One Hour One Life Forums

a multiplayer game of parenting and civilization building

You are not logged in.

#51 2019-05-17 21:46:43

Spoonwood
Member
Registered: 2019-02-06
Posts: 3,773

Re: Should the sword kill everyone from other families or only foreigners?

jasonrohrer wrote:

As far as declaring war first, or through some initial violent action.... well, that would undercut the current "outsiders have a sword" trust dynamic.  As I said in my post above, that is really rich.  This outsider had a sword, but she never used it, so we grew to trust her.  She didn't have to declare war first.

You people telling that such is rich is just indicative of your maniuplative attitude towards your playerbase Jason.  We get to decide whether we think it rich or not.


I'm not sure what to do about outsider babies who integrate over time.  I'll have to think about that.  They currently can't be cursed, and can use the sword on you.

jasonrohrer wrote:

So you're claiming that towns with no boundaries create more rich dynamics?

That a vague, undefined perimeter is more interesting than a town wall with a well-defined gate?

Fuzzy sets, having imprecise boundaries, do have greater richness to them than crisp sets for most people who have studied them.  "A whale is big" is more interesting linguistically to most people than 'a whale is 100 m wide' (alright, maybe whales aren't 100 m wide... but that misses the point).  So, I think the answer is yes Jason.

jasonrohrer wrote:

I get that you don't trust me to do this, or that you think I'm an idiot, or whatever.  But I don't care.  I'm going to do it anyway, or at least try to.  That's my job.  To make the most amazing game ever.

Your version of 'amazing' apparently doesn't account for other perspectives than your own.  You are making a product for people to consume.  If people aren't interested in your game, then your game isn't amazing.  You not caring about what other people think of your changes suggests that you won't make a good product for people to consume in the end.

Offline

#52 2019-05-17 21:48:58

Spoonwood
Member
Registered: 2019-02-06
Posts: 3,773

Re: Should the sword kill everyone from other families or only foreigners?

DestinyCall wrote:

Yesterday, I was born into a multicultural village.   We had at least four families living together, three different skin tones.  Our babies were raised communally with multiple people contributing to their language acquisition so the next generation would be able to communicate better across multiple language divides.   Everyone lived and worked together peacefully.   The village had no swords and no property fences.    Unfortunately, we also had very little food or clothing, because we were in experiencing a huge population boom related to having so many families in one spot.    I spent most of my life baking pies, gathering rabbits, tending stew crops and gathering water.   I gave birth to many children and did my best to fix the villages many shortages.    Then a black woman arrived from outside the town with a sword and proceeded to set off a massacre that wiped out three families.     Our village was small and low-tech.   We were living peaceful and struggling against the challenges of running a multi-family village until this random griefer decided to single-handedly destroy what we had built.

It was not a fun or interesting story.   It was not a rich dynamic.  It was genocide.

Quoted for emphasis.

Offline

#53 2019-05-17 21:59:17

jasonrohrer
Administrator
Registered: 2017-02-13
Posts: 4,723

Re: Should the sword kill everyone from other families or only foreigners?

Wow, Tarr... they really look like ants from that perspective:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTOOas0JH6g

Reminds me of Age of Empires or something.... sound the town bell, and all the villagers run inside their buildings.


Except.... there are no buildings.

I mean, no one would look at this video, as an outsider to the game, and see a village.  It's not a village, yet.  No walls, no gates, no buildings, etc.  And that's a problem.  That's one of the many problems with OHOL that I'm trying to fix.


That's part of my vision for the game.  That you will build buildings because you need them for survival.  Not to pretend to have a town, but to actually have one.  Not to play legos, but to play real survival necessity.


And back in the original version of the game, why were buildings supposedly motivated?  Well, to provide warmth, to protect you from people and animals, and to protect your possessions from other people.


And you can see what results when you have no buildings.  You could come at them from all angles.  One attacker could outfox 4+ defenders, because the defenders had no tactical advantage, and there were no choke points.

I mean, first of all, they didn't have bows.  They should probably have those at the ready, and some packs full of arrows waiting to go too.

But also, they should at least have some buildings.... a panic room, at bare minimum, with lots of food inside.  If the attacker gets funneled through one door, they are much easier to track and deal with.


And yeah, obviously, a fence around the whole town would have helped them a lot here.  Even if it had no gate, or the gate was open, it would have been a choke point.


As far as blocking the gate goes, have multiple gates, like any good rabbit warren.  It takes 22 minutes to erect a fence that will block people in, and I suppose there are oven bases and other non-free options, but they all have simple counters, right?


