A proposed solution for repeated /DIE

jasonrohrer · 2019-05-14 16:34:27

Repeated /DIE is annoying for everyone involved.

That said, I don't want some birth-loc-picking interface to be the face of the game for everyone. That's not what the game is about. But expert players are gonna do what they're gonna do. Even if I found a way to force them to stay with a mother (like, linking their soul to that mother, so post-suicide, they get reborn to that mother), it would just encourage matricide to free yourself. There's always a way around it. Now, there's no way around a restriction *against* being born to a given mother (lineage ban, donkey status, etc), so that part is working fine. But I really can't force you to stay with a particular mother. The game can suggest that, and encourage it (which it does), but it can't be forced.

So, for those expert players who are trying to select a specific birth situation (or Eve), what can we do?

How about this:

Immediately after you issue /DIE, the server sends you a list of potential mothers for your next life. You see this info for each one:

NAME
Age
Generation

The server would filter it so that there was only one mother from each family line on your list (to avoid repeated clutter). And at the bottom of your list, you could also specify NO MOTHER (aka, Eve).

Then, when you get reborn next time, the client sends your choice of mother along with the login, and the server sticks you with that mother if it's possible.

AmyJ · 2019-05-14 16:38:41

Yes please!

cinn · 2019-05-14 16:41:27

This method could probably be used as a cheat, e.g. to get back into a big town you were just recently in if you had the option to choose a mother.

Turnipseed · 2019-05-14 16:46:51

Big hole... die before 30 always so no ban. Spawn in new life /die go back to your town repeat

Dodge · 2019-05-14 16:47:40

jasonrohrer wrote:

Yes, births per minute for a given family line, over time, would be interesting to see.
There are something like 1100 unique players per day (on a Monday), and 11,000 lives lived per day.

What I worry about with this change is this:
Players who want to keep working on their personal project in the game will be encouraged to "take a break" from the game for 90 minutes and then come back and SIDS back to their project village. This would become a pattern. Why bother playing anywhere else, or getting invested in other places and stories?
This would undercut "saying goodbye for real" somewhat. Having to play in some other place (or wait 24 hours) is enough of a palette cleanser that saying goodbye feels pretty real.

And for those of you living two lives per day, yeah... you really should be living in two different villages, and never ever coming back. That's really what this game is about.

Maybe the time you have to wait would get exponentially longer the more time you stay in a certain place?

So eventually if you stay too long in one place it would be more and more difficult to get there.

Some way to track behavior and see who is trying to get in a certain place on purpose all the time.

And playing in another village would remove a percent of the waiting time for the other village.

It should be made so a random person has a probability to spawn in the same village but also not allow to go in that village on purpose several times a day.

Last edited by Dodge (2019-05-14 16:48:11)

MultiLife · 2019-05-14 16:47:45

Whatever it ends up being, I'm interested in seeing how it takes effect. I'm really hoping we could just connect people who want to be connected so we get to have sweet parenthood experiences.

lychee · 2019-05-14 16:50:21

I like dodge's suggestion with regards to an exponential amount of waiting time the longer you spend in a certain place!

Buggy · 2019-05-14 16:59:36

If people have an option to eve every game there is going to be a lot more eves. The "leaderboard" of the game is longest living eve lineage so that is goal for some players (ie.eve jo) It might be fine but it could also spread out the player base a lot.
What if you could only have one eve family per character running at a time or a cool down before you can eve again? It might also concentrate players in long living families. People who want cities will always pick the longest lineage they can and people who want to play early game will pick the early gens. Who will chose to play the rest of the families in the middle of the list? We already do this but at least we don't know there are better options so are more likely to settle.

