take really extreme measures to get griefing under your control and for future generations and not have to worry about it. Sure, it'll affect your quality of life, but hey, it's in your control.
Thinking that you can control griefing is naive at best.
My point was that those things are actually predictable.
I can't predict what another player will do.
Any attempt at banning knives will be voided the instant a competent smith is born into the city.
What will I do then? Kill him if he decides to make another knife? Then I become a griefer myself.
What if a griefer decides he wants to kill me specifically and I see him coming?
Wooo! Infinite chase!
What if the griefer simply hides resources I've made while I'm not looking away?
Let's face it, you just can't control griefing.
It just happens to you or it doesn't.
Sure though, I could painstakingly block out bear caves.
It would be very resource intensive though now that you need the whole 4 blocks + kit to actually make it unremovable.
Again, not completely my problem. [...] Concerning the game's overall image, that's not my problem either. That's Jason's. [...] Ultimately, you gotta look to Jason to do something about it lol.
Yeah, I realize that.
I've mostly given up on betting that Jason will do anything meaningful about it nor anything about other current issues, and will instead implement a well-meant but not very useful update about sending people into outer space in a rocket made out of toothpicks and glue. [...] but it's ultimately useless for me to think about what could be, and to instead think about what I could be doing to have fun right now (even with my bloody methods).
I see what you mean there, too.
It seems even just him acknowledging problems is erratic.
Though that just might be linked to him simply browsing the forums/reddit/github issues or not. I'm not really sure.
Or do they do it for some personal form of justice/efficiency reasons?
Just by reading this forum I am willing to bet there are a ton who fall into this category.
Also today I saw a guy trying to kill everyone in town simply because his mother tried to name him "gay". Yeah...
#186 Re: Main Forum » Do you enjoy killing people? » 2019-02-05 23:23:06
it’s just an issue too big for me to properly care while about knowing that others will do my job even if I do nothing.
"Why should I stop griefing if other griefers already exist"
Nice philosophy.
People are already used to unfairly dying whether by mosquitos, wolves, starvation, or snakebites. Why would murder be any different to them?
Because it is outside of their control.
You can get better at managing your hunger, learning yum bonuses, learning temperature management, etc..
You can get better at dodging wild animals (boy do I know I have...) by predicting their movement, looking at their patterns, knowing when to move, etc...
But I cannot control if my life will be spent dealing with stupid stuff that wouldn't happen if griefers didn't exist.
Things like fixing the pen after a griefer dug up half a bell tower and let all the animals out.
I always have this picture of a griefer in my mind, rubbing his hands and laughing.
How do you enjoy this? You just know at some point someone will take notice and likely fix it, or it might be too late and a whole village will die of hunger.
And this is supposed to entertain both the victim and the griefer somehow? What?
Or another thing is seeing a wave of bears invade the town, you literally have to immediately stop whatever you were doing (even if you were actually having fun and enjoying the game the way it was meant to be enjoyed, mind you) and usually spend decades looking for thread to make a bow and three arrows to finally hopefully kill the bear before it doomed your lineage.
WOW so much fun!
Or spending your time eyeing that weird kid who plays around with the bow only to finally shoot someone after he's held it for ten minutes.
I swear this is a pattern, it's happened three lives in a row by now.
At this point I think I might stab the next kid who holds onto the bow for no apparent reason.
And I'm reluctant to do this. Because what's going to happen?
If this guy takes notice he'll simply start running and a chase will ensue. The both of us will be unhittable at this point and the whole thing would have become pointless.
The game isn't even MADE with PVP in mind and you're asking me to have fun dealing with griefers.
This is why I stick to ignoring that weird kid with the bow (only running occasionally when he gets too close), I know exactly how it will end up.
It is purely frustrating and you can trust me on that: no one other than the griefer is enjoying it. You can be sure of it.
Otherwise, why would Jason implement murder and the apocalypse for people far worse than me to enjoy?
From what I've heard, Jason made the apocalypse because he felt civilizations progressed too fast and he was tired of huge towns where there is nothing to be done other than to survive.
Going from there, I have argued against this idea in one of my very first posts and in short my point is that if people complete the game too fast you should focus on giving them more content to worry about rather than simply implementing a reset button, as if the fact that people were completing civilizations that quickly didn't mean they were bored of it already.
Which is what you would want by the way, isn't it?
I mean you said it yourself, you started killing as a way to enjoy this game again because you felt the content already present wasn't enough anymore.
