Objections To Ending Killing in OHOL?

Spoonwood · 2019-12-08 21:59:11

I'm assuming that griefing would still occur in the form of griefers trying to wreck towns (but doing that requires more intelligence than trying to murder via a bow and arrow). And that players migrate if griefers became too destructive to making a functioning town.

That said, I'm perhaps missing a lot when thinking about this.

Any objections to ending killing in OHOL? Why would you object were this to happen?

Legs · 2019-12-08 22:13:32

Even just from a gameplay perspective, killing is absolutely necessary for many of the emergent 'stories' that make this game special.

We have pads, doctors and revenge killings. Cursing too. That's already enough of a counter for murderers.

miskas · 2019-12-08 22:14:31

how would you be able to force things without violence?

Example: I grab a fire branch and light up all the kindling of town, then I feed all the firewood in fires. Then I grab 4 pies and go chopping all the trees near town. feed all fires again. How do you stop me?

PS: I kill all the sheeps as well.

Last edited by miskas (2019-12-08 22:19:34)

jcwilk · 2019-12-08 22:24:10

Didn't we just go over this the other day? Too lazy to find the post by Jason to quote since I'm sure you read it already but something along the lines of if you can't kill them then they'll just screw with all your stuff for the full hour. Actually I find it a lot easier to kill people without using weapons, there's no murdermouth or slowdown and no running out of range of fire.

Also, cursing isn't nearly as effective as people think it is. It's quite easy to keep showing up in the same town regardless of who's cursing you. Other villages are nearby, mothers run off out of range of the block and spawn you, and there's all the problematic stuff about mis-cursing and grief cursing.

And if (that's a big if) and when seeking out other villages for resources (ie trade) becomes a thing then killing would be really nice to still have to add tension to the situation, so it's not as simple as trading but it's incentivizing your trading partners to keep you alive as an asset rather than killing you and taking. Or, showing a strong enough show of force that they feel too intimidated to risk initiating combat.

Violence and threat of violence and civilization building are very, very much intertwined. It would definitely detract from the game's ability to model society if other people were automatically trusted to not kill you.

Toxolotl · 2019-12-08 22:24:28

My main objection would be griefer management. Like jason mentioned in the other thread a griefer can basically torture people their whole life and ruin a town with no way to stop them.

But is killing the only answer? Maybe not.

A way ive thought about a few times would be if someone built up enough curses they would poof out of existence. This could be abused, and its also highly unrealistic.

Perhaps you could immobilize someone for a short time with the lasso.

That being said removing killing from the game is a stretch for me. Killing has been apart of human society forever. Removing it completely would be too unnatural imo.

Personally i think more tools to associate griefers and manage them would be useful. Non griefers have weapons and curses to fight griefers. Griefers have weapons, curses, bears, boars, wolves, theft, destruction, confusion and misdirection.

Would be nice to have as many tools to counter griefers as they have to grief.

Bowser · 2019-12-08 22:32:26

We don't need to remove killing, we just need to make it so it's not so easy to do.

For instance, one person with a knife shouldn't be able to kill ten people without one, just because they hid all the knives. A mob of people would overwhelm that one person with a knife, disarm them, and stop them with relative ease. But in OHOL, you can only attack if you have a weapon, so... rip.

I think you should be able to attack a player unarmed for no damage, but being able to stun them and remove their weapon. Multiple players doing it would make this faster, but it would be such that a person with a weapon would win one vs one in almost ever situation, but against groups, fail every time. A bow would have an advantage here in that they'd kill at least someone (if you didn't have a medic ready to go), but they'd get knocked down just as easily.

Ideally, there would be an item you could give to players in this state that would prevent them from using any weapons or tools (only being able to use food items, maybe) to prevent further griefing, as well.

Unfortunately killing is a necessity on a number of levels, and if you couldn't kill players griefers would have a field day. That idiot pulling bears? He can now do it without any danger to his or herself. That player stealing from your supplies? No danger, easy to do. Not to mention a ton of mechanics in this game are based on being able to fight and kill other players.