Last edited by Buggy (2019-05-14 17:09:15)

Tarr · 2019-05-14 17:03:58

Turnipseed wrote:

Big hole... die before 30 always so no ban. Spawn in new life /die go back to your town repeat

I mean that's sort of the thing with his idea. People who sneak around the ban have always done it in one way or another and continue to find a way to do it in the first place. As stated he can suggest or try to force players to stay somewhere but it will always lead to a negative effect when just giving the players who do sneak under the bans finally don't need to do a bunch of weird gimmicks.

-Dying under 30 (or 44 as Eve)
-Using server reset or multiple lineage towns to respawn to a certain place
-Building large towns that are connected but outside of each others area bans
-Twinning+ with someone unbanned to a town/camp/village to allow someone to return to their previous life village
-Repeatedly walking in and out of a city to rebirth the same players that just died
-Flying a plane out into the wilderness to pick up a player to return them to town
-Just owning a second account in the first place

This is just a list of things we've done off the top of my head to sneak around the system in the past. There will always be someone fighting back against whatever system he puts in place and like always someone will find a way to get under anything he puts in place anyways. I'd rather see the new system go in place without restrictions and see what happens or at very least with a murder restriction timer or the 90 minutes real time timer.

Maybe with this new /die system we might see families hit 100+ generations more common or hell we might eventually see another boots line pop up. However, with the current system at hands you are almost always going to get a bunch of sids babies followed with rng bad births or someone just killing off the line.

lychee · 2019-05-14 17:11:01

What if there's an increasing wait time each time you /die.

The first time you /die (or die within the 5 minutes of the game), you can get reborn quickly.

The second time you /die in a row (or die within the 5 minutes of the game), the screen goes grey and there's a 5 sec countdown timer before the game releases you.

The third time you /die in a row (or die within the 5 minutes of the game), the screen goes grey and there's a 15 sec cooldown.

You the see pattern? If you start to /die an extraordinary amount of times in a row, the freeze cooldown starts to get pretty long and is more of a hassle.

futurebird · 2019-05-14 17:13:37

https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=6418

This was my suggestion to address this issue. It’s a pretty radical chance but I think it would change the way people interact with the game.

Tarr · 2019-05-14 17:15:06

lychee wrote:

What if there's an increasing wait time each time you /die.
The first time you /die (or die within the 5 minutes of the game), you can get reborn quickly.
The second time you /die in a row (or die within the 5 minutes of the game), the screen goes grey and there's a 5 sec countdown timer before the game releases you.
The third time you /die in a row (or die within the 5 minutes of the game), the screen goes grey and there's a 15 sec cooldown.
You the see pattern? If you start to /die an extraordinary amount of times in a row, the freeze cooldown starts to get pretty long and is more of a hassle.

Then people start running again instead of using the /die command. When you make /die look less appealing you start getting a bunch of runner babies which are worse overall. You don't get your birth cooldown back if a baby runs off into the wilderness unlike /die where if you picked the baby up at least once the /die will take you off cooldown.

When /die is weak people grief either by just straight running or poking bear caves and the like.

jasonrohrer · 2019-05-14 17:16:54

Yeah, I have thought of that too.

The people would avoid /DIE and just suicide in game by wolf or whatever.

It's impossible to detect the difference between suicide and accident. And we don't want to punish players who have several accidents in a row.

lychee · 2019-05-14 17:21:43

Tarr wrote:

lychee wrote:
What if there's an increasing wait time each time you /die.
The first time you /die (or die within the 5 minutes of the game), you can get reborn quickly.
The second time you /die in a row (or die within the 5 minutes of the game), the screen goes grey and there's a 5 sec countdown timer before the game releases you.
The third time you /die in a row (or die within the 5 minutes of the game), the screen goes grey and there's a 15 sec cooldown.
You the see pattern? If you start to /die an extraordinary amount of times in a row, the freeze cooldown starts to get pretty long and is more of a hassle.
Then people start running again instead of using the /die command. When you make /die look less appealing you start getting a bunch of runner babies which are worse overall. You don't get your birth cooldown back if a baby runs off into the wilderness unlike /die where if you picked the baby up at least once the /die will take you off cooldown.
When /die is weak people grief either by just straight running or poking bear caves and the like.

