a multiplayer game of parenting and civilization building
You are not logged in.
Since I had to reset the server again last light (to fix that new client-side infinite loop, triggered by non-valid leadership trees generated by the server), I was able to jump in as Eve myself last night, and it felt fine to me.
Hoping for more accounts.
I found these Eves from last night myself in the family tree db:
2 BB:
http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/serve … id=6202191
8 BB (7 survived past infancy):
http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/serve … id=6202251
3 BB:
http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/serve … id=6202327
6 BB (all survived well into adulthood, and 5 into old age):
http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/serve … id=6202271
So it doesn't look like those Eves had huge hits to their gene scores, at least.
This has been fixed.
Pushing out a server code change now.
Sorry... my client just froze, and it seems to be stuck in updateLeadership, in some kind of infinite loop.
There must be something in the new code server side that is creating some kind of leadership loop that is causing the client to get stuck.
Looking into fixing it now.
The numbers were dramatically tweaked this week before the update. There should be 2x more Eves that last time, and way less overload.
Has that been the case?
Anyone here play as Eve? Did it feel better and more manageable?
Can you link me to some early Eve family trees?
Several systems that required repeated manual intervention for trans-generational propagation have now been made automatic by default. In the past, these systems were rarely used, in part because of maintaining them long-term was almost impossible (one weak link in the chain, in some future generation, caused the whole thing to fall apart).
First, property.
If you die as the last owner of a property gate, instead of the gate collapsing, ownership now passes to your oldest family heir. This is your oldest child, grandchild, or great grandchild, if you have any, or your oldest, closest relative otherwise. To prevent gates from hanging around forever, even if they're no longer wanted, owners now have the power to remove them at will. When you inherit property, you get a DING message explaining the situation, and an arrow pointing back to it.
Second, leadership.
If a leader dies with no chosen heir (they can chose one by following someone before death), their oldest follower takes over for them as leader. All their other followers automatically switch to following this new leader, and get arrows pointing toward them. The new leader gets a DING message informing them of the situation.
Combined with the fact that babies follow their mother's leader by default, and babies of leaderless mothers follow their own mother by default, leadership will be the default condition throughout the game. People can still opt out by following someone else or intentionally following no one, so truly bad leaders that inherit their power can be easily removed from office. Furthermore, since most people in a family will follow the same leader by default, there's now a reliable way to mark bad actors through exile (when the top leader exiles someone, everyone will see it). And that leads us to the next tie-in.
Third, killing.
In the arms race against murder sprees committed by coordinated teams of griefers, killing has become harder and harder. The posse system worked to prevent unilateral, unjustified killing. However, it also demanded organization on the part of the players to carry out consensus-based, justified killing. This organization, for a group of strangers working together through in-game chat, is tough. But a griefer team, working through voice chat, can easily meet the required level of organization.
The required posse size has been climbing to combat this, and the griefer teams have been growing in size along with it. Meanwhile, necessary killing in the game (to stop non-killing griefing) has become almost impossible. If 8 people are required to form a posse, you have to get 8 random strangers on the same page, at the same time, about what they are trying to do.
What is the actual goal here? We're trying to prevent the minority from pestering the majority with nuisance killing. We can assume, hopefully, that any team of griefers will be smaller than the group of non-griefer players in a village. How do we give the larger group the power to both avoid getting killed by the smaller group, and also the power to kill easily when necessary? A large enough posse requirement protects the majority from being killed, but it makes it way too hard for them to kill.
And just a quick aside: if you haven't been following this game's growth closely, you might be thinking, "Why is there killing in this game at all? Just remove it!" But then what happens when someone keeps moving your tools right when you go to use them? What happens when someone steals your horse and won't give it back? There are endless ways for one player to irritate other players. Killing is supposed to be the way the group says, "enough is enough."
But how do we know who the majority is, so that we can give them that power?
This week, I'm testing a new idea: your group is defined by the leadership tree that you are part of. If you are part of a big group, you can't be killed easily. If you are not part of a big group, you are fair game for anyone to kill. You inherit (or choose) which group you are part of based on which leader you are following. But leaders have the power to remove you from their group, and relegate you to your own defenses, through exile.
In detail, we count up your allies (those that see you as part of their group) and your enemies (those that see you as exiled). If you have at least as many nearby allies as enemies, you can't be solo killed, and a large posse is required to get you. However, if you have more nearby enemies than allies, anyone is free to solo kill you.
A small team of griefers might be able to form their own leadership tree and thus have a few allies each, and they might be able to exile you, giving you a few enemies. But as long as you are part of a larger group of allies, you will be immune to their attacks. Furthermore, if your group exiles them, they will have a lot of enemies, and be easily dispatched.
Also, if trouble crops up within your own ranks, all the top leader needs to do is exile that bad seed, and then anyone in the village can take care of the problem.
(Feels strange to be talking in euphemisms like a mob boss....)
