One Hour One Life Forums

@Pein I agree with most of what you said except for using a resource to get the same resource. I think that's fine... it just reduces the resultant value for that resource extraction activity. It also provides a trap (more conflict!) where you can kill your town by using the last bucket of water or something.

I agree that there should be different resource types but they shouldn't all boil down to absolute terms of one resource (water). Tech should have a different resource (Iron) and longevity should have a different resource (oil) and they should not be convertible between themselves at a constant rate. Think RTS games. In Star Craft, minerals are the resources for basic things, gas is the resource for tech things. Minerals are limited but easy to extract quickly, vespene gas is hard to extract but virtually limitless. End game battles were forced into tech mode because there were no more minerals. In AoE2, There is a market that allows conversion of one resource to another (food, wood, stone, gold), but that ratio changes the more the conversion happens in one direction. Wood can be constantly converted into food with farms. If there was only one conversion rate for all the resources, then there would only be one resource.

In OHOL, there is only one resource, water. You can convert oil to iron, but because there are constant conversion rates and the return value of iron from oil is less than that for water, there's no point in getting it. It's a noob trap and dead content. Oil does not produce anything on its own and is only used for getting more iron or water or time, so it's a non-resource. It's only use is to convert to other resources.

There needs to be not only diminishing returns on resource conversion rates, but also more content to allow resource sinks, just as you said. Maybe plastics could be made from oil, making it a real, useful resource. Maybe we can ferment corn into ethanol, allowing us to trade water back to oil. Maybe we can create automation robots to sink iron. Maybe we get wooden walls to sink wood. Windows, to sink glass. So many ways to sink resources with new content.

Here you go again stating your argument and making your conclusion all in one statement with no evidence. The logical argument should flow like this: thesis, evidence/proof, conclusion. Not thesis straight to conclusion. It's like your basing your conclusion on your thesis.

Gravity is a force that our scientists haven't fully teased out the secrets of. Gravity is a primitive force, a law of our universe. As gravity is constant, it doesn't fit into the formula of cause:reaction. Depending on your location, gravity is there in some respect or it isn't. Gravity also dilates time, which messes with the whole causality paradigm because causality assumes a constant forward motion of time.

This is a terrible example. I know where you're trying to go, but this just doesn't work. I've accidentally stabbed myself where no blood came out. needed stitches, but no blood left my body initially. Happens.

Molecular behavior also behaves probabilistically. Atomic, molecular, animals, all follow probabilistic curves. Atomic electrons are located in a probability cloud. Atomic nuclei decompose with a probabilistic half life. Chemicals react in a probabilistic nature. You can try to mix two reagents at a perfect ratio, but those molecules will react at a bell curve of points in time and you will never be guaranteed to react all reagents. There will always be some slag. Viruses infect cells in a probabilistic nature; the higher the number of viral attackers, the greater the probability of the host being infected. Cells divide and become senescent in a probabilistic manner. Our whole reality, at all levels, can be accurately described in terms of probabilities, and it cannot be accurately described in terms of absolute certainties.

You are getting it. Frequency is consistent with a probabilistic view of causality. The 'frequency' of something happening is just another way of phrasing 'how many times it would happen if we did it x times". If we did it 1,000,000 times and it had a given outcome 999,999 of those times, then we can treat it as if that given outcome is causally certain. That's what a mathematical limit is... it doesn't actually ever become absolute but we can treat it as such. This is like 0.99999endlessly repeating = 1. it's not almost equal to 1, it IS one. In the aggregate when considering all causality though, it is better to view causality as entirely probabilistic and those events with a causal outcome with a limit that approaches certainty as a subset of all probabilistic events. This is, as opposed to viewing all causality as certain and those that are probabilistic in nature as an exception to an absolutist universe. One view point will give you a higher chance of coming up with accurate predictions than if one used the other perspective. This is because one view point more accurately models the real world.

We must take our perspective into account when trying to describe something in the 'real' world. We cannot escape our perspective. To think one can view an objective world, to spy 'absolute truth' in the world is not possible because it will always be from a biased perspective. To understand this will help us approach this objectivity, to pretend it isn't there is to be further away from objectivity. We can observe truth easily in the realm of ideas, but in the realm of the material world, that sight of truth can only be a limit that approaches the truth but never reaches it absolutely.

