Suggestion: Babies shouldn't be able to wake bears.

Dodge · 2018-12-05 05:51:04

denriguez wrote:

Baby bear-taunting is a time-honored tradition and you can take it from my cold, dead hands! It's the one recourse abandoned babies have against the horrible mothers that cast them aside to die.

This, pretty sure bear caves are in the game in big part for that reason

But we should have better weapons at this point especially with sulfur we have now, like a sawed off shotgun storable in backpack

MultiLife · 2018-12-05 14:23:55

I wouldn't mind if babies couldn't activate bears. But a crying child would certainly wake up a bear.

I also think bears could activate on their own instead of relying on players to touch the caves.

In the end, it's stupid to build a town near bear caves unless you block them. If a baby can reach a cave, that town is badly placed.
There was a town with three bear caves next to a berry farm back in the days, nobody did a thing to block the caves. If you love the town so much that you are willing to live near bear caves, block them instead of suffering in the result of a problem.

I always scout the environment when I start a camp so there are no bear caves nearby, a baby shouldn't be able to reach a cave. That's how far they should be. Thank goodness for zoom out.

Psykout · 2018-12-05 15:08:13

lionon wrote:

I don't get it how this helps anybody but griefers...

Tramax wrote:

If we removed things that helped griefers we wouldn't have much. It's the curse of an online game.

I wouldn't say its a curse of an online game, it is simply a fact of modern life. Guns can be used to protect lives or take them. Laws can be made that help equality, but can also create loop holes for those seeking an upper hand. Too much or too little of anything can kill you, balance is the key, and without darkness there is no light.

lionon wrote:

The curse is we don't care? I don't get it... Maybe we should also remove the curse system then to help griefers, because it is an online game.

lionon wrote:

Sorry, for the this whole issue was a no-brainer, thats why I didn't write a long winded reasoning case of it in my first point. Guess I was mistaken.

Being rude, sarcastic and insulting because someone does not agree with your idea? You don't spout gold out of your fingertips and tip of your tongue good sir, and there is no reason to belittle people because they notice that fact.You consistently ignore balance of both sides, and only favor your own point of view sometimes to a cringe worthy level. Certain questions must be asked before making decisions about game balance.

Can people with negative intentions use certain systems to fit their desires? Yes.
Does removing said system hurt a normal player just as much? Yes.

lionon · 2018-12-05 15:15:24

Psykout, I know you got some vendetta about me. But I'll just ignore it. (Edit: but no, to try to frame me that I insulted somebody is not ok. I didn't. I admitted with the second sentence, it may have been an error to assume it would be selfevident)

No, I just don't see how removing babies (that are able to running at full speed) to poke sleeping bears would "hurt a normal player just as much".

And before you misunderstand, again. No, I'm not asking necessarily to make babies only be able to crawl.. which yes would hurt normal players when they pop out a child in the wild thats unable to follow them at reasonable speed.

Last edited by lionon (2018-12-05 15:28:42)

Psykout · 2018-12-05 17:48:59

It's not a vendetta, I am not framing you at all. Your point of view is that the only way there is disagreement is a lack of understanding. Using sarcastic remarks to dismiss valid points rather than engaging them is insulting, albeit not the highest form of it. Never once have I misunderstood you, simply I don't agree. I have attempted to discuss certain points couple occasions, but you ignore them and hinge onto the basic disagreement principle and tell me I just don't understand or haven't read what you posted. I really do want to have meaningful conversations, but that will be hard if you don't respond fully or typecast me out with this vendetta nonsense.

This specific example, no it wouldn't hurt normal players really to have babies be able to wake bears, but it's also not a really big issue as many has stated. As wolfgang said, its about everyone being able to do something without restraints, because as soon as you start to implement them, its a slippery slope. Sometimes things are ruined not by the unchecked elements but too harsh of checks across the board.

The baby movement speed thing, I am confused.

lionon wrote:

It will make motherhood with good children more difficult tough if you pop out a baby while standing in a cold biome and having a basket with valuables with you... there is no longer "follow me" to the village. Will confine mothers even more to stay all their fertile years in or close to their village. Including babyhood/childhood and elderhood you only have about 15 minutes of that hour you can freely move as woman.

I agree with this point a lot, when did that change? What is the issue of babies running full speed that needs to be addressed, while having negative impacts possibly such as this?