I think that killing is too easy and that's the problem, but it has its place and it's necessary.

jcwilk · 2019-12-08 22:33:54

Toxolotl wrote:

My main objection would be griefer management. Like jason mentioned in the other thread a griefer can basically torture people their whole life and ruin a town with no way to stop them.
But is killing the only answer? Maybe not.
A way ive thought about a few times would be if someone built up enough curses they would poof out of existence. This could be abused, and its also highly unrealistic.
Perhaps you could immobilize someone for a short time with the lasso.
That being said removing killing from the game is a stretch for me. Killing has been apart of human society forever. Removing it completely would be too unnatural imo.
Personally i think more tools to associate griefers and manage them would be useful. Non griefers have weapons and curses to fight griefers. Griefers have weapons, curses, bears, boars, wolves, theft, destruction, confusion and misdirection.
Would be nice to have as many tools to counter griefers as they have to grief.

Yeah it feels like some kind of "stun weapon" is missing... Maybe a whip or the lasso or something, although I'm sure that would quickly become a griefer favorite too, stunning bakers and smiths and such

Legs · 2019-12-08 22:41:43

jcwilk wrote:

Yeah it feels like some kind of "stun weapon" is missing...

If you're ginger the snowball works in a pinch.

Bowser · 2019-12-08 22:44:09

jcwilk wrote:

Toxolotl wrote:
My main objection would be griefer management. Like jason mentioned in the other thread a griefer can basically torture people their whole life and ruin a town with no way to stop them.
But is killing the only answer? Maybe not.
A way ive thought about a few times would be if someone built up enough curses they would poof out of existence. This could be abused, and its also highly unrealistic.
Perhaps you could immobilize someone for a short time with the lasso.
That being said removing killing from the game is a stretch for me. Killing has been apart of human society forever. Removing it completely would be too unnatural imo.
Personally i think more tools to associate griefers and manage them would be useful. Non griefers have weapons and curses to fight griefers. Griefers have weapons, curses, bears, boars, wolves, theft, destruction, confusion and misdirection.
Would be nice to have as many tools to counter griefers as they have to grief.
Yeah it feels like some kind of "stun weapon" is missing... Maybe a whip or the lasso or something, although I'm sure that would quickly become a griefer favorite too, stunning bakers and smiths and such

If they attack someone in town for the lulz, they are probably going to get killed very quickly... probably by the baker who was using that knife to cut bread. Furthermore I'm of the opinion that you should be able to disarm griefers without needing a weapon, just that it should be much harder to do if alone than in a group of two or more.

Last edited by Bowser (2019-12-08 22:44:54)

Spoonwood · 2019-12-08 23:43:21

miskas wrote:

how would you be able to force things without violence?

In the short term, you don't. You give up on the idea of forcing others and work around it with persuasion or moving away from them. In the long term, you use cursing and try to get others to curse them.

miskas wrote:

Example: I grab a fire branch and light up all the kindling of town, then I feed all the firewood in fires. Then I grab 4 pies and go chopping all the trees near town. feed all fires again. How do you stop me? PS: I kill all the sheeps as well.

I don't. I pack up and get out of town (you can't destroy a cart, but you could grab it before me... but you're fire griefing, so I'll probably get to the cart first). Fire griefing isn't deadly, and wild food is probably out there.

Or I get more iron or milkweed to chop more kindling away from where you're fire griefing. Get another domestic mouflon.

I do try to persuade others to curse you, and that's it.

If I had the patience to do that, I'd still be alive even if annoyed. You kill me, and I'm dead, and can't do anything more for that lineage. So the advantage of not having murder would be greater possibility for regular players and less possibility for griefers.

Spoonwood · 2019-12-08 23:46:30

Legs wrote:

Even just from a gameplay perspective, killing is absolutely necessary for many of the emergent 'stories' that make this game special.
We have pads, doctors and revenge killings. Cursing too. That's already enough of a counter for murderers.

I have a feeling that 2HOL players would disagree with that, but I'm not one of them.