And gosh, guarding the gates is within the realm of possibility.  It's a boring life, so people could take shifts.  But again, that's a safety in numbers thing.  One person trying to grief the gates, against a team of people taking turns guarding them.



And if you tell me you don't want to spend your life guarding your town and vetting outsiders who want to come in, and that such interactions are boring dynamics.... what do you want to spend your life doing, exactly?  Watering berry bushes?

I mean, having a note there that says, "All visitors must deposit their weapons at the guardhouse."  That's an interesting dynamic.



But in general, despite the carnage, this video WAS NOT BORING.  Those four people who gave chase across the countryside were highly motivated, and the result was an exciting adventure.  They weren't yawning.  They weren't indifferent.  Something happened in this town.  Maybe some lessons were learned.  Maybe the town will be better positioned next time.


I'd like you to try that in my village, Tarr, really.  Just try it.

Offline

#54 2019-05-17 21:59:45

Spoonwood
Member
Registered: 2019-02-06
Posts: 3,773

Re: Should the sword kill everyone from other families or only foreigners?

futurebird wrote:

I don’t think if swords stay in or not is a question for a community vote or for me to decide (but if you asked me I’d say get rid of them) Part of creative work is knowing when not to give an audience what they want. I have respect for those kinds of choices. The “red wedding” on GOT was really hated by many fans but it was the kind of good artistic choice that makes a story memorable and important. That said, going for shock value— just because it’s shocking with no real deeper meaning or genre to subvert is juvenile and boring. A lot of Jason’s choices skirt line on this distinction for me. The combination of the race based segregation, swords and language feels like someone it’s trying to stop me from being kind, like I’m being boxed in to a xenophobic stance by game mechanics. I don’t like it because  feel as if I’m being told “oh no what will you sweet little doves do NOW?” —um not enjoy the game as much and die a lot?

I’ve mentioned before that recent changes have lead me to be more detached from the game with all the random murder it is healthiest not to be emotionally invested and let yourself really *feel* the impacts of all the deaths instead I laugh like I did as a teen at dead baby jokes. Nothing wrong with that kind fun but I thought maybe this game was going for something deeper. Now, I don’t know.

You raise an interesting perspective to consider.  However, all things considered, I don't think the sword update can get compared to what happened when Hulk Hogan first turned heel and joined the new NWO (if you don't the reference people literally threw things at the wrestlers in the ring when it happened... they were pissed).  People's gameplay experience gets affected by the sword update, because they are getting killed seemingly out of nowhere and see that happening around them.  I don't think that people like getting murdered and seeing others murdered and it's a poor, uninteresting, tired, and cliche mechanics in games really.  How do you think an engine maker or a pie cooker feels getting murdered out of nowhere?  Probably they feel cheated out of a good gameplay experience.  Bows and arrows and knives have uses.  Swords have abuses.  It's just a griefer's tool, and J A S O N doesn't care that he has positively encouraged griefing, because he's too stubborn and arrogant to think his new system flawed.

Offline

#55 2019-05-17 22:01:25

jasonrohrer
Administrator
Registered: 2017-02-13
Posts: 4,723

Re: Should the sword kill everyone from other families or only foreigners?

Spoonwood wrote:

You people telling that such is rich is just indicative of your maniuplative attitude towards your playerbase Jason.  We get to decide whether we think it rich or not.

Yes, that's my job.

To design the game, and decide what dynamics I want the game to have.

Offline

#56 2019-05-17 22:08:52

Spoonwood
Member
Registered: 2019-02-06
Posts: 3,773

Re: Should the sword kill everyone from other families or only foreigners?

jasonrohrer wrote:
Twisted wrote:

This is a really weird thing to say, honestly. Currently the only way to stop people from doing what they want is to kill them. The only way to be 'careful' about outsider babies getting swords is to slaughter them as soon as they spawn in. Swords are very easy to make and can be made from scratch within seconds if the town has a Newcomen set up, so I don't understand what you mean by 'trust an outsider baby with a sword'.

So there's no way to stop them, then, other than by killing them?

Before this COME TOGETHER update, how did you stop untrusted babies from making their own knives, other than by killing them?

I've given you a new problem to solve, and you have the tools available to solve it peacefully.

Even the possibility of Tarr's slaughter antics aren't inherent to the game as it stands right now, but simply a sign that people (the victims) haven't figured out the new meta yet.  There are peaceful ways to stop him from slaughtering your village.

And if we're talking about non-peaceful defenses, Tarr, do you really think that one guy with a sword could take out several people with bows?

