Ideas for improving the life limit

futurebird · 2019-06-21 20:41:43

FeignedSanity wrote:

I personally like the idea of still earning one token for every hour not playing, but have them get one every 30 minutes of play time.

Same. This would mean that paying and playing well would generally keep you topped up nicely instead of avoiding playing just to get the number to it's maximum.

I also agree that doing a poll to find out why people die is a good idea. I suspect there is something that none of us have mentioned here. Or maybe not, but that's the only way to know.

Amon · 2019-06-21 21:15:50

Imo 30 minutes would be better.
Living 30 mintues or so you break even, living up to 60, man one life in the positive.
And if you do run out, 30 minutes is good break.

However repeat griefers could've easily been dispatched for an hour at least.

Last edited by Amon (2019-06-21 21:17:10)

Spoonwood · 2019-06-21 21:39:33

jasonrohrer wrote:

Was looking for feedback on the numbers changes, not suggestions for completely different systems.
If you see any problems with the new numbers, please let me know.

CatX gave you a suggestion with numbers. Several people thought those numbers had some merit to them.

Oh, and Jason, it doesn't matter if you didn't want the other feedback. You needed it, especially because you asked the wrong question for the survey, didn't look at the underlying issue, and don't seem to take seriously that the majority of the people who play this game are not you, nor your family, nor will the game be that way for the foreseeable future.

Last edited by Spoonwood (2019-06-21 21:42:11)

RedComb · 2019-06-21 22:41:52

jasonrohrer wrote:

Okay, this change is live. We'll see how it goes. Everyone has 12/12 lives now, earning one life every 20 minutes.
I also added a feature where I can easily bump everyone back up to 12 (which I will do right before the servers are taken down for an update, etc.)

So you're saying I'll earn lives faster now but I've lost ~14 extra lives I still had (~26/12)?

Please consider that if you're going to change things, even for the better, you need to do it in a way that doesn't seem like it's taking away something from players.

I can only imagine players who were upset with life limits feeling frustrated when they log in and see their surplus lives are gone. Even if they understand they'll earn lives faster, it's still going to feel like you took something away from them. I bet even some of the players who liked the life limit will be upset.

SMH

PS-does the tutorial still cost a life? It did as of two days ago and really shouldn't...

jasonrohrer · 2019-06-21 23:07:02

The tutorial warns you at the very start that it is "real" and that "you can die in here, so be careful."\

It is operating in the real game world.

I think it makes sense to get players used to the "real game" right away, whatever that is.

I'm sorry about the sudden drop in lives, but I tend to move fast and try things out for real. The old system has been in place for 2 weeks now. We need to get past this and move on to other issues.

FeignedSanity · 2019-06-21 23:39:24

So just to be clear, new players aren't getting a buffer anymore? Hmmm, that's a shame, I liked your proposal of getting rid of the life system for new players. I feel like a low barrier for entry would be really good for expanding the player base.

Also, RIP my thirty minute idea. You'll be missed.

Last edited by FeignedSanity (2019-06-21 23:39:58)

jasonrohrer · 2019-06-21 23:49:56

Feigned that is a good idea about 30 vs 60 minutes.

Two problems:

1. Harder to implement. The life token server is a separate entity and doesn't know whether you're alive or not. It just gets a "spend a token" request from a game server, and permits or denies it. There may be some way to rig this in the token server, where if you go more than an hour without asking for another token, it starts counting time slower. I will look into it. But I don't think it would be exact. Maybe it doesn't need to be.

(The protocol could also be expanded so the server reports to the token server when you stop playing too, but again, there's a non-trivial amount of coding there).

2. Harder to explain to players, and for them to reason about. There need to be two lines of explanatory text in the UI, and some players have not understood the single line that there is.

I do not like the "not playing is the best way to earn lives. You're right.

The server DOES have the power to "refund" a token.

I suppose it could do this every time you live until 60.

So that hour, you earn 3 + 1 token for the 1 you spent to play. If you handn't played at all, you would have earned 3.

(I could also leverage this refund protocol to refund one each 20 minutes you live, and then one ever 60 minutes no matter what).

But again, complicated to explain.

FeignedSanity · 2019-06-22 00:11:18

Wow, that does seem complicated; your response almost went straight over my head. Although that probably has more to do with me needing some sleep lol.

So I believe you're saying that it's hard for the system to give you more tokens for playing, because it doesn't know if you're playing or not.

