Question about Eve spawn location "exploit"

Greep · 2018-12-25 01:50:55

MultiLife wrote:

I wouldn't want weekly wipes to destroy a place, I'd rather lower the chances of a revival instead which slowly drops the chances to near zero in time, so we won't see the same place all the time, rather it pops up sometimes. If you make weekly wipes I would start Eve chaining. "Better get a town going asap after a wipe so it can evolve before the next wipe". Not good.

Well sure, but that's what it's like now, only daily right? Better get your town up in the morning so it has a chance to get the population to survive nocturnal infertility. Just saying, the more measures you add to stop nocturnal infertility, the stronger infinitowns get. Which isn't bad if you just get a clean slate every now and then. Maybe not every week, maybe every month. Just spitballing.

Jk Howling · 2018-12-25 05:05:35

is this really an issue though? There's not really such thing as an "infinitown" atm, because no town lasts forever. You're complaining and worrying about eves abusing the respawn function in order to have a town last forever- but right now, the longest a town tends to last is maybe.. 2-3 weeks at best. And a lineage, even one in such a town where they've got pretty much everything, rarely lasts beyond mid-20's.

Is this really a bad thing, or something to worry over? Such towns are novelties atm. There's rarely more than one or two known ones at any given time, and they don't last "infinitely" like you claim. Sure, in theory they could. But they don't. They never have and they never will. The eves get bored, or stop eve running, or eventually break their eve spawn chain. The city dies. Everyone moves on. But the memories it made live on.

There's also the novelty of being born into such a giant town. A massive, sprawling city, with outpost towns dotted around for miles, roads connecting it all, labelled and organized farms, even libraries. A lot of people don't like big city life. Even I'm not a huge fan of it. But the excitement of being born into a big town on occasion, one you recognize and had heard of before ever going there- it's a very fun break from the constant string of eve-camps and early towns you're usually stuck with!

I lived a couple lives in Goosetown before it died out. It was so exciting! I remember spending an entire life trying to teleport a child into the room so that they could unlock the door from the inside, as someone had blocked the outside with boxes. I remember exploring the road from end to end, ranging through the wilderness and stumbling upon forgotten outposts. I remember paying homage to our undying goose stump, and reading stories of past families in the library.

You're looking to take that away, for what? It might not be what you intended, but it's not like people are complaining. On the contrary, these rare and large towns are usually looked upon with excitement! There's a sense of pride and accomplishment in having a town go so far. A vast, VAST majority of eve camps simply die. We might reach gen 20, get sheep and compost and a decent forge and a small bakery. But it dies. They always do. And in most cases, that's the end.

But for the occasional town to outlive its first lineage, to grow and prosper.. that's a bad thing? It isn't in my eyes. Especially now that you have the option to lineage ban yourself from unfavorable scenarios. Everyone that might enjoy exploring such a large settlement can do so. People who don't can easily /die away and search for their preferred lives. There's little downside.

I don't know, all in all I just.. I don't see the issue. And I really don't want to lose the enjoyment I've gotten beforehand from being born to a large town that I recognize. The game would've long since stagnated for me without the occasional break from the constant push of eve camps and early towns.

lionon · 2018-12-25 08:38:45

Greep wrote:

Well ultimately solving the nocturnal infertility would just ends up making infinitowns on steroids, right?: Keeping a town alive is very easy if you have experienced people coordinating, which is what would happen during night hours without any lineage banning as inexperienced players quit. With chain eveing, it's mostly relying on one or two people to not get ultra bored of their town and also not slip up and starve at age 58 (which happens a lot due to the hunger bell not chiming in old age heh).

Wait, you consider a group of experienced, coordinated players doing everything right to succeed a problem? IMO you got it wrong. If people keep doing everything alright then they should succeed! The issue with current midnight-wipes is that the wipes are because of the wrong reason (unlucky RNG draw).

Probably the only way of killing off infini towns while also giving a sense of meaningful town contribution is regular server wipes every week or so. A week is probably more time than a current town gets anyways.

Again just making it worse.