Elsayal · 2018-12-05 18:33:37

I dont know if there is a poll/vote system, but I'm against the idea.

As god said once : it makes the theater alive, bears chasing everyone down, while you're away looking for some arrow, your heart driven by some hate against the one who waked up the bears.

It's good for the game.

Or you could go further and remove the abitlity to die, making all players bored farmers.

lionon · 2018-12-05 19:30:04

Psykout wrote:

Using sarcastic remarks to dismiss valid points rather than engaging them is insulting, albeit not the highest form of it.

It's simply not insulting somebody. It's sarcasm.

Psykout wrote:

Never once have I misunderstood you, simply I don't agree. I have attempted to discuss certain points couple occasions, but you ignore them and hinge onto the basic disagreement principle and tell me I just don't understand or haven't read what you posted

Just because you don't realize means you really have. E.g. that other thread where I explained the issue in the original post and just "pointed out" what I discussed already.

Pyskout wrote:

I really do want to have meaningful conversations, but that will be hard if you don't respond fully or typecast me out with this vendetta nonsense.

Just try to be a little less condescending. I'm sure we can have meaning full conversations then.

Pyskout wrote:

This specific example, no it wouldn't hurt normal players really to have babies be able to wake bears, but it's also not a really big issue as many has stated.

Well you just claimed in the previous post and I never said it was a big issue. I just found it surprising. As I said it was I that accidentally released a bear on a village because I really didn't think it would work. And yes I was even reborn into that village about half an hour later and yes that bear was still roaming around and killing people.

And yes if I would have considered a big issue my original post surely would have made a better elaborated case. It just surprises me the arguments that come against me. The thing I may have not seen is that this whole baby-bear thing has become some kind of iconic thingy in the past?

As wolfgang said, its about everyone being able to do something without restraints, because as soon as you start to implement them, its a slippery slope. Sometimes things are ruined not by the unchecked elements but too harsh of checks across the board.

Generally I agree. On the specific issue of a baby not being able to do anything else but wake bears until the age 4 I don't. I really simply taught this was an overlook in the code.

I agree with this point a lot, when did that change? What is the issue of babies running full speed that needs to be addressed, while having negative impacts possibly such as this?

Someone posted here as alternative idea to the baby runoff bear poking thing. My response was, maybe, but I'm not really fond of the idea because of said issue of surprise babies even more limiting females radius of mobility.

lionon · 2018-12-05 19:31:18

Elsayal wrote:

As god said once

Link to YouTube or it didn't happen.

I'd rather have bears go out randomly from time to time to create drama as real PvE.

Tramax · 2018-12-06 03:19:08

lionon wrote:

Psykout wrote:
Never once have I misunderstood you, simply I don't agree. I have attempted to discuss certain points couple occasions, but you ignore them and hinge onto the basic disagreement principle and tell me I just don't understand or haven't read what you posted
Just because you don't realize means you really have. E.g. that other thread where I explained the issue in the original post and just "pointed out" what I discussed already.

C'mon man... How many times have I had to rephrase the same concepts over multiple posts in this thread? Psykout may have a valid criticism of your behaviour for you to reflect on here - as I've found in this thread you spent a long time rebutting me and others by stubbornly saying things along the lines of, "What are you even talking about, just read the title of the thread it's so obvious how weird it is that babies can do this..."

Azrael · 2018-12-06 03:52:15

Why do we want to change all game mechanics?

It's REALLY hard to be civil here when the suggestions in these posts are so ridiculous. This is realistic and it's a feature that's existed for a while, you simply can't convince me or anyone else this feature is worthwhile because of your one bad experience. Hundreds of players have played this game and it is not a big issue right now.

Jk Howling · 2018-12-06 04:01:09

lionon wrote:

Including babyhood/childhood and elderhood you only have about 15 minutes of that hour you can freely move as woman.

Just wanted to point out rl quick that you have way more than "15 minutes" of the full hour-long life to move around freely as a woman. Your fertility only lasts 25 minutes, from age 15 to age 40. You're also tied to your mother for food for the first 3 minutes of life. This leaves you a full 32 minutes for the rest of your life to move about as you wish- which is just about half.

Personally my opinion is pretty neutral on the topic at hand. Yeah it's annoying, but it's not the biggest problem in the game or one I encounter often with a bad outcome. Bears are simple enough to deal with if you know what you're doing. As it is, I wouldn't be against removing either.

