The Architect's Hat

Booklat1 · 2019-04-04 09:48:32

jasonrohrer wrote:

Also, I'm getting the feeling that most of the people participating in this discussion have never played Rust.
That's really the starting point for any discussion about property in a multiplayer game.
It's also probably the greatest game created in the past 10 years.... maybe the greatest game ever.

I dont wanna play rust, I wanna play ohol. And what about eve online? Isnt this game famous because of its player based economy?

jinbaili83 · 2019-04-04 09:55:41

What if Eve Jones can claim area - build totem/shrine/town hall and all doors and chests in this area are locked by default to anyone but Jones family. Strangers can't steal pie nor hoe unless they are left in open. Griefer can be banished from comunity in similar way curses work. If you think your town members are fools because they plant potatoes and not cabbage you can exile yourself and start your own village with diferent name. Similar system to code locks(can't be phisical key that gets stolen from corpse) that limit acces further to smaller groups - no more random people in smithy or bakery.

JonySky · 2019-04-04 09:59:53

I think it overestimates the current buildings ... currently the buildings are built because they are easy to make, and can be made by a single person ... but they are not essential to survive ... and I am sure that this construction complicates. .. we will see the same buildings as radios or airplanes ...

for this to work you must make the most necessary buildings

I have thought about adding Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter / climatology

Making the winters very hard ... with deaths from hypothermia

in these situations if a building is needed and if a collaboration between players is possible ...

but right now the collaboration between players is not necessary

just look at the number of planes, cars or radios that are scattered on the map ... how many cars have been created this week?

Creating a car is a task that requires some cooperation between players, but it is not essential or necessary ... that's why they are not built ...

voy178 · 2019-04-04 10:27:33

jasonrohrer wrote:

Also, I'm getting the feeling that most of the people participating in this discussion have never played Rust.
That's really the starting point for any discussion about property in a multiplayer game.
It's also probably the greatest game created in the past 10 years.... maybe the greatest game ever.

But we don't want to play rust. I didn't buy this game to play rust.

JonySky · 2019-04-04 10:58:25

voy178 wrote:

jasonrohrer wrote:
Also, I'm getting the feeling that most of the people participating in this discussion have never played Rust.
That's really the starting point for any discussion about property in a multiplayer game.
It's also probably the greatest game created in the past 10 years.... maybe the greatest game ever.
But we don't want to play rust. I didn't buy this game to play rust.

totally agree ... if I want to play RUST, I do not execute OHOL ...

ohol has its charm, do not change ohol ... let's just do it better

Last edited by JonySky (2019-04-04 11:09:44)

Averest · 2019-04-04 11:15:37

What if Eve Jones can claim area - build totem/shrine/town hall and all doors and chests in this area are locked by default to anyone but Jones family. Strangers can't steal pie nor hoe unless they are left in open. Griefer can be banished from comunity in similar way curses work. If you think your town members are fools because they plant potatoes and not cabbage you can exile yourself and start your own village with diferent name. Similar system to code locks(can't be phisical key that gets stolen from corpse) that limit acces further to smaller groups - no more random people in smithy or bakery.

This is the closest idea to a game I'd want to play. It makes trade possible and the idea of family and not family is a simple understandable mechanic. Branching off to make a new family if you don't like the town is a great alternative to making people stay.

Thinking about this branching off mechanic.

If you decide to leave the village, or are banished, you are automatically stripped of all village possessions. If you are going with your villages blessings, they can trade objects to your new family to give you a hand up. A gifting ceremony! If you were an ass, you get nothing and are completely on your own.

Last edited by Averest (2019-04-04 11:24:41)

Thaulos · 2019-04-04 11:34:38

jasonrohrer wrote:

Also, I'm getting the feeling that most of the people participating in this discussion have never played Rust.

I got hundreds upon hundreds of hours on rust.

It doesn't translate into magic hats that give you special cheap recipes. It's a terrible idea.

Regarding the walls and the claiming, do you really want the game to devolve into a rust-like game? Do you want bases spread around the map with players getting in and out of their fortresses only to PvP right away not knowing if other players are friendly or just for whatever loot they happen to have? Is this your vision for this game?

I can go play rust at any time. It already exists on my steam library.

Averest · 2019-04-04 12:02:19

If I want a 3d survival game, I'm just gonna go play Subnautica. I'll take my chances with Reaper Leviathans wrecking my Seamoth and Crabsquids teleporting me into 500m of water.