Also, I've spent plenty of lives now playing with low pop servers without any killing whatsoever. The times I've killed people on a low pop server or on bigserver2? Not that special. More memories from making engines, doing oil rigs, making pens, cooking food, recently enjoying a feast and having a harmless snowball fight [gasp], and building roads easy.

Spoonwood · 2019-12-09 00:00:44

jcwilk wrote:

Didn't we just go over this the other day? Too lazy to find the post by Jason to quote since I'm sure you read it already but something along the lines of if you can't kill them then they'll just screw with all your stuff for the full hour.

Yes, but Jason didn't consider advice that he once gave me and recently gave other people:

jasonrohrer wrote:

Eternal survival of one family will be possible through distant resource outposts and migration.

https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=8320

jcwilk wrote:

And if (that's a big if) and when seeking out other villages for resources (ie trade) becomes a thing then killing would be really nice to still have to add tension to the situation ...

Yawn. How boring. You're just talking about shortening lineages with shorter lives. Longer lives with more possibilities are more interesting than shorter lives cut short by a knife or arrow.

jcwilk wrote:

so it's not as simple as trading but it's incentivizing your trading partners to keep you alive as an asset rather than killing you and taking. Or, showing a strong enough show of force that they feel too intimidated to risk initiating combat.

Nonsense. Neither you or your family does not die in this game if they do not choose to fight. Starvation and getting killed by an animal or person make for the causes of death and that's it. If you had the courage to use your wits to avoid griefers instead of effectively joining in on their murderous game, you might just fare better. And seriously, it's pretty weak to engage in the same game of force that murderous griefers usually do. It takes more courage to live as a nomad or hermit or Jesus than to live like Caesar.

jcwilk wrote:

Violence and threat of violence and civilization building are very, very much intertwined.

You're not making sense at all. There have existed plenty of low population towns where such griefing wasn't present with plenty of civilization building. As often it does exist, murderous griefing hasn't always been a real threat in higher population context either. No one makes a diesel water pump or cooks of makes a newcomen pump because of the threat of violence.

jcwilk wrote:

It would definitely detract from the game's ability to model society if other people were automatically trusted to not kill you.

The game doesn't have an ability to model society and never did. It's model of gender is pure trash in terms of modeling society (I don't blame Jason here, I don't think there's a reasonable alternative). Appeals to the game modeling society thus are meaningless.

Spoonwood · 2019-12-09 00:03:58

Toxolotl wrote:

My main objection would be griefer management. Like jason mentioned in the other thread a griefer can basically torture people their whole life and ruin a town with no way to stop them.

So do NOT give them more attention by trying to managing them (unless it's something like cursing). Attention is mainly what they want anyway, isn't it?

Toxolotl wrote:

That being said removing killing from the game is a stretch for me. Killing has been apart of human society forever. Removing it completely would be too unnatural imo.

So what? You're already born unnaturally in this game anyways. The game is no model of human society and never will be. The cartoonish art of the characters also kind of works because the game requires absurdities which make it sooo unrealistic as a model of human society.

Spoonwood · 2019-12-09 00:18:34

Bowser wrote:

Unfortunately killing is a necessity on a number of levels, and if you couldn't kill players griefers would have a field day. That idiot pulling bears? He can now do it without any danger to his or herself.

I didn't mean to suggest that such dangers from wild animals end. Death from hungry grizzly bear is different in the causes of death than murdered if I recall my terms correctly.

Bowser wrote:

That player stealing from your supplies? No danger, easy to do.

It's fairly easy to do with murder in the game.

Bowser wrote:

Not to mention a ton of mechanics in this game are based on being able to fight and kill other players.

Huh? I don't think the coding of the game works that way.

Bowser wrote:

I think that killing is too easy and that's the problem, but it has its place and it's necessary.