I tried to account for that by saying that dying within the first 5 minutes has the same cooldown effect as /die, so to get around it you would have to go those first 5 minutes at least. Of course, it's bad if people kill themselves after the first 5 minutes, but I also think it's important to have a slight deterrent to /die as well.

Something as simple as a 15 second wait I think is really fair.

If discourages repeatedly /die spamming (no instant gratification) if you have to wait 15 seconds between each die command staring at the screen. It's enough to be annoying to the SID baby (if they try to chain 10 in a row), but reasonable enough to someone who just wants to /die once.

Dodge · 2019-05-14 17:23:31

Buggy wrote:

If people have an option to eve every game there is going to be a lot more eves. The "leaderboard" of the game is longest living eve lineage so that is goal for some players (ie.eve jo) It might be fine but it could also spread out the player base a lot.
What if you could only have one eve family per character running at a time? It might also concentrate players in long living families. People who want cities will always pick the longest lineage they can and people who want to play early game will pick the early gens. Who will chose to play the rest of the families in the middle of the list? We already do this but at least we don't know there are better options so are more likely to settle.

I agree there should be a limit of eve's per person.

Someone was Eve 76 times in one day...

Also doing that with the current system makes your current lineages most likely to die, so wanting the longest lineage and doing multiple eve runs is shooting yourself in the foot.

futurebird · 2019-05-14 17:29:36

lychee wrote:

Tarr wrote:
lychee wrote:
What if there's an increasing wait time each time you /die.
The first time you /die (or die within the 5 minutes of the game), you can get reborn quickly.
The second time you /die in a row (or die within the 5 minutes of the game), the screen goes grey and there's a 5 sec countdown timer before the game releases you.
The third time you /die in a row (or die within the 5 minutes of the game), the screen goes grey and there's a 15 sec cooldown.
You the see pattern? If you start to /die an extraordinary amount of times in a row, the freeze cooldown starts to get pretty long and is more of a hassle.
Then people start running again instead of using the /die command. When you make /die look less appealing you start getting a bunch of runner babies which are worse overall. You don't get your birth cooldown back if a baby runs off into the wilderness unlike /die where if you picked the baby up at least once the /die will take you off cooldown.
When /die is weak people grief either by just straight running or poking bear caves and the like.
I tried to account for that by saying that dying within the first 5 minutes has the same cooldown effect as /die, so to get around it you would have to go those first 5 minutes at least. Of course, it's bad if people kill themselves after the first 5 minutes, but I also think it's important to have a slight deterrent to /die as well.
Something as simple as a 15 second wait I think is really fair.
If discourages repeatedly /die spamming (no instant gratification) if you have to wait 15 seconds between each die command staring at the screen. It's enough to be annoying to the SID baby (if they try to chain 10 in a row), but reasonable enough to someone who just wants to /die once.

this is a great idea Tarr. It would have worked on me when I was newer and would kind of spam die just because towns looked boring or because I wanted to be black for once. /die has no cost so the reasons can be hella petty. Now I only use it when frustrated since I have not been Eve for days.

Léonard · 2019-05-14 17:33:31

Even if it's still just 15 seconds I would personally start running.

futurebird · 2019-05-14 17:39:34

But running takes longer.

Dodge · 2019-05-14 17:44:24

Dont really like the list thing, couldnt it be made by an algorithm without the player seeing it?

The algorithm would find out why someone used /die (too many people, not enough, too many generations, not enough, being a boy or a girl, not being an eve etc)

Each time you use /die it collects data and tries to find out why you used /die

It would build a profile for each account with their preferences and next time they /die the next spawn would be the calculated best match another /die would lead to the second best calculated etc.

Normal spawn without /die wouldnt be affected by the algorithm and would be like the current working spawn

Preferences would continually be calculated which would end up in less and less SID's

Also yeah there could be some time restrictions for people who use /die too much.