That said, I've always thought the bigger towns were more interesting because people actually have time to talk and organize to do more "fun stuff". Like you're not going to see people making two full time guards for their religious ancient banzai tree in the temple as a suburb plays capture the flag with it in a pre-pump town xD And even then, half the town needs to be maintainers. In a pre-pump town, 90% of the stuff you're doing is soil/water/fire/compost/farming related. It's "important" but quite boring.

Exactly I agree, the upstart spend half of your life making a backpack runs also get tiresome after a while. Thats why don't like eve camps too much. They are all the same, everything over again.

Last edited by lionon (2018-12-25 08:39:10)

lionon · 2018-12-25 08:45:49

jasonrohrer wrote:

Well, the idea here is that what you are doing in EVERY life should really matter.
In late-game infini-towns, nothing you do matters much. There's a kind of listless feeling to living there. If you screw up, and the town dies out, it will be revived by some Eve.

Well to some degree this is only natural the larger the city goes the more it can survive over certain individuals not contributing anything. However it gets funny if their amount gets too big and it fails. I've seen big cities with nobody farming, or nobody doing compost or nobody taking over baking, nobody notices for a while everbody doing their little vanity projects and suddendly everything falls apart.

One idea, regarding fertility, is that towns are supposed to be competing for babies. If all the fertile women huddle near the fire, they will swamp the heat weighting and "attract" babies. I will also add yum bonuses into the mix here (the women with the highest yum bonus will also have the highest chance of having a baby).

Yes yum bonus might be a good idea, but has been discussed to make eve camps harder, as a city can easily do better yum.

However forcing too much competition between towns make the game awkward as people are switching teams all time. At the end it will result people just trying to sabotage the other towns to make "theirs" succeed.

How about instead of lineage ban a server ban? As long "your" lineage is alive you cannot play on this server before the 90 minutes are over, but are handed on to other servers. This way you do not play on competing teams in your other lives.

MultiLife · 2018-12-25 11:21:26

One idea, regarding fertility, is that towns are supposed to be competing for babies. If all the fertile women huddle near the fire, they will swamp the heat weighting and "attract" babies. I will also add yum bonuses into the mix here (the women with the highest yum bonus will also have the highest chance of having a baby).

NOOOOO don't add yum bonus into the mix PLEASE. Rip Eve camps if that happens! And I chain yum to be able to travel without devouring foods, not to get more kids! I already try to keep myself cold when I'm out to get rabbits so I don't pop out kids when I'm out of the camp. Yum bonus shouldn't be there to get more kids, why would it?

Greep wrote:

MultiLife wrote:
I wouldn't want weekly wipes to destroy a place, I'd rather lower the chances of a revival instead which slowly drops the chances to near zero in time, so we won't see the same place all the time, rather it pops up sometimes. If you make weekly wipes I would start Eve chaining. "Better get a town going asap after a wipe so it can evolve before the next wipe". Not good.
Well sure, but that's what it's like now, only daily right? Better get your town up in the morning so it has a chance to get the population to survive nocturnal infertility. Just saying, the more measures you add to stop nocturnal infertility, the stronger infinitowns get. Which isn't bad if you just get a clean slate every now and then. Maybe not every week, maybe every month. Just spitballing.

Wat? Daily wipes? Where did you get that? A wipe means a server is wiped clean of cities and towns. We have never had daily wipes afaik. I don't give a crap over the nocturnal infertility personally, that can go ahead and end my towns all the time, but me reviving it as an Eve is the biggest, most important thing I have in this game to feel like my struggles matter and I am rewarded with a revival chance.

Last edited by MultiLife (2018-12-25 11:25:51)

Sylverone · 2018-12-25 12:19:07

Interesting discussion. Jason, have you considered posing this question in the Steam forums as well, since the different crowd might have a different flavor of response being more composed of newer players?

I respect the challenge presented by adjusting the mechanics of this game. It's very much an Edge-of-Chaos type scenario; if surviving is too easy, you have too much order, thus boredom except for one portion of players; if surviving is too hard, too much chaos and all but another type of player get bored. It's made harder by the fact that this adjustment is being made on multiple levels: Griefing potential vs excessive restriction, for example.

