Why did we trade one terrible pvp system for another?

Tarr · 2019-07-14 22:12:11

Today I learned that melee combat is also a joke. Having not had to actually dick around with combat since the whole """fixing""" swords thing I ended up trying to defend myself when a raid occurred and apparently whoever grrs first wins?

Player A ran at me with the grr emote so after getting enough distance to pull my sword out I tried to stab them back only to find out I lost (I was grr too just for the record). Good system.

And before the answer of "HURR DURR, use fences" I was already setting fences up around the area as I spawned on a raid party so I was preparing for that in the first place.

So why did we trade an albeit broken system (in sense of illogical combat style) for another broken system.

I thought auto-aim in melee was fine but apparently I was wrong.
Auto-aim on range is also dumb.
And why did we remove a ranged disarming tool from the game?

Why do bows have a minute long cooldown when used on a different family? Shouldn't the cooldown on attacking unrelated people be the same as swords to balance this out? Why does the winner end up being the attacker and more importantly why do we not have any legit defense choices when it comes to actual combat besides running?

TL;DR: Skillful combat > This memery, War sword magic should work with all weapons if attacking other families, why bring such a shitty mechanic to the forefront of the game?

Last edited by Tarr (2019-07-14 22:15:13)

Tarr · 2019-07-14 22:24:29

Suggestion bin:

Lower the bows cooldown when shooting someone of a different lineage.
Lower the knives cooldown when stabbing someone of a different lineage.
Drop being able to drop swords to prevent dual wielding (no other weapon can do this.)
Add a fucking ranged disable. There should be a way to deescalate violence like you used to be able to do with snowballs.

Make fences less shitty so people will actually use them. People would rather let raiders into the town than put up fences in the first place which shows a huge flaw in fences.
Remove auto-aim on bows at the very least. All weapons at the very most.
Throw the rework in the bin and think up something better.
Make swords be able to be converted back to steel rods then make steel rods recyclable.

Last edited by Tarr (2019-07-15 18:08:03)

MultiLife · 2019-07-14 22:31:26

Oof, this magical advantage over foreigners! It’s so... unnecessary, as I hold back stronger words.
Every weapon should be able to be pointed at everyone equally, same with curses.
It’s so unnecessary to push the balance against foreigners by giving a weapon an edge against them. And preventing foreigners from cursing each other.

Anyways, funny story. When dodging was a thing, I managed to bait a bow holding guy; I stood still for him to aim, then stepped aside, and his character swapped his bow and arrow with a big stone. He got super slow, so I grabbed his bow and arrow and shot him down instantly. I was a fertile young woman in a small village, without a weapon. So that was a sweet victory against a pitiful douche.

Anyways, good to know that defender is always getting killed firsthand, because they act second... First one to grr wins.

And yes, why did we lose snowball as a disarming tool?

Dantox · 2019-07-14 22:34:22

Tarr wrote:

Suggestion bin:
Lower the bows cooldown when shooting someone of a different lineage.
Lower the knives cooldown when stabbing someone of a different lineage.
Drop being able to drop swords to prevent dual wielding (no other weapon can do this.)
Add a fucking ranged disable. There should be a way to deescalate violence like you used to be able to do with snowballs.
Make fences less shitty so people will actually use them. People would rather let raiders into the town than put up fences in the first place which shows a huge flaw in fences.
Remove auto-aim on bows at the very least. All weapons at the very most.
Throw the rework in the bin and think up something better.

Hope you brought your 15 years of game design badge with you to post this.

Auto-aim in any pvp system is bad and more so in OHOL since one hit is one death, so you cannot fight back when a raid attack is coming (and since the default zoom is so small you will probably never see it coming since it is too late) i personally believe that the engine cannot handle the pvp system that jason wants without being heavily flawed

Tarr · 2019-07-14 22:42:06

MultiLife wrote:

Oof, this magical advantage over foreigners! It’s so... unnecessary, as I hold back stronger words.
Every weapon should be able to be pointed at everyone equally, same with curses.
It’s so unnecessary to push the balance against foreigners by giving a weapon an edge against them. And preventing foreigners from cursing each other.
Anyways, funny story. When dodging was a thing, I managed to bait a bow holding guy; I stood still for him to aim, then stepped aside, and his character swapped his bow and arrow with a big stone. He got super slow, so I grabbed his bow and arrow and shot him down instantly. I was a fertile young woman in a small village, without a weapon. So that was a sweet victory against a pitiful douche.
Anyways, good to know that defender is always getting killed firsthand, because they act second... First one to grr wins.
And yes, why did we lose snowball as a disarming tool?

