More on Leaderboard And Gene Score

Spoonwood · 2020-12-10 22:17:23

Previous thread: https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewt … p?id=10347

Background: I started thinking about the leaderboard more after talking to MaDcOw who said that the leaderboard is not a meme. His comment referred to how such gives players a permanent identifier and allows anti-griefers to track griefers. But also, one has to play once a day to stay on the leaderboard. So, it can get viewed as some motivation to play at times. Also, the leaderboard system is a competition. Having taking part in a competitive online gaming before, competitions can motivate playing the game more. So, it's worth asking, does the leaderboard system suggest motivating factors to play?

Of course, if one has a low position on the leaderboard, there exists decent motivation to play. So, for players who are new to the game, the leaderboard system can get seen as a motivation. But, what about once one has what one considers a decent or high position on the leaderboard?

In my opinion once you have a high leader board position, the gene score system makes for a demotivator from playing more, other than playing once a day. It only takes one or two children who die early to result in an overall loss of score for a life. Also, it's gotten said by others before that those with high gene score play during certain times when players are more likely to survive for an entire life or live a longish life. Either there exist fewer players who will quit on a life after living to 3, or fewer destructive players during that time. I talked to Yohanan Contino (leaderboard name), who is a forum member, and he told me that he'll log into tutorial areas to see if it's safe to play (by checking PX chat I presume). Mr. Contino isn't currently on the leaderboard, but has high enough gene score last I knew to have a high leaderboard position.

Jessenia Rodak is someone who often tops the leaderboard when she plays: http://onehouronelife.com/fitnessServer … l&id=12207 There's a gap in her playing kind of, because she avoided playing during the Thanksgiving player influx. According to her recently leaderboard activity she often has just one kid. Every child of hers in her recent leaderboard activity that I see right now is from her collaborator, whether human or machine, Enric Blatnik: http://onehouronelife.com/fitnessServer … l&id=28761 Her gene score, as well her leaderboard status sure does seem like a demotivator from her having children. There's less risk to one's gene score and thus one's potential leaderboard position, isn't there by doing what she does?

There also exist some other players who have 20 to 40 day gaps since they last played with high leaderboard position. Jahaziah Mcnurlin had log in entries from 2 months ago on their leaderboard when I saw it yesterday, though by now it's changed: http://onehouronelife.com/fitnessServer … l&id=37407 Annabellee Dede has one entry recently: http://onehouronelife.com/fitnessServer … l&id=20347 The others come 34 days and 40 days ago. Blakelynn Lamberson has an entry from 58 days ago at the bottom of their leaderboard as I write this: http://onehouronelife.com/fitnessServer Flash Polachek has a leaderboard entry from 50 days ago: http://onehouronelife.com/fitnessServer … il&id=5233

Now, you can find high position leaderboard entries from players who have played a bunch in the last week. Nery Chappel is one example: http://onehouronelife.com/fitnessServer … ail&id=114 And there exist many others. But, note how large the negative number is from the death of a (non /die) player early, including one's little brother.

Basically, the leaderboard system punishes a family member dying early much more harshly than rewarding the survival of family members. It can demotivate players from playing, because it can be too much of a risk to play with little reward possible for at least some players. And it's better to just avoid times when players who act destructively play, since even if they don't kill you, they might kill one of your family members.

I think it'd be best to just scrap gene score entirely/make it inactive, though maintain a leaderboard system on another basis. Instead I'd think something like a point system based on the longevity of relatives and one's character would be better. It would still use at least the same relatives. Players using /die would get negative longevity points for failing to try to have something of a long life. Mothers or uncles of /die players wouldn't have their scores affected by /die players. All other players would get positive longevity points for their self or relatives depending on how long they or their relatives lived. There would exist a bonus of some sort, perhaps double or triple longevity points, for players that lived to 60. Perhaps even a larger bonus for living to 60 so that players who lived to 60 would tend to drift to the top of the leaderboard ahead of mid-life quitters or those who have trouble surviving for one reason whether it's good or bad. Such a system would motivate playing more often, or at least not be as questionable with respect to motivation and playing as the current gene score system is. Players would have incentive to have children also in general, since they would gain more longevity points that way. Also, players who played the most trying to survive and getting others trying to survive would tend to drift to the top of the leaderboard.

