Swords...... Aren't as bad.

Bob 101 · 2019-05-13 02:58:32

I attempted a raid alone and failed miserbly. Basically they healed every victim within seconds and I got chased with the sword as soon I attacked them.

I ended up dropping my sword and another guy picked it up. At that point I surrendered and let them kill me.

It'd may be different if the town had no way of healing. I went for sword girl first but she was saved and was on my ass from then.

Has anybody actually launched a counter attack against raiders yet?

Last edited by Bob 101 (2019-05-13 03:03:54)

mrbah · 2019-05-13 10:06:14

i had a guy from the line i was previously in come to wakanda and kill my uncle, was promptly stabbed for it.
We didn't send a team for revenge, because the other village probably didn't even know what he did.

Spoonwood · 2019-05-13 14:10:31

Sounds like you're saying that swords are worse than you expected. Also, it should be clear that the update didn't encourage you to play for your lineage. Really, both swords and property fences should get removed from the game.

Tarr · 2019-05-13 15:42:24

If you seriously don't think they're that bad then let me show you what happened when the Haak family started luring people to bell town to kill their vistors.

Pretty sure I stabbed someone else that life AND I lived to sixty peacefully. The sword is DEFINITELY overpowered. I at first was using one sword which you run full speed while on cooldown btw and swapped to using two as soon as someone dropped one. I just wanted to come work at the bell town and Aqua Haak decided she was going to chase me around with a knife but I took it and returned to doing stuff around town. As soon as they killed a ginger woman the culling began. I killed every single person who came at me with a sword/knife without any problem what so ever. I was never in any danger with both of us in melee combat which is just silly.

Swords are dumb and if you don't think being able to single handedly cull an entire population by yourself you're being silly too.

Last edited by Tarr (2019-05-13 15:43:33)

jinbaili83 · 2019-05-13 16:18:27

They had bad experience with outsiders, Bani Bada III came to kill them.

Tarr · 2019-05-13 16:21:08

jinbaili83 wrote:

They had bad experience with outsiders, Bani Bada III came to kill them.

And they picked a fight with someone who just wanted to help out. Purposely ringing your bell to lure people to their deaths is a little dickish don't you think? They killed two of my children + another Eve and at that point I took matters into my own hands and cleaned up the barbarians.

It's one thing to be hostile to outsiders, it's another to purposely lead them somewhere to kill them.

Tarr · 2019-05-13 20:30:55

Anyways I'm done playing with the update since it's mostly garbage. There's no reason one person should be able to do the sorts of damage I'm pulling off in the game.

Jason, people aren't going to use your fences because of this update regardless of how much damage one person can do. They'll likely just attempt to kill outsiders (which they tried on me) or lure people to the bell towns for the sole purpose of killing them. The language part of the update is cool but swords are just absolutely ridiculous. There's a reason weapons get stuck in your hand, and there's a reason you can't drop them it's called balance and swords are no where near even remotely balanced even after the first nerf.

Morti · 2019-05-14 02:26:42

Yeah, swords are dumb.
They really don't belong in this game.

It was one thing for us to realize that we could accidentally kill people with a bow and arrow, it was another to make the knife able to kill people, but reintroducing the butter knife in the form of the sword is just stupid.

What's next, armor? Guns? Cannons?

Atomic powered robots who's sole purpose is to defend our town?

Is that where all this is going? You want us to make terminators and drones to fight wars?

When there are 30 people playing, how do you think that's going to turn out?

You sold the game as a parenting simulator; people want to care for each other, and you're going to let the ones that kill people turn them away. Then you'll be left with another dead game, like all the other garbage you've made.

--

I'm sorry but the property fences and the weapons are the wrong direction for this project.

You should have stuck to making food, clothing and the technology for people to keep each other alive. That way new people would have felt welcome and needed and the game could have grown with the growth of the player base. Now you're just going to turn people who want to care and work with each other, a goal we all already wanted, away from one another.

You can't run a simulation meant for thousands, or even millions of people, with ten. What happened to humanity over the last ten thousand years just cannot be reproduced this way. Even if 1 in 10 people decides they are going to murder people, the ratio of murderers to mothers is already orders of magnitude too high, compared to that which gave rise to mankind.

Forget your lesson, make a good game for people who want to do good things.

That is what has kept me playing for over 2000 hours now, and that is what the vast majority of players wants to do.

That is what the vast majority of people throughout time, have wanted to do.

RedComb · 2019-05-14 03:51:11

Morti wrote:

When there are 30 people playing, how do you think that's going to turn out?
You sold the game as a parenting simulator; people want to care for each other, and you're going to let the ones that kill people turn them away. Then you'll be left with another dead game, like all the other garbage you've made.
--
I'm sorry but the property fences and the weapons are the wrong direction for this project.
You should have stuck to making food, clothing and the technology for people to keep each other alive. That way new people would have felt welcome and needed and the game could have grown with the growth of the player base. Now you're just going to turn people who want to care and work with each other, a goal we all already wanted, away from one another.
You can't run a simulation meant for thousands, or even millions of people, with ten. What happened to humanity over the last ten thousand years just cannot be reproduced this way. Even if 1 in 10 people decides they are going to murder people, the ratio of murderers to mothers is already orders of magnitude too high, compared to that which gave rise to mankind.
Forget your lesson, make a good game for people who want to do good things.
That is what has kept me playing for over 2000 hours now, and that is what the vast majority of players wants to do.
That is what the vast majority of people throughout time, have wanted to do.