Because he didn't intend for snowballs to be a disarming tool. So instead of replacing them with something more sensible he removed the mechanic outright with no replacement item. Basically auto-aim broke snowballs even further than he had already been (who would have thought) so now snowballs aren't used for anything besides the emote.

Yes, it's dumb for magic weapons to exist, and even more dumb that a system only values attacks only.

Bows could be good for fighting off an attack but with sixty second cooldown vs 15 seconds (and the ability to just drop and pull a second sword) it just makes you a sitting duck within a real """"fighting""""" situation.

BladeWoods · 2019-07-15 00:16:17

I never saw snowballs used to deescalate situations. They were always used to dick around.

schmloo · 2019-07-15 00:20:09

Tarr wrote:

Today I learned that melee combat is also a joke. Having not had to actually dick around with combat since the whole """fixing""" swords thing I ended up trying to defend myself when a raid occurred and apparently whoever grrs first wins?

That’s actually quite a rich and interesting dynamic, maybe it can be used to our advantage. I had an idea I wasn’t sure about, and plonked it in the discord:

Strength points — People who work the hardest and contribute the most to society fight the best. If you spend most of your life smithing or working the farms then you build up strength throughout your life. Must not work for picking up a bowl 200 times before you can hold a sword, so maybe it’s on certain tasks completed (1 point per step of composting, 1 point for removing charcoal out of kiln (but not putting adobe on), 1 point for harvesting each carrot.

Strength points would be a solution to who is deserving of killing another person with a sword. Originally I was thinking lower tiers can’t kill higher tiers, but now this came to light and we can potentially smooth out some rough edges. People who grr at the same time will have a check on strength, and higher tiers get a higher priority in killing (they win). If of the same tier, maybe the defender always wins to make it much harder to kill a defending town with a hard working populace.

I was thinking 3 or 4 levels of strength:

Tier 1 — Berry munchers who do nothing and just talk by the fire all their life. Possibilities opened for a fat sprite.

Tier 2 — Common bois who are normal sized, average amount of work, acceptable amount of rp.

Tier 3 — Fit and strong people who literally just work their entire lives, and do it well enough to qualify for a tier above your average worker.

(Maybe) Tier 4 — fuggin’ godly hard workers who spend their entire lives hauling wood, collecting kindling, building walls, farming a butt tonne of potatoes or smithing and making loads of charcoal. Need to work enough to even qualify above tier 3 which should be hard as is.

Of course the points per task would need to be balanced over time to not make one job better than another (or even to try and steer people towards farming more). To get to bottom tier, maybe there’d be a decay over time and/or a loss from certain actions like dirtying pads.

Tarr · 2019-07-15 00:33:38

BladeWoods wrote:

I never saw snowballs used to deescalate situations. They were always used to dick around.

I've personally used them to disarm people who were sitting around with loaded bows. Obviously something like snowballs were bad because they were unlimited but the ability to disarm is a valuable thing to have in game.

Some things from testing:

FIRST GROWL WINS

Whoever declares attack first always comes out on top whether you walk into their threat radius or they move into yours. If you ever have a melee weapon you should NEVER try to counter attack someone who is growling at you as they'll hit first.

Don't even aim at your attacker with bow.

If someone with melee is ever trying to attack you, you should be shift clicking a tile as you RUN AWAY This will prevent you from walking towards the attacker while auto-aiming the shot and killing them.

You don't turn yellow if bit in growl mode

This probably doesn't have any actual value to stabbing or being stabbed but is just a dumb bug.

Being hit by a snowball mutes the growl while staying in kill mode.

Not super useful but it's completely possible to stealth kill people if you get hit by a snowball before attacking. You won't be making growl sounds until the emote fades but you'll still be able to stab someone.

Snowballs act funny.

Growling at someone while trying to throw a snowball at someone seems really dumb imo. Is there anyway to not do this? Anyways if two players have a snowball attack queued up and players walk into range this happens:

Player A + B growling at each other furiously until someone steps too close
Player A snowball is launched because they growled first
Player B auto retaliates
Neither player has snowball emotes on them after both being hit.