There is no new meta.  The meta level players have tried to tell you this more or less.  Even with a property gate, he just needs to hide behind a nearby tree until someone is close to opening the gate.  And gates consume rope, and sparing rope early on and later (meta level players have repeatedly talked about not having enough rope) just won't work.  An Eve camp sparing a rope to make property gates?  Just a bad idea and slows down tool progression.  Because of the rope issue, and even more s people NOT wanting to get killed and getting discouraged by getting murdered out of nowhere, it is NOT likely that a new meta emerges.

Offline

#57 2019-05-17 22:09:23

Tarr
Member
Registered: 2018-03-31
Posts: 1,546

Re: Should the sword kill everyone from other families or only foreigners?

Spoonwood wrote:
DestinyCall wrote:

Yesterday, I was born into a multicultural village.   We had at least four families living together, three different skin tones.  Our babies were raised communally with multiple people contributing to their language acquisition so the next generation would be able to communicate better across multiple language divides.   Everyone lived and worked together peacefully.   The village had no swords and no property fences.    Unfortunately, we also had very little food or clothing, because we were in experiencing a huge population boom related to having so many families in one spot.    I spent most of my life baking pies, gathering rabbits, tending stew crops and gathering water.   I gave birth to many children and did my best to fix the villages many shortages.    Then a black woman arrived from outside the town with a sword and proceeded to set off a massacre that wiped out three families.     Our village was small and low-tech.   We were living peaceful and struggling against the challenges of running a multi-family village until this random griefer decided to single-handedly destroy what we had built.

It was not a fun or interesting story.   It was not a rich dynamic.  It was genocide.

Quoted for emphasis.

I mean to be fair that both sounds fun and interesting up until the genocidal part.

jasonrohrer wrote:

The game has always had violence in it.  That hasn't changed too much.  Go back on the time machine server and give the old knife a try.

The knife has also been revisited multiple times to make it balanced compared to what it originally started at. It took this exact type of attention originally to get the other weapons nerfed in the first place and then later nerfed to their now balanced state. People still kill their families off by knifing the last of the women and that has a minute cooldown between stabs.

People aren't all saying "Remove the sword ree ree ree" people want the dumb thing balanced so stuff like I posted in the video isn't happening anytime two families meet in one town. Fences and gates don't work because you can block them. Bows have the problem of occupied tiles deleting arrows, and someone with a sword is best to ignore other melee until it becomes absolutely needed. The sword is a large blemish on what would have been two really cool weeks of updates.


Days peppers/onions/tomatoes left unfixed: 103

Do your part and remind Jason to fix these damn vegetables.

Offline

#58 2019-05-17 22:10:46

Dodge
Member
Registered: 2018-08-27
Posts: 2,324

Re: Should the sword kill everyone from other families or only foreigners?

"Dodge wrote:
Spoonwood wrote:
The dynamics of war swords are poor.  It's JUST a killing tool.  The dynamic of a knife is much richer since it can carve up a turkey, slice bread, slash a rubber tree, cut tule reeds, etc.

Do you really think dynamics means the number of objects you can craft with? SMH

No, because there exists farming, cooking, and eating in the game as well as other resource gathering."


What? That doesn't even answer my question, unrelated response


"Dodge wrote:
Now try to think a little more than usual before just saying "NO you're wrong", why do you think he released the sword at the same time he's making village closer also why do you think he made property gates?

Because Jason wants to find a way that property fences and property gates become useful.  He isn't willing to rethink property's viability in the game.  So, he has tried to force a system where people would like them.  It's kind of like how he wouldn't rethink the game with respect to clothing, so he introduced temperature shock and got rid of temperature blending along biome edges and nerfed jungles.  He didn't care apparently that it would result in people doing something boring like standing on a fire to have children in that case (yes... I DO think the temperature overhaul was flawed and a mistake).  Jason just insisted on clothing (and wanted buildings and wood flooring also) to become more useful.  So, instead of thinking about people's play experience and just accept some of his content as flawed, he puts out a new system to try to force people to play the way he arrogantly believes the game should be played (remember him suggesting that the people who settled aong desert edges where basically inferior Eves?).  The same has happened here, but it's magnified.  Since property fences and city walls have gotten rejected wholesale, he's tried to force a system where they become more desireable.  This just involves Jason's stubborn and arrogant attitude to respect the playerbase's choices and try to force the game to get played how he believes it should get played.  It has nothing to do with making the game more fun or getting people to play for their lineages.  And please note that Jason has tried to tell people what THEY find interesting.  Usually when someone does that it's the sign of someone who isn't naive, but instead is manipulative."