Also, can't we just talk about the actual topic and not devolves into a personal bickering mess? C'mon guys.

Azrael · 2018-12-06 04:07:05

Jk Howling wrote:

lionon wrote:
Including babyhood/childhood and elderhood you only have about 15 minutes of that hour you can freely move as woman.
Just wanted to point out rl quick that you have way more than "15 minutes" of the full hour-long life to move around freely as a woman. Your fertility only lasts 25 minutes, from age 15 to age 40. You're also tied to your mother for food for the first 3 minutes of life. This leaves you a full 32 minutes for the rest of your life to move about as you wish- which is just about half.

Personally my opinion is pretty neutral on the topic at hand. Yeah it's annoying, but it's not the biggest problem in the game or one I encounter often with a bad outcome. Bears are simple enough to deal with if you know what you're doing. As it is, I wouldn't be against removing either.

Also, can't we just talk about the actual topic and not devolves into a personal bickering mess? C'mon guys.

I somewhat agree with what you're saying, even though I think you're fertile from 14-39, still 25 minutes, but I think that the feature is necessary.

By that I mean, why remove something if it's not broken? Can you imagine if Jason removed all non-essential things from the game?? It would be literally just, farm, iron, smith, compost, sheep, wells/pumps. There wouldn't be anything extra, small features like this are needed to give the game some colour. If we remove all "meh" features we get a boring and simplistic game that is not to the standards it is now.

lionon · 2018-12-06 05:50:51

Jk Howling wrote:

Just wanted to point out rl quick that you have way more than "15 minutes" of the full hour-long life to move around freely as a woman. Your fertility only lasts 25 minutes, from age 15 to age 40. You're also tied to your mother for food for the first 3 minutes of life. This leaves you a full 32 minutes for the rest of your life to move about as you wish- which is just about half.

Lower than 10 and older than 50 it's difficult to freely move due to the low food store.

As woman if you do not want to abandon children you have about 10 to 14 and 40 to 50 -> 15 minutes.

lionon · 2018-12-06 05:55:03

Azrael wrote:

This is realistic and it's a feature that's existed for a while, you simply can't convince me or anyone else this feature is worthwhile because of your one bad experience. Hundreds of players have played this game and it is not a big issue right now.

We're really going in circles here, and if it's tiresome, yes.

realistic -> it's not. A newborn running of at full speed of a grown up into a bear cave pulling out the bear is not realistic. That due to gamefication we may not want to force babies to crawl is another story, but the combo is just not realistic.

this feature is worthwhile -> what is actually the "feature"? Not having the feature?

one bad experience -> as I said multiple times, I didn't even have that bad experience myself.

it's not a big issue -> must each suggestion be a "big issue"? Can't we also talk about the tiny things now and then? Similar like the post that complains that chickens are shown in carts face down? Do you also tell them, it's no big issue, hundrets of players have played this game... etc. It's not. It's still something improvable.

Last edited by lionon (2018-12-06 05:56:44)

Jk Howling · 2018-12-06 06:04:53

lionon wrote:

Jk Howling wrote:
Just wanted to point out rl quick that you have way more than "15 minutes" of the full hour-long life to move around freely as a woman. Your fertility only lasts 25 minutes, from age 15 to age 40. You're also tied to your mother for food for the first 3 minutes of life. This leaves you a full 32 minutes for the rest of your life to move about as you wish- which is just about half.
Lower than 10 and older than 50 it's difficult to freely move due to the low food store.
As woman if you do not want to abandon children you have about 10 to 14 and 40 to 50 -> 15 minutes.

I mean, even as a 5 year old and equally as a 55 year old, I've never had problems with this. Again, it's another thing that, if you know what you're what you're doing, is rarely an issue. Just like bears. All it takes common sense and not taking stupid risks, like running out into inhabitable biomes without bringing any sort of food with you.

I always use the full 32 years I get without fertility to my fullest, and almost never starve early, sans the occasional "going off to die of old age and getting sniped at 59 by hunger" scenario. I've even had multiple successful runs where I've had to migrate away from my mothers crappy pond-less site as early as I can to find a new place to settle.

It's honestly not that hard. There's food literally everywhere, especially since Jungles and bananas being added. A basket, a sharp stone, and a couple pieces of food to eat if you get low in an inhabitable biome is all it takes.