It's also possible Jason made the apocalypse for other reasons as well and if that's the case I would be glad to know.
As for murdering, I'm not sure really. It's interesting to think about.
I have heard Jason likes realism and dramatic endings.
I also heard that murdering came before curses which I think is important.
You might say knives are as much a tool for griefing as they are a tool to stop it.
But cursing. That's very different.
It also makes sense. If your game was complete anarchy and there would be no repercussion to griefing, you could expect to have your game ruined every life.
How would you solve that? Give people the tool to take care of it.
That's how you solve this. Asserting that you didn't advert your game as some sort of PVP game of course, you can expect the majority of your playerbase will want to play it to build things rather than to grief.
So if the majority use the curse system to get rid of griefers, you will get rid of griefers.
I really like this quote from the wiki which is from Jason himself:
Repeat offenders who keep bothering people as a way of life, will eventually serve 5 hours every time they go to donkey town.
You can extrapolate from this that Jason in fact didn't want griefers in his game, or more precisely wanted them to be taken appart and do their own thing in their own place.
That's why I think the curse tweak is important.
I think Jason wanted us to enjoy EVERY aspect of the game, even the negative ones. Even if they aren’t necessarily enjoyed by everyone.
If the point of the curse system was to separate out griefers from regular players (by sending them to their own place) then this would hold true and I would agree with it.
The morale would boil down to: you can kill people all you want as long as you do not disturb the majority who want to build things.
I like to think that my actions only affect a handful of people in a sea of players.
I think it's important to think about the overall game image rather than the single players you kill potentially quitting.
If people notice there's a griefing problem in this game then they will think of it as some sort of rust clone.
If they think that, they will likely be much less inclined to buy it. That means overall much less players online.
If I had this image of the game before buying it, I would have not bought it.
If Jason came in this thread and told me I was completely wrong about the curse system, that he fully intends to keep griefers in the game and among everyone else, that this is effectively another The Forest or Rust, I would completely stop playing the game.
Because to put it bluntly I didn't buy the game for this.
I didn't expect to have to deal with frustrating griefers constantly when I bought this game.
I don't want to.
#187 Re: Main Forum » Do you enjoy killing people? » 2019-02-05 18:27:27
I haven't regretted purchasing an alt account to get past lineage bans.
I think when you start paying for a game twice for the only purpose of griefing we should not be afraid to call this an obsession.
Reading the OP also really felt like reading the confession of a psychopath, that was surreal.
I mean, if the game isn't enough for you anymore, if you're bored, why not just quit it?
If you like combat that much, why not play a PVP game?
No, you just have this weird obsession with having fun at the expanse of others.
When I was born as an eve, I immediately made a bow, ate a varied diet, and stayed in a temperature agreeable area. Then I waited for my children to be born. As soon as they were born, I shot them and cried out "BLOOOOOOOD!" or "FOR THE BLOOD GOD!". Because they were babies, they were helpless and couldn't curse me, and I could watch them die in confusion or numb acceptance. I did this until I was too old to bear any more children. This was pretty fun after my old methods got boring.
Especially this.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not the kind of guy to be attached to pixels on my screen and roleplay saying I love my kids.
But this is purely pointless.
You do know babies will simply get reborn to another mother after that?
If it were me I wouldn't even bother trying to curse you, I'll just get reborn to someone who actually wants to play the game with me.
Are you sure you don't have just some sort of weird gore fetish?
Maybe you're just yet another toxic roleplayer trying to roleplay as a serial killer/psychopath.
Either way this does confirm that experienced players can simply start being griefers out of boredom and I'm hopping CrazyEddie's suggestion for the curse system is implemented so that we can get rid of griefers like you.
#188 Re: Main Forum » Sharing locations, multiple markers and plane destinations » 2019-02-05 14:02:56
tired of players whining about the zoom level.
the zoom level is fine..
I actually first installed the zoom mod because I wanted my game to look good.
And yes, at first I was reluctant to zoom all the way out to search things too.
Specifically, I simply wanted to have a 1:1 pixel ratio displayed on my screen (like any other game renders things by the way) just so I wouldn't be constantly looking at a blurry mess.
I was infinitely satisfied once I started using it and made the zoom factor correspond to my resolution (1920x1080).
Everything finally looked sharp and beautiful, even the HUD itself looked WAY better.