FFS can you use spacing, "It has nothing to do with making the game more fun or getting people to play for their lineages." that's your opinion




"Dodge wrote:
Because if villages are closer ressources will be more scarce and there will be more interaction between those villages, protecting ressources or whole villages behind walls/fences and gates, cooperating with nearby village or stealing their ressources because they didn't care to put them behind gates etc.

It seems clear to me that cooperation isn't happening on any sort of substantial scale.  If it were, with people closer together, they would build roads between towns OR clamor for easier way to build roads between towns.  And belltowers would serve a useful purpose.  But why would you do that when it would just invite an invasion to happen sooner?

You can say that I'm wrong, but I've played a lot on server12 where people cooperate with nearby villages."


Yes right now it's unbalanced in favor of invading, theft (i believe) which is still interactions btw, it's only the beginning of villages being close. who knows what mechanics and systems will be in future updates.

It seems like you only want one aspect of civilisation without the other one, you dont want a true simulation, you want an incomplete representation, you want to pick which colors there should be in a rainbow because you like them more.

Greatest achievements come from overcoming the biggest challenges and the worst situations can bring the best.



"Dodge wrote:
These are all new dynamics we didn't have before and swords are a part of it.

Your town has no more iron close or far and is dying, village close has iron but doesn't want to trade and the iron is behind gates, what do you do?

Let your village die?

Invade them with knives? LOL

Temperature and yum are shot when doing that sort of thing.  Plenty of players feel inclined to suicide with murder graves around.  Lineages are fragile without good fertility.  Moms will die in such invasions.  Such invasions are not good for lineages, and it would be better to use stone hoes and import soil from fertile or dug soil pits with a horsecart and cook foods like eggs and turkies which don't require soil."

Again you didn't even answer what you would do, you just complain about the different issues that could happen instead of trying to solve them.

"Plenty of players feel inclined to suicide with murder graves around."

Because lives are cheap in game, just hit "get reborn" dont have to deal with the situation.

"Lineages are fragile without good fertility.  Moms will die in such invasions."

Then tell them to stay in a safe place like a closed nursery in case of attack, or wall the whole village, even better do both in case main gate is open to invaders.

"Such invasions are not good for lineages"

Not for your lineage, but for the invader's lineage that gets all the ressource it is definitly worth it, so it only depends from the point of view.

"and it would be better to use stone hoes and import soil from fertile or dug soil pits with a horsecart and cook foods like eggs and turkies which don't require soil."

That soil wont last forever and good luck feeding a whole town long term with eggs you have to get further and further.

Offline

#59 2019-05-17 22:11:46

Spoonwood
Member
Registered: 2019-02-06
Posts: 3,773

Re: Should the sword kill everyone from other families or only foreigners?

jasonrohrer wrote:
Spoonwood wrote:

You people telling that such is rich is just indicative of your maniuplative attitude towards your playerbase Jason.  We get to decide whether we think it rich or not.

Yes, that's my job.

To design the game, and decide what dynamics I want the game to have.

Did you even read what I said?  Designing the game is NOT you telling people about the game.  Those are distinct.  NO, it's not your job to tell people what they find rich.  It's your job to LISTEN to people when they say some feature of the game is not rich.  You design the game for people.  You do NOT control what they think and they are and will be free to think differently.

Offline

#60 2019-05-17 22:12:24

jasonrohrer
Administrator
Registered: 2017-02-13
Posts: 4,723

Re: Should the sword kill everyone from other families or only foreigners?

futurebird wrote:

I don’t think if swords stay in or not is a question for a community vote or for me to decide (but if you asked me I’d say get rid of them) Part of creative work is knowing when not to give an audience what they want. I have respect for those kinds of choices. The “red wedding” on GOT was really hated by many fans but it was the kind of good artistic choice that makes a story memorable and important. That said, going for shock value— just because it’s shocking with no real deeper meaning or genre to subvert is juvenile and boring. A lot of Jason’s choices skirt line on this distinction for me. The combination of the race based segregation, swords and language feels like someone it’s trying to stop me from being kind, like I’m being boxed in to a xenophobic stance by game mechanics. I don’t like it because  feel as if I’m being told “oh no what will you sweet little doves do NOW?” —um not enjoy the game as much and die a lot?

I’ve mentioned before that recent changes have lead me to be more detached from the game with all the random murder it is healthiest not to be emotionally invested and let yourself really *feel* the impacts of all the deaths instead I laugh like I did as a teen at dead baby jokes. Nothing wrong with that kind fun but I thought maybe this game was going for something deeper. Now, I don’t know.


Before this week, you almost never interacted with people outside your family.  They were too far away.  You weren't "kind" to them.  You never saw them.  "Xenophobia" or "open-arms" were both impossible.