Our knowledge should inform our behavior. Is something more true if it more accurately helps us interact with the world? I would argue yes, as long as we accept that we cannot be truly objective and fully view 'truth'. If a new knowledge comes along that more accurately helps us interact with the world, then that is the new best truth. Truth is a journey, a limit that approaches absolute truth, but never reaches it. Truth isn't a mountain upon which to make a last stand.

This could be, but I'm pretty sure we can't know this for sure, so it's moot to worry about it. The 'truth' that helps people have the best outcome however is for them to believe that they do have agency. This is a great example of how 'what is true' can be influenced by what is in the best interests of the viewer's outcomes.

And thank you for backing up your arguments with examples

I'll cede that our knowledge is not absolute; the more we know the closer we can get to truth, but we can never grasp it absolutely. However, I never argued against that point and it does not have bearing on my argument that causality is inherently probabilistic and even if it's not, we should treat it as such.

You are stating an argument with no proof or examples. Instead of finding fault in my reasoning, you are simply stating an opposite position and not backing it up or crafting a line of reasoning that might bring someone of the opposite opinion to that of your own. I ask that instead of simply stating a contrarian opinion, you reason through your position, give resources or examples to support your thesis, or back away from a stance of absolute certainty.

Tell me how you know causality itself is not probabilistic? Did you know that the very nature of the matter we are made of (atoms) is probabilistic in nature? If we are made of probability clouds, would it not follow that at higher scales of organization (people) our actions would follow such a probabilistic path? Do you think the timeline is akin to a number line, our fates are sealed, there is no free will? If you believe in free will and choice, then wouldn't it follow that causality is probabilistic in nature?

Even if your argument is correct, it does not address the second part of my thesis, that even if some causality has absolute/for sure outcomes, we need to treat that causation as if it were probabilistic in nature due to our inability to have a perspective to know for an absolute fact whether or not an outcome is certain (although you claim to have this 4th dimensional power).

You are basically taking an unprovable position and ignoring the counter position that might actually help you make better decisions and thus have better outcomes in life. You seem to be fairly fixed in your beliefs and stances and are unwilling to follow a reasoned path, and instead just want to broadcast those beliefs over and over again as if that will make it more true. Am I wrong in this assessment? If so, then this discussion can continue. But please prove it to me first with a supported/reasoned argument, not just a restatement of your dogmatic beliefs. If I am not wrong and I am arguing with an obstinate, I will spend my time debating the nature of reality with someone with a more open and logical mind.

Spoonwood, you are making me get real specific in my speech here. I don't mind falling down a philosophical rabbit hole but I feel like it shouldn't be necessary.

I was referring to causality. Let's say we live in the 'real' world, which I'll describe as 3 dimensional space and unidirectional time (spacetime). An agent can do something and expect a certain array of outcomes at different probabilities. An agent is anything with will that can change the nature of space, in other words, the matter in 3 dimensional space will be at one state at the starting moment in time, at a subsequent moment in time that 3 dimensional space will be different. If that agent tries to predict the outcome of their actions, they must model the array of possible outcomes. This analysis must be probabilistic because no outcome is certain, but outcomes can be near certain. Even if a fourth dimensional being come and tells us that some actions are certain where only one possible outcome is possible, us three dimensional beings must still predict outcomes using probabilities. We can never gain that certainty of a four dimensional being that can see all possible outcomes so to us certainties may as well not exist.

Ideas are not made up of matter, are not subject to entropy, and are not subject to causality. Over time, ideas get more complex and are explored, but they do not experience causality, thus are not probabilistic in nature. While ideas 'exist', they do not exist in the 'real' world, but more a parallel one with different rules.

When I said "Everything is a type of gambling..." I was referring to spacetime (the material world with causality). I don't think that includes 'ideas' for the reasons I stated above. I think actions and causality were inferred because in the same sentence I explained what I meant. I think a reasonable reader would have understood this to be the meaning, and even a critical reader would have seen that I covered my bases with the use of the dangerous statement "Everything..." by being specific about the everything I was talking about.

