One Hour One Life Forums

When I said not much changed I meant that murder was a feature since before the update in question and had been prevalent before the update in question.

It was always like this, your perception has changed. There's possible "solutions", but there's no "one size fits all" and there's no permanent one within gameplay, and sometimes there's nothing you can really do about it.

I just played two games. Two villages. Both had murder. I tried to end the problem factor in the first one, and successfully ended the cycle at least for my life-cycle in the second of the villages and proceeded to play "normally".
Cause: People roleplaying guards and afk sitting in a cold spot near carrot farm to intimidate with an armed bow, eat carrots and killing people arbitrarily on occasion - essentially just griefers on a power trip.
Solution: Slaughtered the guards, got killed in first village as a result, had successful reboot in the second one (as the guard's mother watched her son "guard" die in front of her and almost spit on his dead body as he lay dying begging for revenge while calling him a dumb griefer)

P.S. I suggested to the "guards" in the first village to "just make knives" so they can roam around and actually contribute to society, instead of afk with a bow and do absolutely nothing beside sponge carrots.
We had all metal tools available, so it's a common sense type of thing. However, they proceeded doing what they're doing and it devolved into the economy collapsing and murder sprees as expected.

Considering he mentioned VACnet I believe his plan is to go on h4x0r forums and beg for one, as I doubt he could even list a directory's contents on windows in command line.

I think if there were early game tools it would be better.
Right now you need to settle down to get the tech tree up, to be able to do anything.

IRL it's entirely possible to cut meat, chop trees and make spears and arrows with flint or various other types of stone.
IRL from animals come bones and antlers. Both can be used to make a variety of tools. Antlers can be collected during yearly seasonal shedding (no need to kill the animal).
IRL there's a greater variety of animals (Imho getting Lions and Deer would be cool).
IRL bone or antler tip arrows have the advantage over flint arrows, that they are multi-use (flint shatters).
IRL you'd often attach flint or other flaking stone to a handle, or ground stone not some slightly sharpened rock.
IRL the process of getting flint is fairly complicated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithic_re … mation.gif) and having a good hammer made out of antler, than just a round rock, can make a difference in the yield.
IRL Similarly getting ground stone may require some effort, and is not normally something to naturally grow out of the ground (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langdale_ … jars_i.jpg)

https://archaeology.uiowa.edu/bone-tools-0

Pretty much most of the tools we have as so called "steel" now, IRL were available in bone or stone form.
So why not make them available without a forge and reserve the forge for further technological advancement (and getting improved tools)?

Furthermore the forging process could be much more intricate, it doesn't really make much sense right now, but that's a separate topic.

Jokes aside, was able to compile on win thanks to this thread, thanks guys!

What you said is absolutely correct, I was referring to "expect" as a non-mathematical concept for when you have a single axe. Practical application.

Anyway this is already addressed by having the chances change between 4 batches of chops, so I'm kinda going off on a tangent here...

With a single axe, the conditional probability of getting your axe 100 uses is still going to be working against you and it's an unrealistic expectation to get exactly 100 uses.
But for example if you target 67-68 chops you'll be close to 50%-50% conditional probability, even if the median is 100 chops.

It's similar if you have a coin flip to work with. If you flip the coin once, you won't realistically expect an average outcome of 50% tail and 50% heads. The coin is going to have to land on one side and either outcome is going to be outside the median.
If you have two coin flips and the first already landed heads - again you won't realistically expect a median outcome of the coin landing tails. It still going to have the same 50% chance of landing on either side. So it's still entirely possible it lands heads.
The conditional probability of having median outcome from 1 coin flips is 0% - impossible.
The conditional probability of having median outcome from 2 coin flips I believe is 50%.

Basically all I'm getting at is that averages work best when they have room to work with. In a single chance roll you can truly expect outcomes in the full spectrum of possibilities and the median is not the most probable outcome. It's more probable you'll get a non-median outcome at that stage. Which is why a lot of people get really angry from RNG, as they unrealistically expect immediate average outcome, which is not how averages work.