As a new player with probably around 30 hours, I agree 100% with what you've said, except the part about the other games he's made being garbage (because I don't know anything about them).

I will post this again because it bears repeating... it is taken from a blogpost about getting criticism by one of the most erudite game designers for multiplayer games ever, Raph Koster.

Bold and italics added by me for emphasis:

You often have to choose between your ideals and your message.
One of the commonest pieces of feedback I get is that I am choosing some philosophical ideal over the player’s experience. It might be getting wedded to an aesthetic or visual I love that is just confusing the issue. It might be sticking with PvP for too long in order to serve an ideal of virtual citizenship, not paying attention to how many players are being chased out of the game.
The irony here, of course, is that if I can’t make the player’s experience positive enough, my ideal is failing to reach them anyway. And what good is it then?
It doesn’t mean I have to give up on the philosophical ideal. But it does mean that there are many many ways to compromise, and not all of them leave you compromised. In fact, being uncompromising may be the least successful way to achieve your artistic goal.
"On Getting Criticism"

I really want to know what is the point of "muh vision" if it drives away a core segment of the player base, turns off noobs from playing your game, and leads to less people being around to experience, enjoy and react to your game?

How many people are really going to "Come Together" if the changes you make trying to force them to build fences and band together against enemies actually drives them away?

If your players aren't using a particular feature, if you're players aren't happy with things like war swords, maybe that is because something else in your game appeals to them and things like war swords, genetic homogeneity, and not being able to communicate with strangers is killing the very thing that makes your game special. There are a great number of the players who enjoy parenting and cooperation, in working together and chilling out without contrived drama and some cynical simulation that attempts to mirror the darkest and basest of human impulses.

Finally, Raph Koster has a recent book called "Post Mortems," over 700 pages where he discusses many of the lessons learned from his various experiences working on games like UO, SWG, Metaplace, and more. I highly urge Jason to read it, at least the parts where he discusses playerkilling in UO and laments his stubborn decision to permit freedom and FFA pvp in the name of emergence and the simulation at the expense of the game's playerbase.

The "You red, you dead" part of this MASSIVELY OP ARTICLE also discusses the book and this mistake, and I think it's something for Jason and the OHOL community members (who think war swords and property fences are great) to really consider if they don't want to be a pack of wolves hunting for sheep in an empty wasteland.

UO lost a huge number of players to unchecked player killing and griefing, and it wasn't until Trammel (a PvE only mirror of the game world) was created that subscriptions numbers doubled. Many people view Trammel as the beginning of the end of UO too, but Koster has repeatedly mentioned that they lost huge numbers of players to EQ pre-Trammel because they dogmatically put the simulation and freedom above the enjoyment of most of their players, and their attempts to allow the community to police griefing and playerkilling was a failure that drove players away in droves.

Relevant quote:

“The result of UO’s PK environment was an exodus driven not only by the more modern 3-D graphics of EverQuest but by the safety. Everything I had thought about the impossible admin load of having a PK switch with a large-scale game was disproven in short order, and players wasted no time in telling me bluntly that I had been drastically and painfully wrong. In the name of player freedoms, I had put them through the slow-drip torture of two years of experiments with slowly tightening behavior rules, trying to save the emergence while tamping down the bad behavior. The cost was the loss of many hundreds of thousands of players. Ultima Online had churned through more than twice as many players who quit than EverQuest even got as subscribers that year.”

Last edited by RedComb (2019-05-14 04:05:58)

Spoonwood · 2019-05-14 04:44:02

Morti wrote:

Yeah, swords are dumb.
They really don't belong in this game.
It was one thing for us to realize that we could accidentally kill people with a bow and arrow, it was another to make the knife able to kill people, but reintroducing the butter knife in the form of the sword is just stupid.
What's next, armor? Guns? Cannons?
Atomic powered robots who's sole purpose is to defend our town?
Is that where all this is going? You want us to make terminators and drones to fight wars?
When there are 30 people playing, how do you think that's going to turn out?
You sold the game as a parenting simulator; people want to care for each other, and you're going to let the ones that kill people turn them away. Then you'll be left with another dead game, like all the other garbage you've made.
--
I'm sorry but the property fences and the weapons are the wrong direction for this project.
You should have stuck to making food, clothing and the technology for people to keep each other alive. That way new people would have felt welcome and needed and the game could have grown with the growth of the player base. Now you're just going to turn people who want to care and work with each other, a goal we all already wanted, away from one another.
You can't run a simulation meant for thousands, or even millions of people, with ten. What happened to humanity over the last ten thousand years just cannot be reproduced this way. Even if 1 in 10 people decides they are going to murder people, the ratio of murderers to mothers is already orders of magnitude too high, compared to that which gave rise to mankind.
Forget your lesson, make a good game for people who want to do good things.
That is what has kept me playing for over 2000 hours now, and that is what the vast majority of players wants to do.
That is what the vast majority of people throughout time, have wanted to do.