I think this boils down to someone nitpicking my speech, looking for holes, finding the signal for a common logical fallacy (who uses the word 'everything' in a logical argument?!), calling it out, but not thinking it through fully themselves.

No hard feelings but I would accept an acknowledgement that you were being captious.

For oil, the failure case is very harsh. You lose 1 bucket of water, one charcoal, one pipe. Also, the success case doesn't make you better at oil exploration. It is just the end of the road... now you have oil until you don't. The devil's in the details. Not all RNG is bad. How RNG is incorporated into the game can be bad, but RNG itself is not inherently good or bad.

It all depends on what the failure state is for failing to learn a tool, the learning improvement ratio, and what success rate you start at. These could be adjusted to prevent griefing. Some tools could be considered so easy that they don't require learning, like shovel. The failure scenarios could be more extreme for tools where the the griefing risk is lower. For baking, maybe it ruins the pie, but doesn't require more resources to fix. Maybe fixing it just requires using a sharp stone on the pie to fix the crust? We just need to lay out the best way of implementing to make it make sense and not be easily griefable.

You and I will die, but when we die is probabilistic in nature.

Ideas interact with 'reality', but are not a part of it. I think the main differentiator is entropy. Reality experiences entropy and will eventually experience heat death. Ideas don't seem to tend to disorder, but rather the other way around, to order.

Nothing in life is certain. You can reduce your chance of negative outcomes, but you can't eliminate them. Plus, if you never take risks, you are severely limiting yourself.

Everything is a type of gambling (action has a probability of an expected outcome set), but gambling in the proper sense is probably taking an action where the aggregate probability of success is lower than the chance of failure. Still, some things require gambling to get, thus their scarcity and value.

If you don't like gambling in your games, you can always pay a premium to those who do like gambling and obtain the scarce items from them. Not everyone has to be a cook, but everyone does have to eat.

@Spoonwood I disagree with your core tenets about game design, but I commend your resolve to continue to fight your fight.

All stories have conflict or there's no point in telling them. The problem with this game is that many of the conflicts are artificial and natural conflicts aren't allowed to emerge due to the game drifting from realistic motivations.

The forced, unintuitive conflicts that people are now facing: someone smashed all our tech because there is a box that allows people to hit stuff with a hammer and not break it into parts, but literally shred it into the base metal; There's a killer in our town but they are invincible because the game mechanics are unintuitive and not documented; someone locked the gate and I'm going to starve to death rather than disrespect their personal property; the town ran out of water because somehow water isn't a renewable resource.

This is what I'm talking about. A multi-person car doesn't have to be implemented as a person holding an object. Given the existing features, a solution can be simply teased out.

1. A person can wear a backpack, pants, and apron, each with their own capacity. Lets implement a new type of clothing called a 'freight truck' that has a capacity of 12 large items.
2. Wearing a Truck makes you very fast!
3. A passenger in the truck would be implemented as the driver holding the passenger while wearing the truck. The driver could drop the passenger at any time. The passenger can jump out of the truck at any time. A driver must 'pick up' a passenger... let them into their car. A driver must not be holding the passenger to disrobe the truck clothing.
4. Right clicking on a on/off symbol whie in a running truck with no passenger changes the truck to turn the vehicle off. It can't move. You are now "holding" the truck, not wearing it. Just like other clothing. You are immobile when holding the truck like this. You can't pick up passengers like this.
5. Right clicking on a ground tile now places the truck on the ground, swapping it in your hand with any item on the ground. You can now move.
6. To turn on the truck, first right click the truck to 'hold' it. The truck is now off and you are immobile. Click on something else now (for clothing you click on your body or foot... we could have the person click on a key symbol, on button, steering wheel, whatever) to wear the truck and turn it on. You are now using fuel, can pick people up, and are moving fast.
7. I suggest you can only load a truck while it's not on. Would make things simpler.
8. I suggest you can not hold items while wearing a running truck except for a passenger.

I don't see why this couldn't be simply implemented based on parallels with the way existing items already work.