That's actually not the correct math for an axe with 0.01 chance of failing, I would say it's wrong to expect 100 chops out of it.

On average you can expect 100 chops - that's true, but averages aren't a great metric for single use-case.
Out of 100 chops - the probability of none of the chops failing would be 0.99^100  - that's approx 36.6%
So the probability of at least one (one or more) chop failing would be approx 1- 36.6% - so that's 63.4%

With a chance of failure of 63.4% I wouldn't really be counting on my axe actually lasting 100 chops, the opposite is more probable.
If I wanted an axe that lasts at least 100 or more chops, with 0.01 failure chance per chop, I'd probably make multiple axes...

http://www.pstcc.edu/facstaff/jwlamb/Ma … sch4.5.pdf

P.S. Otherwise I think the idea is great, just wanted to clarify that averages may be misleading.

Correction:
That's why he stepped back and eventually handed it over to his team Mojang. Those developers fixed all the glaring issues and added so much content above and beyond anything Notch could imagine.  ...and then Microsoft....

You also fail to mention there was nothing quite like Minecraft at the time, it was a niche, nowadays the market is full of Minecraft clones.

P.S. Having a pioneering concept and being able to implement it in a functional condition isn't something to trivialize.

It's quite apparently badly needed for the decay system, or at least I don't understand how spawning potentially infinite dummy objects for the sake of one variable changing over time is a good long-term idea.

Also what if you decide to make the system more complicated in the future for the sake of new crafting mechanics.
You could have decaying object holding a decaying object, interacting with decaying object holding a decaying object (or other variable state). Then what happens?

Let's say basket of soil could interact with basket with soil & that soil also becomes decaying - how will that auto-generate the transitions:

Here's one of many:
(Basket_37+Soil_56) + (Basket_27+Soil_52) =

I think the full use count is the way - either way having this type of thing working can come in handy for other features in the future as well. But this looks like a problem.

Unfortunately I haven't really read the source code of the game...
Shouldn't there be much better ways to pass a variable between transitions without creating a million dummies for each possible state or am I missing something?

Your idea solves none of the problems I listed and serves no other purpose than needless complication. Like I said, if you want pointless punishment the best idea is to disable food items giving food altogether. Why do we need food at all, it's much more fun re-spawning endlessly, isn't it?

No, the bar should be able to act as storage for all or large portion of the extra food, deplete as if it's the normal hunger bar, only restriction is you can't eat while "well-fed".
We still have to produce or otherwise obtain food items, there's no reason to punish players for eating it, by wasting most of the food. All this change would do is ensure all food is perfectly used (with the exception when someone sits in 100% cold or 100% hot to accelerate depletion) and reduce trolling with food. After this it can be tuned appropriately if the game gets "too easy". It's easier to balance a working system than a broken system.

By your logic, there's no point of food restoring hunger at all. Just make food not restore hunger and everything is fixed forever.
Why shouldn't it act as storage?

Note, however, that the well-fed solution is a relatively simple graceful fix that's tried and true. It likely exists in almost every game with a Hunger bar. We should have it in OHOL even if it's for simple QoL.

I like the idea of having overweight as much as the next guy, but that's a major feature, that would likely take time to develop and take away from other content, while bringing less to the table (hehe).

That's not how it works though. Yes your body will need to produce additional heat when it's cold outside, which requires energy. However, if it's hot all you can do is sweat, which depletes your water and can cause dehydration (rather than require an increased food intake afaik). Furthermore walking in the snow naked for several years would kill you by hypothermia much faster than it would kill you by the increased hunger (Probably in about 15 minutes or so - so should be pretty much instantaneous in game terms). Actually you don't even need to be in the snow for that to happen. Same with walking naked in the desert sun - likely a sunstroke or hyperthermia ,or hypothermia during the evening, will end you before you have to worry about food intake

Either way it's unrealistic and unintuitive, which is why I think it's a placeholder - so I'm more focused on discussing how the numbers are tuned right now and if they're adequate in your opinion.