Combined with the fact that everyone will be part of a leadership tree by default, and we can see that everyone will be protected by default. The ally pool will be manually shifted around as needed, through exiling and changing leadership, to deal with problems as they arise.
Finally, if you try to kill someone who is protected by allies, thus requiring a large posse, you get an arrow back to their top leader, so you know who to petition to exile them.
Yes, there will be times when talking the leader into exiling a legitimate troublemaker doesn't work out, but it will be much simpler to accomplish than trying to get 5 strangers to act in unison to form a posse.
Are you putting it on with the sticky side facing out? Counter-intuitive, but that's how you're supposed to apply it.
Ugh, I'm just having fun with it
Cantface, do you think it's a good idea to pile new content on top of a game where existing systems are broken and unused?
If you keep doing that, you end up with a game that keeps growing and growing, but remains broken at the core.
Better to get all the existing stuff working correctly and actually used before adding even more stuff.
As a simple example, I could have added a bunch of new foods to the game a few weeks ago, but that would have been a waste, because so many of the existing foods were completely unused. Much better to spend time getting all the existing stuff rebalanced, and rework YUM along with it. And suddenly, formerly dead and ignored food content is being actively used in the game again.
These are hard problems to solve, and they take time.
Thank you for your patience as I work myself to death each week trying to make the best game imaginable.
Glad to hear that my hard work this week is appreciated, Anabaptist.
Damn, does that stuff really work?
Canface, this goes along with a change that makes leadership perpetual and the default.
So most of the time, most players will have a leader and allies.
They will only NOT have a leader or allies if someone manually intervenes, either by de-following or exiling.
Let's say you know nothing about leadership and you try to kill a griefer.
It will tell you that they have 8 allies and 0 enemies, so you need a posse of 6 to do it (or whatever number, based on the population), with a DING message (similar to the current one that shows posse requirements).
It will also give you an arrow toward their top leader, and say, "THE LEADER WHO CAN EXILE THEM -- EIGHT METERS AWAY"
You can then appeal to that leader to exile them, which will suddenly give them 8 enemies.
At that point, you can solo kill them.
Ah.... I think it will be something like this:
If your in-range allies equal or exceed your in-range enemies, than the normal posse-size stuff applies (based on 66% of the local, able-bodied population). In other words, you are kinda safe in numbers
But if your in-range enemies exceed your in-range allies, then you can be solo killed.
BTW.... allies are those that have the same top leader as you do, and don't currently see you as exiled. Enemies are those that see you as exiled (either they have exiled you or a leader above them has exiled you).
Coconut, in your example, all those kids and grandkids follow Eve automatically (currently---you follow your mother's leader if she has one, instead of following her).
So, before Eve dies, it's a flat hierarchy with Eve as lady, and Aria, Lily, Maya, and John as her direct followers.
When Eve dies, Aria takes over for Eve automatically, since she's oldest (in the update this week, not out yet). That means that Lily, May, and John now follow Aria.
If Maya has a BB, that BB follows Maya's leader, so she follows Aria as well.
Now, how do we know that Aria is a good choice for leader? What if she's a griefer? Well, we don't know for sure, but she did survive the longest, so that tells us something. And if she causes trouble as leader, the others can follow someone else. Like if she gives annoying orders, or exiles innocent people, etc.
Essentially: leadership by default, unless players opt-out (instead of the current system that requires people to opt in manually after their default leader dies).
Instead of getting complicated with homelands, it's easier (for now) just to use a simple radius. How many allies do you have within 30 tiles of you? How many enemies do you have within 30 tiles of you? Etc.
So if you leave home alone and wander into another city, you're at risk.
But if you bring an army with you, there's still safety in numbers.
This also makes it good to travel in pairs, so you're not vulnerable to solo killers lurking in the woods.
If we do "allies - enemies" to determine the posse size for you, there's a problem...
Imagine a village with 10 people total, and 4 of them are Bobo's followers. They are in the minority, so they should be powerless. If the 6 other people band together, they can exile Bobo + friends, even if they group up together. Bobo has 4 allies, but 6 enemies. Anyone can solo kill Bobo.
But what about the villagers? They all have 6 allies, and Bobo might exile them, giving them 4 enemies. We do 6 - 4 and get... 2. That means a posse of 2 is needed to kill a villager. But Bobo has 4 friends.... oops.
More thought is needed on the math here....
You're right, Lightning... and I'm working on alternatives (see other thread).
The current implementation (super majority) is more like a prank, just to prove that it is possible to stop someone like Bobo.
Right, and then he buys another account and does it again. So not even banning will work.
He already has more than one account, which he uses to work around the fact that he gets sent to d-town so often.
What if:
The posse size needed to kill you is based on how many allies you have (from the leadership tree).
So, if you have 5 allies, a posse of 5 will be needed to kill you.
If you have a lot of allies, you are essentially immune to being killed. Safety in numbers.