I think people's replies in this thread cautioning against changing the mechanic too drastically partly go to show that the game current sits well on the edge of chaos, with a slight bias toward towns dying out. That sounds like a good thing to me, that's where all the interesting stuff happens. It remind's me of Conway's game of life. You never know how long the pattern will live for, but it always dies out eventually. Yet fascinating unpredictable things can happen before it does. Maybe you already think about it like this, but if not I hope the metaphor might be useful. And thanks for making a game in which our social instincts are a primary gameplay mechanic, I think it's brilliant.

The fact that weekly wipes are not needed currently, yet large cities do happen sometimes, but not indefinitely, seems like an almost magical combination to me. Again, I respect the challenge of trying to keep that sort of balance while extending the tech tree.

MultiLife wrote:

One idea, regarding fertility, is that towns are supposed to be competing for babies. If all the fertile women huddle near the fire, they will swamp the heat weighting and "attract" babies. I will also add yum bonuses into the mix here (the women with the highest yum bonus will also have the highest chance of having a baby).
NOOOOO don't add yum bonus into the mix PLEASE. Rip Eve camps if that happens! And I chain yum to be able to travel without devouring foods, not to get more kids! I already try to keep myself cold when I'm out to get rabbits so I don't pop out kids when I'm out of the camp. Yum bonus shouldn't be there to get more kids, why would it?

I'm not sure yum bonus is the way to go either, though I'm not sure it would be wrong to add more factors. There is a myth I encountered on Youtube that having a full hunger bar gives you higher fertility. That seems less aggressively stacked against Eves while still having a skill component. It also provides a method of birth control besides killing babies for overwhelmed towns.

Last edited by Sylverone (2018-12-25 12:22:46)

Potjeh · 2018-12-25 12:55:25

I hate this exploit because it makes family survival meaningless, but at the same time I think it's a crucial feature because family survival is impossible thanks to RNG. IMO it'd be best if it were removed but RNG extinction was removed along with it. Jason, would you be willing to consider weighing gender rolls for new babies based on the number of under 40 women in the family? Yeah, it's not realistic at all, but then again neither is families dying out because they ran out of "souls" for the new generation. This would also even out population growth, as big families would mostly have boys, so towns don't go through boom-bust cycles where they draw in majority of server population in one or two generations, and then when those people die there's not enough people left on the server who aren't lineage banned.

betame · 2018-12-25 13:28:49

jasonrohrer wrote:

One idea, regarding fertility, is that towns are supposed to be competing for babies. If all the fertile women huddle near the fire, they will swamp the heat weighting and "attract" babies. I will also add yum bonuses into the mix here (the women with the highest yum bonus will also have the highest chance of having a baby).

Warmth is neither a challenging nor rewarding way to increase birth rate.

Biome warmth (read: baby attraction) 0 - 0.5 scale:
Grassland 0% ins.: 0.0705
Grassland 40% ins.: 0.101 (max ins to keep mosquito bite non-lethal)
Desert 0% ins.: 0.158
Jungle 0% ins.: 0.456

We can increase our birth rate up to* 6 times (grassland vs jungle) or 2x (grassland vs desert) by being warm. *(but usually we hit the birth cool down cap first)
For standing in a jungle infested with mosquitos. Or standing idle on a desert corner eating 1 berry each year. I'm not going to be nearly as warm while farming or baking or doing anything productive for my baby's future.
If I work hard and clothe myself fully, my warmth becomes only 0.25, and I risk a mosquito overheating me, in turn killing my baby.

Mainly the jungle update made this mechanic obsolete. We deserve more challenging and rewarding ways to affect our birth rate. Which might mean just leaving it to our parenting skills.

Waiting for years restricted to warm tiles is not fun gameplay. At least, I'd like to see a game where if I want my kids to live, I spend my life preparing clothes for them rather than being glued to warm tiles. That is, equal birth rates and let our tech speak for itself.