Thus if people are actually snowball fighting you can't even see the snowball splat emote.

Using Kill command on someone off screen crashes the game client

Oops. Sorry Eve Hammer, I was just trying to snowball someone and killed the game. *Edit: I have no idea if this was just a one off crash but you CAN queue up attacks on someone from max distance off screen. Growling will be heard but anyone on default client or not zoomed out far enough is going to be fucked anyways.

Since first growl matters, if using a knife in a raid queue up on a family member before the raid hits town

Since first growl always wins a fight you will always kill the players you are attacking first. Just don't let anyone walk into your threat range or you'll attack a party member instead.

Kill command goes through impassible objects if a player is standing on one.

First off what? You cannot interact with a player on an impassible object unless it's a player wedged between a newcomen tower and some other object (player stands in the empty space.) Weapons are literally the only things that can do this in game and it's due to the auto-aim mechanic which is just weird. (Basically imagine a person being in a wall. Now imagine someone stabbing through a wall to the player this is how the interaction plays out in game.)

Bows can shoot through at a diagonal, swords and knives only work on N/E/S/W directions when attacking through a door/wall/whatever you are standing on.

Players cannot attack off of an impassible object.

So on the flip side of the last thing you cannot actually use the kill command on others while standing on an impassible object. So apparently the kill command works when standing off an object and attacks through an impassible but standing on an impassible disables the ability to attack?

Basically if Player A is standing on a closed door Player B can use the kill command and stab Player A. If Player B is standing on the closed door and tries to attack player A who is right next to the door the attack will not go through until the door is opened. So kill command can strike through to a player on an impassible but can't strike a player from an impassible.

Last edited by Tarr (2019-07-16 16:45:57)

ollj · 2019-07-15 00:52:37

significantly higher yum should win fights passively.

knifing should diminish food of both involved instantly, based of the yum of the other person, scaled by some factor in favor of the attacker, but the attacker will also lose food in the moment of the attack (as well as the hit person), depending on the yum of both players (which is semi-secret).
a wound is only caused above a threshold, that can easily be avoided by a higher yum of the defender.
the yum does not diminish here, only the food bar.
this way, a player with 15 yum +40 blips may just kill his stabber instantly in the stabbing (by falling over the attacker, cruhing the weak berrymunchers bones) , and the knife may not even cause a bleeding (instead like -15 blips with no wound to be healed), as the women is so fat, it only pieced the skin and fat layer, but no arthery. its just a scratch!
this way, it would take multiple hits to wound a much higher yum player.
this way, hunting fertile women is more likely suicidal.
this way, duells and raids take more hits and insta killing is just dull in a game about food management.

---

while running away from someone with warsword, i dared to get 2 bears out of their caves as line of defense, and navigated in an 8-motion around the bears in only slightly better shoes than my browling hunter.
i had the feeling that my sword duel would likely not be worth trying in this duell, compared to just adding bears to the c(h)ase (to starvation).
i got killed by the sword, but in the end my attacker got eaten by a bear after he wounded me (because luring bears onto anyone is much easier once you are wounded)

bear zoos could be used as ward against invaders.

Last edited by ollj (2019-07-15 01:01:54)

D3mon1cblack · 2019-07-15 02:28:10

tarr did you try using bows? because now im wondering wat happens if 2 players with bows try and shoot eachother (prolly attacker shoots first)

Tarr · 2019-07-15 02:32:35

D3mon1cblack wrote:

tarr did you try using bows? because now im wondering wat happens if 2 players with bows try and shoot eachother (prolly attacker shoots first)

First Grr wins in any sort of situation where two players are on equal footing (melee vs melee or range vs range)

If one has range and the other melee the range will always shoot as long as the grr emote goes off. So if you fail to shift click before someone walks in stabbing range you can fail to shoot but it's unlikely if you aim as you run vs aiming at the other player.

