a multiplayer game of parenting and civilization building
You are not logged in.
Just bring back solo killing with a smarter foundation, i know this whole posse system was a big time sink but its been going nowhere for 2 whole months and people want REAL change that doesn't involve murdering eachother.
This is really getting out of hand
Glad killing could be taken out of the game, it was a pointless feature to begin with, no more griefers yay!
JonySky lol, frame by frame analysis
true
there is no transition from peace to violence
and you can prepare all your life to defeat attackers who may or may not come
it's just dumb to guard a place for 60 minutes, you need to eat, build and play the gamethere is no notification that someone wants to kill you or any reasoning why they want that
there could be some sort of invitation to a duel, then both players are entering an arena and one comes out.
you said jason, we need kills to punish people who destroy stuff.
but we got a reason there, a target, a proof may be
the biggest problem with duel is that I you don't do it every life, you become rusty, panic, drop the weapon, you are too focused on the job, while the griefers got no care in the world, they got muscle memory and they are the aggressorit's a game, it's supposed to be fun, and somewhat equal, honourable
inside a city people should invite others for a duel or they shouldn't be able to use posse to do multiple kills
do you think that monkey would upload a video where he is killed against a decent opponent with equal chances?
Reason for that being the posse system, it lowered the amount of murders happening so as a result people started expecting them less often.
Think of it this way. You are born in a temple at the top of a mountain, the people here have only ever known the day to day living with no violence whatsoever for years upon years. Then all of a sudden a small army of men attack the temple, do you think the people there will know to fight back, or to even know what to do at all?
Griefers will always be more organized then the overall player-base because they have A REASON TO BE.
All restricting killing does is make it so that when the griefers inevitably are able to do so the unorganized masses will have no chance against them.
How often do you see a posse of 3 being made to kill someone? For me, never, that being said how on earth do you think 5 people could do just as much?
You might as well remove the system all together at this rate its gonna be a dead mechanic anyways. At-least then the people that only suffer because of it will have some reprieve.
If 99 players say something is wrong and 1 dev says its right, is it right? Griefers benefited from the posse system YOU made, griefers benefited from the scrap mechanic YOU implemented, and griefers benefited from war-swords YOU put into the game when noone asked.
Forget Bobo your the biggest griefer in your own game and you dont know it.
Think of a game like Rust, it is a game designed to be unfair, using philosophy like "might makes right". At any point everything you have ever built, farmed, or stolen can be destroyed and stolen back and thats just the name of the game.
My point is you dont see players going on Rust forums being like "so and so destroyed my base and took 30 hours worth of items i got" because its not the players fault for raiding that persons base, its the fault of the game for allowing players to do so.
You want people to stop griefing in this game? Stop the exploits that let them do it in the first place.
I mean at-least in solo killing days people were conditioned to always expect a lone stabber, that trained new players to carry knifes and make healing items. Now everyone's gotten so comfortable with the drop of killings that neither new players or old are prepared by the time it happens.
The posse system is more to blame then anything here, the fact the majority of the player-base cant successfully defend themselves from a minority of players is pathetic.
In a town population of 20+ it amazes me that while being so outnumbered the griefer party of 3 can STILL kill a entire town against them. Posse system basically gave them invincibility while making our towns fish in a barrel.
How about instead of that, we make it so every 7 days you need to "renew" the curse you made on someone.
If what they did wasn't memorable after 7 days you can just let the time limit run out and they will be able to spawn near you again. But if not you have the potential to renew their curse 4 separate times over 30 days.
In short alot of people dont think when they curse, a system like this would help that by asking them "are you sure what this person did is bad enough to be cursed for another week?"
In Decemebr 2018 Jason shot down the idea of blessing because he would NEVER add anything remotly magical to the game and that curses and the abillity to fucking respawn were some hard exceptions he had to make.
And he never added magical systems since
Oh wait...
One thing ill say. Real trust? Is something built over years upon years, not one hour, the kind of trust that creates leaders, who make police, which perform security, for your family that you trust no matter what.
Jason understands this, thats why he made the genetic fitness score, so people would ARTIFICIALLY care about their children in place of a REAL sense of caring, because that would be impossible.
