Killing is still too easy, More nerfing needed.

Neo · 2018-06-25 10:55:29

Just kidding.

Micca · 2018-06-25 11:15:14

I bet you like being the killer in this game

Neo · 2018-06-25 12:08:02

Micca wrote:

I bet you like being the killer in this game

I like what I Like, Most people I've killed deserved it anyway.

Micca · 2018-06-25 12:15:03

Sure they did and you got to be the judge of that

Neo · 2018-06-25 13:02:06

Micca wrote:

Sure they did and you got to be the judge of that :)

I had access to a weapon, They pissed me off. Pretty simple.

Don't wanna be killed, Don't be an asshole.

Bye

Last edited by Neo (2018-06-25 13:02:31)

Potjeh · 2018-06-25 14:13:19

HF playing alone in a month or two.

Realcooldude · 2018-06-26 00:18:27

Is it a right click with a knife or a left click? Same with a bow? Only ever killed one player. Not sure im doing it right.

Lotus · 2018-06-26 00:25:34

Right click

Realcooldude · 2018-06-26 01:24:49

Finaly i kan kill those bitchy kids.

breezeknight · 2018-06-26 09:47:51

Neo wrote:

Micca wrote:
Sure they did and you got to be the judge of that
I had access to a weapon, They pissed me off. Pretty simple.
Don't wanna be killed, Don't be an asshole.

Bye

lol

you just lie to yourself to justify your "gameplay"

i've been killed for no reasons whatsoever numerous times,
females are killed because they have a baby or might have a baby even if there is enough food for generations
59 years old are killed, just because, lol

not giving a self made backback ? - stabbed
holding a thread in a hand ? - shot
pissing someone off ? - a pretty lie

TrustyWay · 2018-06-26 11:37:23

breezeknight wrote:

Neo wrote:
Micca wrote:
Sure they did and you got to be the judge of that :)
I had access to a weapon, They pissed me off. Pretty simple.
Don't wanna be killed, Don't be an asshole.

Bye
lol
you just lie to yourself to justify your "gameplay"
i've been killed for no reasons whatsoever numerous times,
females are killed because they have a baby or might have a baby even if there is enough food for generations
59 years old are killed, just because, lol
not giving a self made backback ? - stabbed
holding a thread in a hand ? - shot
pissing someone off ? - a pretty lie

Irrational people with knife aren't unusual in real life, that is the way it is.

Somebody once put his blade under my friend's throat front of me for smoking one kilometer away from his 10 y/o cousin we never met (he didn't end up stab). A friend of mine attacked with a butterfly knife a random dude that looked an aggressor he had affairs with. This same friend got his throat open (him end up like that) one month ago but he is alright.

All that over the last year.

But all these people used to be rational. You have to be careful of everyone except the ones that love you.

Last edited by TrustyWay (2018-06-26 11:43:05)

Potjeh · 2018-06-27 01:16:14

Such people back in the stone age would get their skull smashed in with a rock by a tribemate when they went to sleep. That is, if the whole tribe didn't immediately turn them into a spear pincushion when they saw them attacking a tribesmate. This is why humans are naturally a lot less violent than our close chimp relatives - we simply self-domesticated by killing off violent people. Being violent is really only possible in an urban civilization where the concept of strangers is an actual thing, in a small society where everyone knows everyone and they spend all day together it's virtually impossible to kill someone without being caught, and killing anyone will severely piss off everyone else. Also, unlike games, RL has true permadeath so people are wary of provoking others too much.

Last edited by Potjeh (2018-06-27 01:17:40)

YAHG · 2018-06-27 03:04:32

Potjeh wrote:

Such people back in the stone age would get their skull smashed in with a rock by a tribemate when they went to sleep. That is, if the whole tribe didn't immediately turn them into a spear pincushion when they saw them attacking a tribesmate. This is why humans are naturally a lot less violent than our close chimp relatives - we simply self-domesticated by killing off violent people. Being violent is really only possible in an urban civilization where the concept of strangers is an actual thing, in a small society where everyone knows everyone and they spend all day together it's virtually impossible to kill someone without being caught, and killing anyone will severely piss off everyone else. Also, unlike games, RL has true permadeath so people are wary of provoking others too much.

Kinda cool but groups that over domesticate are often overrun by more savage outsiders
refreshing the system to an extent.

Potjeh · 2018-06-27 03:14:37

Nah, the more domesticated a group is the bigger it can get without falling apart from internal conflicts. And numbers win almost every time. It's how we beat all the other hominins.

YAHG · 2018-06-27 03:46:54

Potjeh wrote:

Nah, the more domesticated a group is the bigger it can get without falling apart from internal conflicts. And numbers win almost every time. It's how we beat all the other hominins.

