Idea: one kill per life?

DestinyCall · 2019-12-06 04:57:30

If a griefer Eve keeps respawning close to you on a low population server, is killing her really a viable solution? Feral eves just keep coming back to cause more problems. Kill the same griefer five times. What does it cost him? Life is cheap for a killer. Strike him down and he will just kill again in a different village.

I would rather see the game develop a system that addresses the true source of the problem - the player controlling all those feral Eves and random murderers, rather than using vigilante killing as a bandaid solution.

The bottom line is that killing is NOT an effective long-term solution for serial griefing. It just pushes the problem player onto someone else and lets him continue to be a problem for people who are trying to play cooperatively. And being able to kill (or be killed) gives the griefer a cheap thrill and the rush of danger that comes from being the hunter and the hunted. It rewards griefing and creates a fun challenge for the griefer to overcome - how to stab all the girls before the dumb villagers catch on.

fug · 2019-12-06 05:10:38

DestinyCall wrote:

If a griefer Eve keeps respawning close to you on a low population server, is killing her really a viable solution? Feral eves just keep coming back to cause more problems. Kill the same griefer five times. What does it cost him? Life is cheap for a killer. Strike him down and he will just kill again in a different village.
I would rather see the game develop a system that addresses the true source of the problem - the player controlling all those feral Eves and random murderers, rather than using vigilante killing as a bandaid solution.
The bottom line is that killing is NOT an effective long-term solution for serial griefing. It just pushes the problem player onto someone else and lets him continue to be a problem for people who are trying to play cooperatively. And being able to kill (or be killed) gives the griefer a cheap thrill and the rush of danger that comes from being the hunter and the hunted. It rewards griefing and creates a fun challenge for the griefer to overcome - how to stab all the girls before the dumb villagers catch on.

Low pop balancing is dumb. Balance around people in a real server. Maybe extend curse timer for low pop to make up for it?

Spoonwood · 2019-12-06 06:15:26

fug wrote:

Balance around people in a real server.

That doesn't make any sense at all fug. BS2 is low pop during the initial moments of an update period (or at least server1 varies in status based on its population). Also, all of the servers are just as real no matter the population as the others.

Additionally, and more importantly, families die out and have few members left. So, the problem of griefers and not having enough curses because of lack of people still persists for any proposal that tries to deal with griefers by cursing only. Families also start, and what the hell should an Eve do with a griefing child and no help in cursing from other adults, because other adults don't exist yet?

Destiny might be correct about killing as a bad solution for long-term griefing. But, we don't have a good solution at present either.

Last edited by Spoonwood (2019-12-06 06:17:39)

Kinrany · 2019-12-06 13:03:51

DestinyCall wrote:

Wait a minute ... killing is a necessary part of the game to stop in-game killers? I'm calling bullshit.

That's not what he said. He said "griefers", not "killers". There are other ways to grief.

That said, killing is clearly not the only way to stop griefers, now that we have cursing as "I don't want to play with them".

fug wrote:

Low pop balancing is dumb.

Low pop balancing is what keeps games alive when player population drops to single digits.

sigmen4020 · 2019-12-06 13:13:02

DestinyCall wrote:

If a griefer Eve keeps respawning close to you on a low population server, is killing her really a viable solution? Feral eves just keep coming back to cause more problems. Kill the same griefer five times. What does it cost him? Life is cheap for a killer. Strike him down and he will just kill again in a different village.

I have thankfully not run into many griefers on low pop recently, but let's say there are 2 people on a low pop server. 1 is a griefer, 1 is not. The griefer griefs the non-griefers low pop town and the non-griefer curses the griefer.

Wouldn't that put them in donkey town on that low pop server as long as that non-griefer is the only one logged in on that server for a month (I mean there's noone else to play with right)? Or will it just ban them from being spawned 100 tiles away from them?

Last edited by sigmen4020 (2019-12-06 13:15:20)

lizzyerd · 2019-12-06 15:03:26

I'm pretty new here but in the short time that I've played, it seems like I've run into more griefers than I had in the first few weeks of playing. Or maybe I just wasn't involved enough at first.

But, that said, the ones that I have had the *pleasure* of running into weren't just spree killers.