I started zooming out specifically to look for things when I became tired of every game becoming a mere rope finding simulator.
I think anyone who takes this game seriously WILL use the zoom out mod.
And even then, sometimes I just don't find things.
This is a huge problem in the game.
You're smithing, suddenly someone takes the hammer and puts it a few tiles away and you end up looking for it for decades just because there is so much litter on the ground.
And you expect me to be playing at the default zoom level at all times?
This is the most ridiculous thing I have heard this week.
#189 Re: Main Forum » Why the complex recipe for lettering? » 2019-02-04 13:01:36
I like the letter system, when you make a sign you work for it, it's an achievement rewarded with an inscription that everyone can see and not a note that you have to pick up to read
Also you can make the letters one by one and hide them behind trees not that hard
Oh believe me I have used it before.
There is actually zero reward whatsoever.
People will 100% of the time make your work meaningless by changing around the letters and writing what they want instead.
It makes no sense.
As it is right now I consider signs as useful as rails. They are purely a novelty.
Whereas if they were made easily writable with some kind of ink that you later cannot erase (you'd have to replace the whole sign) then they would hold actual value.
They would be infinitely more useful than they are right now.
#190 Re: Main Forum » Why the complex recipe for lettering? » 2019-02-04 01:03:47
I absolutely agree.
I did have this thought before too.
After seeing yet another new player making dumb and easy mistakes like killing the mouflon or shaving the last sheep.
Pulling carrots when there are no seeds, cutting the last wheat and using it to bake more pies when no seeds are left.
All this could be solved by a simple reminder.
"Always leave one sheep unshorn"
"Always leave one wheat/carrot for seeds"
With just a single sign.
But as it is right now the letters are needlessly frustrating and complicated.
AND they use resources as well (skewers).
Before anyone starts talking about notes, those do not compare at all.
You do not see their content unless they are picked up and even then you might not be able to read it entirely because of the speech limit (which is an extremely dumb downside if you ask me).
#191 Re: Main Forum » Bad Lag in Big Civs? » 2019-02-01 12:41:54
This is still a big issue for me.
Today I wanted to try out the new content for the update and was immediately born into a big town where people were almost there.
So naturally I started helping and got to smith some stuff. Big mistake.
In the smithing area specifically my ping would stay at a constant 6 seconds (as mentioned above).
Doing anything useful in a timely fashion was just impossible.
This really, really needs to be looked into.
What point is there in having cool "big servers" that allow much bigger civilizations/cities if some people simply cannot play in them?
#192 Re: Main Forum » Bad Lag in Big Civs? » 2019-01-28 06:33:17
I am usually doing the weird rubber dance where I go back and forth.
I have been experiencing this ever since Jason started the big server tests.
It's very weird because this seems to only happens when there are a lot of people running around like in a big city for example.
When I'm far from the town, I can play and do things normally and when I measure my ping it is normal (usually around 120).
But when I go back in the town, things start to choke up.
I have tested this a bunch of times, even going back and forth sometimes to make sure.
When I'm at the heart of a big town, my ping will measure up to 6 seconds, sometimes even 8 seconds, picking up items or any interaction take forever (the rubber dance you mention happens while the client waits for an update).
It's interesting because it seems to scale with the distance between you and the town, when this happens and I'm at the edge, ping will only rise up to about 600/800 ms.
It's almost like the FPS lag issue with clients, it seems that having lots of objects being drawn on the screen doesn't necessarily tank my FPS, but as soon as there is a certain number of people running around close to me, things get choppy.
It seems like the game has difficulties with handling many players around, both on server and client.
That's my guess anyways.
Anyone else experience this the same way?
I've also heard of people having the game freezing up at map load since the big server tests began but I've personally never experienced this or anything like it so far.
#193 Re: Main Forum » Tarr's apocalyptic adventure. » 2019-01-26 09:13:06
The algorithm was designed with typical players / griefers in mind, so naturally it breaks down for minmaxers. You and pein aren't spending nearly enough time in Donkey Town. Not only should the sentence length be increased as your lifetime total increases, but the threshold should likewise be reduced. I'm pretty sure the intention behind the curse system was not "You are allowed to piss off just enough people to receive one curse per hour on average, in perpetuity."
I'll open an issue on github and suggest a better algorithm.
This is an excellent idea.
I very recently had to deal with very serious griefing for the first time since I started playing.
What I mean by serious is people who actually know what they're doing in the game.