Last edited by Tarr (2019-07-15 02:32:52)

D3mon1cblack · 2019-07-15 02:40:23

thats what i tought aswell shame the broken pvp got even worse with the ''fixes''
also what was jason thinking removing the only way to peacfully disarm someone?
ah well maybe we would be able to throw roundstones in the near future to daze someone xD
highly unlikely tho

ollj · 2019-07-15 03:21:19

the game is now a often constant state of raids, and its no longer just bell town or any prosperous town.
even rather small towns need warswords quickly and use them wisely to guard, instead of abandoning their females.

as more horsecarts exist overall, and more corpses mark rough directions to other places, and the dual bell town causesd more small eves to exist, which brough many cities closer together over time, people hunt more turkeys, people learn more about what is within 300-700 tilles, and guess what, its foreign cities.

i was born as ziv, realizing the ziv are 2 ziv families with different skins. this is quite common for the ziv family name though.
they got raided shortly before my birth, 10 died, and the survivors where drama queens (the mi vs bob raid had 20 people die)
i spent my life not getting any babs but caring for babs of others and hunting bears
at age 55 a second raid came, from a very different direction, so yeah twice raided in 60 minute interval. thats a total of 25 dead in 60 minutes, because the ziv were great at repopulating in those 60 min, just to get slaughtered again.

the ziv fam is in a constant ptsd state and the corpses keep piling up.
i got to kill an invador at age 55, so no big loss happened with my death.

the fun part, people copy my ideas that i posted on the forum/discord after trying them, even the rather bad ones, because they see me doing them agasinst them experimentally i suppose, for example; using bears in foreign city attacks, and haviing more dedicated bear hunters.
i see more cities daring to be founded very close to bear caves. this was different 2 resets ago.

if you want a foreign city to suffer, do not attack it, that just feeds it your cloth and weapons and you likely die too yung for no good reasaon.
instead gift the foreigners you want to see suffer 5 knifes and 24 arrows and run away (doable within 100 minutes) , this way you at least survive easily to get your home back some more valuable items.
they will happily mass murder each other with excess knifes. with too many knifes, not enough people turn them into shears, because a city always needs 0.5 knifes per capita, but never more than 2 shears, right? the vast mayority turns into greedy murderous motherfuckers, lies and curses fly left and right.
and those who did not get a knide backpack as a baby just need those bows and arrows for their revenge bloodlusts.

Last edited by ollj (2019-07-15 03:32:49)

testo · 2019-07-15 03:40:13

Offence advantage is the real problem (was this game supposed to implement a combat system?).

It is amazing is how bad fences and property gates are (the only real defence system). They were not designed as a wall to defend your town, they were designed to implement property and ownership (and they failed miserably).

Reasons why fences fail as defensive system:

They
a) Need fixing over and over.
b) Have a long constructing time, they also need a lot of work on the terrain, need an axe to cut trees and also rope to set up the gates.
c) Even when you actually do make all the work to protect your town with a fence, it still fails becuase one single person fails to close a gate. I stopped making them because they are useless in the long run.

Compare them to the attacking system (sword), wich require one single steel and virtually no job behind. It can be literally be mass produced with a roller 5/6 at a time. At age 4. They don´t need fixing, are BP ultrafriendly (hey! I get to have a sword and not even use a BP slot), and can be dropped.

Meme aim is not bad on its own. It is really bad because there are swords and no cursing outside the family. Swords and no defence system are the problem.

But wait, meme aim was supposed to fix warsword. Not just that, we got it out of the 15 year experience thread, because figthing dance was the real problem that no one else could see. Go figure.

Whatever · 2019-07-15 07:26:44

Whatever · 2019-07-15 07:38:03

The way i pvp:

If someone targets me first, i run away until that person stops (drops his weapon)
Then i come back and try to target that person first.

I still dont like war swords or fences or that you cant curse other families.
If fences become better they will also be a better tool for griefers.

Tarr · 2019-07-15 07:47:53

Whatever wrote:

The way i pvp:
If someone targets me first, i run away until that person stops (drops his weapon)
Then i come back and try to target that person first.
I still dont like war swords or fences or that you cant curse other families.
If fences become better they will also be a better tool for griefers.

That's a good point. When fences are good they're an even better tool for griefers than they are normal players so how do we actively make fences better for normal players without it being griefer heaven?

Allow members of a family to tear down rickety fences early? Elder approved improved fence types or maybe just fences that require more resources with longer decay/set up time? Fences that require multiple people to properly set up (via multiple quick inputs?)

How can we buff fences without making them more griefer friendly?

And yeah you can't fight back against someone growling unless you get a bow and they don't have one so it's important to just run.

arkajalka · 2019-07-15 11:14:28

What pvp needs is a hit counter or some armors. Its just retarded to get "one shotted". Theres seriously no counterplay to that. If you could survive one hit then odds could turn with some good gameplay. Now its just who draws first.