One in one life kept building things 'locking' us into the property my adoptive family was building. Thankfully someone else close by was able to help us out, literally.

The second one was the more annoying, but ironically more exiting.
I spawned as a female. I decided once I was old enough to make a little property by myself a little out of the way. I didn't want to go too far because I figured I'd have kids and I liked the idea of staying near town.
While building and getting things together - after my one daughter was spawned - some guy comes around and asks for 'taxes' (( yeah... yeah... I know. Anyways.))
I told him, no, to go away. ((Again. Yeah. I know.))
So. Greif Guy makes a teeny tiny property fence on the side my gate is on trying to block me in (and my daughter out).
Thankfully I knew how to destroy the other person's fencing.
If I remember correctly, that's when he kills me.

So. I reborn and hope that I'm close to the other town. I'm a male this time so it's perfect; I find someone who knows where the other town is and it's close by.
Soon as I'm old enough (mom's given me clothes and a bp - I think), I grab a pie and head in the direction of my old life.

I get to the town and find my old property. (He killed my daughter. I found her near the fire in the main kitchen).

And I stand by the fence. That's all I do. Just standing by the fence. Of course, he sees me and comes to me on his side and of course starts taunting.
He says something and I replied with: "I'm just waiting for you to die."
He tries to give the property to his 'friend', saying: "Now it won't degrade."
Me: "I can wait. Everyone dies."
At this he comes out of the property and starts hunting me. I try to run, but he catches me and stabs me.
I'm not sure how but a small trio comes along, and actually listens to me explain what's going on.
One has wool pads and heals me.
Another kills the grief guy and his buddy.

And I get my property back.

I added other people to the property list, but I never knew if they figured it out or not.

Now. With all that. It was annoying as it was happening, but, like I said. It did make for an interesting ... two interesting lives.

I think instead of the limit on killing the penality for griefing should be higher. It seems like no one really cares about 'Donkey Island' anyways, in fact, there's a thread *here* and in it, someone mentions about how donkey island really isn't much of a deterrent. And I agree.

I liked someone else's idea of the weapon degrading/breaking after a person kill. At least that way perhaps a family member would getaway or have more of a chance.

Last edited by lizzyerd (2019-12-06 15:04:20)

Punkypal · 2019-12-06 15:24:05

Three things

1) Make murder hungry work.

2) Give people more time to get healed. As it is now, even if pads, needle and thread are in town, you'll die before someone who knows how to even heal finds the objects they need and manage to treat you.

3) If you reach a threshold of active curses against you, you can't pick up weapons until your count expires. Maybe three curses, and that's it. Want to be a cook or a hunter? Too bad. Be good and wait a week. Anyone who is being a good person shouldn't get three curses in a week. If you are picking up more than that from "misunderstandings" then you aren't doing a very good job being understood.

------

I'd like to add in that I've never seen a "town guard" position except AFTER a town of 12+ people was destroyed down to 4 people because a couple of twin greifer murders killed 4 people, ran 4 off who didn't return, got killed themselves, and left the town in a shambles (which had previously been humming along perfectly). And so then out of frustration and desperation someone spent the rest of a life as a "guard" because one more griefer and that would be the end of those last 4 people. And I don't know if the town ever made a comeback because after all that disruption a bunch of people all spawned 9k to the west and neither they or their offspring won't ever make it back.

It's not even that two people can mess up what 7 or 8 people are doing. It's that they can actually destroy a whole town. And that might have been days in the making. It was what HUNDREDS of players lives did and were doing. And there are dozens of large towns all across the map that are completely abandoned and coordinates unknown to almost everyone, and I believe the thing that caused most of these to be abandoned was someone going on a killing spree exactly when the town numbers were already low, and intentionally targeting females.

It doesn't bother me so much that someone can kill. I'm not bothered so much that someone even kills me. I am outraged that one person can kill an entire town if they try to do exactly that. Being so very spread out with Eves spawing so very far west each time doesn't help, as people can't even get back to the town if they want.