Now you interact with people outside your family.  Now you have to navigate that.  It could have been so easy and so bland.  Just bring the families together.  But I made it way more complicated than that.  It's not easy, at all, to interact with someone from outside your family.


So nothing about the "old game" has changed.  Family interactions, and the kindness is identical.  You still interact with the same 20 people you always interacted with throughout your life.

What's changed is that a new element has been introduced.  Other families!  But whoa, they look different (as other families actually do), and whoa, they speak a different language (as people from far away actually do).

So the old game had only one element.  The new game has this whole new element.


Those people were always out there, but you never saw them.  Now you see them.  And you don't like what you see, I guess...

Offline

#61 2019-05-17 22:19:03

Buggy
Member
Registered: 2019-04-13
Posts: 88

Re: Should the sword kill everyone from other families or only foreigners?

All people are trying to do is express they are not happy with some of the changes. Most updates all you get is praise for the new items. At least acknowledge a lot of people are unhappy about warswords and the direction it moves the game. You don't have to make changes of course it is your game but people are allowed to be upset. At least try to understand where all the disappointment is coming from.

Offline

#62 2019-05-17 22:20:45

Spoonwood
Member
Registered: 2019-02-06
Posts: 3,773

Re: Should the sword kill everyone from other families or only foreigners?

jasonrohrer wrote:
futurebird wrote:

I don’t think if swords stay in or not is a question for a community vote or for me to decide (but if you asked me I’d say get rid of them) Part of creative work is knowing when not to give an audience what they want. I have respect for those kinds of choices. The “red wedding” on GOT was really hated by many fans but it was the kind of good artistic choice that makes a story memorable and important. That said, going for shock value— just because it’s shocking with no real deeper meaning or genre to subvert is juvenile and boring. A lot of Jason’s choices skirt line on this distinction for me. The combination of the race based segregation, swords and language feels like someone it’s trying to stop me from being kind, like I’m being boxed in to a xenophobic stance by game mechanics. I don’t like it because  feel as if I’m being told “oh no what will you sweet little doves do NOW?” —um not enjoy the game as much and die a lot?

I’ve mentioned before that recent changes have lead me to be more detached from the game with all the random murder it is healthiest not to be emotionally invested and let yourself really *feel* the impacts of all the deaths instead I laugh like I did as a teen at dead baby jokes. Nothing wrong with that kind fun but I thought maybe this game was going for something deeper. Now, I don’t know.


Before this week, you almost never interacted with people outside your family.  They were too far away.  You weren't "kind" to them.  You never saw them.  "Xenophobia" or "open-arms" were both impossible.

Now you interact with people outside your family.  Now you have to navigate that.  It could have been so easy and so bland.  Just bring the families together.  But I made it way more complicated than that.  It's not easy, at all, to interact with someone from outside your family.


So nothing about the "old game" has changed.  Family interactions, and the kindness is identical.  You still interact with the same 20 people you always interacted with throughout your life.

What's changed is that a new element has been introduced.  Other families!  But whoa, they look different (as other families actually do), and whoa, they speak a different language (as people from far away actually do).

You're misleading the conversation by reducing it to families.   You're trying to maniuplate the conversation away from swords, because of your refusal to reconsider them.  Try not prejudging your game choices Jason.

jasonrohrer wrote:

So the old game had only one element.  The new game has this whole new element.


Those people were always out there, but you never saw them.  Now you see them.  And you don't like what you see, I guess...

Jason there exist an abundance of people in this thread telling you that they don't like the new system along with people making sarcastic remarks about the new system.  The discord has been full of such comments for almost the entire week.  Your 'I guess" still indicates that you don't get it and haven't recognized their perspective as valid.

Offline

#63 2019-05-17 22:24:41

DestinyCall
Member
Registered: 2018-12-08
Posts: 4,108

Re: Should the sword kill everyone from other families or only foreigners?

I like the other families.   I like the other languages.   I like being closer together.   I don't like the war sword.

Offline

#64 2019-05-17 22:24:44

Dodge
Member
Registered: 2018-08-27
Posts: 2,324

Re: Should the sword kill everyone from other families or only foreigners?

@Tarr The horse taunt, lmao

Offline

#65 2019-05-17 22:28:52

Léonard
Member
Registered: 2019-01-05
Posts: 183

Re: Should the sword kill everyone from other families or only foreigners?

jasonrohrer wrote:

So you're claiming that towns with no boundaries create more rich dynamics?

That a vague, undefined perimeter is more interesting than a town wall with a well-defined gate?