I still fail to see how it's necessary.

jcwilk · 2019-12-09 00:45:57

Ugh... Why do I keep engaging with spoonwood, getting them to acknowledge nuance is like trying to run to bell town from donkey town. Curse my brain and its lack of ability to put the forums down and slowly walk away

Toxolotl · 2019-12-09 00:47:12

Spoonwood wrote:

So do NOT give them more attention by trying to managing them (unless it's something like cursing). Attention is mainly what they want anyway, isn't it?
So what? You're already born unnaturally in this game anyways. The game is no model of human society and never will be. The cartoonish art of the characters also kind of works because the game requires absurdities which make it sooo unrealistic as a model of human society.

I oppose griefers. I make it hell for them to do what they do. I make their lives unsatisfying and difficult. I highly doubt they view my interventions as rewarding, ive had griefers starve themselves and run away from town because i kept stopping them over and over.

Most griefers i run into are noobs and do very obvious and basic things. I run into more issues when a griefer has more experience and knows how to make things really difficult without ever being noticed. They steal bellows, break kilns, turn all the wheat into flour, hide all the weapons and pads, bring bears, wolves, and boars to town without anyone noticing.

People get confused and dont know who's doing it. All it takes is one false accusation and everyone wastes their curse tokens on an innocent person. Most griefing is not easily ignored. Most griefers dont want attention, they want to inflict pain and mayhem onto others.

The main reason i like this game is that it capitalizes on human nature. Sure its unrealistic but many of the elements of the game are tools in displaying human behavior. Killing and murder have been a part of human nature since the beginning of our species. I think removing or limiting those elements would take away a really fascinating part of the game. Even if it is one of the more annoying parts.

I do think there could be more tools available to aid players against griefers. Make griefing a more annoying and tedious thing to do. Someone mentioned bear traps a while back. This could be a good counter to bears. A reusable but hard to make trap that attracts bears and uses raw mutton as bait. Perhaps things like kilns could require elder removal permission. Perhaps breaking them makes a loud noise. I do think stuff like this would help more than simply removing killing.

Something like you cant kill the last 1-2 females in your bloodline makes more sense to me than no killing at all.

JasonY · 2019-12-09 00:58:17

I object

It would be easy to troll since nobody could do anything besides cursing, Which I view as almost pointless. I've cursed dozens of griefers and yet I still see them being born.

You wouldn't need any intelligence, Just openly steal and destroy everything. Basically you'd have an hour to undo as much progress as you can.

Killing is a deterrent for most griefing, If you are caught then you will have to escape an angry mob. Without it, the angry mob can only shout at you. The other day I was randomly stabbed by a ghost dude, medics healed me and other townspeople stabbed him within seconds.

If you have medics and enough supplies, you can prevent most death. But without it, The griefer can live the whole hour.

Spoonwood · 2019-12-09 01:39:57

jcwilk wrote:

Ugh... Why do I keep engaging with spoonwood, getting them to acknowledge nuance is like trying to run to bell town from donkey town. Curse my brain and its lack of ability to put the forums down and slowly walk away

If you have nuance, then go ahead and state it. I honestly don't think you've thought things through at all here, or you're just blowing smoke, because you enjoy griefing players other time and wouldn't want yourself to have one less tool to murder others.

Spoonwood · 2019-12-09 02:10:04

Toxolotl wrote:

Most griefing is not easily ignored.

Why is that though? Is it because you're trying to keep the town progressing and afloat, or is it because you're concerned about the survival of your family?

Toxolotl wrote:

Most griefers dont want attention, they want to inflict pain and mayhem onto others.

They do want to inflict pain and mayhem. But, I think they especially want to know that they have had that effect. In that respect, they want non-griefers attention in showing them how they have suffered due to their griefing.

Personally speaking I remember once getting born to an apocalypse maker (this was before the temperature overhaul). She told me as a child that it was her sacred mission and there was an endtower right in the middle of town. I've been against apocalypses in general (whoever does that is NOT playing for the sake of their offspring... migrations are one thing... no clothing and no resources other than what True Eves have *for everyone* is another), so I decided to try to set the town back as much I could. I destroyed the kiln, stole bellows, and other things. I intentionally died riding out of town on a horsecart. The most gratifying moments of that life? It wasn't lugging all the stuff out of town and hiding it somewhere. It was when I heard the guy who was trying to work a rebuilt kiln "this is the second set of bellow they stole."