I'm glad you thought it was a good idea, just a shame it'd be hard to implement. I hope you find a way to fix the "not playing, is the best way to earn lives" system. Although I can't say I agree that it'd be difficult to understand getting more lives for time played, but maybe that's just me putting too much faith in humanity

jasonrohrer · 2019-06-22 00:38:06

Well, FS, it would definitely require a second line of text in the UI.

(earn a life every 20 minutes when below 12 while playing)
(or earn a life every 60 minutes while not playing)

Now that I think about it, I am a BIT hesitant to encourage "non-stop playing" in order to raise some number. I wouldn't want a max-hours-played leader-board, either. Some people are literally destroying themselves with OHOL, and I'm the dealer. Don't want to add any more sauce to the recipe.

(I do believe in personal choice and personal responsibility, by the way.... but still, it's a little weird to know I've personally consumed close to ONE MILLION HOURS of human time on this earth---imagine if we all dug a canal together instead or something).

futurebird · 2019-06-22 00:43:15

But if it's capped at 12 I don't think it would encourage non stop playing. I imagine most people are only down by about 3 or 4 lives so in one or two game you are maxed out. Nothing more to do.

RedComb · 2019-06-22 00:52:51

jasonrohrer wrote:

The tutorial warns you at the very start that it is "real" and that "you can die in here, so be careful."\
It is operating in the real game world.
I think it makes sense to get players used to the "real game" right away, whatever that is.

Fair enough. I'm just saying, not all people will breeze through the tutorial on only one life. I know that's incredible to consider, but it's just the way it is.

The tutorial is merely familiarizing people with the mechanics of the game. People are still learning the very basics, but you are making their time spent learning count for real.

This is like a kindergartner being taught basic arithmetic, but while they are still just getting used to writing with their pencil and following along with what the teacher is writing on the whiteboard, the teacher is grading the student's output the whole time and putting down "Fails" in the grade book because "it makes sense to get students used to the 'real grading process' right away"....

You should teach to teach, and try to do so in a low stress way that removes the affective filters students commonly experience (e.g., fear of failing, fear of being embarassed, anxiety of not understanding, etc). You should assess only to determine if the teaching was effective, not as part of presenting new concepts and knowledge.

Imagine starting a unit on World War II with an assessment that asks students a bunch of stuff they've never heard about before (e.g. Battle of the Bulge, D-Day, Island hopping, Battle of Midway, Operation Overlord), but instead of just counting it as full credit when they complete it because it is a "pretest" that you will compare to a later assessment to see if they made meaningful progress, you actually count the first test as a legit grade. Unsurprisingly, many of the students will fail that first test because they don't know anything about World War II until you've covered the relevant material with them, but hey, it's okay to count the grade anyway because they are getting used to the way they will be assessed right away!

And this is just one example of what I'm warning about: https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/765 … ed/595690/

Your response (and the snarky response from the community member who blamed the reviewer for not following the game's instructions) are extremely smug and ignore a problem with your tutorial and counting the lives spent completing it against people. For whatever reason, some players will struggle to complete the tutorial and burn through more than one life to do so.

Maybe it's a language issue (not everybody who plays OHOL speaks/reads English fluently, or even if they do, some people have legit problems with literacy and might struggle with following written directions)... This sad fact is something classroom teachers have to deal with everyday because, despite the fact that many non-teachers just expect that everybody should be able to read and follow written instructions without issues, there are people who can't because of issues with the language or verifiable learning disabilities like dyslexia, ADHD, etc. Then, when they get to playing the actual game (and still know next to nothing about how to do so because the tutorial is based on teaching them basic mechanics, not actually learning how to survive and play the real game), they will likely die quickly and burn through even more of their already partially depleted lives.

I was a Jr. High English teacher for 5 years and I can tell you, despite an enormous amount of effort, there were some percentage of students who really did have struggles beyond what a non-teacher might expect (young adults in the 9th grade who could barely read, write, spell, who spoke with speech impediments, who had macular degeneracy and literally couldn't see the stuff they needed to see to progress in the lesson unless they were in the very front, students with hearing problems, students who had suffered a traumatic brain injury and struggled with memory and following along unless the lesson was extremely structured, etc). It is INCREDIBLY obtuse, unfair, and uncaring to blame these individuals for not following directions (or callously responding that all they had to do was light the firebrand) when you don't know what challenges or problems that person might be experiencing to even play your game.

Maybe that person didn't have any issues at all, maybe they were just complaining because they tried to run through the tutorial without reading a thing and the blame truly is entirely on them. But you and I don't know that (nor does the jerk commenter who blamed them for not following directions), and I really urge you to reconsider your "sink or swim" approach to the tutorial because there are often extenuating circumstances that some players might face that a capable person like you might NEVER be able to anticipate.