JonySky · 2019-07-15 12:00:18

these "magic differences" of the war swords in foreigners or relatives, and these "balance attempts" of the "killer dancing" have only one explanation for me:
OHOL DOES NOT HAVE AN APPROPRIATE ENGINE FOR PVP

I think that they are implementing unnecessary mechanics in an engine that is not prepared for these things

I have also detected many problems with the PVP: location jumps in players, desynchronization, bugs, glitches and of course an exaggerated imbalance)

All this I attribute to the game engine
and I do not want to talk about a non-existent anticheats system (essential requirement in a game where there is PVP),
or that we are all playing on a server where there are people who use mods and others do not ... (I find it very unfair)

With the PVP these deficiency are very visible,
but there are many other things that the engine should be able to do and currently it does not ... (for example mobility and vehicles)

The shared transport ...
I remember several posts in this forum where mobility is discussed with cars and babies, I proposed months ago the old caravans of the old west (in the pure western style)

logically this is useless and absurd now that we have a motor vehicle (it does not make sense to go back in technology, that's why I think it was a big mistake to implement the engines and vehicles like the plane or the car)

For all this ... I keep repeating that we need to sit in front of this game and decide where we are going
What do we want to achieve at the end of this game?
If we do not have a final goal ... this will become a lot of new objects and absurd and useless mechanics (radios, cars, planes, rubber balls, dogs ...)

Last edited by JonySky (2019-07-15 12:12:38)

pein · 2019-07-15 12:32:37

well jason had a page long explanation and made zero sense

he is lazy to develop a system for fight, he doesn't want to make it like other games to have hp, etc.

while i didn't liked the previous system either, it had a bit of chance that you see the attacker, dodge and counter him, which made skill relevant
and if anyones comes with the "oh but if you lag, then they kill you anyway'
even now you lag, it's even worse, i was shot with a bow and then the animation of someone getting of off horse cart to shoot me

and that's necessary, a minimum skill difference. i seen this linked video, the player didn't know how to get out a knife from a basket, but raised his sons to kill others, and she also killed others with bows and knife.
now i get that i cant win always, even if i got fast reaction. but the "griefer dance" was actually an understanding of how the targeting system works, and you got advantage by knowing your steps, i never had a problem killing anyone dancing, stab the tile and that's it
and also you could defend, it wasn't just used by griefers who killed someone, it was used by defenders who seen others try to kill them
this doesn't help at all on the problem, even makes it easier, if they get away once after a kill, they can kill others on an instant, so people need to guard like idiots and waiting only helps the attacker
but i refuse to praise a system where someone who cant even sustain himself and it's too slow to produce food for himself but can kill others just because he wants to, it's plain dumb

i wasn't playing actively and part of the reason is that, that every idiot kills me for no reason and cant do anythign about it, when the dodging was possible, rarely ever happened, i kept my distance, i had weapon, i dodged newbee assasins, killed them, life went on.
Now you got to fight and kill people plottign and it gets you killed most of times, or just disturbs you enough so you might as well quit that game.

I had this life where 2 attackers kil lall of us. People are bad at healing, that's a fact. That part needs some support.
I had this old lady runnign around with sword and picking off people, then run away on horse cart.
I had twin grifers kill others. I had this asshole wasting my time to open a box with engine, then shooting me, an almost completed engien was inside a box locked and i knew the key type too, but she just wanted a hoe and she just wanted the exact same steel i made, and was too lazy to get kindling but not lazy enough to shoot me after she was healed.

There is no way to act as a group and send threaties to war, peace. There is zero skill involved, so just killing each other mindlessly, the only thing it needs it's bad intention, and when they don't care about anything than killing than others can do anything about it, become sitting ducks.

A decent duel system would be nice, you could invite others to fight, take a few blows before going down, and some sort of disarming would be nice. Getting killed on an instant is not a good story or good experience.