Possible pips at the end of a life would depend on how many longevity points one has up to a point, where past that point more longevity points don't change how many possible pips one can get.

Also, the current gene score has another problem issue in that it has a threshold condition of 15 players needed to be living on a server when a relative or oneself dies for a gene score calculation to take place. It isn't so happy, because there consequently exist situations where gene score can motivate killing one's mother or aunts who were mostly cooking and farming. It also strikes me as unhappy that gene score doesn't work below 15 players, since children of men mode exists, some players end up on an odd server while even servers get updated and don't get any credit at all since it has less than 15 players. And why exactly should at least the child of someone playing on even a high number custom server get no points at all in the point system? A longevity point system would enable credit to players preferring such a context, while also still giving more possible credit to players playing in a larger population context.

Thoughts? Criticisms?

Last edited by Spoonwood (2020-12-10 23:45:12)

Spoonwood · 2020-12-10 23:47:02

If the above is too long to read, consider these paragraphs:

I think it'd be best to just scrap gene score entirely/make it inactive, though maintain a leaderboard system on another basis. Instead I'd think something like a point system based on the longevity of relatives and one's character would be better. It would still use at least the same relatives. Players using /die would get negative longevity points for failing to try to have something of a long life. Mothers or uncles of /die players wouldn't have their scores affected by /die players. All other players would get positive longevity points for their self or relatives depending on how long they or their relatives lived. There would exist a bonus of some sort, perhaps double or triple longevity points, for players that lived to 60. Perhaps even a larger bonus for living to 60 so that players who lived to 60 would tend to drift to the top of the leaderboard ahead of mid-life quitters or those who have trouble surviving for one reason whether it's good or bad. Such a system would motivate playing more often, or at least not be as questionable with respect to motivation and playing as the current gene score system is. Players would have incentive to have children also in general, since they would gain more longevity points that way. Also, players who played the most trying to survive and getting others trying to survive would tend to drift to the top of the leaderboard.

Possible pips at the end of a life would depend on how many longevity points one has up to a point, where past that point more longevity points don't change how many possible pips one can get.

DestinyCall · 2020-12-10 23:53:10

Spoonwood wrote:

If the above is too long to read, consider these paragraphs:
I think it'd be best to just scrap gene score entirely/make it inactive, though maintain a leaderboard system on another basis. Instead I'd think something like a point system based on the longevity of relatives and one's character would be better. It would still use at least the same relatives. Players using /die would get negative longevity points for failing to try to have something of a long life. Mothers or uncles of /die players wouldn't have their scores affected by /die players. All other players would get positive longevity points for their self or relatives depending on how long they or their relatives lived. There would exist a bonus of some sort, perhaps double or triple longevity points, for players that lived to 60. Perhaps even a larger bonus for living to 60 so that players who lived to 60 would tend to drift to the top of the leaderboard ahead of mid-life quitters or those who have trouble surviving for one reason whether it's good or bad. Such a system would motivate playing more often, or at least not be as questionable with respect to motivation and playing as the current gene score system is. Players would have incentive to have children also in general, since they would gain more longevity points that way. Also, players who played the most trying to survive and getting others trying to survive would tend to drift to the top of the leaderboard.
Possible pips at the end of a life would depend on how many longevity points one has up to a point, where past that point more longevity points don't change how many possible pips one can get.

TL;dr

fug · 2020-12-11 00:12:21

DestinyCall wrote:

Spoonwood wrote:
If the above is too long to read, consider these paragraphs:
I think it'd be best to just scrap gene score entirely/make it inactive, though maintain a leaderboard system on another basis. Instead I'd think something like a point system based on the longevity of relatives and one's character would be better. It would still use at least the same relatives. Players using /die would get negative longevity points for failing to try to have something of a long life. Mothers or uncles of /die players wouldn't have their scores affected by /die players. All other players would get positive longevity points for their self or relatives depending on how long they or their relatives lived. There would exist a bonus of some sort, perhaps double or triple longevity points, for players that lived to 60. Perhaps even a larger bonus for living to 60 so that players who lived to 60 would tend to drift to the top of the leaderboard ahead of mid-life quitters or those who have trouble surviving for one reason whether it's good or bad. Such a system would motivate playing more often, or at least not be as questionable with respect to motivation and playing as the current gene score system is. Players would have incentive to have children also in general, since they would gain more longevity points that way. Also, players who played the most trying to survive and getting others trying to survive would tend to drift to the top of the leaderboard.
Possible pips at the end of a life would depend on how many longevity points one has up to a point, where past that point more longevity points don't change how many possible pips one can get.
TL;dr