I'm quoting this elsewhere Morti, where I think Jason might be more inclined to read it.

lychee · 2019-05-14 04:46:27

@RedComb That was a great read! Futurebird shared it on discord and I would really recommend Jason to take a look at those articles if he gets a chance! They're really insightful.

MultiLife · 2019-05-14 05:31:05

RedComb wrote:

I will post this again because it bears repeating... it is taken from a blogpost about getting criticism by one of the most erudite game designers for multiplayer games ever, Raph Koster.
Bold and italics added by me for emphasis:
You often have to choose between your ideals and your message.
One of the commonest pieces of feedback I get is that I am choosing some philosophical ideal over the player’s experience. It might be getting wedded to an aesthetic or visual I love that is just confusing the issue. It might be sticking with PvP for too long in order to serve an ideal of virtual citizenship, not paying attention to how many players are being chased out of the game.
The irony here, of course, is that if I can’t make the player’s experience positive enough, my ideal is failing to reach them anyway. And what good is it then?
It doesn’t mean I have to give up on the philosophical ideal. But it does mean that there are many many ways to compromise, and not all of them leave you compromised. In fact, being uncompromising may be the least successful way to achieve your artistic goal.
"On Getting Criticism"
I really want to know what is the point of "muh vision" if it drives away a core segment of the player base, turns off noobs from playing your game, and leads to less people being around to experience, enjoy and react to your game?
How many people are really going to "Come Together" if the changes you make trying to force them to build fences and band together against enemies actually drives them away?
If your players aren't using a particular feature, if you're players aren't happy with things like war swords, maybe that is because something else in your game appeals to them and things like war swords, genetic homogeneity, and not being able to communicate with strangers is killing the very thing that makes your game special. There are a great number of the players who enjoy parenting and cooperation, in working together and chilling out without contrived drama and some cynical simulation that attempts to mirror the darkest and basest of human impulses.
Finally, Raph Koster has a recent book called "Post Mortems," over 700 pages where he discusses many of the lessons learned from his various experiences working on games like UO, SWG, Metaplace, and more. I highly urge Jason to read it, at least the parts where he discusses playerkilling in UO and laments his stubborn decision to permit freedom and FFA pvp in the name of emergence and the simulation at the expense of the game's playerbase.
The "You red, you dead" part of this MASSIVELY OP ARTICLE also discusses the book and this mistake, and I think it's something for Jason and the OHOL community members (who think war swords and property fences are great) to really consider if they don't want to be a pack of wolves hunting for sheep in an empty wasteland.
UO lost a huge number of players to unchecked player killing and griefing, and it wasn't until Trammel (a PvE only mirror of the game world) was created that subscriptions numbers doubled. Many people view Trammel as the beginning of the end of UO too, but Koster has repeatedly mentioned that they lost huge numbers of players to EQ pre-Trammel because they dogmatically put the simulation and freedom above the enjoyment of most of their players, and their attempts to allow the community to police griefing and playerkilling was a failure that drove players away in droves.
Relevant quote:
“The result of UO’s PK environment was an exodus driven not only by the more modern 3-D graphics of EverQuest but by the safety. Everything I had thought about the impossible admin load of having a PK switch with a large-scale game was disproven in short order, and players wasted no time in telling me bluntly that I had been drastically and painfully wrong. In the name of player freedoms, I had put them through the slow-drip torture of two years of experiments with slowly tightening behavior rules, trying to save the emergence while tamping down the bad behavior. The cost was the loss of many hundreds of thousands of players. Ultima Online had churned through more than twice as many players who quit than EverQuest even got as subscribers that year.”

I love it.
I have so many things to say but for now I will just admire it and read all the things linked in it.

RedComb · 2019-05-14 05:37:02

lychee wrote:

@RedComb That was a great read! Futurebird shared it on discord and I would really recommend Jason to take a look at those articles if he gets a chance! They're really insightful.

Thank you and Futurebird for sharing it.

I also wrote a different post on the WE NEED TO BUILD A WALL thread primarily discussing how some of the game mechanics are problematic and not only empower griefers, but allow them to get away with abhorrent behavior scott free.

I realize he's super busy and ain't nobody got time for walls of texts like these, or to listen to hour long GDC presentations, but maybe the fact that a lot of the suggestions and feedback I'm making are coming from an expert in the field (Koster) and not just me might make it worthwhile for him to check them out.

I think I read somewhere on here where he posted about attending GDC, so I have to imagine he is open to these kinds of presentations and the knowledge they contain.

FWIW, I joined the discord a few days ago, but didn't post anything there because I'm just not really a discord person.

I'm just a noob who found this game really intriguing, and really enjoyed playing it, right up until I was killed (and saw the rest of the town get killed) when I was only 7 and had barely had a look around at all the progress that town had made (I was there 15 generations prior and it was my first time spawning back into someplace I had made a positive contribution to, so it was cool to see the progress made, but a real shock to be stabbed by the war sword... an item I didn't know had been implemented into the game as of that moment).