Léonard wrote:

Even if it's still just 15 seconds I would personally start running.

Running doesn't get you banned from the village, so you would have to run more and end up being more than 15 seconds...

Grim_Arbiter · 2019-05-14 17:49:35

Simple. If you die before the age of 5 you have to watch a mandatory credit sequence..

"Programing by Jason Rohrer"

"Music by Jason Rohrer"

Jk really, but that would make me laugh.

The real answer is to just limit it to 5 suicides an hour. If you cant find what you want in 5 suicides then you are too damn picky. The runners are always gonna run anyways. Unless they're trapped behind a fence *cough* Jason *cough*

lychee · 2019-05-14 17:56:01

Dodge wrote:

Dont really like the list thing, couldnt it be made by an algorithm without the player seeing it?

I'm also not too fond the list thing either.

I think it's cool that there's some element of serendipity when you play this game -- you don't control which family you're born into -- and I really don't think that should be an obvious feature of the game.

It's fine if experienced players figure out exploits on how to do it, but I don't think you should be making it any easier.

I think any solution that decreases the amount of /dies and /running will be satisfactory. If you have kids that try to knife their moms, build airplanes, or really anything -- at least they're doing something interesting with the game.

If you have to /die once to unlock the list, then pretty soon at least 50% of everybody (everyone who knows about the /die feature... which will probably be as many people who know about /emotes) is going to /die on their first birth because it's now an official feature to pick the kind of game you want. Mathematically, this means that 25% of all births will still be SIDs babies.

Last edited by lychee (2019-05-14 17:58:07)

DestinyCall · 2019-05-14 18:16:42

Personally, I would like to see a way for the average player to return more reliably to their past lines, if the lineage is still going. It won't stop people from dying if they want to Eve, but it should help a lot of people find a village that suits their needs. It would also let you see the same village at multiple stages in its existence and concentrate the player population in successful, well-designed towns, which should help lines stay active longer. Changing the lineage ban to real world time instead of time played in-game would help a lot with that.

As for Eves, I'm thinking that one option would be to change how Eves spawn so you CAN'T die to become an Eve. Instead, having the option to play as an Eve could be a reward for living to sixty in a previous life. For example, after dying at sixty, you gain an "Eve token" which can be used on the rebirth screen to spawn as an Eve. You can accumulate up to five tokens. If you do not have any tokens left, you will be born to a mother unless there are no available mothers on the server. If you are banned from all active lineages, you can't play on that server until one of your lineage bans expire. The rebirth screen can let you know how long that will be. So if you have been banned everywhere or if you really want to Eve, you can log onto one of the low pop servers. But you can't /die to become Eve on the big server. You have to earn it by living a long life.

futurebird · 2019-05-14 18:25:01

Destiny, that's the idea behind the proposal I linked:

Area/lineage ban is a stealth killer of towns and leads to the kind of repetitive ending we've all experiences "oh well no more girls" even when you have tons of food and water and supplies. That ending needs to be a lot more rare IMO.
So what if you got a limited number of shots at each lineage? This would be a rather radical change but here is what I'm thinking:
When you are born in to one family and live to 30, rather than getting banned for living and coming to care about that family, you would be *set* to return to the family when one of the follow conditions was met:
1. at least 1 hour of real-time has passed
2. at least 30 min of in-game time for you in another family has passed.
At that point, if possible, you would be sent back for your 2nd life with the SMITHS. Here is the catch: you only get 3 lives with each family maximum! And of course you could still die if you didn't want to go back. I think this would make people more attached to families but also force us to spend time away and let the village take its own course. Lastly, on that 3rd life it'd be goodbye forever!
The times, space between them and number of returns could be adjusted, but I think this would make people plan for the future more. You KNOW you'll see that town again. I think it could curb some griefing and use of /die as well.

