Starting to hate the game

karltown_veteran · 2018-12-15 13:59:39

Dodge wrote:

"I really hope Jason finds a solution for this."
Yeah dont worry up in the tech tree we will have baby incubators that feed you until you're 4, stack a room full of these and you have a baby farm

Hee hee

betame · 2018-12-15 15:53:02

CrazyEddie wrote:

...In addition to that slowdown, there is also a devastation which will be visited upon the inhabitants of the highest-numbered servers....

True about server ending/starting, as you describe for stagnation, but also when growing as seen for server 2 in thundersen's graph when starting to spread into server 3. The latter seems more easily avoidable. (like at least taking players equally from servers 1&2. Or ideally, if the active playerbase is growing fast enough, keeping the previous servers constant and skimming their surplus onto the new server)

- - - - -
I had made my conjecture looking at the following optimistic simulation. I wasn't looking at the real world where we have ~150 active players at a time.
When the total player number is somewhat greater than that of 2 maxed servers, then the main server will still have enough players joining to stay maxed, even in a population decline; which would in turn push the infertility burden onto the secondary servers.
Edit: outdated, as thundersen points out. But still applies after one server has capped (at 1/2 its max).

joshwithguitar wrote:

...I've run a rough simulation of your server system in which I had a max of around 1000 players and a min of around 500 over a day.
What I found happened was that during the times with the most players 7 servers were populated with a distribution something like:
191 191 191 190 100 50 50
So the first 4 stayed 95% full 5th around 50% and the next 2 25%
During the times with the least number of players the last 2 servers would go extinct and the distribution would be something like:
189 184 74 33 33 0 0...

I'm still confounded as to why thundersen's graph shows server 1 remaining at its 50% mark, even though its secondary servers have more than its population. (shouldn't that mean there's enough players joining to grow the main server's population? unless artificially capped there)

Last edited by betame (2018-12-15 17:09:46)

thundersen · 2018-12-15 16:05:02

betame wrote:

I'm still confounded as to why thundersen's graph shows server 1 remaining at its 50% mark, even though its secondary servers have more than its population.

The simulation you were looking at is pretty old and Jason actually changed the reflector a bit in the meantime: https://github.com/jasonrohrer/OneLife/ … server.php

I'm wrapping up some additions to my data collection script and I think I'm gonna open a new thread for our discussion about server pops to not bore the folks who aren't interested in technical stuff like this. Got some interesting new data, so stay tuned.

CrazyEddie · 2018-12-15 19:17:45

betame wrote:

True about server ending/starting, as you describe for stagnation, but also when growing as seen for server 2 in thundersen's graph when starting to spread into server 3.

That's a good point. When a new server is added, the upstream server gets its birthrate cut in half. This leads to a big population drop (because the death rate remains the same) until it reaches the new equilibrium, and that's going to kill a lot of lineages (although not as badly as the absolute sterility inflicted on a server being remove from the active pool). But again, that only happens when the game population thresholds are crossed to add a server.

The latter seems more easily avoidable. (like at least taking players equally from servers 1&2. Or ideally, if the active playerbase is growing fast enough, keeping the previous servers constant and skimming their surplus onto the new server)

It's definitely possible, it's just a matter of how much Jason wants to redo the algorithm. As it is now it's pretty straight-forward, but has these interesting side-effects. Maybe it would be worth his very limited, very valuable development time to write a new algorithm and change the side-effects.

When the total player number is somewhat greater than that of 2 maxed servers, then the main server will still have enough players joining to stay maxed, even in a population decline; which would in turn push the infertility burden onto the secondary servers.
Edit: outdated, as thundersen points out. But still applies after one server has capped (at 1/2 its max).

Oh, heck, you're right! Server 1 receives half of the new births, OR enough to exactly replace its deaths, whichever is smaller! If there are several servers active, Server 1 may have only one-third the total population, and thus one-third the total deaths, and thus only get one-third the total births. But as total population declines, its share of the births increases and keeps the server's population stable at its cap. So it doesn't experience the birthrate decline that any other server that isn't at its cap does.

I'm still confounded as to why thundersen's graph shows server 1 remaining at its 50% mark, even though its secondary servers have more than its population. (shouldn't that mean there's enough players joining to grow the main server's population? unless artificially capped there)

There's two "caps" on a server's population - a soft cap and a hard cap. At the soft cap, the reflector stops sending it new connections. At the hard cap (the "max"), the server stops accepting new connections. The soft cap is currently 50% of the hard cap. So as it stands now, a server should rarely be above 50% full; it can exceed the soft cap if people manually connect to it directly, but when that happens the reflector will stop sending it new (non-manual) connections.

Azrael · 2018-12-17 03:02:25

LOL boots line was a family started way before lots of hard concepts and mechanics were added to the game. It was basically a discord group of a few people who left boys to die and only raised girls that they KNEW were from their voice chat.

There was nothing special to it, no "easy game" even though it was easier. That whole thing wasn't really legit in my opinion because it was so thoroughly planned out, on server 7, which no one went on except them.

They also had the ability to spawn really close to their town without curses, lineage bans, eve spiralling, etc.

Not a good example.

startafight · 2018-12-17 07:53:31

was thinking abt this n not so sure about how it would work (or if it would work) but what if there was a max amount of lineages in one server so there isnt a drastic cut in population?

idk how it would interact with lineage bans (so forget lineage bans for a sec) but if there were say 500 people playing at a time n a server was capped at 100 ppl in 5 lineages at the most so other servers could be better populated n the fertility problem would be a lil more regulated... ofc the numbers im giving is probably not gonna work but its just an example of how im thinking it could work

if someone with math skills reads this do u think having a limited number of lineages in a game could help solve the problem in some way?

lionon · 2018-12-17 07:56:54

A lineage max would mean someone who got lineage ban on all existing lineages can't play anymore. At least on this server.

Without /die this would still be 3 Lineages. As 30 minutes for every lineage until ban, and 90 until it got lifted. However with, there is no limit on Eve starts.

Yes, I suppose the issue may be too many lineages from people /die'ing too much.

One Hour One Life Forums

#26 2018-12-15 13:59:39

Re: Starting to hate the game

#27 2018-12-15 15:53:02

Re: Starting to hate the game

#28 2018-12-15 16:05:02

Re: Starting to hate the game

#29 2018-12-15 19:17:45

Re: Starting to hate the game

#30 2018-12-17 03:02:25

Re: Starting to hate the game

#31 2018-12-17 07:53:31

Re: Starting to hate the game

#32 2018-12-17 07:56:54

Re: Starting to hate the game

Board footer