Punkypal · 2019-12-06 15:30:32

I just had a idea. What if a structure could be made, like the town bell, that would make a radius around it a no killing zone. Except players could click on it to "vote" to turn it on or off. If it's marked on, then it's a sanctuary in that radius. The wilds would be at risk to go into but in larger towns there would be a measure of safety. Also, as a town gets bigger, it seems to attract the griefer element anyway. The average player who's killing people for fun has gotten bored and likely is quitting the game soon. They don't have any interest in searching the wilds for a lone traveler to try to chase down and kill. They want to shoot fish in a barrel for a few laughs because it's easy. A large town is their target of choice. Once a Bell City manages to get around 20 or so people in and around it it seems murders are happening constantly. I'm sorry, with only 20 people, someone shouldn't be killing someone every 30 minutes or less.

Bremidon · 2019-12-06 16:00:13

Punkypal wrote:

Anyone who is being a good person shouldn't get three curses in a week

If you are actively fighting griefers, you will *easily* pick up three curses in a week. It turns out griefers can curse too. This could become a new griefing tactic: curse the most experienced players. Get them to three, and suddenly the towns are out an experienced cook, shepherd, guard. Heck, I picked up two curses this week, because my mom accidentally cursed me (by using curse you) and then someone joined in.

The best defense against griefers is just to get to know your town a little bit, find a few people you can trust, and act without overreacting when a griefer shows up. Two halfway decent players can pretty much guarantee a town's safety against almost any griefing attack.

The biggest problem I see is that nobody pays attention to the pads, people let knives and arrows just lay around out of sight, or even better: they don't even have any arrows or knives ready to go. It's a bit late to realize you still need a file when a griefer is picking off people.

Spoonwood · 2019-12-06 18:26:28

Bremidon wrote:

This could become a new griefing tactic: curse the most experienced players.

That wouldn't be a new griefing tactic. Griefers have done that before. I think I even recall an example of someone gloating about such griefing on the forums. But, I'd rather not give such old posts attention, because I don't think that giving griefers attention leads them to reconsider their griefing or to stop griefing. A less common griefing tactic, perhaps.

Kinrany · 2019-12-06 18:54:07

Here's an idea.

AFAIK villages are usually being run by a few veteran players. 80% players have no idea what needs to be done: they just eat food and do something random, with no plan whatsoever and with zero benefit to the village. (This is not a moral judgement: I'm one of them, and this is true of most human organizations.)

So maybe what we need is a way for a veteran player to force other players to work for her. Maybe we need hierarchy.

Two things though: this new mechanism should actually give power to those at the top, it can't be just roleplay. And it should be more efficient for the queen to leverage the bureaucracy she built, than just doing everything on her own.

Note that this structure must exist in parallel to family trees. It must be meritocratic.

The goal of this system is not really to stop griefing. The goal is to make it possible for a group of players to function as a single entity. Griefing is just one threat that can be dealt with this way.

I'll post a new thread with a concrete suggestion.
Done: https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=8644

Last edited by Kinrany (2019-12-06 19:59:03)

jasonrohrer · 2019-12-06 20:21:06

Destiny, if someone is griefing you through non-killing, and you can't kill them, then you are stuck with them for a whole hour, right? Yeah, you can curse them and never play with them again, but that's still an hour ruined.

I've only experimented with this once, on 2HOL back in the day (which made the bold design choice of having no killing), and I was unstoppable. I completely ruined the game for the 5 or so people in my village. I planted the wrong stuff, picked up the tool they were about to use, unloaded the kiln when they were about to light it, emptied the basket when they had just filled it, filled the empty basket they were about to put stuff into. I could just stand there, right under their noses, and do every little annoying thing imaginable.

They said, "Stop it!", but I didn't stop. Hey, I could do this for 2 hours.

Eventually, they all quit the game or migrated away, and I was left alone. Then a bell rang at a nearby village, and I followed it over there, and started doing exactly the same thing there. Some of my former village-mates were living over there, and they were not thrilled to see me.

But they were powerless to do anything about me. 2 hours of hell is plenty. I got bored after about an hour of this, fortunately for them.

I felt bad about all this, but I had to experiment to see what was possible in a game without killing. It was a griefer's paradise.