Rust is full of ugly people yelling "I'm friendly! I'm friendly!" who then shoot you in the head. Also you know who you are teaming up with in Rust. You have a posse! If you screw over the posse hard enough, they'll unfriend you on Steam and you gotta find another bunch of friends to game with. OHOL does not have outside the game repercussions.

OHOL is Town of Salem: Survival Mode.

Grim_Arbiter · 2019-04-04 12:12:11

Thaulos wrote:

jasonrohrer wrote:
Also, I'm getting the feeling that most of the people participating in this discussion have never played Rust.
I got hundreds upon hundreds of hours on rust.
It doesn't translate into magic hats that give you special cheap recipes. It's a terrible idea.
Regarding the walls and the claiming, do you really want the game to devolve into a rust-like game? Do you want bases spread around the map with players getting in and out of their fortresses only to PvP right away not knowing if other players are friendly or just for whatever loot they happen to have? Is this your vision for this game?
I can go play rust at any time. It already exists on my steam library.

At first I was pretty quick to jump on board with that statement being out there..In evidence by my first comment being a bit brash but with more thinking I can see where he might be coming from.. and I apologize Jason.

There are probably elements of rust that can carry over to OHOL and fit.

But I do still think you are wrong about the hat idea and Rust being the best game.

I had really only touched Rust long ago kind of considered rust just to be a PVP game that had raid mechanics and scenarios. While there were environmental things in it, to call it having PVE elements was kinda a far stretch.. if you argue that it does have PVE then I also argue that the game Don't Starve has PVP because you can co-op and try to sabotage each other.

OHOL is PVP, PVE, MMO, and a Sociology experiment/experience all wrapped up into one and were just worried and dont want you to pigeonhole yourself into just a PVP category with some kind of switch.

Bob 101 · 2019-04-04 12:41:45

I grief in rust more then I griefed here.

Last edited by Bob 101 (2019-04-04 12:42:22)

Spoonwood · 2019-04-04 14:14:20

jasonrohrer wrote:

There are certainly plenty of reasons to build walls in this game.

Oh really? What are they? Because if living in a neutral biome, I say that's pretty much nonsense. For any benefit that you believe exists, I have a feeling that myself or others can tell you how that obstacle can get overcome some other way that works out better.

jasonrohrer wrote:

The reasons just aren't big enough to motivate the costs of the walls.

Again, really? I say this is nonsense also. Plaster walls, for example, don't need to cost any iron at all.

jasonrohrer wrote:

There are outdoor walls all over my city...

A digression not relevant to OHOL.

jasonrohrer wrote:

It's astounding to me that people don't see the potential benefits to control over resources that would come from private property.

You're part of a family in OHOL. There exist more family members than you doing things. You also only live 60 minutes. There doesn't exist some measure of how much you accumulated personally in the game. There exists a lineage depth number. Why would there exist so much benefit to private property in the game?

jasonrohrer wrote:

Throughout the history of the game, the biggest complaint has been about "leech" players who waste food, lose tools, drain the well, plant the wrong thing, pick all the seeding carrots, take milkweed without replanting, drive off with the car, etc. The other big complaint is about griefers who do all of these things on purpose.

Sure, but so what? That doesn't mean that everyone but yourself does these sorts of things. Locking things up/private property prevents or stalls everyone else from using that item, not just the idiots.

jasonrohrer wrote:

Can you not imagine why someone would want to wall their milkweed farm, and keep the necessary tools for tending it in there?

Nope. If playing on the bigserver, I don't want to just grow milkweed for myself. I want to grow it for myself and others. Other people can use access to it. I won't be the only person who makes buckets, who makes carts, who makes boxes, who makes sledges, etc. By no means will I be the only person who can use that milkweed well, NOR SHOULD I.

jasonrohrer wrote:

Good barbed wire keeps out the griefers.

No, it does not. They just get born into your town.

jasonrohrer wrote:

If I have a specific plan for these tools and these resources, I'd better lock them up.

If you're doing that, then it sounds like you have a rigid plan and come as a person who does not play well with others.

jasonrohrer wrote:

How many times have I had all my ducks in a row for some in-game project, only to return to find some of my precious and hard-won ingredients missing?