MultiLife wrote:

NOOOOO don't add yum bonus into the mix PLEASE. Rip Eve camps if that happens! And I chain yum to be able to travel without devouring foods, not to get more kids! I already try to keep myself cold when I'm out to get rabbits so I don't pop out kids when I'm out of the camp.

I agree.
Likewise with the warmth mechanic, in a productive (not waiting by fire) life I find myself warmest when exploring for resources because I make my path along desert borders. Definitely NOT when I want a baby.
Warmth does not relate to my intent to have a baby, sans metagaming.

jasonrohrer wrote:

But yes, lineage bans are a problem here too during nighttime hours. Ideally, a small group of friends would be able to keep an important town alive through the night, but lineage bans clearly prevent that (though the lineage bans only kick in when server population is large enough). Lineage bans are really important the rest of the time, though..... so it's hard to reconcile these two things.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but this sounds like you DO want that group of friends to replay in a city? I'd thought cities were meant to have mainly fresh faces passing through.
Lineage bans seem to be smartly balanced for all server loads to keep people from replaying towns; as I understand, 30 minutes for every 13.33 people on the server (min zero at 10 players and max 1.5 hrs at 50 players). I thought it was working as intended.

Regarding nighttime infertility:
The law of large numbers (resistance to RNG) is weakest when population is low.
But less intuitively, infertile hours are from 4pm till 4am Pacific Time (00:00 - 12:00 UTC) based on thundersen's graphs, while the player count transitions from high to low. Getting a baby becomes harder (~3% harder, but only because the drop is concentrated on the last two servers) as soon as the player count has finished peaking for the day.

But more importantly, servers are split or are removed too frequently, during which birth rates plummet regardless of player action.

Last edited by betame (2018-12-25 22:48:02)

Booklat1 · 2018-12-25 18:38:34

betame wrote:

There's been discussion over what makes the game of long-lasting civs challenging. It's not iron, or charcoal, or labor. It's instead lack of baby girls, caused by RNG and nocturnal infertility -- things no player can ever master. Removing eve-save-revivals will exacerbate those challenges that are outside of player control.
Others here have mentioned population crashes too, and they're supported by thundersen's graphs of server populations over time.

Betame nailed it here.

Eve chaining was an exploit and a powerful one. But the big reason it was powerful is due to the lack of line preserving/societal mechanics. It was a powerful technique to keep towns alive since it allowed for bell ringing in dead towns, secondary lines in towns and yeah, most importantly, the guaranteed city spawn itself (which does make individual lives less unique and breaks the philosophy of the game)

But it's also so terribly anti-game to have the vast majority of the lines dying to last baby girls forgettng to eat/nightime line kills/unlucky boy girl RNG. And it's not a challenge to prevent, it's always a bad taste in the mouth.

It doesn't matter how many times iron and water is nerfed and tech is added. Lines always die before those run out and we'll always climb the techtree faster than jason can add to it. We are some hundred people playing the game, Jason is one guy. Sure, there is stuff that overhauls the game sufficiently to keep us entertained, I'd even say that after steam release most updates were very succesful in that, specially jungle update, but to keep this dynamic we'll need added more societal mechanics. We need lines to remain active, girl kids do ssurvive or, at the very least, ways for people to actually migrate.

But honestly, the least of our problems is towns lasting longer than our tech tree climbing. It happens occasionaly and its lameish, but its not as disheartening as life after life seeing your family die because the last girl went for a walk and died.

Last edited by Booklat1 (2018-12-25 22:04:02)

Tarr · 2018-12-25 19:45:18

So with this ""Fix"" what is the meta going to look like?

Rushing chisel + adze to imprison little girls to make sure you have a next generation secured?
Amazon only societies to prevent running out of children to make sure the city and family continue?
After being banned from a good town systematically killing off lineages in bad spots to enable more children funneled to better cities?

We finally got proper iron sinks in the form of the newcomen machine, kerosene, and the car. Something to finally use iron on that isn't just more longevity of towns crud.