I'm not.
But no mechanic is 1000 times better than a contrived one which is disliked so much you have to come in yourself and attempt to explain why it's rich.

jasonrohrer wrote:

Now, I know that, for some reason, you all think these changes will make the game more violent and horrible.  Not sure why. The game has always had violence in it.  That hasn't changed too much.  Go back on the time machine server and give the old knife a try.

This is proof that you don't bother to read people's criticism on this update.
I want you to seriously consider the possibility that your ego is blinding you through all this.

I couldn't care less about the game being more or less violent.
I care about why it is so.

What happened to all this captivating talk you had about emergence and the fact that human society came to be out of nothing, just being born on earth and poof here we are with governments?
What happened to that?

It seems one day you suddenly snapped and went crazy over the fact that property, war and trade weren't happening and have been forcing it in update after update after update.
Why didn't you listen to the community for feedback on how we could all make it happen naturally, like you had planned from the beginning?
Why do you instead relentlessly try to impose it upon us with contrived mechanics while calling them "rich" to our face?

jasonrohrer wrote:

The plan is to find all the right knobs to tweak to get everything in the game turned way up.  To give you so many things to think about, and so many different aspects to balance as you play, that the possibility space is staggering.  So that every life you live in the game is literally different than any other life you lived.  So that every life you live in the game almost feels like a different game.

This is the problem you have with your current approach.
You think of this as simple knobs to twist around, as if we were your lab rats.

This is the problem you refuse to see.

It's fine that you want to add diversity in the gameplay by making us think about different things.
The problem is why do we think about them in the first place?

Do we think of conflict as necessary and naturally arising over a crisis?
Like natural resources?

Or do we think of conflict as a contrived part of your game, where griefers simply come for no real reason breaking immersion on the way and kill us for nothing but the fun of it?
What happened to you saying you wanted to make murder real?
Giving it a real reason? Where is that real reason? I don't see it.

It seems one day you suddenly stopped asking the question of why was war not happening and decided to completely make up a reason for it and enforce it AND call it a rich mechanic on top of that.
You took the intellectually lazy road on this one, Jason. There's no doubt about it.
If wars were naturally happening out of necessity over resources or preservation of cultures, then I would actually agree and say your mechanics are rich.
But they're not.

jasonrohrer wrote:

I get that you don't trust me to do this, or that you think I'm an idiot, or whatever.  But I don't care.  I'm going to do it anyway, or at least try to.  That's my job.  To make the most amazing game ever.

This is ridiculous and I'm tired of it.
If my goal was to simply tell you you're an idiot, then I would do so and tell you and be done with it.
I feel insulted that you think the point behind my posts are that you're simply an idiot.

I come here and give you criticism for your game because I care about it, that is, at least I used to.
If I cared about it in the first place, that means you at least had something good.
That you have at least a minimum amount of intelligence about making games.

jasonrohrer wrote:

Fair warning:  this game is nowhere near as good or rich or interesting as it could be.  You've only seen a tiny glimmer of possibility so far.  It's a complicated game to get right, but I plan to keep working on it until I get it as close to right as I can.

And that means that, two years from now, it will almost be a totally different game from the game you are playing right now.

The only constant will be change.

But what will change, Jason?
Your game, or your vision for it?
They are two different concepts.

One day you talk about having civilization arise naturally from your game, the other you force it to in complete opposition of yesterday.
One day you talk about this game not being made for PVP, the other you insist that PVP is necessary.
Which is it?

Offline

#66 2019-05-17 22:33:26

futurebird
Member
Registered: 2019-02-20
Posts: 1,553

Re: Should the sword kill everyone from other families or only foreigners?

DestinyCall wrote:

I like the other families.   I like the other languages.   I like being closer together.   I don't like the war sword.

Same. Or at least I don't like it at it's current power-level or the restrictions on who it can and can't kill, that just feels artificial somehow...


---
omnem cibum costis
tantum baca, non facies opus

Offline

#67 2019-05-17 22:41:55

Astelon
Member
Registered: 2019-03-31
Posts: 24

Re: Should the sword kill everyone from other families or only foreigners?

jasonrohrer wrote:

Before this week, you almost never interacted with people outside your family.  They were too far away.  You weren't "kind" to them.  You never saw them.  "Xenophobia" or "open-arms" were both impossible.

Now you interact with people outside your family.  Now you have to navigate that.  It could have been so easy and so bland.  Just bring the families together.  But I made it way more complicated than that.  It's not easy, at all, to interact with someone from outside your family.


So nothing about the "old game" has changed.  Family interactions, and the kindness is identical.  You still interact with the same 20 people you always interacted with throughout your life.

What's changed is that a new element has been introduced.  Other families!  But whoa, they look different (as other families actually do), and whoa, they speak a different language (as people from far away actually do).