It just left a really sour taste in my mouth when what had seemed like a rather chill game built around cooperation was suddenly going full nihilistic, featuring conflict and drama because humans are killers and the world is built by killers, etc....

Last edited by RedComb (2019-05-14 05:38:41)

Dodge · 2019-05-14 06:00:53

It's a human civilisation simulator get over it, if humans made swords the game gets swords, if humans made guns and black powder it will also probably get added to the game one day.

But that's without mentioning all the progress civilisations have done in terms of medicine, technology etc.

So maybe one day we will also get better medicine, armors, better ways to defend properties and villagers.

Also everyone saying it's untruthful to the trailer, did you watch it?

At the end of the trailer jason gets killed by an atomic powered robot that shoots a laser gun, why is that robot here?

It's a guard robot that protects the entrance of the city (unless i'm wrong), why would there need to be protection if it wasn't for invasion?

Also he has a freakin laser gun, so being surprised about swords is ridiculous.

I do agree that currently the game is slightly unbalanced in favor of "killers", societies in the game are still made in a tribal/shared village kind off setting, so even if building a wall around the whole city is possible it's unpractical (note that it's fairly easy to make fences and a gate to protect the whole city, or at least have a safe place like the nursery for example).

But it's impossible to add everything the same week, game is going to be unbalanced many more times before it get's balanced back and become better than before, a good example of this is the temperature overhall where a lot of players where mad but ended up being a very good update and essential to make the game more interesting.

Imagine having the high society clothes and still having desert villages and the old temperature, everyone still naked, wearing clothes would get you stabbed because you waste food, only villages in desert/jungle borders etc...

MultiLife · 2019-05-14 06:33:14

Dodge wrote:

It's a human civilisation simulator get over it, if humans made swords the game gets swords, if humans made guns and black powder it will also probably get added to the game one day.

Saying "Get over it" is a mighty thing to say if the game has 30 people playing and is hemorrhaging new players, with old players having second thoughts inviting their friends to play.

Griefers have a lot of power here.
Also the game is not newbie friendly at all.
Lots of inconsistencies and a bad crafting guide (in-game), no wonder people have trouble staying.

I still haven't heard Jason's vision put in his words. What will this game be in the end?
Also, that article (https://massivelyop.com/2018/06/14/magi … ma-online/) has great examples of issues OHOL is suffering from, like trying to keep griefers as 'part of the game' and pushing community to police the players.

I had awesome quotes but forums hiccuped and I lost the message. I may try again later.

Last edited by MultiLife (2019-05-14 06:40:45)

lychee · 2019-05-14 06:47:24

Dodge wrote:

But it's impossible to add everything the same week, game is going to be unbalanced many more times before it get's balanced back and become better than before, a good example of this is the temperature overhall where a lot of players where mad but ended up being a very good update and essential to make the game more interesting.

I feel quite similarly about what Dodge says here -- it's hard to make a game, and it's even harder to make a balanced game on the first attempt -- so I think it's natural for there to be a lot of instability to the game for a lot of time to come.

However, I think Jason has a very specific vision for his game -- and I think he will continue to balance, tweak, and improve it until it's at a place that he's satisfied with.

Of course -- there's always a conflict between artistic vision and what's popular, and there's inherently hard choices for Jason to make when his artistic values are at odds with what the much of the playerbase wants -- but only Jason can make those calls and stand by them, and I have every bit of respect for each decision that Jason makes.

Dodge · 2019-05-14 07:54:05

MultiLife wrote:

Dodge wrote:
It's a human civilisation simulator get over it, if humans made swords the game gets swords, if humans made guns and black powder it will also probably get added to the game one day.
Saying "Get over it" is a mighty thing to say if the game has 30 people playing and is hemorrhaging new players, with old players having second thoughts inviting their friends to play.
Griefers have a lot of power here.
Also the game is not newbie friendly at all.
Lots of inconsistencies and a bad crafting guide (in-game), no wonder people have trouble staying.
I still haven't heard Jason's vision put in his words. What will this game be in the end?
Also, that article (https://massivelyop.com/2018/06/14/magi … ma-online/) has great examples of issues OHOL is suffering from, like trying to keep griefers as 'part of the game' and pushing community to police the players.
I had awesome quotes but forums hiccuped and I lost the message. I may try again later.

30 players?

90 players curently in game : http://onehouronelife.com/reflector/ser … ion=report

And it's because it's a slow time (US sleeping, EU morning work day etc). I dont have the exact numbers but i believe the average is at about 100-110.

About the crafting guide in game it's basic on purpose because you're supposed to learn with other people, by watching them or asking them, at least that's what i understood maybe i'm wrong, it's a very cooperative/social oriented game, having the crafting guide made very easy in game would be one less reason to interact with others. Maybe one day he will make it different and add other incentives to cooperate, who knows.

Imo one of the best way to have cooperation,trading and even properties, would be to add a skill system with professions.
The baker trades with farmer that trades with tailor that trades with smith etc.

