One Hour One Life Forums

I asked this on Discord.  Someone told me that people were *begging* Jason to remove the bowl on berry thing because it was being used for griefing.  Strip the berries fast, throw em on a cart, and then go hide them away from town.  Watch mass starvation.

I don't know if this is true (before my time), but it sounds plausible.

Yeah Spoon.  You did.

That's a strawman argument: either we have rampant SIDS or mass murderers.  It's not even as if anyone is taking SIDS away.  Making it cost more, especially if it's a ramping cost, does not take away the freedom of choice.  It's out of balance right now, and the picture I put up in the beginning shows that fairly well.

I am talking about players who are just bailing on suboptimal starts and you talking about chaining Eves.  Let's talk about the first one.  Chaining Eves is an interesting topic that does not belong here.

In other words: the entire reason the game developer developed the game.  Nobody here is saying you have to like it, but why try to tell us that we are all wrong and that the developer is wrong, and that only a different game would make you happy? 

We are not talking about Eve chaining here.  Perhaps there is a way to make that work like you want, and maybe not.  Whichever is the case, this is not really the right spot to debate it. 

I'm pretty sure we all have a pretty good grasp of why people are suiciding.

I refer you to my post where I described how mass SIDs actually does impact other players, even if the score is not directly affected.  Also, at least from my perspective, I'm not calling for punishment.  I am calling for a cost that makes suiciding a more balanced decision.  Right now, it's not balanced at all.

*raises eyebrow*

I hope that they will speak up and present arguments that are persuasive.

I don't agree with your assessment.  "Rampant hostility" sounds either like a rhetorical flair bordering on hyperbole or like a great band name.  People disagreeing with you or looking for a solution to stop the mass suiciding are not hostile to you.  They are just people who disagree with you.

When babies are born to a mom, they generally have to drop what they are doing, start taking care of the kid, deal with the bones somehow, and so on.  In a game where you only have 60 minutes tops, even losing 30 seconds or a minute is pretty bad.  12 SIDS deaths, even assuming a fairly quick 30 second penalty, is 6 minutes -- that's 10% of total playing time -- committed towards SIDS players.

That lost time can mean the difference between life and death, especially in an Eve camp or a tricky wilderness spot.

Additionally, those SIDS babies are potentially running down the baby clock for that mom, essentially dooming her line to die out.

Also, see my point about the self-enforcing nature of the problem.  People know that they are going to get lots of SID babies as an Eve or Eve-daughter, so why even try.  This increases the pressure on players to SID out of all less-than-perfect starts.

So yeah, the full SIDS death might not directly influence the mom's score, but it certainly indirectly influences it. 

The game is also supposed to be about coming to grips with whatever life gets thrown your way.  The present implementation of "die" (and the way the gene scores are calculated for the "starve" babies) gives all the advantages to the baby player and shares the cost with the mother and related players.

Last thing: I'm not advocating for removing "die" altogether.  I am saying that 24 lives is way...way...WAY too many lives and that the gene score should more properly penalize overuse of the "die" command.

So does the bear.

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.

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

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

For your consideration: another idea. 

Just use a regression to 30 effect.  After every played game, take the difference from the current score and 30 (so let's say you have a score of 70; the difference is 40) and regress by 10%.  So in the example given, before anything else happens, the score regresses to 66 (70 - (40 * 10%) )  Then add the scores as normal, whatever that ends up being.

The effect is that older lives matter, but they matter less and less as you play.  The amount of the effect can be adjusted by simply adjusting that 10%.  Use 5% to keep older lives relevant for more time or use 20% to make older lives contribute less.

Perhaps "/die" could use a slightly adjusted percent.  So you lost 10% normally, but only 5% if you use /die.  Obviously this needs some fine-tuning to find the right balance between giving people born into hopeless situations a break, but not encouraging its use too much.

Another advantage is that this is practically the definition of simple, both to understand and to implement. 

Finally, this introduces a theoretical cap on how high the scores can go, but in a more natural way.  At some point, the regression is going to take away as many points as any life can theoretically give you.  This alone might not be enough to prevent too high of scores (I think some weight should be given to how long you were alive during any particular person's lifetime.  So if you were alive 2 years for your grandson's life you should get significantly less of an effect than for your daughter, where you lived 40 years together).

Ah the old cat and mouse puzzle: how big does the biome have to be in order for you to cross so that you are still faster than the griefer who can run faster than you?

It's Japanese.  You can translate it using translate.google.com