It turns out there was a snow biome right next to our village and this guy started building a snowman wall around.
I swear I'm not making this up, the guy had one side of snowmen base completed by the time someone took notice and he basically had the pen surrounded.
There was at least a hundred of them for real.
From this I'd like to point out that I find the whole snow thing extremely dumb and just flat out broken.
First off, you can kill with snow.
You would argue that only people who know what they're doing use snowballs to kill people but this is precisely the problem.
From all the time I've been playing, I have only personally seen people snowballing twice and they were both griefers.
And from what I can read on the forums the people from here who use this to kill people usually simply do it on disagreements.
This is also very bad. If you disagree with someone over what they're doing because it is inefficient or risk killing the town as side effect, the proper course of action is to actually educate those people rather than straight out killing them.
As an example, when I first learned not to kill the domestic mouflon in a pen someone simply said "that's dumb" and I asked why and then found out they actually still breed after the first lamb while being immune to shears which I never thought about. Boy am I glad the guy wasn't some psycho who killed people on a disagreements. That day I learned.
Also snowbanks are infinite. What?
Making snowmen base is so cheap, what kind of evil person would make those impossible to remove without spending a bunch of resources and time to complete it first and then wait for it to melt and take it appart?
It's almost as if they were designed for griefers (snowballs included).
Now to get back on topic, I have always avoided 1 on 1 fighting in this game due to the way I suspected it would go.
I mean you can only kill people by clicking on them and that only while they're standing still.
So as long as you're running you're invulnerable?
After some other old lady noticed this guy we both started trying to kill him and as I suspected this was an exercise in pure frustration.
Since he knew what he was doing, he simply started running and after that the other old lady flat out gave up completely and as for myself everything became a pointless chase.
Since you can only feed yourself while standing, the only time you stop is to feed yourself and your opponent tries to get lucky while you eat.
So yeah, basically this was literally impossible, the only choice left was to curse him except since he knew what he was doing he was shooting "crazy lady, I did nothing wrong" around the village while the chase took place.
Luckily everyone else knew better and simply didn't care.
I had no curse token at the time because another griefer 20 minutes before that flat out murdered my big sister in front of everyone and got 3 curses IIRC then promptly died of starvation.
To be honest, I am very thankful that fighting in this game is as such because I definitely don't want this to become another minecraft/rust.
This does mean however that curses are the only thing people can reliably rely on to deal with griefers which comes to my point.
This guy didn't even get cursed before I died of old age and I'm not even sure he received any curses after.
Now I think the curse token thing is a necessary evil, I have nothing against that.
But this still got me thinking about the curse system and I have reached the same conclusion.
My first thought was of the classical voting system implemented in the average game.
Votekicks are both efficient and quick but they only work in this type of games.
As in, the average game has small and often private servers where everyone pretty much knows what everyone else is doing due to small maps and global chats.
Here this is much more different and I really like the way curses try to remedy to this in a very elegant way.
However people can and will get away with griefing if they know what they're doing and limit their exposure.
One example comes to mind, I was out getting rubber which was a bit far from the village and this guy sneaked up on me, following me from afar.
I instantly noticed his knife in his backpack and found his sneaking up on me very suspicious but I was curious to see if he would actually stab me so I stood there not moving.
He said hi and then surely enough stabbed me.
Luckily I had enough time to run back to the village and tell people to curse him before dying and he got two curses before I died.
Sure he ended up starving but in the end he still griefed me and possibly got away with it.
Another one was someone who completely stole my backpack.
I went to get a bunch of rabbits to make myself a backpack and he promptly showed up and stole the needle and thread I made on the spot, so I went to fetch another one (making sure not to drop it this time) and made my backpack and he stole that too right in front of me and gave it to some other baby.
At this point I realized what was going on, he is definitely a griefer and if I tried to kill him I would risk getting cursed myself, so I did the smart thing right then and there and cursed him on the spot.
After that he stabbed me while claiming I griefed him but I think people knew better and one guy cursed him as well I think.
So he got two curses before I died and that was it.
This is why I reached the same conclusion, people can get away with griefing very, very easily if they know what they're doing.
Currently it takes 8 curses to send someone to donkey town which makes sense, you don't want griefers to gang up on people and send innocents to donkey town.
However lowering this threshold given the lifetime curses would solve the problem I described in my post while avoiding abuse, to quote the wiki, "Repeat offenders who keep bothering people as a way of life" will greatly be affected by this as that would mean it could just take 1 curse to deal with them effectively and that's it, job's done.