Azrael · 2018-12-06 06:33:37

lionon wrote:

Azrael wrote:
This is realistic and it's a feature that's existed for a while, you simply can't convince me or anyone else this feature is worthwhile because of your one bad experience. Hundreds of players have played this game and it is not a big issue right now.
We're really going in circles here, and if it's tiresome, yes.
realistic -> it's not. A newborn running of at full speed of a grown up into a bear cave pulling out the bear is not realistic. That due to gamefication we may not want to force babies to crawl is another story, but the combo is just not realistic.
this feature is worthwhile -> what is actually the "feature"? Not having the feature?
one bad experience -> as I said multiple times, I didn't even have that bad experience myself.
it's not a big issue -> must each suggestion be a "big issue"? Can't we also talk about the tiny things now and then? Similar like the post that complains that chickens are shown in carts face down? Do you also tell them, it's no big issue, hundreds of players have played this game... etc. It's not. It's still something improvable.

Sure lack of a feature whatever floats your boat. And yes, it IS realistic that kids can goof off and touch the wrong things. But why even complain? Like you made a WHOLE post for this??? attention mongering much? DO we need a post about caves and babies?

Why is it that players such as yourself, decide to just parade and think everything that's in the game is wrong, and needs changing, and is a bad system etc. I have not seen ONE post appreciating the game or discussing cool mechanics, only criticizing and suggesting "better" features that are not better.

I swear, I have never made a post discussing how the game's features suck or how we need to remove this because blahblahblah. too much, and too pointless.

lionon · 2018-12-06 06:57:53

Azrael wrote:

And yes, it IS realistic that kids can goof off and touch the wrong things.

babies are not kids yet.

Alias · 2018-12-06 07:26:14

lionon, i don't get most of responses here. I'm with you on this one, it's no brainer. I especially don't get people explaining that bear-poke has it's uses for e.g. hunting, completly missing the point or by claiming that sarcasm is insult.
Quick facts:
- bear poke is the ONLY interaction with environment for babies
- bear poke by baby has zero use in constructive play
- only use of bear poke by baby is for griefing

From above it seems that this exception - if intentional - was made by developer to help griefers, which I don't think is the case.
Why do you defend this feature, if the ONLY thing lost would be cheap griefing tactic? Again, lionon suggest only removing it for babies. What would you lose?
Even if this is not efficient griefing, why defend it if it has no use apart from griefing?

lionon, reading this makes me want to team up with you and test this in game, though I never poked a bear or griefed in the slightest. For science.

Last edited by Alias (2018-12-06 07:28:15)

Tramax · 2018-12-06 09:58:28

Everyone should have the freedom to grief though.
Bears are the one way babies can accomplish this.
Why remove that freedom? Especially given that it's been admitted how weak of a grief it is?

Last edited by Tramax (2018-12-06 09:59:14)

Alias · 2018-12-06 10:19:08

Tramax wrote:

Bears are the one way babies can accomplish this.

Are there any other ways?
If talking about freedom, why babies have freedom to bear-poke but not berry-pick?
And it remains to be seen if it's weak or not.

Last edited by Alias (2018-12-06 10:25:51)

lionon · 2018-12-06 10:23:44

Tramax wrote:

Everyone should have the freedom to grief though.

To make that statement applicable you are missing "at any moment".

This is where I frankly disagree.. In my opinion they should have to invest at least a tiny little, that is to wait 4 minutes until they are 4.

And as in the other thread been said, there is something different in being an antagonist and being a griever.

CrazyEddie wrote:

Griefers are there to ruin everyone else's fun, period. That's how they get their fun. They're simply hooligans. They're not playing the black pieces against your white in chess; they're the kids who steal the king while your back is turned and then laugh at you when you try to figure out where the king went.

pein · 2018-12-06 10:37:01

lot of moms don't even notice your existence, i will poke a bear every time im left alone , without a sry or at least 2 seconds of stopping
i don't mind being abandoned, but if she thinks any baby is worst than her than she deserves a bear, and to be fair, badlands are kind of a good spot to settle, with the stone and iron, i seen a few good badland cities, so if you choose a camp with bearcaves, clear them out asap or block them

curse system helps idiot roleplayers who stand no chance in pvp, if its part of the game, people shouldn't cry about killings, all i see is overly sensitive noobs cursing people in situations they don't understand, or when they are the one to blame
and when they do nothing for half an hour they deserve to be stabbed anyway

lionon · 2018-12-06 11:04:26

pein wrote:

lot of moms don't even notice your existence, i will poke a bear every time im left alone , without a sry or at least 2 seconds of stopping
i don't mind being abandoned, but if she thinks any baby is worst than her than she deserves a bear

pein, wow, thats the first counter argument here I agree with.

only thing is, possibly not the mum is suffering as retaliation, but other bystanders.