It's pretty arrogant to assume that your project must have been the most important one.

jasonrohrer wrote:

What if "well-planned wall" was a fundamental atom of the game? What if "locked" was fundamental nature of pretty much every well-planned door that was built?

People will end up LESS likely to build doors, unless he or she deliberately decides to surround a building with doors. There really don't exist benefits to doors in a neutral biome, where people live these days. Here's an example of what happened with a building for private property:

Someone decided to make a garage for his car. He made a room out of stone walls with a door. The walls became ancient and that came as desireable. But then the car got trapped inside permanently. I don't know if the first problem was with the locked door. But, eventually, and as the building stands today, there's an ancient stone wall around that door. So, the car sits surrounded by ancient stone walls in all directions and thus comes as no more than museum piece... forever. This also doesn't come as realistic, since nothing comes as irremovable like that in real life.

Here's another example: someone decided to build a castle. It has one door. Somehow the person locked their own self inside of that castle.

jasonrohrer wrote:

Also, I'm getting the feeling that most of the people participating in this discussion have never played Rust.
That's really the starting point for any discussion about property in a multiplayer game.
It's also probably the greatest game created in the past 10 years.... maybe the greatest game ever.

Rust has 80% positive reviews on Steam: https://store.steampowered.com/app/2524 … views_hash Its overall reviews lie in the 'very positive' category. RimWorld has 97% positive reviews on Steam and its overall reviews lie in the 'overwhemingly positive' category: https://store.steampowered.com/app/2941 … views_hash The scores on Wikipedia via other places for Rust are also not extremely high: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_(video_game)

BlueDiamondAvatar · 2019-04-04 14:16:30

Tarr wrote:

You can very easily duplicate keys and without much effort.
Also you can just hide your keys if you're worried about someone not passing you a duplicate. I know for a fact I had a key hidden for 24+ hours right under the towns folks noses because the spot was so good.
In regards to removing locks it surely takes longer to remove a lock than it does to forge one due to needing a dummy object to lock and having to go through potentially ten different lock combinations. Putting a lock on now specifically makes a sound so anyone near the door can specifically hear when some starts locking them in the first place as a warning that someone is messing with your building.
However, the one thing I can agree on is the fact that buildings are bad lel.

Tarr can very easily duplicate keys without much effort, normal plebes like me have never made a key, much less a duplicate.

But I'm pretty sure I've found at least one of your keys, taken it out, said, "Oh, this is probably Tarr's. I'm too busy with my own life to go play with his car right now." And put it back. Your Welcome.

BlueDiamondAvatar · 2019-04-04 14:38:55

jinbaili83 wrote:

What if Eve Jones can claim area - build totem/shrine/town hall and all doors and chests in this area are locked by default to anyone but Jones family. Strangers can't steal pie nor hoe unless they are left in open. Griefer can be banished from comunity in similar way curses work. If you think your town members are fools because they plant potatoes and not cabbage you can exile yourself and start your own village with a different name. Similar system to code locks(can't be physical key that gets stolen from corpse) that limit acces further to smaller groups - no more random people in smithy or bakery.

Like Averest, I like this idea.

One of the ideas for making us care about family is to tie property rights to the family. Why not make that mechanic explicit?

But having better options for leaving the family is also important. It's hard to value a community where everyone is forced to stay by circumstance, and those around you may or may not be invested in it continuing. Starting in a random town or eve camp is fine, but at some point (or even constantly) the player is choosing whether or not they will keep playing, or keep playing in that environment. Sometimes we strike out to go found a new town, sometimes we strip off our gear and go starve, sometimes we start griefing the town. Sometimes we just turn off the computer and stop playing OHOL.

Now that we will automatically get the last name of our eve, it would also be good to be able to change our last name and go start a colony, if people want to. I've done this many times. Sometimes far away, and sometimes pretty close to the original town. It would be great to be able to change names - and tell who is invested in the new town and who is just visiting from the original one, and vice versa.

But you'd also need a mechanism to allow people to join new families- for example, I once started a town with a husband (non related man), my nephew, and his "wife". It would have been great if we could have picked a new name for the four of us and our children. And then had the town's buildings marked as belonging to our descendants.

happynova · 2019-04-04 14:48:18

jasonrohrer wrote:

It's astounding to me that people don't see the potential benefits to control over resources that would come from private property. Throughout the history of the game, the biggest complaint has been about "leech" players who waste food, lose tools, drain the well, plant the wrong thing, pick all the seeding carrots, take milkweed without replanting, drive off with the car, etc. The other big complaint is about griefers who do all of these things on purpose.