I will add however that this obviously would put people who have been playing for a long time at risk, as they may have accumulated unjustified curses over time (accidental or griefed).
To solve this, I propose the "lifetime" curse is simply made into another curse score except much, much slower.
Something that would decrease like say, two every month regardless of play time.
This way, people who have been playing since a long time aren't put at risk of getting abused by the curse system and this would also give a chance to the repeated offenders to improve themselves over time (let's not forget there's no incentive in improving yourself if the curse system is always going to pick on you anyways).
I also love how this would mean that the curse system would effectively scale by person, as in people who dedicate their entire time griefing others will eventually get to donkey town in one single curse but people who simply kill people they disagree with here and there would eventually get a much more lax threshold of say 4 for example.
This would definitely make curses a much more reliable way of dealing with griefers compared to simply killing them which I like too.
It would mean your curses have more value, if the guy is as much of an asshole as you think the curse will definitely count for him.
If people had more incentive to use the curse system like this over killing and this was implemented I guarantee you will see less and less of these "pro griefers" who know what they're doing.
Oh, also add cursing coop twins. This would greatly improve the curse system. I think it would be perfect if this is all done.
#194 Re: Main Forum » Why have 5 servers active on off-peak hours? » 2019-01-22 04:43:19
This is a good point which I thought about before:
To be honest, I don't even understand why there is a baby cooldown in the first place.
Jasons says that he wants people to compete for babies. Doesn't the cooldown prevent a proper distribution?
To be more clear, shouldn't babies be distributed properly whether or not there is a cooldown?
If you're going to argue that it's to prevent a sudden influx of babies on a single mother, first off the baby distribution should prevent it from going overboard, second how is it different from getting triplets/quadruplets anyways.
On top of that if a mother gets more babies than she can handle (which likely only happened if she purposefully got a big yum bonus and some good temperature) then the extra babies would just die off anyways. Natural selection.
The best compromise I think would be to make the cooldown a very lax cap, like say, no more than 5 babies in under 5 minutes.
I think something like that might work really well.
I failed to point out at the time that it would most likely help a ton with this.
I heard some people mention that servers that are almost dying often go into that "Eve hell" state and I suspect the baby cooldown has a lot to do with it.
The theory is that the extra Eves are unnecessarily spawned due to the fact that such a low population can easily have all its fertile players be put on cooldown, forcing many more Eve camps than is necessary.
If the cooldown was made more lax this would definitely solve such a problem (if it is true at all).
Maybe someone could look into the data logs to see how often such a thing happens and if it actually needs to be addressed or not.
As was already pointed out above, this would make it harder to unintentionally spawn as an Eve, which is not a bad thing in my opinion.
I only ever spawn as Eve unintentionally exactly when servers are in a dying state.
If spawning as Eve gets really hard (without /die) because of this, then that means probably only players who know what they are doing would spawn as Eve instead of some unlucky noob who would inevitably fuck up.
#195 Re: Main Forum » New Players Bad for Villages? » 2019-01-18 20:26:18
That would require noobs to not die before they could have babies
Alright show me the proof that noobs die before they can have babies every single time.
I'm waiting.
#196 Re: Main Forum » New Players Bad for Villages? » 2019-01-18 02:06:57
im making a good argument and any actual counter points dont exist.
Ah yes, sorry I didn't realize you had an iq of 9 billion and that your arguments are the perfect embodiment of logic itself.
Hey, you ever thought that uhm, maybe, any towns directly benefit from having noobs simply because they allow you to continue your lineage in the first place?
I don't know, perhaps, if say, you killed every noob, your town would utterly die in no time?
You ever thought of that?
But I don't know, you're the genius, you tell me who is actually thinking rationally here.
So this is your "social experiment" here?
You just post a bunch of nonsense, claim they are absolute indisputable facts and laugh when people tell you you're just being selfish?
What's next, are you going to tell me that your "social experiment" worked perfectly because you "predicted" people would call you an asshole?
#197 Re: Main Forum » New Players Bad for Villages? » 2019-01-18 01:04:14
The only real assholes are the morale police telling me how play a game i paid for, i dont hate noobs but i dont like them either, so trying to make me feel bad for a baby that can spawn back in 5 seconds isnt doing you any favors, you wanna call me an asshole for my controversial opinion, ok, but dont expect that to suddenly change the facts themselves.