And seems to be that everyone is killing everyoen right now, this became the staple of the game, they kill others in bell towns then in Eve camps, then in every life. I don't mind once in a while but seems like nowadays every life is just mindless killing. it's all advantage for attackers, and all support for ambush tactics.

in rust, you spend time on gatherign resources, and shelter provides deffence, but also you can go back over and over and it's a pemantent place to be. in Ohol you grow up 11 mi nto be able to fight and die in 60 and might never return, so everything is cheap, not just lifes. But building houses is quite expensive on resources, while no one goes too far from main camp. so basically just takign over the worst parts of a total different game is bad.

the fences could only be viable if we could upgrade them. similar to rust, where twigs can be turned into wood then stone, providing more deffence and function.
i could imagine placing adobe walls on the fences or stone, then it's a bit more strong. instead of pickaxing them, could be some durability like 100 and 500, so requires a few hits with traditional items.
ohol isn't that good as an fps, maybe as a strategy game model. i could imagine siege rams maybe. and cheaper buildign materials later on tech tree.

but even tiny zones where people cant fight would be decent.
we really need consent to fight or some defensive capatibilites other than building yourself a cage.

FeignedSanity · 2019-07-15 14:18:20

Makes sense to me, and I still feel it is preferable to the system we had. The old one blew massive gonads and mostly relied on ping and the holy grace of Jason. It's much simpler now. You want to kill someone, then you do it. No more fiddly dances, no more arrows getting lost to the void or accidentally getting the wrong person. Sure, it's still possible, but it's a lot less likely, considering you don't have to click in the heat of battle anymore. Speaking as someone who was quite skilled in the old style of combat back in the day, I feel it's a much better alternative. You want someone dead, then stab them. If others want him healed, they'll heal them. If they want to kill you for your murderous intentions, then they can, regardless of whether or not they are one of the elite few to have mastered the combat system. I'd have preferred an actual clean combat system, but that's asking too much on top of everything else; especially considering it's such a small part of the game.

Tarr · 2019-07-15 15:28:56

FeignedSanity wrote:

Makes sense to me, and I still feel it is preferable to the system we had. The old one blew massive gonads and mostly relied on ping and the holy grace of Jason. It's much simpler now. You want to kill someone, then you do it. No more fiddly dances, no more arrows getting lost to the void or accidentally getting the wrong person. Sure, it's still possible, but it's a lot less likely, considering you don't have to click in the heat of battle anymore. Speaking as someone who was quite skilled in the old style of combat back in the day, I feel it's a much better alternative. You want someone dead, then stab them. If others want him healed, they'll heal them. If they want to kill you for your murderous intentions, then they can, regardless of whether or not they are one of the elite few to have mastered the combat system. I'd have preferred an actual clean combat system, but that's asking too much on top of everything else; especially considering it's such a small part of the game.

Here's the thing though. The old system was allowed to be shitty because the game wasn't remotely revolved around fighting or killing at all. At this point in time late game is just a bunch of the same idiots roaming around towns trying to sword anyone they get the chance to. Sure something like arrows could miss or disappear but that's a function most games have anyways (even if it logically didn't make sense to shoot a ghost and lose arrows.) Two players on equal footing would both have a chance at killing each other in the older version of the combat system. While in the current version one player will always have a 100% kill rate and the other a 0% chance if they just tried to stab each other out right which you absolutely wouldn't know without having someone tell you that little fact.

Defensive options need to exist in the sort of state swords do (aka not suck balls.) Players are absolutely not willing to put up fences to stop raiders in the current game and that's because how terrible the whole property fence mechanic is. Hell, these bastards weren't even meant to be used as some magic fence system but for declaring private property. There should definitely be a return of some sort of snowball like item that disarms other players as that was a great solution especially now considering the only defense against an attacker now is running away. Dancing in the old system was certainly dumb, but so is the idea that someone will always win without risk of losing.

Basically when Jason flips the game from multiplayer parenting and civ building game to terrible pvp game he has to actually care about making the pvp part usable.

JonySky · 2019-07-15 16:59:32

Basically when Jason flips the game from multiplayer parenting and civ building game to terrible pvp game he has to actually care about making the pvp part usable.

this is the point

OHOL is not a PVP game and is not designed for PVP ...
The current PVP system gives the feeling of being a patch ... something that is out of place.
OHOL does not have an engine that adequately supports the PVP and I do not think that when Jason designed the current engine, I would like to implement the PVP

From here, I think it is necessary to think well about the future of the game ....
Jason must ask where he wants to take OHOL ... and from here work towards that direction

If you decide to follow the development of OHOL with PVP mechanics, things should be done well
It is only necessary to observe the games that have PVP mechanics and learn as they have done others that take more time in the PVP:

create a suitable engine for the game's PVP
Anticheat system
Resolve bugs related to combat
system of reporting abuses and glitches from the game
do not allow mods on vanilla servers
resolve latency and desynchronization
netcode optimization

If we do not want to have this kind of options and technology in OHOL, it does not make sense to implement the PVP

if we visualize the trailer of OHOL, all this is not necessary ... the PVP is not necessary!