So the old game had only one element.  The new game has this whole new element.


Those people were always out there, but you never saw them.  Now you see them.  And you don't like what you see, I guess...

You got it half right. People don't mind that other families are closer. Or that they're different. Or that they speak another language either. That's really cool stuff. What makes all these cool additions basically bad are the swords. Before, you had a single griefer mess stuff up which would get punished with curses. Now you got the same griefer with the ability to kill off entire other families basically for free, with no repercussion. In villages with two or more families, that's basically a ticking bomb, until one griefer appears and starts killing people with a sword, and then it's just people killing everyone else not in their families. And that happened already. And how do you stop the ticking bomb from appearing? You basically kill everyone else not of your family trying to join the village. And from no one else appearing, we get to kill everyone else appearing. We have an expression here, which pretty much translates to out of the frying pan into the fire.

What's the point of bringing people together if you make them want to hate eachother? Pretty sure people were much happier when they were alone, without the threat of having most of the family killed by a single person.

Last edited by Astelon (2019-05-17 22:42:38)

Offline

#68 2019-05-17 23:12:59

Potjeh
Member
Registered: 2018-03-08
Posts: 469

Re: Should the sword kill everyone from other families or only foreigners?

It might be an interesting dynamic if there was some sort of trade-off between security and trusting other families, but there isn't. There is no benefit whatsoever in letting foreigners live. Zilch. Nada.

Offline

#69 2019-05-17 23:17:00

futurebird
Member
Registered: 2019-02-20
Posts: 1,553

Re: Should the sword kill everyone from other families or only foreigners?

Just because I trust outsiders less than my own family doesn't mean I care about my family. I think the language update gives you reasons to care about your family. It's a really neat update and it makes me so sad that it's being overshadowed by rather contrived sword.

Again: I don't understand why I can't use the sword on anyone? The reason seems to be so that one person will come and kill another family (lets face it these people would have killed their own families if they could, but the magic of the sword keeps them from doing it) But-- victory, I guess, we have conflict between families! (but only because that's the only way the sword can be used.)

The sword creates an incentive for people who want to kill a bunch of players to go further to find those players to kill. It didn't make them care so much about their family that they were willing to kill for them.


---
omnem cibum costis
tantum baca, non facies opus

Offline

#70 2019-05-17 23:20:00

futurebird
Member
Registered: 2019-02-20
Posts: 1,553

Re: Should the sword kill everyone from other families or only foreigners?

Potjeh wrote:

It might be an interesting dynamic if there was some sort of trade-off between security and trusting other families, but there isn't. There is no benefit whatsoever in letting foreigners live. Zilch. Nada.

Not totally true. Meeting new people is fun and I have chosen to trust every outsider, because it's more fun and because playing with the languages interesting and that captures some of the things I like best about the game. If I get killed I shrug it off and roll again. Which isn't really a normal or immersed way to act. But I just have a hard time getting excited about playing "hate the outsider" or being the hated outsider in a game.


---
omnem cibum costis
tantum baca, non facies opus

Offline

#71 2019-05-17 23:20:36

BlueDiamondAvatar
Member
Registered: 2018-11-19
Posts: 322

Re: Should the sword kill everyone from other families or only foreigners?

jasonrohrer wrote:

And if we're talking about non-peaceful defenses, Tarr, do you really think that one guy with a sword could take out several people with bows?

Yes, I watched this happen as a sword wielder killed my family.  I was too young to grab a weapon, and as a boy I wasn't targeted until the end.  The invader was hiding the weapons as she killed, so as the last surviving member of the family, I grabbed an arrow and started making my own bow, and was killed by the swordswoman running at me as as I tried to aim at her.  Bows are great for someone who is standing still, but an active attacker is never standing still. 

I've played a couple lives since then, but they've mostly been dominated by the sword.  Now I'm not playing anymore, I'm just forum lurking and trying out new games.

You think that walls or fences work as a peaceful defense mechanism?  They don't work.  Tarr has explained this - it's just a way to get your family starved slowly or get them trapped inside with a murderer.  In the meantime, you lose all those actually interesting interactions with friendly strangers integrating with your town - like the peaceful woman with the sword you mentioned.  Your family was foolish to let her live.  That is what this update is teaching us as the new "meta".

I've changed my Steam review to negative.  War Swords have to go before I recommend this game to any new players.


--Blue Diamond

I aim to leave behind a world that is easier for people to live in that it was before I got there.

Offline

#72 2019-05-17 23:22:22

Potjeh
Member
Registered: 2018-03-08
Posts: 469

Re: Should the sword kill everyone from other families or only foreigners?