It's astounding to me that you don't see that, at least in the game as it is right now, there are no benefits to that, or rather, the detriments far outweigh the benefits. Within a town, anything I do that interferes with someone else's ability to do a task that keeps the town's cycle of food production going is not in my interests. If that fails, we all suffer, and possibly die. Assuming we currently have enough food -- and in a properly functioning town, we should always have enough food -- the last thing I want is to keep that food from some useful person who needs it to keep working. I really, really want everyone to have free access to the resources they need, not to put barriers in their way or have to worry about vetting people for who deserves to have what. Not when time is as short as it is.

Stuff needs to get done. A good town can easily survive some number of leeches, but it can't survive if the workers can't get the necessary work done when they need to do it. The former is annoying and offends one's sense of fairness. The latter is potentially devastating. Yeah, it'd be nice to have a dedicated hoe for my milkweed farm, but I'm not gonna lock it up so the wheat farmer can't get at it when his breaks, because that's gonna mess with my supply of food and soil. Nor am I gonna waste iron making one hoe for everybody. People share things in this game because it's the best, most rational, most survival-oriented thing to do! Even when it comes to dealing with griefers, eliminating the griefer is better than locking stuff away so nobody can get at it when they actually need it. Right now, the only people who lock things away are the griefers, because they know it hurts.

The single exception is weapons. There is an advantage to keeping weapons out of just anybody's hands. And, surprise, because there is a good, rational, survival-oriented reason for that, people do it! They keep careful custody of knives, and observe others for trustworthiness when deciding who to pass them on to when they die. We're not dumb, Jason. We're really not. We do things because they make sense and aid our overall, long-term survival. Trying to force us to do things that we can see aren't in our best interests is a recipe for failure.

Gabby · 2019-04-04 15:06:02

happynova wrote:

The single exception is weapons. There is an advantage to keeping weapons out of just anybody's hands. And, surprise, because there is a good, rational, survival-oriented reason for that, people do it! They keep careful custody of knives, and observe others for trustworthiness when deciding who to pass them on to when they die. We're not dumb, Jason. We're really not. We do things because they make sense and aid our overall, long-term survival. Trying to force us to do things that we can see aren't in our best interests is a recipe for failure.

Oh yes. Now that you pointed out, we do have transmission of property and inheritance. It is extremely common for an old person to call a younger one aside when they know their time is coming, give them the knife they have been carrying in their backpack or apron and tell them to keep it safe. Another thing that I see people passing down through generations like that are crowns, although knives are of course much more common.

Redram · 2019-04-04 15:40:28

Look, first off if you want locks and keys to not be a giant waste of resources, you need to make ingots able to have a small part split off, like how clay nozzles are made. Give a small chance of destroying the ingot if you like (1 in 20 at most) Then the 'steel chunk' can be used to make the locks and keys. Now make it so that once they are placed, the key becomes part of the person. Nobody wants to waste space carrying around a key. That person now opens that door/chest/whatever, simply by opening it in a normal fashion. The player who 'owns' a key to that item can also make a new key for that item, by using a chisel (or whatever) on the locked item. So now you can pass keys to those you want to. Now - and this is key - if all the owners of keys or a locked item are dead, the lock vanishes. So now the worst a griefer can do is one life worth of locking up a room. Oh, and btw, when you look at a locked door or item, it tells you who owns the key(s) (maybe echoes to the room, like reading paper). So by the way you can find out the specific griefer who has locked that item. And if they're still around, kill them, thus unlocking it. The griefer can of course take off into the wilderness never to be seen again. Good riddance, enjoy your life of solitude and your lock vanishes after you die anyway. Congratulations, now locks are convenient, not a waste of steel, and not a good griefing tool.

jasonrohrer wrote:

It's astounding to me that people don't see the potential benefits to control over resources that would come from private property.