It would not be better to implement the climatology, the sea, the rivers, the natural disasters, the space ships and the exploration of other planets, devils and a million other things!

But please!!! Let's think well where we want to take the game of OHOL !!!!
let's not make absurd updates

Last edited by JonySky (2019-07-15 22:53:55)

FeignedSanity · 2019-07-15 18:43:43

Tarr wrote:

FeignedSanity wrote:
...
Here's the thing though. The old system was allowed to be shitty because the game wasn't remotely revolved around fighting or killing at all. At this point in time late game is just a bunch of the same idiots roaming around towns trying to sword anyone they get the chance to. Sure something like arrows could miss or disappear but that's a function most games have anyways (even if it logically didn't make sense to shoot a ghost and lose arrows.) Two players on equal footing would both have a chance at killing each other in the older version of the combat system. While in the current version one player will always have a 100% kill rate and the other a 0% chance if they just tried to stab each other out right which you absolutely wouldn't know without having someone tell you that little fact.
Defensive options need to exist in the sort of state swords do (aka not suck balls.) Players are absolutely not willing to put up fences to stop raiders in the current game and that's because how terrible the whole property fence mechanic is. Hell, these bastards weren't even meant to be used as some magic fence system but for declaring private property. There should definitely be a return of some sort of snowball like item that disarms other players as that was a great solution especially now considering the only defense against an attacker now is running away. Dancing in the old system was certainly dumb, but so is the idea that someone will always win without risk of losing.
Basically when Jason flips the game from multiplayer parenting and civ building game to terrible pvp game he has to actually care about making the pvp part usable.

That last part is the big sticking point, to me. If he is trying to make a pvp game then, of course, he should be working on providing refined pvp mechanics. I don't believe this is what Jason is going for, and I thought he wanted to keep this game from revolving around fighting. So is your problem that you feel like the game has become too pvp focused? If that wasn't the case, then by your first point, a shitty combat system wouldn't be a problem.

As far as defensive options, I'm fairly certain he has stated he wont be adding any because they could be used as a tool be griefers, which makes sense. As far as I know, everything was supposed to boil down to numbers being the most important factor. Which makes me wonder why you're allowed to unilaterally murder in the first place. In that regard, I feel like my idea about how killing should work in this game makes more sense.

But with all that being said, you do raise good points about swords and fences. Does he really want the only answer to, what you claim to be the late game state of OHOL, be that you either equip everyone in town with a sword, or have a massive pain in the ass fence around your village? It does seem like some conflicting mechanics and possible game design oversights.

Last edited by FeignedSanity (2019-07-15 18:44:57)

Tarr · 2019-07-15 19:09:32

FeignedSanity wrote:

That last part is the big sticking point, to me. If he is trying to make a pvp game then, of course, he should be working on providing refined pvp mechanics. I don't believe this is what Jason is going for, and I thought he wanted to keep this game from revolving around fighting. So is your problem that you feel like the game has become too pvp focused? If that wasn't the case, then by your first point, a shitty combat system wouldn't be a problem.
As far as defensive options, I'm fairly certain he has stated he wont be adding any because they could be used as a tool be griefers, which makes sense. As far as I know, everything was supposed to boil down to numbers being the most important factor. Which makes me wonder why you're allowed to unilaterally murder in the first place. In that regard, I feel like my idea about how killing should work in this game makes more sense.
But with all that being said, you do raise good points about swords and fences. Does he really want the only answer to, what you claim to be the late game state of OHOL, be that you either equip everyone in town with a sword, or have a massive pain in the ass fence around your village? It does seem like some conflicting mechanics and possible game design oversights.

While I don't think he wants this game to just be a pvp-centric game that's what late game has devolved into at this point and has only been getting worse since the original release of the war sword. Most bad updates will be a wash and be left to rot in the field of mediocre update weeks but the sword continues to haunt this game. Whether or not he intends the game to this or that the game is currently just a bad pvp game when it comes around to the late game part of OHOL because of sword culture. If the game is going to stay in such a (terrible) shape then he should at least do something to make it more palatable rather than the mess it is right now.