Been bad enough with him ranting in discord.

Good way to sum it all up Destiny.

Spoonwood · 2020-12-11 00:56:11

fug wrote:

DestinyCall wrote:
Spoonwood wrote:
If the above is too long to read, consider these paragraphs:
I think it'd be best to just scrap gene score entirely/make it inactive, though maintain a leaderboard system on another basis. Instead I'd think something like a point system based on the longevity of relatives and one's character would be better. It would still use at least the same relatives. Players using /die would get negative longevity points for failing to try to have something of a long life. Mothers or uncles of /die players wouldn't have their scores affected by /die players. All other players would get positive longevity points for their self or relatives depending on how long they or their relatives lived. There would exist a bonus of some sort, perhaps double or triple longevity points, for players that lived to 60. Perhaps even a larger bonus for living to 60 so that players who lived to 60 would tend to drift to the top of the leaderboard ahead of mid-life quitters or those who have trouble surviving for one reason whether it's good or bad. Such a system would motivate playing more often, or at least not be as questionable with respect to motivation and playing as the current gene score system is. Players would have incentive to have children also in general, since they would gain more longevity points that way. Also, players who played the most trying to survive and getting others trying to survive would tend to drift to the top of the leaderboard.
Possible pips at the end of a life would depend on how many longevity points one has up to a point, where past that point more longevity points don't change how many possible pips one can get.
TL;dr
Been bad enough with him ranting in discord.

Good way to sum it all up Destiny.

Destiny was likely not speaking seriously, and thus may have quoted my comment for reasons of emphasis, despite saying otherwise. Or just using humor to suggest that it might not be worth my time to worry about people who complain "it's too long to read".

You also ended up quoting my comment fug, drawing more attention to it possibly.

Seriously, people who won't read a paragraph or two show little more than that they don't want to think about what gets talked about. Since you've done this more than once by now fug, for example here: https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewt … 72#p103972, why would a rational individual expect that you think much on anything?

fug · 2020-12-11 00:58:12

Spoonwood wrote:

fug wrote:
DestinyCall wrote:
TL;dr
Been bad enough with him ranting in discord.

Good way to sum it all up Destiny.
Destiny was likely not speaking seriously, and thus may have quoted my comment for reasons of emphasis, despite saying otherwise. Or just using humor to suggest that it might not be worth my time to worry about people who complain "it's too long to read".
You also ended up quoting my comment fug, drawing more attention to it possibly.
Seriously, people who won't read a paragraph or two show little more than that they don't want to think about what gets talked about. Since you've done this more than once by now fug, for example here: https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewt … 72#p103972, why would a rational individual expect that you think much on anything?

TL;DR

Spoonwood · 2020-12-11 01:03:58

fug wrote:

Spoonwood wrote:
fug wrote:
Been bad enough with him ranting in discord.

Good way to sum it all up Destiny.
Destiny was likely not speaking seriously, and thus may have quoted my comment for reasons of emphasis, despite saying otherwise. Or just using humor to suggest that it might not be worth my time to worry about people who complain "it's too long to read".
You also ended up quoting my comment fug, drawing more attention to it possibly.
Seriously, people who won't read a paragraph or two show little more than that they don't want to think about what gets talked about. Since you've done this more than once by now fug, for example here: https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewt … 72#p103972, why would a rational individual expect that you think much on anything?
TL;DR

Five sentences is too much for fug by his own admission. This strikes me as a reason to distrust people saying "tl;dr", because apparently lack of concision isn't their issue. Seems to me more like they won't take any or too little responsibility for thinking on things.