It shouldn't be astounding, in the current game the benefits are marginal at best. And I've noticed a lot of people do have trouble imagining beyond what is. But are you going to increase the amount of iron on the map 10x so that everyone can have their own axe, their own hoe, etc? Not to mention build their own lock and key, each of which ridiculously cost an entire steel ingot currently? So the town now can choose between using that 10x iron to make 10x the same tools and gear, or they can use those tools and gear communally - as they do now - and make the iron last 10x longer? Which do you think makes more sense Jason? If you don't increase iron, how long do you think a town of mini-fortresses squabbling over the limited iron will last now? Creating competition between towns and family lines could be interesting. But doing this between individual members of a family is not going to help. It's going to work directly against the feeling of family you've expressed interest in elsewhere (and feeling of family will be much more beneficial to the game as a whole)

People DO see the benefits over controlling certain resources - namely that trade may become a thing. Maybe some interesting stories and conflict. There have been suggestions to facilitate this that don't involve locks and magic wall hats. Do you really think people want to be hamstrung by a contrived elder-only building mechanic? People already coordinate on building right now sometimes, because it's faster to have one person stake and another person place. But what happens when there's no elder in the town? What happens when the only elders are newbs or idiots? When they aren't interested in helping make walls? I think in this case your more hands-off approach (I just give you the tools, you decide the rules) is much better.

Last edited by Redram (2019-04-04 15:51:35)

BladeWoods · 2019-04-04 17:39:50

What about instead of a magic hat or elder stone, you add new industrial machines that can easily make walls? And better sources of limited resources like rocks, limestone, and clay.

I'd much prefer a tech answer than a magic answer that would radically change the game.

Last edited by BladeWoods (2019-04-04 17:48:55)

Sukallinen · 2019-04-04 19:06:00

Between infinite magic hat and none, how about a hat you could load with "charges" for, say, road. You would load more building materials into it and give it to your progeny.
If you were born with one, it would just add to the problem of infant-deaths. At least I do not like half my progeny dies within a second of spawning.

Spockulon · 2019-04-04 20:15:43

jasonrohrer wrote:

The "second layer" houses is an interesting idea, and something that I haven't ever thought of before. Like each house is a secret cave that you can invite people into, but it only takes up one tile on the map (or however it looks on the map). But maybe 10x10 on an invisible "second level map" that you can only see when you're in the house.

What about a set of stairs? Ladders? Second stories (even more?) would be GREAT incentive for players to build more. 1 tile could potentially hold 2 or more tiles worth of items this way. More storage, less clutter. Build UP not out!

I think it could work within the framework you are thinking about here.

Last edited by Spockulon (2019-04-04 20:16:46)

The_Anabaptist · 2019-04-04 21:50:28

First off, never played Rust, never intend to.

Secondly, I won't claim to follow all the twists and turns that this thread has already taken, but I think something obvious has been missed regarding the magic hat.

1) An Eve would start with the hat. Thus EVERY Eve would start with the hat?
2) Did we not already have a city that started with EIGHT Eves?
3) How many more Eve's immigrated into said city over the course of it's lifetime? So +X hats.

So then either hats are indestructible and thus over time infinite, or they deteriorate and potentially unobtainable to future generations without the birth of more Eves.

Thus in my opinion they are not the solution.

The_Anabaptist

One Hour One Life Forums

#51 2019-04-04 09:48:32

Re: The Architect's Hat

#52 2019-04-04 09:55:41

Re: The Architect's Hat

#53 2019-04-04 09:59:53

Re: The Architect's Hat

#54 2019-04-04 10:27:33

Re: The Architect's Hat

#55 2019-04-04 10:58:25

Re: The Architect's Hat

#56 2019-04-04 11:15:37

Re: The Architect's Hat

#57 2019-04-04 11:34:38

Re: The Architect's Hat

#58 2019-04-04 12:02:19

Re: The Architect's Hat

#59 2019-04-04 12:12:11

Re: The Architect's Hat

#60 2019-04-04 12:41:45

Re: The Architect's Hat

#61 2019-04-04 14:14:20

Re: The Architect's Hat

#62 2019-04-04 14:16:30

Re: The Architect's Hat

#63 2019-04-04 14:38:55

Re: The Architect's Hat

#64 2019-04-04 14:48:18

Re: The Architect's Hat

#65 2019-04-04 15:06:02

Re: The Architect's Hat

#66 2019-04-04 15:40:28

Re: The Architect's Hat

#67 2019-04-04 17:39:50

Re: The Architect's Hat

#68 2019-04-04 19:06:00

Re: The Architect's Hat

#69 2019-04-04 20:15:43

Re: The Architect's Hat

#70 2019-04-04 21:50:28

Re: The Architect's Hat

Board footer