RodneyC86 · 2019-05-14 08:01:12

Morti wrote:

Yeah, swords are dumb.
They really don't belong in this game.
It was one thing for us to realize that we could accidentally kill people with a bow and arrow, it was another to make the knife able to kill people, but reintroducing the butter knife in the form of the sword is just stupid.
What's next, armor? Guns? Cannons?
Atomic powered robots who's sole purpose is to defend our town?
Is that where all this is going? You want us to make terminators and drones to fight wars?
When there are 30 people playing, how do you think that's going to turn out?
You sold the game as a parenting simulator; people want to care for each other, and you're going to let the ones that kill people turn them away. Then you'll be left with another dead game, like all the other garbage you've made.
--
I'm sorry but the property fences and the weapons are the wrong direction for this project.
You should have stuck to making food, clothing and the technology for people to keep each other alive. That way new people would have felt welcome and needed and the game could have grown with the growth of the player base. Now you're just going to turn people who want to care and work with each other, a goal we all already wanted, away from one another.
You can't run a simulation meant for thousands, or even millions of people, with ten. What happened to humanity over the last ten thousand years just cannot be reproduced this way. Even if 1 in 10 people decides they are going to murder people, the ratio of murderers to mothers is already orders of magnitude too high, compared to that which gave rise to mankind.
Forget your lesson, make a good game for people who want to do good things.
That is what has kept me playing for over 2000 hours now, and that is what the vast majority of players wants to do.
That is what the vast majority of people throughout time, have wanted to do.

I've been meaning to say something along these lines, but Jason was late approving my forum account.

We simply lack the volume of players to simulate any society beyond tribalism. Which to be frank, after just 50 hours of play for me play is starting to feel repetitive. Everyone is so crucial to the function of a village or town that we are working 75 percent of our lives without a chance to do things a normal human being does , actually talk to people

If you ask me, Jason should be making more ways to improve efficiency of mass producing items and more water that is easily obtained

The problem is now, escalating challenge of to get more water and stagnant agricultural practice has made society nothing more than worker bees and everyone needs to be competent or town will die

TLDR : I think making things challenging with ever increasing complex ways to get water, food is not the way forward for this game. It's okay for these to get easy, we are at a point in time where 99 percent of us in a non backwards country don't have to worry about food and a good majority of us pursue things that if done in game would be considered "rp-ing". You don't have to give us the challenge Jason, humans by nature will find our own problems (first world problems)

Edit: sorry I got bad grammar, english is my third language

Last edited by RodneyC86 (2019-05-14 08:03:19)

RedComb · 2019-05-14 08:13:08

Dodge wrote:

It's a human civilisation simulator get over it

At what point in the history of human civilization was a magic sword ever developed that could only harm outsiders?

Humans can also see more than 5 feet in front of their face, so they would be able to spot potential enemies in the distance and react to threats moving toward them before the aggressor is almost right on top of them. But, in this human civilization simulator, that kind of FOV is not welcome, so if you're going to base your argument on things being based on real life examples, how about addressing some of the basic limitations inherent to the game's mechanics and controls.

And, as for the language changes, humanity certainly has a diverse number of languages that seem mutually unintelligible to the casual observer, but there is still some inherent common root words in MANY of the European languages (see: Proto-Indo-European language for more, or check out a brief segment about the topic from THIS OLDER SERIES ON THE STORY OF ENGLISH 2:09 - 6:00, turn down volume headphone users!)

Furthermore, a great amount of meaning is conveyed non-verbally through body language and tone of voice. There are several facial expressions that humans use, many that are understood across cultures, with some even occurring in remote tribal communities that have had almost no contact with the outside world. An example would be the facial expression for disgust, or the myriad of expressions humans use to convey happiness.

Last I checked, the limited number of emotes and simple character models in game cannot convey this nuanced aspect of human communication. In fact, you can't even hold your hands out and open/empty as a sign of non-aggression, or put your hands up, or approach somebody meekly to communicate that you are not a threat, and typing to communicate does not really communicate tone the same way a calm or aggressive voice would (be it gibberish or not).

If "human civilization simulation" includes magical swords, but not the innate tools that the human body has provided us for generations to non-verbally communicate with others, then I guess it is simulating the aggression and none of the peacemaking stuff... ::shrugs::

I realize there is more to be developed, but I'm merely making my case on why these changes are problematic for this particular game. I just don't think it fits the aesthetics or the control scheme, but obviously many people don't mind these changes or even possibly think my feedback unwelcome and want to see more things like magical swords that only hurt outsiders, so... yeah....

Anyway, as for the prickly "get over it" sentiment, well... no problemo, chap. It seems this is not the game I was looking for after all.

In any case, so long and thanks for all the fish!

Last edited by RedComb (2019-05-14 08:20:13)

Dodge · 2019-05-14 08:41:06

RedComb wrote:

Dodge wrote:
It's a human civilisation simulator get over it
At what point in the history of human civilization was a magic sword ever developed that could only harm outsiders?
Humans can also see more than 5 feet in front of their face, so they would be able to spot potential enemies in the distance and react to threats moving toward them before the aggressor is almost right on top of them. But, in this human civilization simulator, that kind of FOV is not welcome, so if you're going to base your argument on things being based on real life examples, how about addressing some of the basic limitations inherent to the game's mechanics and controls.