This is kind of ironic because the fact is that not caring about anyone other than yourself is the definition of an asshole.
But whatever floats your boat I guess.
#198 Re: Main Forum » Any suggestions for onetech? » 2019-01-17 21:00:09
I am working on a new way to view recipes which I think will resolve some of this. It will be a lot easier to view multiple items and see all of the ingredients needed to craft them.
Regarding hand designing, I want to keep onetech fully auto-generated so it doesn't require maintenance as the tech tree grows. I think the wiki and forums are a better place to do hand-crafted guides.
That said, this new crafting view will have a shareable URL so you can arrange it how you like and then share it with others.
I'm not sure what's on your mind regarding the new crafting view but regardless of that I'd like to share with you my ideas so that perhaps it will help you along the way.
First off, I see there is both a "crafting recipe" and a "tech tree" page.
It seems to me like both are trying to accomplish the same thing, just in a different way.
The only difference would be that crafting recipe breaks down the whole page into items that are considered ingredients and lists them (which is very useful obviously).
I think the key would be to simply merge the two and improve on the tree design.
The crafting recipe page seems to break down things into steps to follow.
Maybe to preserve the "start with this step then build up to this" aspect you could reverse the tree with the roots being at the top.
I also saw someone mention mind maps which in this context would just end up being the same tree except displayed horizontally which I think would be much more messy than having it be vertical (whether the roots are at the top or bottom).
Now something that would greatly improve it is take the collapsing ability from the crafting recipe page and implement it there.
I know it's already present there in some form but it is limited in comparison.
For example, you cannot view multiple branches at once.
Expanding something breaks the tree which makes it a little confusing because the only thing indicating which item is being expanded is the highlighted small arrow under them.
In comparison the crafting recipe page doesn't break anything off by expanding items and retains its continuity.
Another thing would be the ability to collapse any item displayed. This I believe would greatly help.
The items that are already collapsed when loading the page could stay the way they are right now (as in don't expand any more lines if it doesn't fit in the center area) or perhaps you could choose to display down to only one single root.
After that, adding both a "collapse all" and "expand all" button at the top would be wonderful.
On this note, another useful shortcut could be to have a right click on an icon recursively expand everything under the target item whereas a left click would only expand one more line from the branch/item.
If you want to retain the ability to view a single item's page then make that a click on its title (which you could display in small text under its icon) instead of an icon click which would be replaced by the collapse/expand functions.
I think you should not bother with trying to fit the tree within the center grey area so that if a user decides they want to expand everything and end up with a gigantic tree it doesn't look like it pokes out unintentionally.
Instead you could simply leave it under the grey area and have that be used simply for displaying necessary information on top of the resources listing and perhaps the collapse/expand all buttons if you implement them.
Another key aspect of this all is the items considered ingredients in the crafting recipe page.
The roots of the tree should be said ingredients listed on top.
On top of that, I think making the ingredients thing more flexible would be extremely helpful.
As an example you linked the diesel engine recipe which I found very interesting.
The items that are considered ingredients seem arbitrary to me: the newcomen machines are considered ingredients but not the iron ingots or even the iron rods.
You would expect someone that knows how to build those machines to also know how to make simple iron ingots (which you require to build them mind you).
I think a very good way to address this problem would be to use the difficulty category to determine which objects are considered roots/ingredients.
I don't know if this metric is given along with the objects or if you simply calculate it based on the number of steps required to build the object (since it's displayed right next to the category) but regardless of the method it's already automatic as you mentioned so using that shouldn't be a problem.
I think it would be useful to rename the category as "technological level" rather than "difficulty".
That way, you can simply say that ingredients are selected based on the object's technological level rather than simple difficulty which would make more sense.
Keep in mind that I also think those ingredient "presets" (based on technology level) should be tweakable by the user.
So not only could they choose from a list where you would have "moderately easy, hard, very hard, extremely hard, etc.." but also add/remove items from such presets themselves.
Ideally these ingredient settings would also be in the top grey area, perhaps in their own tab.
You could also provide some standard presets made up by the community to select from which would be even more useful (that wouldn't exactly be automatic but wouldn't require maintenance either once added to the site).
It could also be useful to improve how the difficulty/technological level is calculated (if it's not already provided with the object data) which would in turn improve the selected ingredients for recipes.
That's all the ideas I had, hopefully they might help you in some way.