But if you have a high-level leader exile you, suddenly you have no allies (all your old allies see you as exiled, because they are following that leader).
If you have no allies, the min posse size is 1, which means that anyone can kill you.
This will of course tie in to the new "perpetual leadership" changes where a new leader is auto-picked when a leader dies. So most people will have allies most of the time, and be safe from murder.
If there's a griefer around who is stealing or whatever, killing them will be a 2-step process:
1. Top leader exiles them.
2. Someone solo kills them.
Now, this can obviously be abused by a bad leader. That bad leader can exile and then kill anyone at will. They can reign with a bloody fist. However, people can pick a new leader at any time, effectively reducing that bad leader's allies to 0, and making them vulnerable to solo kills themselves. Meanwhile, the people who have grouped up under a different leader can no longer be killed by the bad leader, because they have allies that he cannot control anymore.
This also still allows leaderless people to kill each other, or duel, or whatever. But if they come into town, the can't pick people off who are banded together, and they themselves are vulnerable to being killed by anyone in town unless they join the group.
One problem:
What if the person you are trying to kill has allies via a different leader? If griefers band together into a group of 4, for example, they could require a posse of 4 to kill them. That might be okay, since they themselves wouldn't be killing, but just causing trouble other ways.
Another problem: you are part of a group in a big town with lots of allies, and you travel to a different town to cause trouble. I think we probably need to count your allies in some limited radius.
Could also be:
min posse size
=
number of allies
-
number of people who see you as exiled
Thus, a band of four griefers have 4 allies, but if a larger group exiles them, they become vulnerable again. This might also help with the troublesome visitor from the other town.
Well, the last incarnation of war swords could only be used if war was declared bilaterally.
Not sure how it will work in future, but one ill-formed idea is that it could be between kingdoms that declare war somehow instead.
Also, all the posse changes and such make murderer slowdown (holding bloody weapon) and probably even healing murder wounds vestigial. This stuff has changed a lot over time.
War swords were only special because they didn't get stuck in your hand or cause post-kill slow down.
Yeah, war sword is a mostly vestigial at this point.
It will be revisited in the future.
Yeah, I have thought about tying it to leadership and such, but it gets pretty complicated fast.
Like, what if you're exiled by one king but not by another? Who can kill you then, and how many people do they need behind them?
I'm still thinking about it....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrGRXWRlfjQ
Next move:
https://github.com/jasonrohrer/OneLife/ … c943ae8831
MinPosseFraction now 0.66 (was 0.5), which means you need a super-majority to agree before you land a kill. The cap has been pushed up to 99 (was 5), which is effectively unlimited, which means that a rogue posse cannot slaughter a village unless the non-posse members are in the super-minority.
Change is live already.
Note that this will work together with the perpetual inherited leadership this week to make legitimate organizing and posse-forming and killing easier.
Bobo, you know where you can stick your bow and arrow.
A 1-line fix. Will go live later this week:
I'm able to reproduce that.
Wow, yeah, that really sucks!
Will fix it.
Sounds like a bug.
Will check it out.
Sound like it's working as intended.
Running into a less-developed ginger village is an interesting wrinkle. A challenge where the best solution isn't obvious. You can't just go through the same motions over and over to achieve the desired result.
This is also one of the grand challenges of developing a persistent multiplayer game. In a single player game, you can make something very hard, but still offer a kind of guaranteed success through persistence. Think of Super Meat Boy. You might fail a given level dozens or even hundreds of times before finally squeaking out a by-the-seat-of-your-pants success. But that success is waiting there for you, if you keep trying, and the retry cost is very small. But still, we can offer something like a 50:1 difficulty. 50 failures for every success, on average.
In order for achievements in a persistent multiplayer game to mean anything, they need to be hard as well. But if we have a 50:1 difficulty, that doesn't necessarily mean than everyone tries it 50 times and eventually experiences that sweet success. It can instead mean than 50 individual players tried, and 49 of them failed.
In other words, 98% of the player base experiences nothing but failure.
This also has to do with the retry cost and the "already done by someone else" factor, which is part of the retry cost. If you failed to get oil drilling going in your last life (what a bummer), will you even be able to try in your next life? Maybe you're born in an Eve camp. Maybe you're born in a town that already has oil drilling. Maybe you're born in a town that has none of the necessary infrastructure (like a newc bore).
So you might very well have 98% of the player base shouting, "This sucks, it's pretty much impossible."
Meanwhile, every town eventually has access to oil, which means it's clearly not impossible.
Of course, how many failures happened in each town before success?
In designing this game, it's often helpful to view families or towns as the entities that experience failure or success, which has the unfortunate side-effect of discounting the average player's experience within those towns and families.
If 75% of towns get oil before running completely out of water, is that too hard or too easy?
What if 50 players tried and failed to get oil in each of these eventually-successful towns? It's hard to balance both concerns.
Wow, that's quite a tale.
Looks like they're still alive and kicking:
http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/serve … id=6196908