That's just pure roleplay. There's no actual concrete benefit from having strangers around. The only rational course of action is to exterminate them, and given a couple of weeks everyone will arrive to that conclusion and extermination will be the default for vast majority of the playerbase.

Offline

#73 2019-05-17 23:26:05

jasonrohrer
Administrator
Registered: 2017-02-13
Posts: 4,723

Re: Should the sword kill everyone from other families or only foreigners?

BlueDiamond, did you try building a town wall and defending your town?

Offline

#74 2019-05-17 23:41:34

Buggy
Member
Registered: 2019-04-13
Posts: 88

Re: Should the sword kill everyone from other families or only foreigners?

jasonrohrer wrote:
futurebird wrote:

I don’t think if swords stay in or not is a question for a community vote or for me to decide (but if you asked me I’d say get rid of them) Part of creative work is knowing when not to give an audience what they want. I have respect for those kinds of choices. The “red wedding” on GOT was really hated by many fans but it was the kind of good artistic choice that makes a story memorable and important. That said, going for shock value— just because it’s shocking with no real deeper meaning or genre to subvert is juvenile and boring. A lot of Jason’s choices skirt line on this distinction for me. The combination of the race based segregation, swords and language feels like someone it’s trying to stop me from being kind, like I’m being boxed in to a xenophobic stance by game mechanics. I don’t like it because  feel as if I’m being told “oh no what will you sweet little doves do NOW?” —um not enjoy the game as much and die a lot?

I’ve mentioned before that recent changes have lead me to be more detached from the game with all the random murder it is healthiest not to be emotionally invested and let yourself really *feel* the impacts of all the deaths instead I laugh like I did as a teen at dead baby jokes. Nothing wrong with that kind fun but I thought maybe this game was going for something deeper. Now, I don’t know.


Before this week, you almost never interacted with people outside your family.  They were too far away.  You weren't "kind" to them.  You never saw them.  "Xenophobia" or "open-arms" were both impossible.

Now you interact with people outside your family.  Now you have to navigate that.  It could have been so easy and so bland.  Just bring the families together.  But I made it way more complicated than that.  It's not easy, at all, to interact with someone from outside your family.


So nothing about the "old game" has changed.  Family interactions, and the kindness is identical.  You still interact with the same 20 people you always interacted with throughout your life.

What's changed is that a new element has been introduced.  Other families!  But whoa, they look different (as other families actually do), and whoa, they speak a different language (as people from far away actually do).

So the old game had only one element.  The new game has this whole new element.


Those people were always out there, but you never saw them.  Now you see them.  And you don't like what you see, I guess...

The thing is I used to be amazed by how trusting people are of strangers in this game. You don't actually know or love your family in game but we trusted them even though sometimes one would kill. Most of us were working together to build towns.

Sometimes in game I would run into someone with bad English but if they were helpful and wanted to learn we would work together and it felt really nice. Part of the appeal of the game for me has always been overcoming the distrust of random anonymous strangers on the internet.
We used to have villages of different looking characters and sometimes racist things would happen but most of the time the village would fight against it.

Now it feel like the game is pushing us to not trust outsiders on multiple levels, there is no benefit to working together with another family, only negatives so the game is forcing us to be inhospitable to outsiders. In real life working together with other families is what makes a town, if someone killed all their neighbors they wouldn't build a community.

Offline

#75 2019-05-18 00:00:37

DestinyCall
Member
Registered: 2018-12-08
Posts: 4,108

Re: Should the sword kill everyone from other families or only foreigners?

If the meta actually shifts to "kill all your neighbors" then it will not matter that Eves are spawning closer together.   You won't be meeting new people to talk or trade or raise your babies around them to learn their languages.   You will be killing off anyone who builds too close to your "base" and going out to raid more distant camps to stop them from building up defenses.   You will build double-gated airlocks to prevent raiders slipping inside your walled town.  You will go outside in small armed groups so you can kill any solo players you encounter while gathering iron.   You will be installing zoom mod, so you can see behind trees and around corners while running, instead of being essentially blind to half the map. 

It will be challenging, but players will adapt to the realities of the game and play accordingly.  Or stop playing OHOL.  When living in the desert naked was better than playing in grasslands with clothing, that is what we did.   When killing black people on sight is better than talking to strangers, that is what the game will become, whether we like it or not   

Not because we want to live in deserts or be naked or kill Eves, but because the rules of the game determine optimal play.   And right now, the charcoal pencil is NOT mightier than the war sword.

Last edited by DestinyCall (2019-05-18 03:56:30)

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB