Idea: one kill per life?

pein · 2019-12-03 00:02:57

I mean how much more nerfs you need? first, we had no dealy then 20 sec then 40 sec, then you want to be hungry work? we still had the issue when you overheated on the desert and you were too slow after a murder, but let's be realistic, that's already too many nerfs

actually I still consider unfair that someone can be healed but you still are on murder cooldown, got killed like that by the griefer who convinced them to heal her and I couldn't do anything afterwards, also a lot of people just stab you anyway while you are on cooldown, regardless who you killed

if the griefer is idiot, likely will starve cause he didn't eat before and didn't clothe himself up, and their mom forgot that too

I still think duels should be skill-based and not necessarily deadly

and as said before, my idea was that any person could hold the wound delaying the bleeding, and healing could happen, or some temporary measure to re-apply every few minutes to keep someone alive

people too dumb to heal is a thing, believing the griefer, killing the good guy, etc. that won't change much

as I said long time ago, if one guy can kill your whole town you kinda deserve it

Joseph Stalin · 2019-12-03 00:25:17

no we need a good solid solution not more magic

happynova · 2019-12-03 00:38:40

I'm trying to decide what I think about this. My first thought is that I maybe do kind of like the idea of a per-life kill limit. It would certainly be effective against that particular form of griefing, although the concerns that it would just funnel the griefers into other, less easy to spot activities are reasonable ones.

My second thought is that I might prefer a two-kills-per-life limit to one if we were going to go that route, meaning that one person could dispatch twin griefers, at least. Since that's a situation that certainly does come up (much more often than triplets or quads). And I honestly can't think of a time when, as a legit non-griefing player, I've felt the need to stab more than two people in one lifetime. That might be a little too complicated, though, and make less intuitive sense than a once-per-life limit.

seth · 2019-12-03 01:12:39

Wow - I suspect this would be a pretty great update.

I realized in a recent game, that there is a temptation to immediately kill people who are even suspected of being potential griefers.. just so there can be excuse to kill. If killing was a limited resource, it would raise the tension considerably.. You COULD kill this person, but better make sure they're really actually bad.

And even if you make that decision to kill this griefer, you'd probably give them an option - get out of town and never come back, or I'll kill you. You can always kill them right there, but might as well give them the chance to pack their things and leave, and save the kill for another day.

The threat of a kill would be put to use much more! I think this would heighten the drama and make people less kill happy.

So I'll bet there's fewer hasty kills - so this change is not only good for preventing griefing, but good for those who have been killed eroniously..

Can't forsee any downsides, but it is a major change.. no harm in just throwing it in and seeing how it plays out.

pedrito confesiones · 2019-12-03 01:40:59

no

Spoonwood · 2019-12-03 02:26:22

A two kill limit can run into problems also. Quads exist. I said above that I killed some griefer twice in one life. But, I didn't mention that I went to bed after that life and my town was trashed when I came back. I might have needed several more kills in the next life to get that person to stop griefing my town (even were spawning mechanics different... we had a road network). I'll never know, as I decided to go to bed.

stephofd · 2019-12-03 06:10:17

I also like the idea of buffing healing. It would mean that instead of convincing the town to help you kill someone, you just have to convince them to do nothing at all.

If realism is a problem, the knife could be changed to something less lethal, that would still result in death if you can't get help. It would be more like how you need someone to feed you when you get bitten by mosquitos.

Kinrany · 2019-12-03 17:09:38

DestinyCall wrote:

What do you suggest as an alternative?

The first step is to find a precise definition of griefing :)

DestinyCall wrote:

Making the system simpler would make it easier to figure out, don't you think.

That's the point: it shouldn't matter how easy it is to figure out the system. The system shouldn't be gameable.

JonySky · 2019-12-03 17:28:57

Jason, I don't understand you ...
People have long complained about griefers and murderers and you argued that murders were necessary in OHOL
You also incorporated war swords and get genocides from entire cities
People complained and you justified war swords as "rich gaming experiences"

Now, someone has sent you an email and you decide to limit the murder to a single victim for life ...

I don't know if you comment on these ideas in order to create controversies or you just don't know where OHOL is going ...