Yes, through killing, a griefer can ruin someon's game for 40 seconds. But without killing, they can ruin someone's game for an entire hour, and there's no way to stop them.

There are other solutions to this problem besides killing.

--All the annoying stuff I was doing would be blocked via hard-coded property rights. I can't touch the basket, or the crops, or the kiln. But imagine how fiddly such a game would be, with players granting and revoking permission for every little thing. Go play Eco. Even in such a locked-down game, other forms of griefing are possible, like following someone around to annoy them (which I was able to do in Eco). Emergent property rights are available in OHOL, and most people don't use them (already too fiddly to manage permissions for a single gate, let alone each tool).

--Insta-cursing.... why wait 60 minutes for them to die so you don't have to play with them again? But insta-cursing is just killing without the blood.

Which brings us back to killing, and why it's necessary.

jasonrohrer · 2019-12-06 20:25:25

Killing as hungry work is interesting. Would make unilateral killing impossible....

Though I do worry about self-defense in solo situations. The hermit or explorer shouldn't be defenseless, or forced into a suicide pact with someone who is bothering them (I kill you, then I starve due to hungry work and stuck weapon).

True trust and respect are built on the possibility of betrayal, or else trust and respect are meaningless.

As I said a while back, "I love you, because you could kill me, but you chose not to."

DestinyCall · 2019-12-06 20:58:59

jasonrohrer wrote:

Destiny, if someone is griefing you through non-killing, and you can't kill them, then you are stuck with them for a whole hour, right? Yeah, you can curse them and never play with them again, but that's still an hour ruined.
I've only experimented with this once, on 2HOL back in the day (which made the bold design choice of having no killing), and I was unstoppable. I completely ruined the game for the 5 or so people in my village. I planted the wrong stuff, picked up the tool they were about to use, unloaded the kiln when they were about to light it, emptied the basket when they had just filled it, filled the empty basket they were about to put stuff into. I could just stand there, right under their noses, and do every little annoying thing imaginable.
They said, "Stop it!", but I didn't stop. Hey, I could do this for 2 hours.
Eventually, they all quit the game or migrated away, and I was left alone. Then a bell rang at a nearby village, and I followed it over there, and started doing exactly the same thing there. Some of my former village-mates were living over there, and they were not thrilled to see me.
But they were powerless to do anything about me. 2 hours of hell is plenty. I got bored after about an hour of this, fortunately for them.

I felt bad about all this, but I had to experiment to see what was possible in a game without killing. It was a griefer's paradise.

Sure, that was a bad thing, Jason. But is killing really the answer? Let's say the villagers in your first village were able to kill you. That kicks you out of their town immediately ... but it also lets you respawn in the next town immediately. And you can go right back to griefing, now with a new identity. If you are discovered as a griefer in your new life and killed, you respawn in another village, free to continue your malicious behavior. Then you are killed again... and again ... and eventually you are back at the first village. New name, new face, same horrible behavior.

The only thing killing you has accomplished was instantly teleporting you around the map so you could grief different villages non-stop for the same two hour period. It didn't punish you. It made griefing more exciting. More rewarding.
From the perspective of other players, they are dealing with "griefers" almost every life and they never know who it will be next time, because every time the griefer dies, he is reborn anonymously, free to continue to harass everyone until killed.

You were getting bored with griefing the same town. Everyone left and you were alone. You had to go hunting for more victims because griefing isn't a solo activity. It requires an audience. Killing the griefer gives him a new audience and a new playing field. It encourages more griefing.

And over time, you will get better at griefing without getting caught right away. Which means more freedom to grief, even if you could be killed. Practice makes perfect and serial griefers get a ton of practice being horrible. Fourty seconds of griefing can evolve into fourty minutes of solid griefing, if the griefer knows how to isolate and eliminate threats early on.

jasonrohrer wrote:

Yes, through killing, a griefer can ruin someon's game for 40 seconds. But without killing, they can ruin someone's game for an entire hour, and there's no way to stop them.

Cursing isn't immediate, but if it is implemented correctly, it should have strong cumulative effects. And it targets the PLAYER instead of the CHARACTER. A griefer without anyone to grief has no reason to keep playing.