IN SHORT:
Send everyone back to each town they have lived in for at least 30 years three times and no more with real-time breaks between the times you can be sent back. This makes people care about their family more since YOUR family is YOUR future.

Last edited by futurebird (2019-05-14 18:25:28)

Jk Howling · 2019-05-14 18:25:27

yes, yes, 100% yes. I would love this feature. Giving us a way to choose how we'd like to spend our next life, rather than /die spamming til we get there, would be amazing- not just for us as the players, but also for the mothers already playing.

The only change I'd like to propose is showing a "living members" or "living females" count alongside the name/age/gen. This is often an important factor for me when determining whether to stay in a family, because I like to help the small, struggling families more than the thriving communities with 8+ fertile females running around. This is normally figured by the use of mods, namely the Awbz mod [which shows all living female relatives] and the Hetuw mod [which shows live females within a certain radius]. Making it an official feature would be great to help us make a decision.

My biggest concern would be that griefers would be able to abuse this to target large families and cities a lot easier. They could simply choose their victims. That being said, it'd still be better than the /die carnage they wreak getting there as they currently do. There's also the matter of players being able to abuse it to return to projects/towns, but there's always been ways of doing this and likely always will be. People will find ways to work around any system set in place. That shouldn't be something that deters progress.

jasonrohrer · 2019-05-14 18:26:44

The game didn't always have DIE, and then there was running, which was even more annoying than die.

And there's no way, programmatically, to distinguish running from being abandoned.

Unfortunately, there's no way to enforce "serendipity" for players who don't want that. And using DIE 10x in a row until you get to the situation that you want isn't serendipity.

You can do stuff to slow this process down (like eliminating die), but with 39% of players doing this each day, slowing it down would just... slow it down. Players would do the slow thing until they got into their desired situation.

One Hour One Life Forums

#1 2019-05-14 16:34:27

A proposed solution for repeated /DIE

#2 2019-05-14 16:38:41

Re: A proposed solution for repeated /DIE

#3 2019-05-14 16:41:27

Re: A proposed solution for repeated /DIE

#4 2019-05-14 16:46:51

Re: A proposed solution for repeated /DIE

#5 2019-05-14 16:47:40

Re: A proposed solution for repeated /DIE

#6 2019-05-14 16:47:45

Re: A proposed solution for repeated /DIE

#7 2019-05-14 16:50:21

Re: A proposed solution for repeated /DIE

#8 2019-05-14 16:59:36

Re: A proposed solution for repeated /DIE

#9 2019-05-14 17:03:58

Re: A proposed solution for repeated /DIE

#10 2019-05-14 17:11:01

Re: A proposed solution for repeated /DIE

#11 2019-05-14 17:13:37

Re: A proposed solution for repeated /DIE

#12 2019-05-14 17:15:06

Re: A proposed solution for repeated /DIE

#13 2019-05-14 17:16:54

Re: A proposed solution for repeated /DIE

#14 2019-05-14 17:21:43

Re: A proposed solution for repeated /DIE

#15 2019-05-14 17:23:31

Re: A proposed solution for repeated /DIE

#16 2019-05-14 17:29:36

Re: A proposed solution for repeated /DIE

#17 2019-05-14 17:33:31

Re: A proposed solution for repeated /DIE

#18 2019-05-14 17:39:34

Re: A proposed solution for repeated /DIE

#19 2019-05-14 17:44:24

Re: A proposed solution for repeated /DIE

#20 2019-05-14 17:49:35

Re: A proposed solution for repeated /DIE

#21 2019-05-14 17:56:01

Re: A proposed solution for repeated /DIE

#22 2019-05-14 18:16:42

Re: A proposed solution for repeated /DIE

#23 2019-05-14 18:25:01

Re: A proposed solution for repeated /DIE

#24 2019-05-14 18:25:27

Re: A proposed solution for repeated /DIE

#25 2019-05-14 18:26:44

Re: A proposed solution for repeated /DIE

Board footer