It goes the other way plenty of times.

Sumer, Assryria, Hitties, Persia a few times, Egypt from the north and the south,
China a few dozen times, the Japanese isles at least once, Western Rome, Eastern
Rome, the Arab Empire in the east, the Turks, then the Mongols, then the Tartars.

It is a pretty common pattern for Civilizations to go soft over time and be overtaken
by relatively primitive outsiders. Often groups on the edges of the Human Habitatable
Zone seem to be the ones that end up staying the most aggressive.

Glassius · 2018-06-27 12:59:37

Potjeh, you're point of view on violence in stone age is basically wrong. Societies before civilization were much more brutal. There were a few crimes where an criminal can hide. Violence was tradicional and commited by rulers.

Potjeh · 2018-06-27 13:04:49

Intertribal violence, sure, but not intratribal. Show me an example of a modern day primitive society with extensive intratribal violence. Tyranny just doesn't work in groups under 30 people, you just can't separate your bodyguards from the oppressed population, and without bodyguards you're dead as soon as you fall asleep. You need social classes to make violence exclusive to the rulers (specifically you need warrior class), and there's no social classes without specialization of labor.

And I don't see how primitive societies are more brutal. Tribes in Papua New Guinea for example practice ritual warfare that has very low casualties. Modern society has Verdun. Primitive society that wins against another takes women for their own, so the original tribe's genes and large parts of culture live on. Modern societies practice ethnic cleansing and genocide. The very concept of total war is a development of civilization.

Last edited by Potjeh (2018-06-27 13:14:45)

Glassius · 2018-06-27 13:51:55

Potjeh wrote:

Show me an example of a modern day primitive society with extensive intratribal violence.

Modern savages live under law of civilized people. For example, we know Masai had puberty ritual of killing lion. Before English rule, they had to kill another person.

But, you asked about numbers of non warfare homicides. It is in book Violence and Warfare among Hunter-Gatherers
- 10% of adult deaths Ache in Paraguay, 40% kids
- 0,5% homicidal rate in Bushmen

Potjeh wrote:

Tyranny just doesn't work in groups under 30 people, you just can't separate your bodyguards from the oppressed population, and without bodyguards you're dead as soon as you fall asleep.

Really? What about domestic tyranny? In smaller group, in one family? It does not apply, victims usually do not look for revenge

You need social classes to make violence exclusive to the rulers (specifically you need warrior class), and there's no social classes without specialization of labor.

Bull fights? Wolf fights? Sea elephants? Do they have social classes? Because tyranny for sure!

Potjeh wrote:

Modern society has Verdun (...) The very concept of total war is a development of civilization.

The concept of total war and annihiliation is elder than humans. Jane Godall researched such cases among chimpanzees.

You say XX century genocides were worse? In plain numbers yes, but relatively no. Poland lost almost the most citizens during WW2 (second only to Belarus), 1/6 of populations. Relatively, because in plain numbers other countries lost more. Yet, the Great Northern War in the beginning of XVIII century took 1/4 of citizens. In relative numbers, the furthet in the past, the more warfare victims.

Potjeh · 2018-06-27 13:56:51

And how many of those homicides are commited by members of the same group? Blood feuds between different families are the main cause of murder in primitive society, but since those consists of sporadic murders they don't qualify as warfare.

As for domestic tyranny, that's against women and children. Try doing that to a 20-30 year old guy for an extended period of time, and he'll almost certainly kill you given half a chance.

And a society that can't support a warrior class can't engage in total war. They're too busy feeding themselves.

Last edited by Potjeh (2018-06-27 14:02:18)

Glassius · 2018-06-27 15:42:43

Potjeh wrote:

And how many of those homicides are commited by members of the same group?

The numbers for Bushman and Ache are only about intragroup violence.

Potjeh wrote:

As for domestic tyranny, that's against women and children. Try doing that to a 20-30 year old guy for an extended period of time, and he'll almost certainly kill you given half a chance.

If you are lonely, yes. But tyrann usually has supporters. Even if you kill tyrann in sleep, it is still suicide, as his supporters will get you.

Potjeh wrote:

And a society that can't support a warrior class can't engage in total war. They're too busy feeding themselves.

Especially stone age society, preagriculture, can support warriors

You see, completly the opposite than philosophy of this game, hunter gatherers are putting much attention not in finding food. It's easy for them. They focus on not eating too much and not eradicate the area. Modern hunter gatherers work only 2 hours a day.

It would be the same in this game: if milkweed would regrow, so wild carrots, people would feel advancing technology is dangerous. We would apply sustainability rules, like it was when milkweed was regrowing only when fruiting, when there were no wells, like it is currently with rabbits.

