Jason, regarding the large scores in the leaderboard.

Thaulos · 2019-11-22 22:16:55

Players have been using the /die command exploit to increase their genetic score.

In response to that you have increased the minimum age required to affect the score to 3 years old. I'm not sure if that is going to solve large scores. But I think we can safely assume people will still try it, and that's might be a big issue.

What happens to the mother's score when "Krystina Schlemmer" with 244.659 suicides at 3yo to try to continue exploiting the score?

What happens to their siblings? Or their grandmother? Their uncle?

This can potentially wipe a lot of people's scores and tool slots!

Last edited by Thaulos (2019-11-22 22:18:35)

Thaulos · 2019-11-22 22:29:18

One more thing actually.

I'm not actually sure how the implementation is right now but this exploit shouldn't even be possible with how you described the system.

People who sid all the time should currently get a penalty for their instant death (for decrease in life expectancy) and should get at best "random noise" increase/decreases from your relative's lives. If your mother usually lived to 60 but happened to die at 40, your score would go down, not up!

Is their score change being calculated based against your average life instead of theirs?

Keyin · 2019-11-22 22:56:38

It is easy to see why dying as young as possible is the best way to boost your score.

This is because under this system you want to MAXIMIZE your exposure to people living above-average lives and MINIMIZE your exposure to people living less than average.

Dying young means exposing yourself to just the scores of adults for the most part(who will probably live average or above average lives). Living to 60 means exposing yourself to children, grand children, and great grand-children (who live above average, average, or below average lives).

i.e You're much better off dying young and exposing your score to people who are older than you because there's a correlation between being older than you and giving positive score.

jasonrohrer · 2019-11-23 01:56:19

Yeah, I need to look into this in depth...

I've been working on other things, and didn't notice that it got this bad. 256! Yikes!

It's not about how long someone lives from average. It's about their own PERSONAL average. However, people's averages start at 30, and for good players, they tend to go up. So SIDS is a strategy that can farm this likelihood.

I need to look at the accounts in question and see what's what there...

Also, might as well let YOU click names on the leaderboard and see their recent genetic chart, right? Is there any privacy issue there? Probably not....

jasonrohrer · 2019-11-23 02:04:49

Anyway, looking closer, I see that the top players are doing this.

And you're right that pushing it up to 3-y-o won't help....

Maybe ma and gma, etc. should only count if YOU are alive when they die.

It misses a little something, because if you die at 25 due to foolishness, and thus fail to help them live long, then their short lives should reflect on you. But the "rapid fire" farming really adds up.

There also seems to be an imbalance between SELF and others.... having 5 others live long lives is way more important than having one self live long. This is maybe as it should be...

But another strat might be: have 2 BB before age 20 and then suicide (hoping the BB will live long).

The general problem is that "rapid" and "lots of lives" swamps other factors. If you can eek out a little bit of score from lots of lives, your score will keep climbing.

jasonrohrer · 2019-11-23 02:20:38

Okay, new way that it works:

If you are over 3 and ALIVE when your mother, gma, ggma, etc. dies, then they count toward your score.

If you ever die before these people, they don't count for you, no matter how old you are when they die. You must outlive them for them to count.

If they die when you are <3, then you weren't old enough to help them, so they don't count.

This is the same for little sibs who die when you are <3.... you couldn't help them, so they don't count.

jasonrohrer · 2019-11-23 02:24:43

And what are thoughts about rolling back this crazy leaderboard a bit?

The real problem is that everyone's average starts at 30.... so a lot of people are handing out points by living > 30 every life.

I may need to change that behavior, and instead have new player's average set to the length of their first life...

Though that might encourage players to die young once and then reap huge points from future lives living to 60.

Dammit... this new system is just not as clean as the old system.

eajorstad · 2019-11-23 02:27:26

jasonrohrer wrote:

Dammit... this new system is just not as clean as the old system.

Tis a good challenge!

Wuatduhf · 2019-11-23 03:01:30

jasonrohrer wrote:

And what are thoughts about rolling back this crazy leaderboard a bit?

The real problem is that everyone's average starts at 30.... so a lot of people are handing out points by living > 30 every life.
I may need to change that behavior, and instead have new player's average set to the length of their first life...
Though that might encourage players to die young once and then reap huge points from future lives living to 60.

Dammit... this new system is just not as clean as the old system.

Jason, I need to check that I understand how this system works.

1) There is a Gene Fitness for each individual

2) There is a "Life expectancy" value per person

3) When a person dies, their age of death vs. Life expectancy (not Gene fitness!) changes their Gene fitness score, and adjusts anyone else by that same amount

The inherent issue with that system is that the "abusers" of SID would have their negative value countered by their Ma's/Gma's Age 60's. If they can't farm their parents by dying before they do, then gaining Meme Fitness becomes significantly harder.

If I understood everything above correctly, I'm pretty sure you're close to the solution to patch it up.

--

Also, yes, please clean out that Top 100-200. It's silly to see everyone getting so high up after the change was applied.

On a uh....separate note, is it possible for a certain person's Leaderboard name to be changed to Michael Punch?

Last edited by Wuatduhf (2019-11-23 03:02:04)

Coconut Fruit · 2019-11-23 03:06:47

Even tho I personally got pretty nice score thanks to that, and I love having so many slots, it's unfair for other people who didn't know the exploit.
I would be fine with erasing everyone's genetic fitness. Let everyone start again with 30 score.

jasonrohrer · 2019-11-23 03:27:09

Okay, when this goes live tomorrow, I'll bring everyone back to 30.

arkajalka · 2019-11-23 04:07:22

just increase the SID penalty bigtime for the SID kid. People who cant live up to high age in any camp dont deserve high score.

Would even consider making it so that if you SID your score resets to default value. So you want to live in advanced towns and one town only... Good luck keep your defined tool slots. Big towns dont even need lots of tool slots as they can support more people.

This would help with the SID kids on eve camps aswel. It's terrible to set up a good camp and almost all of your kids just SID cause they dont want to play in a eve camp and want everything served em on a platter.

Last edited by arkajalka (2019-11-23 04:12:54)

One Hour One Life Forums

#1 2019-11-22 22:16:55

Jason, regarding the large scores in the leaderboard.

#2 2019-11-22 22:29:18

Re: Jason, regarding the large scores in the leaderboard.

#3 2019-11-22 22:56:38

Re: Jason, regarding the large scores in the leaderboard.

#4 2019-11-23 01:56:19

Re: Jason, regarding the large scores in the leaderboard.

#5 2019-11-23 02:04:49

Re: Jason, regarding the large scores in the leaderboard.

#6 2019-11-23 02:20:38

Re: Jason, regarding the large scores in the leaderboard.

#7 2019-11-23 02:24:43

Re: Jason, regarding the large scores in the leaderboard.

#8 2019-11-23 02:27:26

Re: Jason, regarding the large scores in the leaderboard.

#9 2019-11-23 03:01:30

Re: Jason, regarding the large scores in the leaderboard.

#10 2019-11-23 03:06:47

Re: Jason, regarding the large scores in the leaderboard.

#11 2019-11-23 03:27:09

Re: Jason, regarding the large scores in the leaderboard.

#12 2019-11-23 04:07:22

Re: Jason, regarding the large scores in the leaderboard.

Board footer