The same way nobody here REALLY trusts each-other in-game, we need a ARTIFICIAL system that can dictate who we can trust. If not, theres no way any kind of social structure can be formed,a.k.a the whole point of the game...
Next up baby in a backpack
What if you use a flint chip on a backpack to create a baby backpack to have lil hole for bb feet to stick out?
I like this idea, the cream of the crop rises to the top, respected members of the community can be known both in-game and out of game. This would allow for so many cool interactions between players, and make property fences more useful overall. If im crumpaloo and i see Tipy in game, we can both help each other support the village as vets in whatever we do as we do it together.
And while i know people are gonna say "why not just twin then?" to that i say have you ever seen a friend you play games with in a random lobby, and its super cool because even though the chances of you meeting are staggering you match none the less? That kind of feeling is one of the reasons i play games, and i hope everyone else does too. Cause in the end, a community built around a game is like one big dysfunctional family.
Crumpaloo wrote:testo wrote:Whatever we think about the game is irrelevant.
This is not our game, this is not your game and obviously, this is not my game. But it is someones game.
I mean its a game being sold to us as a product, and if people think the products not worth it people will stop buying it with money, money being the main reason this game can continue development it would be fair to assume that player opinion of said game does matter and thus have a say on certain matters. After all we are the ones who opened our pocketbooks expecting a good product, is it not right that we should expect such and intern ask for improvements?
Jason already stated that he sold enough copies of the game. He is working on it just for fun in my opinion. The moment he stops getting enough revenue he can shut it down and move on to another project. He doesn´t even need to shut it down. You bought a product and you got your product: access to his servers. The game and code are completely free.
I mean if he wants to drop the game i wouldn't blame him but i think until then we as players do have a effect on how the game evolves and gets developed. After all, why bother continuing development on a game in a direction everyone that plays it hates and if to create disinterest in the game to start on something new, just outright end it there, plenty of people willing to pick up the slack on THOL.
Actually I've see you around playing and I'm on the discord chat server you actually are one of the worse I'm glad you got ban and I'm not surprised that you are autistic you act like a total retard I'm glad that i don't see you in the game anymore and now the discord chat I've heard alot of people dislike you and i get why now.. you deserve to die from corona honestly
Geez, you make a brand new account on the forums and your first post is this? Give the guy some slack, insulting him and hoping he dies doesnt exactly put you in any better light then what hes in. Also this forum post died like half a week ago why bring it back up?
Melea wrote:Or...deal with this like every other multiplayer game, and step in to deal with the tiny minority of players who are solely set on ruining the play experience for the majority.
I found it a bit strange to see Crumpaloo quoting me, then saying "in short" with a different conclusion then I had reached. I had even made the title of the thread "Longstanding Problem: No Bans for Serially Destructive Players". Nor did Crumpaloo include a link:
No i took the observation you made which to paraphrase was that no matter how much the game is restricted to combat griefers, it never gets rid of them completely in reference to Bobo which i totally agree with. The part i dont agree with are handing out bans to stop griefing, if your game is being exploited by one griefer, its being exploited by the rest and banning one of them doesn't fix that. Banning all of them is impossible because there isnt a fixed number of them. They cycle in and out of the game on a daily basis. You would be playing ban wack-a-mole till kingdom come and the same mechanics that were being exploited would continue to get exploited by new and different griefers.
Whatever we think about the game is irrelevant.
This is not our game, this is not your game and obviously, this is not my game. But it is someones game.
I mean its a game being sold to us as a product, and if people think the products not worth it people will stop buying it with money, money being the main reason this game can continue development it would be fair to assume that player opinion of said game does matter and thus have a say on certain matters. After all we are the ones who opened our pocketbooks expecting a good product, is it not right that we should expect such and intern ask for improvements?
Crumpaloo wrote:Instead of inadvertently punishing the general player-base for something a small minority of players do, expand the players ability to deal with the situation themselves. Like i said before, game design dictates player behavior, if you give us the right tools, well use them accordingly but so far thats not been the case, otherwise this wouldn't be getting brought up so much...