If you want some advice ... I would concentrate on improving the game engine,
concentrate on allowing new mechanics such as shared transport (which the community has been requesting for a long time)

It is also more important to improve the current netcode to avoid jumps and client / server desynchronization

DestinyCall · 2019-12-03 18:18:05

Kinrany wrote:

DestinyCall wrote:
What do you suggest as an alternative?
The first step is to find a precise definition of griefing

We do have a clear definition of griefing. A griefer is a player in a multiplayer video game who deliberately irritates and harasses other players within the game (trolling), usually by using aspects of the game in unintended ways. Someone who takes pleasure in creating grief for other players via various cheap tactics. The problem is that the griefing itself can take many forms, in-game. The intent is the same, but the tactics tend to vary, depending on the options currently available to bad faith players.

One very important aspect to identifying griefer behavior is that the INTENTION behind the behavior is as important as the action itself. A new player who fills the village's only bucket with latex is probably just acting out of ignorance, not malice. A more experienced player who does the same exact thing because it is funny, in full knowledge that it is harmful to the village and disruptive to other players, is acting as a griefer.

Multiplayer games can reduce griefing by limiting opportunities for grief. In a team game, preventing friendly-fire can stop players from intentionally shooting people on their own team, for example. And you can also regulate griefing by giving the players themselves the tools to address griefers. That's what the curse system in OHOL tries to do. If someone is acting inappropriately, you can curse them, as a punishment. But you need to be careful about adding powerful anti-griefing tools directly into the hands of your players. Because griefers ARE players. If you give handcuffs and access to prison cells to all of your players, you also give these tools to every single griefer in the game. Using in game statistics, like kill-counts and curse-counts to distinguish "good" and "bad" players is another option. Statistically-speaking, griefers spend more time disrupting the village, rather than building it up, so you could examine behavior indirectly, by looking at something like OHOL's genetic score to find productive village and evaluate someone's kill count, compared with their play-time to find the people who do nothing but murder every time they join the game. But there are limits to how much you can learn about a player just by looking at raw numbers. There might be certain red-flags, like astronomically high murder counts and lots of short lives, but that doesn't mean that every griefer could be caught in this way - there are plenty of griefers who live normal lives, between bouts of intense griefing and anti-social behavior. Plenty of psychopaths know how to smile in public.

Personally, I think a better way to combat griefing is through moderation. A lot of multi-player games take this approach, because distinguishing between innocent bad player behavior and malicious bad player behavior is quite tricky, from a programming perspective. Rather than trying to automate the process, place a few key individuals in the position of "game moderator". Let your playerbase inform you of the trouble-makers and then give your mods the power to investigate the behavior of individual players so they can determine if that player deserves to be restricted or banned.

Many people will behave appropriately if they know that their actions are being judged. But if they know that they have complete freedom to act without fear of punishment, they will see nothing wrong with being a total douche to everyone around them. And of course, there are some people who will be terrible even if they KNOW they will eventually get caught. Those people will not stop griefing the game until they are banned or get bored enough to move along to the next game. If you don't ban them, they just keep playing and get a lot better at griefing your game.

All multiplayer games have to deal with some amount of griefing or trolling behaviors from their player-base. I don't think any game is completely immune to this problem, because it is part of human nature. Some people just like to watch the world burn and laugh at everyone else's misery. But not every game deals with the same amount of cumulative greifing and repeat offenders, like OHOL does. I don't think the current system is doing that great of a job of containing the problem. Hopefully, it can be improved eventually.

Kinrany wrote:

DestinyCall wrote:
Making the system simpler would make it easier to figure out, don't you think.
That's the point: it shouldn't matter how easy it is to figure out the system. The system shouldn't be gameable.

People have been trying to come up with a completely air-tight solution for on-line griefing as long as multiplayer games have existed. If it was an easy problem, we would already have a simple solution and on-line games would not need to worry about griefing any longer.

I don't think this is a simple problem with a simple solution. How do you make a game system that is un-gameable?