Obviously it's a game so there is gameplay elements. Otherwise there would be no murder slowdown at all on any weapon, imagine that...

Now everyone is much closer to each other, how do you do to defend your village?

With knifes that make you slowdown? Gl with that!

And dont use the argument of "then just remove all killing from the game" there would still be theft, so how do you protect ressources? By making every family on a different server? That sounds like fun, and you would still get theft and other problems coming from the same lineage.

Bringing everyone closer together makes the game richer and more interesting, swords are here to defend your village or any other purpose you attribute it.

Tarr · 2019-05-14 09:11:57

Dodge wrote:

RedComb wrote:
Dodge wrote:
It's a human civilisation simulator get over it
At what point in the history of human civilization was a magic sword ever developed that could only harm outsiders?
Humans can also see more than 5 feet in front of their face, so they would be able to spot potential enemies in the distance and react to threats moving toward them before the aggressor is almost right on top of them. But, in this human civilization simulator, that kind of FOV is not welcome, so if you're going to base your argument on things being based on real life examples, how about addressing some of the basic limitations inherent to the game's mechanics and controls.

Obviously it's a game so there is gameplay elements. Otherwise there would be no murder slowdown at all on any weapon, imagine that...
Now everyone is much closer to each other, how do you do to defend your village?
With knifes that make you slowdown? Gl with that!
And dont use the argument of "then just remove all killing from the game" there would still be theft, so how do you protect ressources? By making every family on a different server? That sounds like fun, and you would still get theft and other problems coming from the same lineage.
Bringing everyone closer together makes the game richer and more interesting, swords are here to defend your village or any other purpose you attribute it.

The difference is that knives/bows are actually balanced. If you kill ten people with a knife that means you took 10 minutes to kill a town which is 100% the fault of the town which got wiped it. A sword makes it so you can kill 10 people in two and a half minutes. The issue with the sword is it's not actually balanced around having an opportunity to strike back against a player (you run at full speed while the sword is bloody while being able to drop it to eat.) Even after all my kills yesterday I couldn't defend my own children against the same tactic because it's a quick click and the attacker runs off at full speed into the distance.

This isn't a thread about hurr durr remove murder, it's about Jason balancing a weapon he released solely to push people into playing the game the way he thinks it should be played. If you were honestly worried about protecting your village you wouldn't use swords in the first place. Why? Because if anyone outside your village gets a sword there's 15-20 targets sitting around vs one person you're normally targeting. Not once yesterday did the other players having swords help the village getting attacked it just hindered them because I could get my hands on an OP as fuck weapon and then use it against them.

Swords are only good as an attacking weapon because of the quick turn around time between stabs. Any weapon (bow is potentially better imo) can be used to defend since the murder cooldown doesn't matter if you're dealing with a single attacker. It's nice to see him move in the right direction and make the sword not a god damn stealth weapon but as long as you can run at max speed after a stab or when holding the blade there's no counter to the hit and run tactics besides the classic Benny Hills hijinx.

So unless your town is actively raiding another town swords are a huge liability because someone can and will eventually stroll on through and kill everyone. I still think there should be 10 seconds of actual murder stagger and not full force marathon running as this adds some real counterplay to the sword (if you remember correctly murder stagger for knives/bows was originally 30 seconds but was doubled up to a full minute due to it being too weak). Basically there should be an actual drawback to a weapon that can kill an entire village in two minutes flat.

Dodge · 2019-05-14 09:35:32

Tarr wrote:

Dodge wrote:
RedComb wrote:
At what point in the history of human civilization was a magic sword ever developed that could only harm outsiders?
Humans can also see more than 5 feet in front of their face, so they would be able to spot potential enemies in the distance and react to threats moving toward them before the aggressor is almost right on top of them. But, in this human civilization simulator, that kind of FOV is not welcome, so if you're going to base your argument on things being based on real life examples, how about addressing some of the basic limitations inherent to the game's mechanics and controls.

Obviously it's a game so there is gameplay elements. Otherwise there would be no murder slowdown at all on any weapon, imagine that...
Now everyone is much closer to each other, how do you do to defend your village?
With knifes that make you slowdown? Gl with that!
And dont use the argument of "then just remove all killing from the game" there would still be theft, so how do you protect ressources? By making every family on a different server? That sounds like fun, and you would still get theft and other problems coming from the same lineage.
Bringing everyone closer together makes the game richer and more interesting, swords are here to defend your village or any other purpose you attribute it.
The difference is that knives/bows are actually balanced. If you kill ten people with a knife that means you took 10 minutes to kill a town which is 100% the fault of the town which got wiped it. A sword makes it so you can kill 10 people in two and a half minutes. The issue with the sword is it's not actually balanced around having an opportunity to strike back against a player (you run at full speed while the sword is bloody while being able to drop it to eat.) Even after all my kills yesterday I couldn't defend my own children against the same tactic because it's a quick click and the attacker runs off at full speed into the distance.
This isn't a thread about hurr durr remove murder, it's about Jason balancing a weapon he released solely to push people into playing the game the way he thinks it should be played. If you were honestly worried about protecting your village you wouldn't use swords in the first place. Why? Because if anyone outside your village gets a sword there's 15-20 targets sitting around vs one person you're normally targeting. Not once yesterday did the other players having swords help the village getting attacked it just hindered them because I could get my hands on an OP as fuck weapon and then use it against them.
Swords are only good as an attacking weapon because of the quick turn around time between stabs. Any weapon (bow is potentially better imo) can be used to defend since the murder cooldown doesn't matter if you're dealing with a single attacker. It's nice to see him move in the right direction and make the sword not a god damn stealth weapon but as long as you can run at max speed after a stab or when holding the blade there's no counter to the hit and run tactics besides the classic Benny Hills hijinx.
So unless your town is actively raiding another town swords are a huge liability because someone can and will eventually stroll on through and kill everyone. I still think there should be 10 seconds of actual murder stagger and not full force marathon running as this adds some real counterplay to the sword (if you remember correctly murder stagger for knives/bows was originally 30 seconds but was doubled up to a full minute due to it being too weak). Basically there should be an actual drawback to a weapon that can kill an entire village in two minutes flat.