Or...deal with this like every other multiplayer game, and step in to deal with the tiny minority of players who are solely set on ruining the play experience for the majority. Curses, donkey town...those are ways to try and enable the majority playerbase to deal with griefers. But it's a temp fix at best, and not completely effective. And various changes to make it harder to grief can make it harder to play as well, and make for much less intuitive gameplay.
Other multiplayer games have no problem with getting rid of the small handful of truly toxic players (permaban, permanently moved to a different server, etc) to keep game quality and enjoyment high for the majority of their players.
OHOL could implement something like...check out all the players that have ever been sent to donkey town. Take say the 5-10% of those who have been in DT the most/longest compared to their total played time and make it so they can't join BS2. Ever. They can play any other server, and perhaps they autoconnect to a new DT-primary server when logging on so they can all play together easily. But obviously their playstyle is continuously not welcome in the newb/default server, so why keep letting them be there? Drama? You'll only be segregating the worst of the worst, so there'd still be plenty of drama to go around. But perhaps it would cut down on the more concentrated, egregious examples of griefing.
There are plenty of ways to grief and not get cursed for it. In-fact the smart ones are the least likely people to be in DT then any other player because they understand what people curse for, where as your average player might do something on accident and get cursed for it because of a miscommunication. Those are the people to get sent to DT, all you do by perma banning people for going into DT is encourage more subtle and harder to detect forms of said griefing. Which doesn't necessarily mean they will have less of a negative impact on the overall playerbase.
Crumpaloo wrote:As for maturity theres plenty of old and experienced players who have played the game long enough to know what works in-game and what doesn't.
This won't be the case when working with the current polling system, unless you factor in play-time.
Don't all players need to decide what is best for the game?
Isn't new player experience best described by... new players?DrRoy wrote:The decicion how to handle that issue should be in the hands of the developers.
This will obviously be the case, we have only 1 cook who makes this game.
The developer still asks the questions, and still has the final say.My question is, in what way would you ask the poll-questions for this to be useful? (examples?)
I think the same way old players should have a louder voice is the same reason people that play games competitively should be heard, they know more then anyone how the game operates. Ask a new player about how to fix eve's being spawn blocked by the males of dead towns preventing race restricted resources from being accessed and they will have no clue what your talking about.
As for new player experiences, the vets can get a pretty good idea. Lot of babies being abandoned as a result of too many babies being born into one family instead of being spread over multiple ones. This makes new players frustrated because they cant even live long enough to do things on their own much less learn how the game works.
I mean if you are looking for peoples opinions just look at any given post of the forums currently, you dont need a poll to tell people wanna see positive change.
That being said i do think players should have a say in what needs to be addressed first, after all it is them playing the game the most, if something urgent needs fixing you can bet they will be the first ones to find out.
Im not so sure about removing though, some mechanics in place are meant to serve a certain purpose but just dont do it well. For that they shouldn't be scrapped entirely, but edited upon and revised so they can perform their function. Although id never shy away from saying sometimes its best to take a step back and go at a problem from a different angle.
As for maturity theres plenty of old and experienced players who have played the game long enough to know what works in-game and what doesn't. Those are the main people you wanna listen to for feedback as they will be one of the first people to realize somethings not working as intended.
Player freedom is universally linked, so any changes made affecting player freedom will affect us all. This is supported and summed up in a response Jason made not long ago:
"It's either hard to kill people, or easy to kill people.
You want it to be hard for griefers to kill people, but easy for good people to kill people.
You can't have it both ways"
HOWEVER, when it comes to restricting player freedom in favor of security from griefers, the only people you are gonna be hurting are the general player-base themselves. Griefers exploit and overcome, and as a result changes meant to make the experience for the general player-base better by "making it harder to grief" ironically only serve to hamper said experience and in some cases even benefit the griefers themselves, a good example being the posse system. It made players completely defenseless to griefers, while being claimed as a mechanic to do the opposite.
This video proves just as much: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLXAGDrCwKk
As well as this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93Akl5ebdBs
Quote from Spoon-wood about the situation:
"The progression of Bobo's videos show exactly why the concept of just trying to progressively change the game to deal with destructive players doesn't work. Instead of the destructive players stopping their behavior, they can and do become smarter over time, and find even more destructive ways to act destructively. "
In short, there will always be a loophole for griefers to exploit, so corralling player-base in a tight barb wire fence while the ones its meant for are already on the other side of it just seems counter-intuitive and wrong.