fug · 2020-12-11 01:14:17

Spoonwood wrote:

fug wrote:
Spoonwood wrote:
Destiny was likely not speaking seriously, and thus may have quoted my comment for reasons of emphasis, despite saying otherwise. Or just using humor to suggest that it might not be worth my time to worry about people who complain "it's too long to read".
You also ended up quoting my comment fug, drawing more attention to it possibly.
Seriously, people who won't read a paragraph or two show little more than that they don't want to think about what gets talked about. Since you've done this more than once by now fug, for example here: https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewt … 72#p103972, why would a rational individual expect that you think much on anything?
TL;DR
Five sentences is too much for fug by his own admission. This strikes me as a reason to distrust people saying "tl;dr", because apparently lack of concision isn't their issue. Seems to me more like they won't take any or too little responsibility for thinking on things.

Sorry should have just put DR. Kek

sigmen4020 · 2020-12-11 02:19:37

Spoonwood wrote:

fug wrote:
Spoonwood wrote:
Destiny was likely not speaking seriously, and thus may have quoted my comment for reasons of emphasis, despite saying otherwise. Or just using humor to suggest that it might not be worth my time to worry about people who complain "it's too long to read".
You also ended up quoting my comment fug, drawing more attention to it possibly.
Seriously, people who won't read a paragraph or two show little more than that they don't want to think about what gets talked about. Since you've done this more than once by now fug, for example here: https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewt … 72#p103972, why would a rational individual expect that you think much on anything?
TL;DR
Five sentences is too much for fug by his own admission. This strikes me as a reason to distrust people saying "tl;dr", because apparently lack of concision isn't their issue. Seems to me more like they won't take any or too little responsibility for thinking on things.

TL;DR

Eve Troll · 2020-12-11 02:59:09

Too long? dont read

Why complain

These forums are about expressing ideas and discussing topics. How people conduct themselves surrounding that is not something to be governed or ridiculed. If you dont like how someone formulates their posts or if its too long for you to read no one is making you read them.

DestinyCall · 2020-12-11 07:00:41

Eve Troll wrote:

Too long? dont read
Why complain
These forums are about expressing ideas and discussing topics. How people conduct themselves surrounding that is not something to be governed or ridiculed. If you dont like how someone formulates their posts or if its too long for you to read no one is making you read them.

I stopped reading after "dont". These long posts are just too exhausting.

Can someone summarize this in 140 characters or less?

MrsDuckGirl · 2020-12-11 07:56:53

DestinyCall wrote:

Can someone summarize this in 140 characters or less?

That's what I was about to say. Thank you Twitter and others for making new generations too lazy to read.
Remove unnecessary words, keep it short.
Reminds me Orwell's book.
Book ? Too long, won't read.

fug · 2020-12-11 08:02:40

DestinyCall wrote:

Eve Troll wrote:
Too long? dont read
Why complain
These forums are about expressing ideas and discussing topics. How people conduct themselves surrounding that is not something to be governed or ridiculed. If you dont like how someone formulates their posts or if its too long for you to read no one is making you read them.
I stopped reading after "dont". These long posts are just too exhausting.
Can someone summarize this in 140 characters or less?

Watch this, I can summarize it in eight characters. Nonsense. I guess 9 if you want to count the period.

Eve Troll · 2020-12-11 08:39:00

Whats nonsense is derailing a thread and completely ignoring its subject to instead complain that the author wrote too much. Is it gratifying to complain about this? Does it make you feel better about yourself? Spoons not changing any time soon. But lets beat a dead horse till it starts break dancing, solid plan.

Last edited by Eve Troll (2020-12-11 09:28:42)

Lava · 2020-12-11 12:22:16

Too long didn’t read. Keep it between 3-5 sentences

DestinyCall · 2020-12-11 14:10:29

That was fun, but to get back on topic, I don't really care about meme score.

In my opinion, it is pretty useless but also pretty harmless, so I don't see any point in trying to fix it. I do not think it is actually necessary or advantageous to place a numerical value on love. Nor is it possible to easily quantify "good play" in a way that can't be exploited or broken by people intentionally farming for points. There are simply too many variables and different situations that might arise, depending on the changing needs of the village. If you base the score on personal longevity, living as a hermit is your best bet for high score. If you base score on food production or something, everybody will want to farm, neglecting important infrastructure and supporting work.