Stormyzabeast · 2019-12-03 18:29:43

Why not keep track of players who serial kill and get cursed, and keep them in limbo. The more they murder, the longer they stay. Like donkey town x5

jcwilk · 2019-12-03 19:42:24

Please no. We need a more sophisticated combat system not a simpler one. It's not in line with reality at all to limit people to one kill, in reality it's more likely that most people have never killed but a few people have killed many (cops, military, etc). How about more ways to attack than simply immediately killing them, like some way to slow them down, some way to sap their hunger, some way to de-horse, some way to disarm, make it complex, interesting, and high skill curve and make it so that a group of people can meaningfully work together rather than just grouping up, chasing faster, and managing to get a kill in.

Property fences need to be breakable somehow also but that's another discussion

jcwilk · 2019-12-03 19:53:15

DestinyCall wrote:

Kinrany wrote:
DestinyCall wrote:
What do you suggest as an alternative?
The first step is to find a precise definition of griefing
We do have a clear definition of griefing. A griefer is a player in a multiplayer video game who deliberately irritates and harasses other players within the game (trolling), usually by using aspects of the game in unintended ways. Someone who takes pleasure in creating grief for other players via various cheap tactics. The problem is that the griefing itself can take many forms, in-game. The intent is the same, but the tactics tend to vary, depending on the options currently available to bad faith players.

This is a bit delusional, there's a massive ocean of gray area that you're sweeping under the rug. Many players enjoy pvp, the process of mind battling with real humans over things that each of them care about, even if one of them only cares to fuel the pvp, can be deeply stimulating. Therefore, waging war against other families or other parts of a family, or against the family itself, can all be stimulating ways to approach the game but all will get labeled as griefing by someone even though the intent isn't necessarily to ruin gameplay for others.

Instead of "how do we get rid of uncooperative play and players" why not "how do we add counters against cheap tactics, how do we empower carebears to build defenses against raiders rather than just spinning on their thumbs and crying about murder?" there's already property fences but no one bothers to use them. Perhaps if there were auto opening and closing doors they would be more useful

Spoonwood · 2019-12-03 20:28:04

jcwilk wrote:

Many players enjoy pvp, the process of mind battling with real humans over things that each of them care about, even if one of them only cares to fuel the pvp, can be deeply stimulating. Therefore, waging war against other families or other parts of a family, or against the family itself, can all be stimulating ways to approach the game but all will get labeled as griefing by someone even though the intent isn't necessarily to ruin gameplay for others.

I'm not going to sit here and say that games like HALO or Bond or PUBG can't be fun.

However, OHOL is supposed to consist of a game of parenting and/or civilization building. Even when Jason introduced war swords, his intention lay in motivating people to play for the sake of their family. He started off his post on it as follows:

jasonrohrer wrote:

Still thinking about how to prefer your own current family over other families in your current life (without depending on cross-life effects). If you have to choose between two kids, you should always feel a gameplay reason to choose your own.

https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=6301

So, unless such pvp actually has a reasonably expected benefit for your family, war or pvp just isn't in the spirit of the game. Also, other people in OHOL just usually don't agree to a PvP scenario. Most of the time they engage themselves in parenting and/or civilization building (or necessary civilization maintainence/organization/resource gathering... which often comes as needed for civilization building and for ease of parenting). Thus, such in OHOL can ruin their fun. Therefore, unless there's reasonably expected benefit, engaging in such PvP in OHOL is just griefing.

jcwilk wrote:

Instead of "how do we get rid of uncooperative play and players" why not "how do we add counters against cheap tactics, how do we empower carebears to build defenses against raiders rather than just spinning on their thumbs and crying about murder?" there's already property fences but no one bothers to use them.

Well, having a walled in town makes civilization building more difficult since there exist fewer exit points from the town for resource gathering. Also, I don't think that walled in towns decreases griefing levels. When OHOL has had walled in towns as the norm before griefing levels have been high (high murder rate shortly after swords got introduced, lots of griefing in The Rift). Do you remember the pictures from the early days of The Rift? Griefers would just completely block off walled in towns. Thus, griefers just changed tactics from targeting people to targeting towns.

Empowering players who play in the spirit of the game sounds good, but decreasing their opportunities also isn't something that would be good.

And if we had walled in towns these days, how would traders make it through the city gates to trade?