Instead of inadvertently punishing the general player-base for something a small minority of players do, expand the players ability to deal with the situation themselves. Like i said before, game design dictates player behavior, if you give us the right tools, well use them accordingly but so far thats not been the case, otherwise this wouldn't be getting brought up so much...
Yes, ever since they came out they’ve been tested and always fail. Most often if you try to pass it down, it’s very hit or miss that you pass it down to someone reliable, who will even use it to help the town. Long-term reliability? Absolutely impossible. Griefers are and always have been a growing factor. What’s also very likely to happen is that you’ll pass it down to some mum who decided that this is the “family home, yay!” and voila, your taco station is now the property of basically everyone!
Don’t think just because you do it, it will work this time, because I’d say that’s a form of arrogance. Listen to the people that know how it works, and build on that.
Yeah, only way i could see this being done is via 3rd party apps like discord, and somehow coordinating with other experienced players that you want someone at x time to hold the property fence.
Eve Kirk had 3 bb:
http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/serve … id=6168618
Eve Mary had 4 bb:
http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/serve … id=6170468
Eve Bieber had 5 bb:
http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/serve … id=6170808
This one had 7 bb, which is a lot, but most of them died young:
http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/serve … id=6169243
Can you find an example of another Eve who was completely overwhelmed, and I'll check the logs and see what's going on. Please email to me:
jasonrohrer AT fastmail DOT fm
Heres a life where my town was in a famine, and while escaping to find food i had a total of 33 babies! All of whom starved to death because i could not afford to feed them. From a genetic fitness perspective, i would of been better off letting myself starve like everyone else, at-least then the only bad score id get would be from my own.
http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/serve … id=6154669
I agree crump, solo killing wasn't that bad compared to what we have now. It was a lot easier to take out griefers and you could be killed easily yes BUT that was still better than some magical killing group and voodoo 'weaklings'. What about the babies who are born and abandoned? Or ppl that have no choice but to live less than twenty minutes? Complete flubbery.
Edit: multiple ppl including myself have asked for non lethal measures but you should know that they are always ignored Destiny, just like most suggestions here.
In general i just wanna see player freedom expanded, not contracted, and there have been alot of examples of said player freedom being limited:
. Race Restricted Biomes
. Restricted Killing System
. Restricted Water and Iron
. Restricted Food Values
. Restricted Homelands
. Restricted Tool Slots
Alot of things becoming restricted but not alot of increase in freedom as to what we as players can do, its like were cows being corralled in a shrinking barb wire fence, and every-time we try to get past the fence to greener pastures we get cut on it and begrudgingly trod on back to the middle.
It's either hard to kill people, or easy to kill people.
You want it to be hard for griefers to kill people, but easy for good people to kill people.
You can't have it both ways.
Why not just give us a middle ground?
Going back and forth between extremes like solo killing and the posse system doesn't seem to be working, so why not just have solo killing with restrictions? That way its more accessible to those who want to stop griefers, while still having some limitations to prevent killing sprees? Gives medics something to do, might even bring back a defunct sort of law enforcement to walk around the town looking for people trying to randomly stab. This game also needs some kind of non-lethal way of stopping someone, after-all why stab someone who could be innocent when you could just incapacitate them and talk it through?
I am no fan of the current posse system, but keep in mind that bringing back solo killing would be great for griefers. We would have a murder extravaganza, as everyone "explored the new content". It would be like the Purge, but with more gooseberry bushes.
Might be kind of funny to watch, but I wouldn't want to try doing anything useful until everyone got done murdering each other no reason.
Might as well make every player invincible to being killed at this rate, its use as a game mechanic is becoming less valued by the day, with the 10 step posse system griefers can fuck up your town unimpeded. At-least in solo killing days you could stop people in they're tracks as soon as they started griefing, now a days you need to chase someone in the wilderness 500 tiles before they starve to death just to get your stuff back...