There needs to be a way to address malicious, annoying, or anti-social behavior. But I don't think killing is the solution. It certainly isn't necessary. But more importantly, it contributes to the problem. Killing is a tool for griefers. It is a poor anti-griefing mechanic.

Last edited by DestinyCall (2019-12-06 21:31:25)

jasonrohrer · 2019-12-06 21:29:23

Yes, and cursing is implemented, along with killing.

(And it wasn't back then in 2HOL, or even in OHOL, as I recall).

However, you've still got to deal with this person for the rest of your hour if you can curse them but can't kill them.

An hour of torment is a long time. How much damage, theft, and destruction can one person dole out in a hour, if there's no way to stop them?

So cursing and killing are necessary parts of the same system.

Killing is: "go away now."

Cursing is: "and don't come back."

In real life, assuming that there is no reincarnation, then everyone is "cursed" to never come back. Of course, if we didn't have the ability to kill each other in real life, the fact that people are "gone forever" after they die of natural causes would simply not be sufficient to deal with the trouble makers in the world.

Fortunately, we also have the ability to band together and use physical (and deadly) force to stop trouble makers in real life. It's a necessary ingredient of any functioning society, and there has never been a society that discarded this tool from its toolbox entirely. Even in the most peaceful societies around, even where there is no death penalty, you will eventually be killed if you get too far out of line. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_k … by_country No country has absolutely 0 people killed by security forces in the last 10 years (perhaps Switzerland, but there's only data for one year).

We have the ability to say, "Stop NOW," and mean it, in real life.

We need that ability in the game too, or else we are never going to have functioning societies.

breezeknight · 2019-12-08 04:04:47

it's unrealistic, artificial, gamey to introduce one kill per life
there are serial killers IRL

same unrealistic is also to have one strike kills certain
IRL not every strike with a deadly weapon is actually deadly

over a year ago i suggested to add a random element to killing
a chance not to be killed, only injured, which would heal by itself with time
a smaller chance not to be even injured
a chance for an attack to backfire & injure the attacker, even kill
this chance would already reduce the trigger happy griefing

that's about killers

another thing is theft & trolling griefing
the game needs a justice system, law options

- - -

Last edited by breezeknight (2019-12-08 04:06:41)

Ruben · 2019-12-08 06:03:22

Griefing with a knife has become pretty hard, there are tons of signs that indicate a stabbing.
Griefing using a bow and arrow is a different story. I could see a skilled griefer to annihilate a whole town using them properly.

It's not even very realistic, as an arrow should not have a guaranteed chance of hitting his opponent. Maybe introduce some chance, like 50%, for it to fail?

You could 'nerf' griefing indirectly this way.

breezeknight wrote:

same unrealistic is also to have one strike kills certain

Basically what you said (same essence).

breezeknight wrote:

IRL not every strike with a deadly weapon is actually deadly

Well you could argue that no strike is deadly in this game, since you can also treat the wound 100% of the time.

IRL, not killing someone with a knife is pretty unusual, actually (unless the knifes user does not know much about the human anatomy).
Swords and knives are deadlier than guns imo (considering close range comes for free).

Last edited by Ruben (2019-12-08 06:34:08)

Spoonwood · 2019-12-08 07:45:49

jasonrohrer wrote:

I've only experimented with this once, on 2HOL back in the day (which made the bold design choice of having no killing), and I was unstoppable. I completely ruined the game for the 5 or so people in my village. I planted the wrong stuff, picked up the tool they were about to use, unloaded the kiln when they were about to light it, emptied the basket when they had just filled it, filled the empty basket they were about to put stuff into. I could just stand there, right under their noses, and do every little annoying thing imaginable.
They said, "Stop it!", but I didn't stop. Hey, I could do this for 2 hours.
Eventually, they all quit the game or migrated away, and I was left alone. Then a bell rang at a nearby village, and I followed it over there, and started doing exactly the same thing there. Some of my former village-mates were living over there, and they were not thrilled to see me.

If they migrated away, then it doesn't seem likely that their lineage died out due to your griefing Jason. You congratulated yourself on your griefing, but I'm not sure you had good enough indications to know that your griefing efforts were successful. Not in a completely destructive sense sort of griefing, only in the sense of an annoyance and hinderance. Were it the case that murder did not exist in OHOL, then the longstanding issue of families dying out (discussed somewhat here: https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewt … p?id=8659) due to murderous griefing would no longer exist. The early Rift period did have locked in towns, so families probably did die out due to non-murderous griefing back then. But, many of those structures changed. Buildings can still get locked in, so griefers could destroy lineages with towns.

But if they don't have the tools of murder, AND towns didn't have buildings that can get locked or easily blocked via something like a stone wall, could griefers effectively destroy lineages? Successful towns haven't always had buildings after all. And you encouraged families to migrate if necessary when you went back to a boundless world.

You didn't provide evidence of griefers effectively destroying lineages in 2HOL in your example Jason, and even suggested that they could have survived as they migrated, and if you saw the same characters (not just the same people playing... I'm not sure what you were asserting when talking about seeing the same village-mates in other towns), then you did NOT destroy their lineage. No, you can't know your system is better with murder in it, as it stands currently, with respect to griefing unless you can know that griefers could have the same ability to destroy lineages without murder.

jasonrohrer wrote:

I felt bad about all this, but I had to experiment to see what was possible in a game without killing. It was a griefer's paradise.

You did NOT find enough evidence to conclude that you could destroy a lineage and prevent its future survival. You did NOT find it possible to destroy a lineage in a game without killing based on your experience, since you did not see that happen, since you talked about them migrating. Your finding of 'village-mates' in the other town, if you meant the same characters not the same human players, might even suggest that their lineages survived despite your efforts. You think that's a griefer's paradise in a game where players are expected to care for their offspring because they are your future (and scored on that basis)? No, it's not. It's small potatoes. A griefer's paradise is where it's easy to destroy lineages.

Perhaps annoying griefing like the kind you describe that you did Jason would drive more people off than murderous griefing. Maybe a game with murder in it is better than one without for that reason... I don't know. But, it's at least considering the benefit to lineages that could accrue if murder to exist. And would lineages really die out sooner if murder didn't exist? I kind of doubt it. All I know is that if murder didn't exist in low pop situations, a griefer might be extremely annoying and make civilization building difficult. But, the problem of losing one's Eve spawn wouldn't be present, since I think it would be difficult for a griefer to kill me via wild animals or making local food more difficult to get. And such griefing would require much more intelligence than the murderous tactics of many griefers. And griefers don't tend to be the brightest crayon in the box.

Really, the more I think about it, I think my previous position doesn't hold up. Ending murder in OHOL could make the game better. Then again, would people be too annoyed by griefing of the type you describe? And that I don't know.

Last edited by Spoonwood (2019-12-08 07:56:24)

Bremidon · 2019-12-08 13:28:20

Spoonwood wrote:

Bremidon wrote:
This could become a new griefing tactic: curse the most experienced players.
That wouldn't be a new griefing tactic. Griefers have done that before. I think I even recall an example of someone gloating about such griefing on the forums. But, I'd rather not give such old posts attention, because I don't think that giving griefers attention leads them to reconsider their griefing or to stop griefing. A less common griefing tactic, perhaps.

Not quite right. I agree that some have tried cursing others into not respawning nearby. This would go further. With only three curses, an experienced player is pretty much out of the game for a week (according to the idea I was responding to). It would not be that hard for griefers to make the game *literally* unplayable for an entire week.

Bowser · 2019-12-08 15:04:05

In almost every case I have seen, a single griefer will die as soon as they kill someone... unless they have the only weapon in town. If they do, then nothing matters.

I think it would be helpful if you could attack griefers to disarm them (drop their weapon, and be unable to pick it up) if you do not currently have an item and are shift+right clicking.

In no realistic scenario would a single person with a knife be able to kill a mob of 10 people just because they didn't have a knife on hand. Doubly true with bows.

Now I know this isn't the idea you are suggesting, and I'd rather have yours than no protection at all, but I don't know if it's enough. Besides that, there are other ways of griefing, and if you've 'used up' your murder then you can't really stop them. A common one I've seen is property fencing players (this is really dumb and needs to be stopped), but there are also walking bears into town (I don't understand why bear dens exist... they are the reason this is so common), or players running off with babies and dumping them in the wild (which can be prevented, but if mom has multiple babies she can't abandon the others to save the one).

Heck, in a recent life, there were three people killing everyone in town and my mother and I stopped them. If the one kill per life thing was active, we would have been helpless to stop them and they would have been successful, since they were attacking a different family and could have used a war to do it. (Spamming racism and murdering a black family; we were not so we took them by surprise)

Honestly I think the punishment for griefing is too light, and the ability to curse is too difficult. I've run into multiple griefers in one life very often, and many times I've seen cases where I am unable to curse because their name is too long, and saying "Curse you" with a griefer that runs rapidly is a great way to curse an innocent person with no way to undo it. In fact, I've been a victim of that at least once. More than once I've seen griefers mocking me in death (or in my death) telling me they'll never go to Donkey Town because no one ever curses them... sadly, they are correct in many ways. Many players don't know how, can't because of long names (i.e., are too young), or are, you know... already dead.

If we could deter griefing, I think it would be more useful than giving tools or restrictions that may inadvertently aid them. But I don't have a suggestion to make in that regard. I've been hit by people fishing for a curse by suiciding over and over as my baby, then coming back on a different account to kill off the family (was an Eve family, did nothing to gain their ire).

Just my two cents, I doubt it helps, but I've made the attempt all the same.

Bowser · 2019-12-08 15:08:15

Bremidon wrote:

Spoonwood wrote:
Bremidon wrote:
This could become a new griefing tactic: curse the most experienced players.
That wouldn't be a new griefing tactic. Griefers have done that before. I think I even recall an example of someone gloating about such griefing on the forums. But, I'd rather not give such old posts attention, because I don't think that giving griefers attention leads them to reconsider their griefing or to stop griefing. A less common griefing tactic, perhaps.
Not quite right. I agree that some have tried cursing others into not respawning nearby. This would go further. With only three curses, an experienced player is pretty much out of the game for a week (according to the idea I was responding to). It would not be that hard for griefers to make the game *literally* unplayable for an entire week.

This is indeed a disturbing thought. Identifying griefers is difficult sometimes... that said the only case I had where a griefer was trying to blame me for an action they did, they fooled absolutely no one, died from the bear they dragged into town, and were cursed by everyone. Said bears only killed one other person and we ended with two nice rugs.

Honestly I'd like for there to be a way to uncurse players when done on accident (surprisingly easy to do), or just prevent them from being your baby without using up a curse. No need to have the 100 tile radius thing, even, just prevent them from being born to you if they are suiciding on purpose or spamming sudden infant death. A way to curse players that murdered you that you are too young, or otherwise unable to curse, would be nice as well.

Last edited by Bowser (2019-12-08 15:08:48)

Spoonwood · 2019-12-08 19:23:32

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?

There's no reason to assume that a griefer has to get dispatched unless we know that the griefer would be destructive in terms of family survival if not dispatched. This was a mistake I made in my previous post, mostly because I was assuming trying to make a permanent town of sorts.

1. Suppose it were the case that 0 murders per life existed. No families would die out to murderous griefing then.

2. Suppose buildings couldn't get blocked off so easily OR that walls could easily get deconstructed by hand OR that buildings just weren't built for functional purposes as did happen for a long period of the game's history. In either of those cases people dying to starvation because of blocked off buildings (or city walls) doesn't seem like an issue.

3. Encourage more migration... especially if griefers were doing things which makes it difficult to advance a town.

That would seem to solve the issues with respect to griefers killing off lineages. How it would work in the context of bs2 and how players would react to it is NOT known, NOR do we have good enough information to know how players migrating due to griefing would be affected.

Last edited by Spoonwood (2019-12-08 19:28:26)

DestinyCall · 2019-12-08 20:10:22

If we couldn't directly kill each other, but we could curse each other to remove people from the rebirth pool, it would mean that we would occasionally have to deal with a malicious person griefing the town for a solid hour. But after a solid hour of being griefed by the same person, I imagine everyone who interacted with that person for that hour would have had ample opportunity to curse him. If multiple curses have a strong enough cumulative effect then that person should be prevented from rejoining a new village after they die. They won't be able to bother anyone else for a long time, because they bothered too many people for too long. Every time a griefer gets removed from the population, the amount of griefing that people will need to deal with in their next life goes down.