And, finally, I just want to point out that for every complaint or negative review a person leaves, you can bet there are several other individuals who experienced the same problem but just didn't even bother to say anything. They just refunded, or stopped playing, and moved on. They won't recommend the game to their friends, in fact they might tell them it sucks, and you will never know about it. What's more, that person who left the negative review will certainly NEVER give OHOL another chance because of how he was blamed by the commenter and dismissed by you. You pride yourself on not being a "smiling PR guy", but how about being a decent human being with empathy for others, for heaven's sake!?

As the dev of this game, you need to model empathy and understanding when players express difficulties like this, not imply they need to HTFU and just light the firebrand already. All that does is models for the rest of your community that being uncaring and callous is okay if directed at critical voices, and then we get comments belittling the reviewer and blaming them for not following directions. In a game where players are expected to rely on and learn from others players, this is very problematic.

I'm sorry about the sudden drop in lives, but I tend to move fast and try things out for real. The old system has been in place for 2 weeks now. We need to get past this and move on to other issues.

I don't even care at this point. Most of my lives I live to 55+ (if I even bother to play), so no issues here, but I was just pointing out how some players will react initially when they log in and see the surplus lives they had are gone.

You might just hand wave it away with a fake "i'm sorry... but this train has no brakes!!!" kind of response, but there will be some players who will be pissed because their gut reaction when they log in is going to be "WTF, WHERE DID ALL MY EXTRA LIVES GO!!!?"

Last edited by RedComb (2019-06-22 02:06:31)

FeignedSanity · 2019-06-22 01:00:38

Yeah, Jason, that is true about the UI.

But if you think about it even further, there is still a max-hours-played leader-board through the user posted reviews. And I think steam might have one, but I'm not too sure.

I understand not wanting the alternative, encouraging people to keep playing at a detriment. That is a very good point, even if I also believe this ultimately comes down to personal responsibility. People could "destroy" themselves with anything, though. "Too much of a good thing" and all that. If you make a really fun product, does it make you a bad guy if someone spends a lot of time on your really fun thing. It ultimately falls on them, if you turn them away from your product, they can easily turn to something else; quite possibly even something more destructive.

I guess it could just boil down to a matter of philosophy. I just think it might be bad design for someone to want to play a game, and it tells them to find some other way to entertain themselves. Maybe that's taking the moral high ground? But what if your game helps them cope with a gambling addiction or something else that's more detrimental than playing games all day.

Eh, maybe I'm just rambling at this point, probably the lack of sleep. You'll have to forgive me, but I love this kind of stuff.

On that last point, it is kind of crazy to imagine what could've been built with all those man-hours. Although, to be fair, it's not like many of us would've wrote the anthem of a generation or cured cancer with that time. Also, I don't think I'd enjoy digging a canal more than playing this game; maybe one of these days, though

Last edited by FeignedSanity (2019-06-22 01:01:57)

jasonrohrer · 2019-06-22 01:50:30

Redcomb, I don't expect them to get through the tutorial in one life.

I also don't expect anyone to run out of lives in the tutorial, right? Earning one life every 20 minutes and all that.

Spoonwood · 2019-06-22 01:55:51

I agree with RedComb about the tutorial. I watched someone who had just finished the tutorial recently who played her first game and couldn't cook a pie. I've heard that You Are Hope has a tutorial area with extra sections where the player can practice a little farming and cooking. I doubt all that many first time players make a stone hatchet these days in their first or even first dozen lives.

RedComb · 2019-06-22 02:28:46

jasonrohrer wrote:

Redcomb, I don't expect them to get through the tutorial in one life.
I also don't expect anyone to run out of lives in the tutorial, right? Earning one life every 20 minutes and all that.

It's not a question of if they are going to run out of lives in the tutorial.

It's the frustration that they are losing a limited resource while trying to learn basic mechanics of the game, then when they get to the real game, they might die quickly because they still don't really know how to play and lose even more of what they see are limited lives.

It creates a feeling of anxiety and frustration to see the 12/12 going down (even if you get one every 20 minutes), when you still don't even understand basic mechanics, let alone how to play the game.

I cited a review that complained about this very issue. He burned through 3 lives in the tutorial and couldn't even get passed it. He got frustrated, uninstalled, and refunded.

Whatever you expect people to know and be able to do is irrelevant if they are unable to do so (regardless of the reason). People should not be penalized when they are learning the very basic mechanics and UI of the game.