I know I had a ton to say so sorry about that if you manage to read it all.
#199 Re: Main Forum » Two out of eight kids were leavers, unplayable trend » 2019-01-15 05:07:26
No, because this does not kill your character. If you % out of the game and come back in to try and spawn somewhere else, you will just pop back into the afk body you left behind, assuming someone has been feeding you.
Then this means % is absolutely worse.
In fact, I'd even call it broken.
% is supposed to mean "I want to quit the game" yet your client does not signal to the server that you are ending your game? This is clearly broken or at best an incomplete feature.
Note that with the official way to quit the game that Jason himself put in the problem still persists because leaving with the bind won't reset the baby cooldown and worst still your player body is left behind meaning someone might waste food on you trying to keep you alive.
Unless Jason intended for other connecting clients to take the player body left behind (which I doubt very much) this does not make any sense.
By the way, since it seems you were confused about the quit button, it used to do exactly what the force quit feature does now. It was causing problems with babies dropping dead in their mother's arms, ruining their birth cooldown, and ending lineages as a result. It's actually the whole reason slash die exists in the first place. Jason changed it so that the quit button would keep your character in game so that people couldn't use it as a suicide method and would have to use slash die or otherwise run.
This doesn't make sense either.
As you said, if the mod shortcut wasn't there and people couldn't /die out then they would suicide (aka running baby).
Why waste a bunch of time making people trying to starve themselves or find a bear instead of simply allowing them to die instantly?
You might as well give them such a tool because they would end up dying anyways without it.
That's WHY this shortcut exists in the first place.
Let's enumerate the reasons as to why someone would be using the shortcut over /die:
They're unaware of its negative impact
This means they either still think it simply does /die (which it did previously) and haven't noticed the change or simply don't know about its effect on other people.
If they're using the shortcut over /die without knowing about its effect on other people then this falls into the convenience category which I'm going to address in a second.
They are aware of its negative impact
If people do use the shortcut rather than /die knowing what it does, then you should ask yourself why that is.
There is only 2 logical possibilities:It is more convenient
If a mod shortcut is more convenient than its counterpart in the official version and people use it for that reason then it is up to Jason to make his official version as convenient as the mod's.
Two major things come to mind: it's faster and also guarantees a proper disconnection each use.
To put it more clearly if you try to use /die and it does not work then all you are left with is suicide or the % bind which not only does not provide a proper disconnection on the server but also completely exits the game's process.It is different
Now this is very important.
Remember, these people aren't accidentally using this instead of /die which means if this shortcut wasn't there they would be running babies which means what we're really talking about here is the problem of running babies (which is Jason's problem to fix, not the mod's).
As far as I'm aware, using the shortcut is only different to /die in two ways: it doesn't reset the cooldown and you are not lineage banned.
So if you are simply using this because it doesn't reset your mother's cooldown then it's a simple matter of griefing.
And if you are simply using this because it does not lineage ban you then that means you would want to play in this lineage, just not this life. Most likely this is because the person is born with their unpreferred sex.
So, the only case where you can argue that the mod has a negative impact is when the people who updated are still using this shortcut thinking it's still simply doing /die.
Let's also connect some dots here: people who use the shortcut are people who don't want to live the current life they have, or in other words, they're abandoning.
People who run away as babies are doing exactly the same thing: they're abandoning.
We might as well consider the two equal here.
People who run as babies have always been a problem regarding the cooldown and as long as you don't fix that, fixing the "exploit" is pretty much pointless.
It's Jason's job to fix this.
So I think it's time people stop vilifying users of the awbz mod, it is simply nonsense, and what happens always happens for a reason.
But they shouldn't ruin the playthroughs of other people in the process, which is what this mod feature is doing.
And yes, this is an issue with the mod, because the mod undid an actual update that removed this feature
Because my main point is that the way some people are using this one, singular mod feature, is kind of ruining the game for me and others.
But as was already pointed out a couple times, and as I logically concluded above, runner babies are exactly the same thing and yet this is not fixed.
Jason hates the whole "decide your life" thing
I agree with you that this is an unfair exploit.
I think when people are literally calling a simple disconnect button an exploit, things are getting dangerous.
This is kind of like the "socialism vs capitalism" debates.
You cannot force people to give you something that they don't want to give you (their time in this case rather than their money), end of story.
What you should instead focus on doing is providing people the best tools to decide if they want to invest their time in this current life or if they would rather die (ie making /die the superior thing).