Last edited by Spoonwood (2019-12-03 20:29:07)

Kinrany · 2019-12-03 20:48:47

I also feel like OHOL shouldn't be about PvP, but I don't think PvP is avoidable. The only way to have no PvP is to make it impossible to affect other players and their plans in negative way. Without PvP OHOL would become something like a multiplayer game of alchemy.

Galafalachida · 2019-12-03 21:30:27

jasonrohrer wrote:

Got another email about griefing today.
The guy was trying to save his town from a lone griefer, but he couldn't convince the noob players in town to team up with him and help.
1-v-1, stopping a griefer is still pretty hard. You run slower when you chase them alone.
Sure, they run slower too when chasing you, making you as an expert player relatively safe. But they can still pick off noob players who don't know to run when they hear murder mouth coming.
So in the email, this lone griefer hung out outside of town and picked off unsuspecting noobs relentlessly, along with stealing stuff, etc.

As I've said, killing is a necessary ingredient in this game... otherwise, how would you dispatch such a griefer, even with majority consent?
But one person unilaterally picking off unsuspecting people is not the reason killing is in the game. It's an abuse of a necessary power.
Assuming that such griefers are in the extreme minority, it would seem like a hard limit on killing, per player, might help. Maybe even one kill per life. Maybe after doing it, your character just can't bear to do it again, which makes some sense thematically.
And if a town faces a few griefers, they need a few good men to dispatch them, a different posse leader for each case. The guy who handled the last one is on break.

The other idea is to make unilateral killing completely impossible. Maybe you need a posse of 2+ to do it.
This would undercut gate-guarding, though.
In fact, even a killing limit would undercut a gate-guarding career somewhat.
In general, I want to leave some kind of unilateral killing in the game to permit lone players to stake claims and make threats. You know, "Get away from here, I've got a bead on you with my bow, don't come near."
If there was a limit of one kill per life, the lone player would only be able to fend off a single invader...

NO! :'c

Navi · 2019-12-04 03:24:33

The killing situation is so much better than it used to be... yall wouldn't be satisfied unless it was just removed completely... which is ridiculous lol

StrongForce · 2019-12-04 18:47:01

Killed a pro griefer today
Was kinda fun to hunt him but I realised how terrible I am in practice. In Theorie it's super easy to kill him.

We need to educate all new players on the cursing
Almost noone cursed him even tho he killed like 6 players and not the sneaky way

Bremidon · 2019-12-04 22:56:46

A single kill per person is not really a great idea. This will barely slow down griefers, especially those who like to bear grief. Even the ones who like to kill will just suicide right after and move on to the next town. Rinse and repeat.

Personally, I go about three lives between seeing any real griefing. In the last twenty lives, I only had one where the griefer actually managed to clean out the town. In the other griefing cases, the griefer was dealt with swiftly. More common are the rude players who will swear at you for giving them hints about how not to eat all the limited carrots in the new town (or the like).

Sopbucket · 2019-12-05 14:14:16

I'm not really fond of either idea, to be honest. It seems like we're adding arbitrary restrictions when the tools to deal with this sort of thing are already there. If new players are having trouble using those tools, we should try to do something about that; perhaps a /follow <name> command, where your character automatically follows another character until you click the mouse again, if that's feasible. I'm also concerned that clamping down on one form of griefing will only lead to other forms taking its place. It's hard to say whether picking people off is any worse than killing all the animals in town, or stealing diesel engines.

If we are going down this path though, maybe each murder could require and use up a tool slot? That puts some restriction on career killers at least, and it means you can still threaten outsiders since no one really knows how many kills you have left in you. It also means you only have to keep track of one number.

Last edited by Sopbucket (2019-12-05 14:22:19)

FulmenTheFinn · 2019-12-05 16:11:38

Killed I think four griefers in one life yesterday, which is not that uncommon at all; experienced players regularly have to save noob towns from griefers. So that's a "no" vote from me.

DestinyCall · 2019-12-06 03:38:09

jasonrohrer wrote:

As I've said, killing is a necessary ingredient in this game... otherwise, how would you dispatch such a griefer, even with majority consent?
But one person unilaterally picking off unsuspecting people is not the reason killing is in the game. It's an abuse of a necessary power.