It happened many times, a tribe was getting on advancement path during paleolit. But it all finished the same: advanced tribe eradicated area, famine started, tribe was killed during fights with wiser neighbors. Agriculture changed this pattern.

Last edited by Glassius (2018-06-27 15:44:34)

Potjeh · 2018-06-27 16:04:58

More likely the tyrant will be killed by a supporter hoping to take his place. And then it repeats until the tribe is left without any competent hunters and collapses to be replaced by a tribe with a more sustainable hierarchy model. Not to mention that blood ties are very important in this situation, so it's unlikely anyone would find themselves totally alone (not that you could run much of a tyranny if you're just tyrannical against one guy). It's also fairly likely that a tyrant would try to monopolize women, and that would piss off all the other men.

And sure, you can forage just two hours a day in the tropics, but I doubt food would be so easily available in ice age Europe. No way could a tribe rely on a single area, they had to follow herds as they migrated. And those herds can cover a fair distance in a day, likely more than 2 hours worth of walking and then there's actual hunting, butchering and hauling to eat up more time.

Last edited by Potjeh (2018-06-27 16:10:06)

Glassius · 2018-06-27 16:40:25

Potjeh wrote:

More likely the tyrant will be killed by a supporter hoping to take his place.

It happens very rarely. Usually in chimpanzee group old ruler is defeated when a new coalition emerges. Such change often ends with killings. But you don't kill your supporters. They also don't attack you, because being supporter is safer.

Being supporter can be fruitfull from the evolutionary point of view, like in the ruff example

Sometimes, when law does not work, such brutal intergroup actions takes place among civilised people. Like Mutiny on Bounty (on Pitcairn island one man killed all the others).

Potjeh wrote:

And sure, you can forage just two hours a day in the tropics, but I doubt food would be so easily available in ice age Europe.

Just gathering probably no. But hunting changes everything. Ice Age Europe was savannah with plenty of animals, much more than it is possible to live in forests. A little like Africa today.

Potjeh wrote:

No way could a tribe rely on a single area, they had to follow herds as they migrated.

Before Europeans brought horses to America, native Americans did not wandered on Great Plains and did not hunt bisons (I mean they hunted, but it was not their main source of everything). They all lived in settled communities, not followind any herd.

Clovis culture (solutrean in Europe) hunted down all big game in America. The rest applied more settled way of living.

Last edited by Glassius (2018-06-27 16:58:21)

Potjeh · 2018-06-27 21:41:46

Glassius wrote:

It happens very rarely. Usually in chimpanzee group old ruler is defeated when a new coalition emerges. Such change often ends with killings. But you don't kill your supporters. They also don't attack you, because being supporter is safer.

Sure, chimps. But how many Roman emperors were killed by Praetorians?

And sure, you can forage just two hours a day in the tropics, but I doubt food would be so easily available in ice age Europe.
Just gathering probably no. But hunting changes everything. Ice Age Europe was savannah with plenty of animals, much more than it is possible to live in forests. A little like Africa today.

More like tundra. Greenland would be a lot better comparison. Also, lolwut savanna supporting more animals than forest? Forest has a much bigger plant biomass per area than savanna. Plant biomass determines the potential for animal biomass. Sure, you get bigger herds in savanna, but they're highly migratory so on average it's still lower density.
productivity-of-coral-reefs-5-638.jpg?cb=1427242741l

Also, the whole concept of population having a super easy time getting food is kinda silly. If you got that going on it means a specie is severely under the carrying capacity and the population will quickly grow until it reaches this capacity. Just look at global human population since the green revolution.

And yeah, most native Americans were agricultural, ie irrelevant to the discussion.

Last edited by Potjeh (2018-06-27 22:12:49)

Glassius · 2018-06-28 01:08:32

Potjeh wrote:

Sure, chimps. But how many Roman emperors were killed by Praetorians?

13. Half of all assasinations.
causes_of_death.png?1505719884
But, as you said, they lived in much bigger societies. You say violence is not applying to small group. Maybe this is true only for relation ruler-supporter?

Potjeh wrote:

More like tundra. Greenland would be a lot better comparison.

Definitely more like savannah, because it could support great herds of megafauna.

Potjeh wrote:

Also, lolwut savanna supporting more animals than forest? Forest has a much bigger plant biomass per area than savanna.

Animals cannot eat wood, but can eat grass. All this extra biomass is a waste for animals. Forest elephants and indian are smaller than african living in savannah. The same is for asian lion, smaller than african. The smaller modern people, Pygmy, live in rainforest. The same was for Flores. It is all because of lack of food.

Potjeh wrote:

Also, the whole concept of population having a super easy time getting food is kinda silly. If you got that going on it means a specie is severely under the carrying capacity and the population will quickly grow until it reaches this capacity. Just look at global human population since the green revolution.