In the case of defenses no matter what he adds the bad guys always have the upper hand because anything he adds doesn't have any sort of counterbalance. Is someone griefing the village? Well we could curse him but his name is too long... or he's been dead for too long for me to reach an age to do anything... I mean fuck dude you can literally snipe people off of a gate you open and close and no one can stop you in your range (unless they growl first) which is absurd. You can in the current game become an unattackable player by closing a door/gate/whatever. Does that make sense? The only defense to attacks is to stand on a closed door? Found out you can potentially attack people on an object through a diagonal which might mean the kill command can shoot through walls again because why would logic work in this game. BACK TO TESTING I GO. At least when the curse system was functional there was an option of trying to banish the bad guy even when his only advantage over players was the ability to stealth grief and even then they would have to be caught for the system to work. This is sort of why I suggested removing the ding/purple text from showing up for everyone as a means to try to cut down on mob mentality which in turn means if you're cursing someone you have to convince others instead of just getting them to jump in the ding train.

Anyways back to the point. Bad guys will always have an upperhand as long as Jason doesn't have counterbalances to whatever exists. Sure, the bad guys can use whatever against the good guys but giving the good guys more options isn't better than leaving things shitty just because bad people will do bad.

Fences really are a nightmare on all levels and swords are actively useless with the current pvp system if you know what you're doing. Large fences will make it impossible for a town to defend due to people using the normal client not being able to see the edges thus making griefing the entrances incredibly easy. Small fences make a town easier to watch entrances but really restricts what you can do and in the clutter nightmare of ohol you really need to be able to use all the tiles around you. Swords are useless because of the whole first growl win mechanic. What good is arming your village to the teeth if they always lose to the raiders who growl first? In no situation can they win a melee fight if someone inputs a kill command (especially if they start the command from off screen where you can't even see.)

Last edited by Tarr (2019-07-15 19:39:06)

One Hour One Life Forums

#1 2019-07-14 22:12:11

Why did we trade one terrible pvp system for another?

#2 2019-07-14 22:24:29

Re: Why did we trade one terrible pvp system for another?

#3 2019-07-14 22:31:26

Re: Why did we trade one terrible pvp system for another?

#4 2019-07-14 22:34:22

Re: Why did we trade one terrible pvp system for another?

#5 2019-07-14 22:42:06

Re: Why did we trade one terrible pvp system for another?

#6 2019-07-15 00:16:17

Re: Why did we trade one terrible pvp system for another?

#7 2019-07-15 00:20:09

Re: Why did we trade one terrible pvp system for another?

#8 2019-07-15 00:33:38

Re: Why did we trade one terrible pvp system for another?

#9 2019-07-15 00:52:37

Re: Why did we trade one terrible pvp system for another?

#10 2019-07-15 02:28:10

Re: Why did we trade one terrible pvp system for another?

#11 2019-07-15 02:32:35

Re: Why did we trade one terrible pvp system for another?

#12 2019-07-15 02:40:23

Re: Why did we trade one terrible pvp system for another?

#13 2019-07-15 03:21:19

Re: Why did we trade one terrible pvp system for another?

#14 2019-07-15 03:40:13

Re: Why did we trade one terrible pvp system for another?

#15 2019-07-15 07:26:44

Re: Why did we trade one terrible pvp system for another?

#16 2019-07-15 07:38:03

Re: Why did we trade one terrible pvp system for another?

#17 2019-07-15 07:47:53

Re: Why did we trade one terrible pvp system for another?

#18 2019-07-15 11:14:28

Re: Why did we trade one terrible pvp system for another?

#19 2019-07-15 12:00:18

Re: Why did we trade one terrible pvp system for another?

#20 2019-07-15 12:32:37

Re: Why did we trade one terrible pvp system for another?

#21 2019-07-15 14:18:20

Re: Why did we trade one terrible pvp system for another?

#22 2019-07-15 15:28:56

Re: Why did we trade one terrible pvp system for another?

#23 2019-07-15 16:59:32

Re: Why did we trade one terrible pvp system for another?

#24 2019-07-15 18:43:43

Re: Why did we trade one terrible pvp system for another?

#25 2019-07-15 19:09:32

Re: Why did we trade one terrible pvp system for another?

Board footer