Wait a minute ... killing is a necessary part of the game to stop in-game killers? I'm calling bullshit. This logic fails to track for me. Without killing, there are no serial killers.

Just remove murder completely and buff cursing to remove annoying people from the active game space over the long-term. You might need to deal with someone stealing bowls or killing sheep or breeding pitbulls or releasing bears or being a racist douche or acting super annoying for one life ... but after the whole server curses them out of existence, they will be gone for a full month, maybe longer, if they get bored.

If the main purpose of allowing killing is simply to give good players a way to instantly remove people they do not like, then we do not NEED to allow murder at all. The curse system should be able to handle the problem by itself. Disruptive players will end up pushed far away from cooperative players and the lack of killing will allow everyone to work harder and be more productive.

Unless I'm wrong and we actually have murder is in OHOL because killing people is fun and disruptive. Gotta love the drama of a murder-suicide love triangle in the middle of town.

fug · 2019-12-06 03:51:58

Guys we're clearling looking at this the wrong way. We just need to scale it off meme score! By having a high enough gene score you clearly are able to remove inferior genes via stabbing being a very good human.

Scale everything off the score.

Tool slots
How long you can live
How many people you can kill
How many times you can click an object.
How many times a pump works

Everything!

But in all seriousness the new players are always going to prey to more experienced players. I can't wait for three months of limiting updates now that we're done torturing players testing oil.

antking:]# · 2019-12-06 04:03:48

Fug you have woken the beat that is Jason, we should all be wary

Spoonwood · 2019-12-06 04:20:04

DestinyCall wrote:

jasonrohrer wrote:
As I've said, killing is a necessary ingredient in this game... otherwise, how would you dispatch such a griefer, even with majority consent?
But one person unilaterally picking off unsuspecting people is not the reason killing is in the game. It's an abuse of a necessary power.
Wait a minute ... killing is a necessary part of the game to stop in-game killers? I'm calling bullshit. This logic fails to track for me. Without killing, there are no serial killers.
Just remove murder completely and buff cursing to remove annoying people from the active game space over the long-term. You might need to deal with someone stealing bowls or killing sheep or breeding pitbulls or releasing bears or being a racist douche or acting super annoying for one life ... but after the whole server curses them out of existence, they will be gone for a full month, maybe longer, if they get bored.

Sorry, but that just won't work. Consistently low pop servers have gotten griefed before. Such 1v1 cursing wouldn't have any effect on a griefer trying to ruin towns. And there's a catch there. During an update period, bs2 is low pop. The second Eve might spawn close to the first and they might run into each other fast. Cursing wouldn't work for a griefer Eve, since it's again 1v1 cursing since children can't curse effectively. At least in principle, an Eve during that period could defend herself an attacker with the ability to kill. Also, bigserver2 families do die out. They end up with small numbers. If there's two people left in town, and let's say both people are men and twenty, or both women past forty, cursing won't do much. The curse system getting made powerful enough for one curse to have a drastic effect has other bad consequences, that I just can't see it as viable.

One Hour One Life Forums

#26 2019-12-03 00:02:57

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#27 2019-12-03 00:25:17

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#28 2019-12-03 00:38:40

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#29 2019-12-03 01:12:39

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#30 2019-12-03 01:40:59

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#31 2019-12-03 02:26:22

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#32 2019-12-03 06:10:17

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#33 2019-12-03 17:09:38

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#34 2019-12-03 17:28:57

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#35 2019-12-03 18:18:05

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#36 2019-12-03 18:29:43

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#37 2019-12-03 19:42:24

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#38 2019-12-03 19:53:15

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#39 2019-12-03 20:28:04

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#40 2019-12-03 20:48:47

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#41 2019-12-03 21:30:27

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#42 2019-12-04 03:24:33

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#43 2019-12-04 18:47:01

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#44 2019-12-04 22:56:46

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#45 2019-12-05 14:14:16

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#46 2019-12-05 16:11:38

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#47 2019-12-06 03:38:09

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#48 2019-12-06 03:51:58

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#49 2019-12-06 04:03:48

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#50 2019-12-06 04:20:04

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

Board footer