From Lotka-Volterra equations comes a solution: if they work too much, they will have more food for reproduction. Which will end with eradication of area and population collapse. From thousands of years of cultural evolution, 2-hours work (just to be sure: 2 hours of hunting and gathering, cooking not involved) per day showed up to be the more stable and supporting the bigger number of people. This 2 hours is a thing observed amoung modern hunter gatherers in Australia and Africa.

Potjeh · 2018-06-28 10:43:01

Smaller society just makes it harder to be a tyrant. You need to be able to extract resources from thousands to give proper lavish rewards to your bodyguards to buy their loyalty, and it still didn't work for Romans. You ain't going to extract much from a group of twenty or so hunter gatherers.

Tundra can support herds of megafauna. Reindeer and muskoxen come to mind. It's just that it can support less than savanna. But savanna still supports less then you'd think. When you watch documentaries on African wildlife you see endless see of wildebeest only because that's what they're filming. What you don't see is vast expanses with no big animals because that's left behind as the herd moves. Current estimates are just 1.5mil wildebeest in all of Africa, which isn't really all that much for a continent 30.39mil km^2 in area. For reference, estimated deer population in USA alone (9.834mil km^2) is 30mil, majority of which is in forests.

Insects can eat wood. Many animals can eat insects, humans included. Eating insects is generally less work than hunting, too, and they're more abundant almost everywhere. Heck, I bet if you weighed all the insects on Earth they'd outweigh all the vertebrates. As for smaller stature, there's plenty of things that could cause it. Bigger size generally means longer growth and slower reproduction, ie less resilience to environmental change. For a hunter in a forest environment being small can be advantageous because it helps with stealth. But let's say that it's food, why is it then that the biggest cats (tigers) and biggest primates (gorillas) live in forest? Or how about the fact that vast majority of largest carnivorans (bears) live in forest?

And since when do humans care about sustainability? Life abhors vacuum and tends to fill up any niche to the brim. Humans are no exception, history of humanity is history of overexploitation of resources. Why do you think we switched to agriculture in the first place? It's certainly not easier than hunting, nor does grain taste better than meat. Our exploding population decimated hunting opportunities so we had to start farming. We're not any better today. Just look at California, people there are devastating already low aquifers so they can grow fucking almonds.

Last edited by Potjeh (2018-06-28 10:49:40)

One Hour One Life Forums

#1 2018-06-25 10:55:29

Killing is still too easy, More nerfing needed.

#2 2018-06-25 11:15:14

Re: Killing is still too easy, More nerfing needed.

#3 2018-06-25 12:08:02

Re: Killing is still too easy, More nerfing needed.

#4 2018-06-25 12:15:03

Re: Killing is still too easy, More nerfing needed.

#5 2018-06-25 13:02:06

Re: Killing is still too easy, More nerfing needed.

#6 2018-06-25 14:13:19

Re: Killing is still too easy, More nerfing needed.

#7 2018-06-26 00:18:27

Re: Killing is still too easy, More nerfing needed.

#8 2018-06-26 00:25:34

Re: Killing is still too easy, More nerfing needed.

#9 2018-06-26 01:24:49

Re: Killing is still too easy, More nerfing needed.

#10 2018-06-26 09:47:51

Re: Killing is still too easy, More nerfing needed.

#11 2018-06-26 11:37:23

Re: Killing is still too easy, More nerfing needed.

#12 2018-06-27 01:16:14

Re: Killing is still too easy, More nerfing needed.

#13 2018-06-27 03:04:32

Re: Killing is still too easy, More nerfing needed.

#14 2018-06-27 03:14:37

Re: Killing is still too easy, More nerfing needed.

#15 2018-06-27 03:46:54

Re: Killing is still too easy, More nerfing needed.

#16 2018-06-27 12:59:37

Re: Killing is still too easy, More nerfing needed.

#17 2018-06-27 13:04:49

Re: Killing is still too easy, More nerfing needed.

#18 2018-06-27 13:51:55

Re: Killing is still too easy, More nerfing needed.

#19 2018-06-27 13:56:51

Re: Killing is still too easy, More nerfing needed.

#20 2018-06-27 15:42:43

Re: Killing is still too easy, More nerfing needed.

#21 2018-06-27 16:04:58

Re: Killing is still too easy, More nerfing needed.

#22 2018-06-27 16:40:25

Re: Killing is still too easy, More nerfing needed.

#23 2018-06-27 21:41:46

Re: Killing is still too easy, More nerfing needed.

#24 2018-06-28 01:08:32

Re: Killing is still too easy, More nerfing needed.

#25 2018-06-28 10:43:01

Re: Killing is still too easy, More nerfing needed.

Board footer