Think griefers get a kick out of killing people? Sure, they like watching them die. But, I would think that they get even more of a kick out of seeing that a family no longer exists via the family tree with the last fertile females murdered by their own hands. And they probably even like it more when someone like me complains about it (unfortunately, there's no good way to talk about griefing without public discussions).

As another example, I would guess that whomever blocked off towns via newcomen towers in the early rift got the biggest kick when he or she saw the pictures of such happening in the early Rift. The actual blocking of the towns not as much of a kick.

As another example, after the temperature overhaul, frustrated at that boring change (the pre-temperature overhaul system was dynamic in terms of temperature), and frustrated that my old jungle town was now a hot hellhole, and more... I went around lighting many fires in one life (actually second and final life doing that in that town... the first life they killed me before I was a teenager I think). I made it a point to say as much I thought I could without getting killed "JASON WANTS MORE FIRE", because it's clear that he wanted more fire in the game overall (though not to that point admittedly). After evading people several times by running out of town, I eventually got a little overconfident and some young teen girl (or close to being a teen) knifed me slightly out of town (I didn't expect her to chase me so much). The most gratifying moment? When I said to her: "JASON WANTS MORE FIRE" and she jokingly responds "HE WANTS MORE BLOOD".

Still, those experiences pale in comparisons to dozens of experiences of building roads, making engines, getting an oil rig up, and so on. It's just more difficult to put into words, since there isn't dialogue or characters talking with each other.

Toxolotl wrote:

I do think there could be more tools available to aid players against griefers. Make griefing a more annoying and tedious thing to do. Someone mentioned bear traps a while back. This could be a good counter to bears. A reusable but hard to make trap that attracts bears and uses raw mutton as bait. Perhaps things like kilns could require elder removal permission. Perhaps breaking them makes a loud noise. I do think stuff like this would help more than simply removing killing.
Something like you cant kill the last 1-2 females in your bloodline makes more sense to me than no killing at all.

Most of those sound like interesting and promising ideas. I'm not so sure about the kiln one though, because destroying a kiln can be useful to floor underneath a newly built kiln in the same spot if making an indoor smithy.

pein · 2019-12-09 06:30:07

killing is necessary, probably we could have a debuff system where you just disable most of the actions of somebody for a while and doing it 2-3 times would kill them, that would be a fair solution
by disabling I mean cannot pick up certain items like weapons or other stuff and has most of his focus on eating

the whole chains and torture and prison stuff won't work cause nobody plays a game to wait inside it, and do nothing while others laugh on them
especially no way to ensure that he was the offender and others don't use that for abuse and griefing

there would be a third option, sectors and banishing
where we could have groups of tiles, counting as one and people could be banished out of it
now force fields aren't the best choice, maybe auto walls and upgraded defences, where people could lose the entrance and escorted out automatically if others don't want their company, multiple votes to cas out someone and they couldn't enter until they resolve a quest or something (dump resources on a specified tile) if the votes are cast to allow their redemption

such system could also allow territorial control and buffs, nerfs, other fun stuff

a skill-based duel is still something I think would be more fair and fun

Bowser · 2019-12-09 08:04:27

Spoonwood wrote:

Bowser wrote:
Unfortunately killing is a necessity on a number of levels, and if you couldn't kill players griefers would have a field day. That idiot pulling bears? He can now do it without any danger to his or herself.
I didn't mean to suggest that such dangers from wild animals end. Death from hungry grizzly bear is different in the causes of death than murdered if I recall my terms correctly.

Um... what? You do realize that players can just knock on the door of every bear cave until the bears come out, then lure them to town, right? That a griefer can do this with every bear cave for kilometers around and if you can't kill them, there's nothing you can do but continually fight off bears. And if you don't have the arrows and bow to stop them, you are going to get overwhelmed trying to lure them out of town.

This is a very common griefing tactic that is easily dealt with by killing the player doing it. Remove that, and he can do it over and over and over until he dies, eating your food to keep himself alive and you can't do anything about it.

Spoonwood wrote:

Bowser wrote:
That player stealing from your supplies? No danger, easy to do.
It's fairly easy to do with murder in the game.

Uh, no, it's not. I once saw a guy steal rubber in a cart from bell town and get chased down by three players with knives because he was a thief. He died, of course, and he had it coming. In your world, this guy could steal it and laugh and mock and troll the entire town with them helpless to do anything but curse them in vain, if they haven't already used up their tokens to begin with because griefing would be everywhere if there was no consequence to doing it (being killed).

Spoonwood wrote:

Bowser wrote:
Not to mention a ton of mechanics in this game are based on being able to fight and kill other players.
Huh? I don't think the coding of the game works that way.

The apocalypse for instance, as well as warring. There is killing in this game that isn't just blatant griefing that leads to interesting stories and I'd hate to see it go, though to be fair these are not things I feel strongly about.

You may argue that the apocalypse is not necessary and maybe that's true. But there is benefit in wiping a map, especially if the inhabitants are not willing to do what is needed to save it. Sometimes civilization needs to be reset. I wouldn't be heartbroken if it was removed, mind you, but still.

Spoonwood wrote:

Bowser wrote:
I think that killing is too easy and that's the problem, but it has its place and it's necessary.
I still fail to see how it's necessary.

Every single argument you've made basically ends up with "abandon your town and let the griefer ruin it without any punishment because killing is 'bad'".

So basically every single time a griefer finds your town, you have to leave, hope they don't follow you and hope your family survives the journey... over and over and over, because killing is 'bad'. I'm sorry but I don't buy this at all. I do not think you are thinking through the consequences of what removing the ability to kill would do in this game, and dramatically underplaying the consequences.

I think that we need non-violent ways to counter griefers but killing absolutely must stay in the game if we are going to play a game where griefers do not control (and ruin) the game for everyone. There simply is no way around this.

I am guessing that the reason you hate killing is because it's the primary reason why lineages die. I sympathize with this. However, the real reason killing is successful is because people are never prepared. Someone gets stabbed and you don't have people ready to stop it, you don't have medical supplies on hand and the world is more likely to end than finding someone who knows how to heat a knife to treat an arrow wound.

Any time someone died because there are no pads available, it makes me want to scream. No one takes threats seriously, and then they die. Murder is so easy to counter but families die because they don't take the threat seriously. What we need are better tools to counter griefers, not to take away the only tool we have to stop them.

Last edited by Bowser (2019-12-09 08:08:56)

Spoonwood · 2019-12-09 10:40:01

Bowser wrote:

You do realize that players can just knock on the door of every bear cave until the bears come out, then lure them to town, right?

Yes, I do. Bears aren't deadly if you stand on an object. Bear caves can only generate one bear. And the bears can get shot dead with three arrows. They also stop moving for a moment. Yes, they do kill new players. But, I don't think they are quite the problem, at least not any longer, that you think they are.

Bowser wrote:

This is a very common griefing tactic that is easily dealt with by killing the player doing it.

Huh? The bears probably got released before you caught the player using that tactic. Killing the bear griefer doesn't solve the problem. You need to kill the bears, or feed it raw mutton to make it harmless (if that currently works, which I don't know if it does these days). It's not too implausible that even ignoring the griefer and just killing the bears would be the better strategy if you had to pick between the two under the current system.

Bowser wrote:

Uh, no, it's not. I once saw a guy steal rubber in a cart from bell town and get chased down by three players with knives because he was a thief. He died, of course, and he had it coming.

He got chased down, because the three players insisted, rightly or wrongly, that such rubber stay in their town, they joined together, AND because he was on foot. Phrases like "he had it coming" are not causal explanations. It seems to me that you inadvertently supported the thesis that griefers are often or usually stupid. I mean you said he used a cart, implying that he was on foot in an advanced town context.

Bowser wrote:

In your world, this guy could steal it and laugh and mock and troll the entire town with them helpless to do anything but curse them in vain, if they haven't already used up their tokens to begin with because griefing would be everywhere if there was no consequence to doing it (being killed).

I watched Wondible stream some 2HOL last week. In 2HOL there is no murder. There were no signs of griefing being everywhere in what I saw. And you simply don't know how things would work out in thorough enough detail if murder didn't exist in OHOL.

Bowser wrote:

I'm sorry but I don't buy this at all. I do not think you are thinking through the consequences of what removing the ability to kill would do in this game, and dramatically underplaying the consequences.

Again, you don't know the consequences. I don't know the consequences yes, but you are kidding yourself and everyone else is who has believed that they know all of the relevant consequences. I can't think through all the consequences and neither can you, nor can Jason or anyone else. The consequences would have to get tested, because the game is more complex than a priori speculation makes possible to discern.

Bowser wrote:

I think that we need non-violent ways to counter griefers but killing absolutely must stay in the game if we are going to play a game where griefers do not control (and ruin) the game for everyone.

You've basically expressed the common view that town survival matters. Many players have thought that towns matter more than lineages. But, Jason does NOT put the emphasis on town building. It's a game of parenting first, and a game of civilization building second, at least when one person of a family has a child. The recently added popup screen with respect to new players makes this even clearer than before. It even appears in the context of low population servers as I've now experienced, where everyone who plays there isn't doing there for the sake of a lineage, because unless you're doing something similar to what the Eve Boots crew did, your lineage is very soon dead due to lack of players (and low pop players know this and don't care or care very little in the end or just suck it up).

Griefers may have serious ability to disrupt towns if murder did not exist. Their ability to do so may increase. But, since parenting overrides civilization building in terms of concern, the question concerns whether or not lineages can survive more effectively if murder did not exist. And it's not so clear, in part because of the attitude you express, a common one that I have shared before, that migrating is just too much of a pain in the ass to serious consider as a good strategy.

Bowser wrote:

What we need are better tools to counter griefers, not to take away the only tool we have to stop them.

Some problems are better avoided from the start than fixed when they come up. It's often better to prevent the existence of a problem than to try to deal with it expecting it to happen. It can be better to have a good organized smithy from the start even if takes longer to setup, than to rush through things and have a disorganized smithy that you need to clean up later. If murder didn't exist, the problem of murderous griefing would be avoided. The problem of murderous griefing would be prevented from happening, instead of needing someone to fix it.

Bowser wrote:

The apocalypse for instance, as well as warring.

You're right there, I forgot about those. But those are awful mechanics anyways. There's never any reason to do an apocalypse if you're playing for the sake of your lineage. None at all. And wars are completely suspect, as it has never gotten proven that war actually resulted in a better condition for some lineage, with a racked up body count of so-called 'wars' suggesting that such 'wars' will continue to work against family survival into the future.

Boswer wrote:

But there is benefit in wiping a map, especially if the inhabitants are not willing to do what is needed to save it.

Jason can and has done wipes. There is no relevant benefit in terms of lineages lasting longer via an apocalypse. The apocalypse makes everyone naked and resets the map to the condition as if no players had done anything on the map. There is no benefit to survival. There is no benefit to civilization building, since it destroys all civilization building completely by magic. It's a glaring inconsistency in the design of the game for it to even exist, as it's completely incompatible with the genetic score system that Jason implemented in the game. It's completely incompatible with people playing for their lineages. All apocalypse makers on bigserver2 are not playing in the spirit of the game. They are not trying to be good parents or make parenting easier for others. They are not trying to civilization build. They are trying to destroy civilization... all of them, including their own. And even apocalypse makers on low population servers aren't doing such for reasons of civilization building. It's a gaffe at best. Really, it's not implausible to suggest that Jason doesn't even care that much about making a game of 'parenting and civilization building', because the apocalypse possibility, and it staying in the game after it's happened. War could help build some civilization in principle, even though in practice I don't know of any serious evidence that it works out that way. The apocalypse though is different. It's really not conceivable that it works with the core concepts of the game, and anyone who tries to argue that it does I suspect will end up in knots of twisted logic that they will never have a clue as to how to untangle.