Alias · 2018-12-06 11:59:32

pein wrote:

i don't mind being abandoned, but if she thinks any baby is worst than her than she deserves a bear

I guess this would be a good reason if abandoning wasn't a big part of the game and often the best choice for whole settlement.
You don't mind abandoning, so what do you mind? When they dont say "sry, to many kids"? If yes, then I guess this is fair, bear can teach some manners.

Still pitty if others suffer or even whole new settlement dies out.

Hiker170 · 2018-12-06 12:53:12

Bears as a whole can be annoying to deal with, but you can lead them away or try and be prepared before hand. This also means you can just leave the baby to die to the bear as well, or raise the child and then shoot them later since you have a bow.

The caves being there are always seen as a threat. They are no different to setting up in an area with boars, snakes or wolves. You have to take these into account when you first start setting up and prepare for them. The fact that a baby can do it or an adult can doesn't change to much since it will be annoying regardless of age, at least with the baby you haven't wasted time on raising them.

The mums who forget you peps are probably lagging. I know I have had it happen a few times when running around that I don't even see the child drop just hear them crying.

One Hour One Life Forums

#26 2018-12-05 05:51:04

Re: Suggestion: Babies shouldn't be able to wake bears.

#27 2018-12-05 14:23:55

Re: Suggestion: Babies shouldn't be able to wake bears.

#28 2018-12-05 15:08:13

Re: Suggestion: Babies shouldn't be able to wake bears.

#29 2018-12-05 15:15:24

Re: Suggestion: Babies shouldn't be able to wake bears.

#30 2018-12-05 17:48:59

Re: Suggestion: Babies shouldn't be able to wake bears.

#31 2018-12-05 18:33:37

Re: Suggestion: Babies shouldn't be able to wake bears.

#32 2018-12-05 19:30:04

Re: Suggestion: Babies shouldn't be able to wake bears.

#33 2018-12-05 19:31:18

Re: Suggestion: Babies shouldn't be able to wake bears.

#34 2018-12-06 03:19:08

Re: Suggestion: Babies shouldn't be able to wake bears.

#35 2018-12-06 03:52:15

Re: Suggestion: Babies shouldn't be able to wake bears.

#36 2018-12-06 04:01:09

Re: Suggestion: Babies shouldn't be able to wake bears.

#37 2018-12-06 04:07:05

Re: Suggestion: Babies shouldn't be able to wake bears.

#38 2018-12-06 05:50:51

Re: Suggestion: Babies shouldn't be able to wake bears.

#39 2018-12-06 05:55:03

Re: Suggestion: Babies shouldn't be able to wake bears.

#40 2018-12-06 06:04:53

Re: Suggestion: Babies shouldn't be able to wake bears.

#41 2018-12-06 06:33:37

Re: Suggestion: Babies shouldn't be able to wake bears.

#42 2018-12-06 06:57:53

Re: Suggestion: Babies shouldn't be able to wake bears.

#43 2018-12-06 07:26:14

Re: Suggestion: Babies shouldn't be able to wake bears.

#44 2018-12-06 09:58:28

Re: Suggestion: Babies shouldn't be able to wake bears.

#45 2018-12-06 10:19:08

Re: Suggestion: Babies shouldn't be able to wake bears.

#46 2018-12-06 10:23:44

Re: Suggestion: Babies shouldn't be able to wake bears.

#47 2018-12-06 10:37:01

Re: Suggestion: Babies shouldn't be able to wake bears.

#48 2018-12-06 11:04:26

Re: Suggestion: Babies shouldn't be able to wake bears.

#49 2018-12-06 11:59:32

Re: Suggestion: Babies shouldn't be able to wake bears.

#50 2018-12-06 12:53:12

Re: Suggestion: Babies shouldn't be able to wake bears.

Board footer