You should also think about giving those people more incentive to stay if you want a higher rate of living babies vs runner babies.
Imagine what would happen if Jason successfully forced runner babies and shortcut users to either go back to the life they abandoned or quit like the % bind currently does.
That would be catastrophic.
People would either stop playing the game completely (because what kind of game forces you to play when you clearly don't want to honestly) or start griefing.
On a more positive note, I had an idea about the running babies issue.
I think there is a reason as to why using /die resets the cooldown but not running babies.
I think Jason intended for babies dying of natural causes to always count towards the cooldown because ideally it should be considered the mother's fault for her baby's death, not the baby's.
If as a mother your baby dies in real life, you are by definition a bad mother, and that would be why they still count towards the cooldown, it would favorize good mothers over bad mothers who let their children starve.
I'm not saying this is fact, but if it is, then making a baby's death not count towards the cooldown is pretty much out of the question.
If /die was made the superior disconnect method over the shortcut, then the only things left would be people who don't want a lineage ban or people who want to grief the cooldown.
What if we went all the way with the "mother is bad if her baby dies" philosophy and made babies walk much, much slower. Like say a third of normal speed.
This would mean that the only choice people who want to abandon have is the /die command (which, assuming it's made the better choice, wouldn't be a problem at all).
Which in turn means that people staying as babies are guaranteed to be willing to play their current life.
Now I know a third of the normal speed sounds pretty bad, but hear me out on this.
First, you would still be able to carry your baby like normal, but on top of that, babies could also be made to be a carryable object like how big objects like firewood can be carried.
So you could fill your backpack with one baby or put up to four babies in a handcart or still carry one single baby in your own hands.
You might think this is bad for eve runs, but this simply means that you are limited to one baby while looking for a spot.
As eve, once you have your camp setup you can simply do what I assume eves were already doing and put your children in one specific spot while you're busy fetching various stuff and come back regularly to feed all of them at once.
Ideally, this could incentivize the use of nursery in developed towns, since busy women who need to fetch stuff could drop their children there (unless they have a backpack or a handcart for multiple children).
In the case where you have a single baby, you can still simply carry it around if you are busy (at the risk of having another one on the way) which I was already doing anyways because let's be fair, babies are slow enough that asking them to follow you is a huge struggle already.
In short, you would sacrifice the possibility of having multiple children far from town and without proper gear (backpack or handcart) for the fixing of runner babies AND finally getting the possibility of carrying babies around with something other than your own hands.
Thoughts?
I know this was a very long post, sorry about that.
#200 Re: Main Forum » Two out of eight kids were leavers, unplayable trend » 2019-01-13 22:39:26
I have half a mind to murder any player who seems to be using the zoom out mod out of spite now.
That sounds very smart and reasonable...
Don't let the anger get to you.
For me the whole issue is moot anyways.
As some may have already said, you cannot force people to play when they don't want to.
But let's go even more broad so that people understand this side of the argument.
You cannot force people to run the game if they don't want to, period. That's why there's actually a quit button that does work while playing.
The only reason I would use the new awbz shortcut over that is because rather than just disconnecting, the current % bind completely exits the game.
A game should always have the option to quit (hell pretty much any process on a computer should) and this game has one.
It's just, not without quitting the game entirely hence why the shortcut was asked for.
The only issue I see here (which is very easily fixable) is that currently some people have the possibility to leave without clearing the baby cooldown for their mother.
I'm not sure what happens when you use the % bind, do you just disappear?
And does the % bind properly clear the baby cooldown? If not, it should, and if it does, the awbz shortcut should use the same method of signaling a disconnection.
It's as simple as that.
To be honest, I don't even understand why there is a baby cooldown in the first place.
Jasons says that he wants people to compete for babies. Doesn't the cooldown prevent a proper distribution?
To be more clear, shouldn't babies be distributed properly whether or not there is a cooldown?
If you're going to argue that it's to prevent a sudden influx of babies on a single mother, first off the baby distribution should prevent it from going overboard, second how is it different from getting triplets/quadruplets anyways.
On top of that if a mother gets more babies than she can handle (which likely only happened if she purposefully got a big yum bonus and some good temperature) then the extra babies would just die off anyways. Natural selection.
The best compromise I think would be to make the cooldown a very lax cap, like say, no more than 5 babies in under 5 minutes.
I think something like that might work really well.