If you care about your family, you don't need to care about your "gene score", because you are already playing the game the right way. If you don't care about your village, why are you even playing a game about building a village together? Go play something that suits your interests. I don't see how gene score would make the game any better for you.

I mentioned this when gene score was introduced, but it felt like Jason was trying to fix a problem that didn't exist with a solution that didn't matter. The only good thing about gene score is it helps keep destructive players out of leadership positions.

Spoonwood · 2020-12-11 22:44:05

On December 11th, 2020 I was like 16th or 17th after a life around 6:30-7:00 A. M. EST. At about 5:40 P. M. I had risen to 10th place on the leaderboard. There's a few players whose 24 hour period above Danish Clinch who will expire before my 24 hour period. So, it's conceivable that Danish Clinch could rise higher on the leaderboard by not playing.

Spoonwood · 2020-12-12 04:31:20

By 11:30 P. M. EST, I was in 10th on the leaderboard.

Spoonwood · 2020-12-12 22:12:27

Yohanan Contino http://onehouronelife.com/fitnessServer … ail&id=561 was like 3rd or 4th on the leaderboard on Saturday afternoon EST. After one life starting around 3:00-4:00 P. M. EST, he dropped to like 165th on the leaderboard.

TheRubyCart · 2020-12-13 04:05:14

fuck wrote:

Spoonwood wrote:
fuck wrote:
Been bad enough with him ranting in discord.

Good way to sum it all up Destiny.
Destiny was likely not speaking seriously, and thus may have quoted my comment for reasons of emphasis, despite saying otherwise. Or just using humor to suggest that they might want to fuck me, worry about people who complain "it's too long to read".
You also ended up quoting my comment fuck, drawing more attention to it possibly.
Seriously, people who won't read a paragraph or two show little more than that they don't want to think about what gets talked about. Since you've done this more than once by now fuck, for example here: https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewt … 72#p103972, why would a rational individual expect that you think much on anything?
TL;DR

TL;DR

DestinyCall · 2020-12-13 05:44:55

It is not cool to misquote another person's words.

Please do not do that, TheRubyCart.

One Hour One Life Forums

#1 2020-12-10 22:17:23

More on Leaderboard And Gene Score

#2 2020-12-10 23:47:02

Re: More on Leaderboard And Gene Score

#3 2020-12-10 23:53:10

Re: More on Leaderboard And Gene Score

#4 2020-12-11 00:12:21

Re: More on Leaderboard And Gene Score

#5 2020-12-11 00:56:11

Re: More on Leaderboard And Gene Score

#6 2020-12-11 00:58:12

Re: More on Leaderboard And Gene Score

#7 2020-12-11 01:03:58

Re: More on Leaderboard And Gene Score

#8 2020-12-11 01:14:17

Re: More on Leaderboard And Gene Score

#9 2020-12-11 02:19:37

Re: More on Leaderboard And Gene Score

#10 2020-12-11 02:59:09

Re: More on Leaderboard And Gene Score

#11 2020-12-11 07:00:41

Re: More on Leaderboard And Gene Score

#12 2020-12-11 07:56:53

Re: More on Leaderboard And Gene Score

#13 2020-12-11 08:02:40

Re: More on Leaderboard And Gene Score

#14 2020-12-11 08:39:00

Re: More on Leaderboard And Gene Score

#15 2020-12-11 12:22:16

Re: More on Leaderboard And Gene Score

#16 2020-12-11 14:10:29

Re: More on Leaderboard And Gene Score

#17 2020-12-11 22:44:05

Re: More on Leaderboard And Gene Score

#18 2020-12-12 04:31:20

Re: More on Leaderboard And Gene Score

#19 2020-12-12 22:12:27

Re: More on Leaderboard And Gene Score

#20 2020-12-13 04:05:14

Re: More on Leaderboard And Gene Score

#21 2020-12-13 05:44:55

Re: More on Leaderboard And Gene Score

Board footer