If you take away lives when they are learning, it will only add insult to injury when they start playing the actual game and die because they get abandoned, or they don't know what they are doing, or other things that are common mistakes new players make.

You are a dev of the game with a mastery well beyond a new player, and there are very experienced players who can't put themselves back into the shoes of somebody who is totally new and still learning the very basics.

Stop applying your own proficiency to new players and negating what they experience when learning your game.

Reasonable or not, I can tell you, there are going to be new players who will struggle in the tutorial, struggle in the first few lives of the real game, and give up in disgust because all they see is their lives dropping while they don't know wtf they are doing. It will feel incredibly tense and unfair to *SOME* players. To add to that, when they realize that several of those lives were lost when they were literally learning the very basics of the UI and gameplay mechanics will tell them that this game is hardcore and they either "sink or swim." Then having a dev who reinforces that sentiment, and community members who pile on the insulting derision, creates a toxic environment that that gamer would be wise to avoid.

Those who feel they are sinking and that the dev doesn't care (and community thinks they are stupid idiots) will leave and possibly badmouth the game.

You can just callously tell them to light firebrands all you want (and your community can chastise them for not following directions), or you can actually put yourself in their place mentally and realize that counting lives for the tutorial isn't conducive to people feeling like they have a chance to learn the very basics before being thrown into the deep end and being expected to swim!

If I was a swimming teacher, I wouldn't look at a toddler who is barely dipping their toe in the water and start holding them to the same standard I would for a proficient swimmer! I would realize like any sane human being that those are the first steps that kid has ever taken into the pool, they are going to need time to learn the very basics like how to float, how to hold their breath, how to kick, how to use their arms for a stroke, but mostly importantly: it is important that they feel comfortable enough with the experience to even get into the water.

IF they feel comfortable and learn some of the very basics, they will get better and will eventually be swimming around the pool like little fishies. But, if I held them to the same standard I would hold a proficient swimmer to, if I made them feel like failures with every new thing they were experiencing and learning in the shallow end, how likely do you think they would stick around to even bother trying to swim into the deep end?

If I treated somebody learning to swim like that, I would be an ass and everybody would see how foolish it is to hold a new swimmer to that kind of standard.

Saying that holding someone who is learning to swim by the same standards meant for proficient swimmers because it "makes sense to get kids used to the "deep end" right away" would be utterly ridiculous.

Last edited by RedComb (2019-06-22 02:33:16)

Spoonwood · 2019-06-22 03:16:25

In sum, I think RedComb is saying that lives system is like grading people. But newer players basically can get said to practice the game. So, it's kind of like the lives system grades new players who are just reading the text or asking questions in a class instead of grading those who have studied for an exam beforehand (limited lives), and, here's the catch, if someone doesn't do well enough, that person gets expelled (0 lives) based on just reading the text or asking questions.

CatX · 2019-06-22 09:27:42

Perhaps one way to see it is that if the need for limited lives comes from all the /die-babies, and people in the tutorial are not /die-babies, then it might be a good idea not to include them in the limited lives mechanism for now? Especially since there might be other negative consequences?

One Hour One Life Forums

#26 2019-06-21 20:41:43

Re: Ideas for improving the life limit

#27 2019-06-21 21:15:50

Re: Ideas for improving the life limit

#28 2019-06-21 21:39:33

Re: Ideas for improving the life limit

#29 2019-06-21 22:41:52

Re: Ideas for improving the life limit

#30 2019-06-21 23:07:02

Re: Ideas for improving the life limit

#31 2019-06-21 23:39:24

Re: Ideas for improving the life limit

#32 2019-06-21 23:49:56

Re: Ideas for improving the life limit

#33 2019-06-22 00:11:18

Re: Ideas for improving the life limit

#34 2019-06-22 00:38:06

Re: Ideas for improving the life limit

#35 2019-06-22 00:43:15

Re: Ideas for improving the life limit

#36 2019-06-22 00:52:51

Re: Ideas for improving the life limit

#37 2019-06-22 01:00:38

Re: Ideas for improving the life limit

#38 2019-06-22 01:50:30

Re: Ideas for improving the life limit

#39 2019-06-22 01:55:51

Re: Ideas for improving the life limit

#40 2019-06-22 02:28:46

Re: Ideas for improving the life limit

#41 2019-06-22 03:16:25

Re: Ideas for improving the life limit

#42 2019-06-22 09:27:42

Re: Ideas for improving the life limit

Board footer