Murder stagger would make PVP so lame and actually unviable, you stab someone then cant run and get killed...

Why is a sword bad for defending a village? You cant kill you own family members and can only kill the invaders, so much better than a knife where you could kill someone from your family by mistake.

I agree on the fact that it's unbalanced, but not for the reasons you mention, there should be better medicine and official medics that can carry all the medical stuff, there should be armors and maybe shields and maybe a guard tower where you could shoot invaders from a distance and have a view over the whole village and defend it (crossbows for invaders only?).

Also why not make the nursery a place closed with gate, a safe place where villagers can retreat in case crusaders, invaders and other sword people come to kill a village.

Tarr · 2019-05-14 09:55:42

Dodge wrote:

Murder stagger would make PVP so lame and actually unviable, you stab someone then cant run and get killed...
Why is a sword bad for defending a village? You cant kill you own family members and can only kill the invaders, so much better than a knife where you could kill someone from your family by mistake.
I agree on the fact that it's unbalanced, but not for the reasons you mention, there should be better medicine and official medics that can carry all the medical stuff, there should be armors and maybe shields and maybe a guard tower where you could shoot invaders from a distance and have a view over the whole village and defend it (crossbows for invaders only?).
Also why not make the nursery a place closed with gate, a safe place where villagers can retreat in case crusaders, invaders and other sword people come to kill a village.

When has murder stagger made pvp in the past unviable? We're talking 10 seconds of having to run/dodge/juke and this isn't even taking in account the ability to just chuck the sword if you're afraid you won't survive the 10 seconds. How are there supposed to be wars if one person can kill 15? I don't see the issue in having a time to strike against a sword user since they've got 1/6th the cooldown of anyone using any other weapon.

A sword is absolutely terrible for protection because if the enemy gets it they'll do a lot more damage in a shorter amount of time. An item that only kills enemies is fine but as soon as someone outside the village gets your one of your swords you are going to end up like the families in the pictures. Not once did I enter any of these towns with a sword of my own, I had to pick one up they had discarded or disarm one of the people chasing me around. Afterwards it was full culling mode with almost zero chance for the towns survival. Having swords in your town is a risk to YOU not to strangers.

Armor and shield idea is garbage and you know it. Jason has been completely opposed to that sort of garbage in the past and I don't know why suddenly we're going all medieval after getting both cars and planes. This isn't a pvp game at its heart and isn't designed to have some girthy pvp mechanics lumped onto it.

Unless the gated area is properly fenced (not shaky) then it's not safe at all. I got three gingers who were trying to hide behind a gate but their fence hadn't been put up fast enough so I kicked it down and got them. There are still bugs in game to get people over fences in the game that haven't been fixed and even if you do get into a secure area you risk being trapped inside as soon as the person is done stabbing.

Better medical supplies would be a good thing for the game right about now but what good are they going to do when you can love tap someone with a sword every ten seconds? In the time it takes to get a fire down to embers for cleaning pads you can kill six players (though four is a much more reasonable number.)

Also what logical sense does it make that a sword of all weapons is used for hit and run combat? Doesn't that make more sense on something on a bow? The sword doesn't make sense on any sort of level in this game and the fact Jason decided to release it the way it originally was shows how far he's willing to go to make shitty content "viable."

Solbusaur · 2019-05-14 09:57:21

Morti wrote:

What's next, armor? Guns? Cannons?
Atomic powered robots who's sole purpose is to defend our town?
Is that where all this is going? You want us to make terminators and drones to fight wars?

Slooow down, a sword is no where near guns and cannons. He is in no way turning this game into a 2D battle game, this is like the 2nd update ever that's pushed for war. Swords were a half-bad half-ok idea that I think were meant to counter the fact that you can't curse another family line

Morti wrote:

You sold the game as a parenting simulator; people want to care for each other, and you're going to let the ones that kill people turn them away. Then you'll be left with another dead game, like all the other garbage you've made.