DarkDrak · 2019-12-09 13:41:11

I object.
If there's someone who's fine with just packing up and leaving town every time there's a greifer in it, then they have a pretty demn strong dedication to Gandhi's teachings. I, for one, can't do that. If someone makes a point to exist for the sole purpose of annoying others, they gotta be taught the hard way that they cant do that.
I wouldnt like to play a game where every time someone decides to screw a town over, the other 10-15 people in it had no choise other than packing up and leaving or sitting in a corner and crying. I wouldn't like to play a game where someone can just adze the floor i make every time i lay it down and i could do nothing about it.

Also imo playing only for the sake of your own lineage is a questionable decision. Sure, it's nice to see the family you made prosper, but if no new lineage can be born because yours lasts forever... that'd be annoying for a lot of other folks, wouldnt it?

Also2, 2HOL is a pretty irrelevant example of working no-killing meccanics. If you greif there, you get a ban and it's over for good. With that kind of system, ofc there's no need for killings or curses.

sigmen4020 · 2019-12-09 13:54:14

Legs wrote:

jcwilk wrote:
Yeah it feels like some kind of "stun weapon" is missing...
If you're ginger the snowball works in a pinch.

Snowballs no longer stun or disarm.

Last edited by sigmen4020 (2019-12-09 13:54:25)

sigmen4020 · 2019-12-09 13:56:49

DarkDrak wrote:

Also2, 2HOL is a pretty irrelevant example of working no-killing meccanics. If you greif there, you get a ban and it's over for good. With that kind of system, ofc there's no need for killings or curses.

Has something changed with 2HOL? Last time I played it I was killed by a griefer with a regular knife.

Last edited by sigmen4020 (2019-12-09 14:02:00)

One Hour One Life Forums

#1 2019-12-08 21:59:11

Objections To Ending Killing in OHOL?

#2 2019-12-08 22:13:32

Re: Objections To Ending Killing in OHOL?

#3 2019-12-08 22:14:31

Re: Objections To Ending Killing in OHOL?

#4 2019-12-08 22:24:10

Re: Objections To Ending Killing in OHOL?

#5 2019-12-08 22:24:28

Re: Objections To Ending Killing in OHOL?

#6 2019-12-08 22:32:26

Re: Objections To Ending Killing in OHOL?

#7 2019-12-08 22:33:54

Re: Objections To Ending Killing in OHOL?

#8 2019-12-08 22:41:43

Re: Objections To Ending Killing in OHOL?

#9 2019-12-08 22:44:09

Re: Objections To Ending Killing in OHOL?

#10 2019-12-08 23:43:21

Re: Objections To Ending Killing in OHOL?

#11 2019-12-08 23:46:30

Re: Objections To Ending Killing in OHOL?

#12 2019-12-09 00:00:44

Re: Objections To Ending Killing in OHOL?

#13 2019-12-09 00:03:58

Re: Objections To Ending Killing in OHOL?

#14 2019-12-09 00:18:34

Re: Objections To Ending Killing in OHOL?

#15 2019-12-09 00:45:57

Re: Objections To Ending Killing in OHOL?

#16 2019-12-09 00:47:12

Re: Objections To Ending Killing in OHOL?

#17 2019-12-09 00:58:17

Re: Objections To Ending Killing in OHOL?

#18 2019-12-09 01:39:57

Re: Objections To Ending Killing in OHOL?

#19 2019-12-09 02:10:04

Re: Objections To Ending Killing in OHOL?

#20 2019-12-09 06:30:07

Re: Objections To Ending Killing in OHOL?

#21 2019-12-09 08:04:27

Re: Objections To Ending Killing in OHOL?

#22 2019-12-09 10:40:01

Re: Objections To Ending Killing in OHOL?

#23 2019-12-09 13:41:11

Re: Objections To Ending Killing in OHOL?

#24 2019-12-09 13:54:14

Re: Objections To Ending Killing in OHOL?

#25 2019-12-09 13:56:49

Re: Objections To Ending Killing in OHOL?

Board footer