Over time, griefers will be rare and harshly punished without the need for murder.

If you still desire to allow murder ... make killing someone a group project. Instead of a knife, give us clubs that stun the victim for a short time. The stun time would be shorter than the attack cool-off to prevent stun-lock. A group of people could gang up on someone to beat 'em to death (by preventing them from eating until they starve), but a single player can't murder on their own.

Spoonwood · 2019-12-08 20:28:41

DestinyCall wrote:

If we couldn't directly kill each other, but we could curse each other to remove people from the rebirth pool, it would mean that we would occasionally have to deal with a malicious person griefing the town for a solid hour. But after a solid hour of being griefed by the same person, I imagine everyone who interacted with that person for that hour would have had ample opportunity to curse him. If multiple curses have a strong enough cumulative effect then that person should be prevented from rejoining a new village after they die. They won't be able to bother anyone else for a long time, because they bothered too many people for too long. Every time a griefer gets removed from the population, the amount of griefing that people will need to deal with in their next life goes down.
Over time, griefers will be rare and harshly punished without the need for murder.

It would reduce the amount of griefers who have played a few games, so I can see your point. Not sure how far it extends since sometimes griefers are on their first or second game, or have played for a bit and just started griefing, but I have seen griefer streamers before.

Also, there would still exist other means of killing people who don't know about them that I forgot about above. Mean pit bulls, and domestic boars (I'm assuming that vets can avoid those). But, mean pit bulls could get eliminated, and so could the deadly aspect of domestic boars, say by just going from boar to pig directly instead of having the intermediate step. And even if that didn't happen, veterans might still manage to flee town if those animals got created in time. And it wouldn't be like there would be some jerk hiding behing a tree with a bow and arrow who can shoot you out of nowhere because you're not using a tiny tree mod or using the "X-ray vision" feature of the Hetuw mod. It would be funny to see griefers try to kill with a bow and arrow, but know that they can't succeed, because of an experiment to see if removing murder from the game made it better.

And to speak clearly, Jason just isn't able to derive as much as he thought he could from the 2HOL experiment, so apparently no lineage died out to his efforts. He doesn't know that OHOL would be worse without murder in it. And it's complicated enough that we don't know either that it would be better without murder in it also. It would seem like an experiment in the true sense of the word.

Last edited by Spoonwood (2019-12-08 20:29:23)

Spoonwood · 2019-12-08 21:56:30

Imagine if murder mouth got left in the game, but murder got eliminated. Then a griefer who tried to kill someone would end up slower. Not only would it be hilarious to watch them making their own OHOL life more difficult, it would provide a clear warning about the intentions of the person, unlike now, where it's not so easy to determine if someone is a griefer or not when they engage in an attempt at killing.

One Hour One Life Forums

#51 2019-12-06 04:57:30

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#52 2019-12-06 05:10:38

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#53 2019-12-06 06:15:26

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#54 2019-12-06 13:03:51

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#55 2019-12-06 13:13:02

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#56 2019-12-06 15:03:26

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#57 2019-12-06 15:24:05

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#58 2019-12-06 15:30:32

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#59 2019-12-06 16:00:13

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#60 2019-12-06 18:26:28

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#61 2019-12-06 18:54:07

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#62 2019-12-06 20:21:06

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#63 2019-12-06 20:25:25

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#64 2019-12-06 20:58:59

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#65 2019-12-06 21:29:23

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#66 2019-12-08 04:04:47

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#67 2019-12-08 06:03:22

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#68 2019-12-08 07:45:49

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#69 2019-12-08 13:28:20

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#70 2019-12-08 15:04:05

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#71 2019-12-08 15:08:15

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#72 2019-12-08 19:23:32

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#73 2019-12-08 20:10:22

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#74 2019-12-08 20:28:41

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

#75 2019-12-08 21:56:30

Re: Idea: one kill per life?

Board footer