That's just a shit thing to say, especially coming from you Morti

Dodge · 2019-05-14 10:13:03

Tarr wrote:

Dodge wrote:
Murder stagger would make PVP so lame and actually unviable, you stab someone then cant run and get killed...
Why is a sword bad for defending a village? You cant kill you own family members and can only kill the invaders, so much better than a knife where you could kill someone from your family by mistake.
I agree on the fact that it's unbalanced, but not for the reasons you mention, there should be better medicine and official medics that can carry all the medical stuff, there should be armors and maybe shields and maybe a guard tower where you could shoot invaders from a distance and have a view over the whole village and defend it (crossbows for invaders only?).
Also why not make the nursery a place closed with gate, a safe place where villagers can retreat in case crusaders, invaders and other sword people come to kill a village.
When has murder stagger made pvp in the past unviable? We're talking 10 seconds of having to run/dodge/juke and this isn't even taking in account the ability to just chuck the sword if you're afraid you won't survive the 10 seconds. How are there supposed to be wars if one person can kill 15? I don't see the issue in having a time to strike against a sword user since they've got 1/6th the cooldown of anyone using any other weapon.
A sword is absolutely terrible for protection because if the enemy gets it they'll do a lot more damage in a shorter amount of time. An item that only kills enemies is fine but as soon as someone outside the village gets your one of your swords you are going to end up like the families in the pictures. Not once did I enter any of these towns with a sword of my own, I had to pick one up they had discarded or disarm one of the people chasing me around. Afterwards it was full culling mode with almost zero chance for the towns survival. Having swords in your town is a risk to YOU not to strangers.
Armor and shield idea is garbage and you know it. Jason has been completely opposed to that sort of garbage in the past and I don't know why suddenly we're going all medieval after getting both cars and planes. This isn't a pvp game at its heart and isn't designed to have some girthy pvp mechanics lumped onto it.
Unless the gated area is properly fenced (not shaky) then it's not safe at all. I got three gingers who were trying to hide behind a gate but their fence hadn't been put up fast enough so I kicked it down and got them. There are still bugs in game to get people over fences in the game that haven't been fixed and even if you do get into a secure area you risk being trapped inside as soon as the person is done stabbing.
Better medical supplies would be a good thing for the game right about now but what good are they going to do when you can love tap someone with a sword every ten seconds? In the time it takes to get a fire down to embers for cleaning pads you can kill six players (though four is a much more reasonable number.)
Also what logical sense does it make that a sword of all weapons is used for hit and run combat? Doesn't that make more sense on something on a bow? The sword doesn't make sense on any sort of level in this game and the fact Jason decided to release it the way it originally was shows how far he's willing to go to make shitty content "viable."

Having a stagger would make wars unviable, dont forget when you go at war with another village you are on their territory, if there is stagger they could easily kill the invaders then heal wounded people with their supplies.

Armor and shield is only garbage because of the way you think it would work, but what if when someone hits an armor both players get slow for 10 seconds and the sword is unusable for a period of time, it would give time for others to kill one of the person they want to kill (invader) and the person attacked could run to safety while both are slow, could be a one time usage repairable.

Just an example, maybe not the best, but an armor is not necessarly shit it only depends on what it would do.

Obviously the whole safe area has to be surrounded by fences or ancient walls...

One Hour One Life Forums

#1 2019-05-13 02:58:32

Swords...... Aren't as bad.

#2 2019-05-13 10:06:14

Re: Swords...... Aren't as bad.

#3 2019-05-13 14:10:31

Re: Swords...... Aren't as bad.

#4 2019-05-13 15:42:24

Re: Swords...... Aren't as bad.

#5 2019-05-13 16:18:27

Re: Swords...... Aren't as bad.

#6 2019-05-13 16:21:08

Re: Swords...... Aren't as bad.

#7 2019-05-13 20:30:55

Re: Swords...... Aren't as bad.

#8 2019-05-14 02:26:42

Re: Swords...... Aren't as bad.

#9 2019-05-14 03:51:11

Re: Swords...... Aren't as bad.

#10 2019-05-14 04:44:02

Re: Swords...... Aren't as bad.

#11 2019-05-14 04:46:27

Re: Swords...... Aren't as bad.

#12 2019-05-14 05:31:05

Re: Swords...... Aren't as bad.

#13 2019-05-14 05:37:02

Re: Swords...... Aren't as bad.

#14 2019-05-14 06:00:53

Re: Swords...... Aren't as bad.

#15 2019-05-14 06:33:14

Re: Swords...... Aren't as bad.

#16 2019-05-14 06:47:24

Re: Swords...... Aren't as bad.

#17 2019-05-14 07:54:05

Re: Swords...... Aren't as bad.

#18 2019-05-14 08:01:12

Re: Swords...... Aren't as bad.

#19 2019-05-14 08:13:08

Re: Swords...... Aren't as bad.

#20 2019-05-14 08:41:06

Re: Swords...... Aren't as bad.

#21 2019-05-14 09:11:57

Re: Swords...... Aren't as bad.

#22 2019-05-14 09:35:32

Re: Swords...... Aren't as bad.

#23 2019-05-14 09:55:42

Re: Swords...... Aren't as bad.

#24 2019-05-14 09:57:21

Re: Swords...... Aren't as bad.

#25 2019-05-14 10:13:03

Re: Swords...... Aren't as bad.

Board footer