Are griefers going to be the good guys now? With the apocalypse coming back isn't better for everyone to have people killing off the advanced towns to prevent everyone from being wiped? In what world does it make sense that you should have to kill yourself from your own line to protect it by killing another.

Time to see if the update that nearly killed the game finishes the job in its second coming.

CrazyEddie · 2018-12-25 21:00:21

I'm all in favor of removing the ability for players to reliably and rapidly return to "their" towns to continue working on "their" projects, whether that return is in the form of rebirth into an existing lineage in that town or respawning as a new Eve in that town after the previous lineages died. It runs extremely counter to (what I believe is) Jason's vision.

I think this is what Jason is trying to do in this thread.

That issue, however, gets mixed up with some other separate but related issues:

lineages dying off (which is mainly due to nocturnal infertility)
towns dying off when lineages die vs being revived by later Eves vs being lost forever if the respawn camp is lost vs being saved by the bell or the Eve spawn spiral
players coordinating to "artificially" keep a lineage and/or a town alive perpetually by manipulating the spawn and birth mechanisms
early game play vs. late game play

Please think carefully about the problem you're trying to solve, and keep it separate from the ancillary issues - although you may need to think through those as well in the process of solving your primary problem.

InSpace · 2018-12-25 21:11:47

Can all the birthing + eve rules be written down somewhere? So that it can be discussed and adjusted when it's needed.

CrazyEddie · 2018-12-25 21:56:47

Well, this explains some things:

https://github.com/jasonrohrer/OneLife/ … ngeLog.txt

Version 185 [to be released soon]
--Eve old-age death-location respawn blocked if there are 4 or more fertile
females on server. That is supposed to be a solo-play mechanic.
--Whoa! Huge bug in Eve death location for Eve respawn. Was not actually
using her death location, but instead the weighted average of recent
placements on the map. This would make her respawn in some other
more-developed village later, which is why there was so much player
confusion around this mechanic.

So. If I understand it correctly: the "Eve camp save" feature was never intended to be used the way it's being used, doesn't work the way players have been assuming it does, and has never worked the way it was intended to.

What was intended: If you die as an Eve of old age, the next time you spawn as an Eve you'll spawn where near where you had been most recently active - as a convenience for solo play.

What players assumed was happening: If you die as an Eve of old age, your camp will be saved as an Eve spawn point, and subsequently you or anyone else who spawns as an Eve has a chance to spawn at your saved camp. Saving your camp requires you to set a home marker.

What was actually happening: If you die as an Eve of old age, the next time you spawn as an Eve you'll spawn near the average of all recent activity by anyone anywhere as of the time of your death. If there was only one town active, you'll spawn near there next Eve. If there were several active, you'll spawn somewhere in the wilderness between them (and closer to the ones that were more active).

What's going to happen now: Jason has "fixed" the bug by making these changes:

The next-time-you-spawn-as-Eve respawn point is no longer based on activity by everyone everywhere, so you will no longer have the possibility of respawning in some other town.
In fact, it's not based on activity at all. Now your respawn point is simply where you died.
And, it's now explicitly only for solo play. If the servers are even somewhat populated then when you spawn as Eve you'll simply spawn in a random wilderness area, whether your last Eve died of old age or not.

CrazyEddie · 2018-12-25 22:05:49

Tarr wrote:

So with this ""Fix"" what is the meta going to look like?

If by "meta" you mean "the way that Tarr and a handful of other elite players approach the game"... well, I guess that's up to you. Maybe play solo / small teams on private servers?

If by "meta" you mean "the way that most people will play" then nothing will change at all. Most people haven't been using /die to respawn as a new Eve in the towns they just left.

What will be interesting to see is whether any towns at all ever develop advanced tech without Tarr and company there to make it happen using serial lifetimes.

You can still starve yourself at 29 so you don't get lineage banned and then /die to get back to your project if you're that desperate to be your own legacy.

Greep · 2018-12-26 00:24:20

Well in any case, I'm working on setting up a "single city" server with linode if I can get my VM code working on one, so we can see just how bad that would play out xD Holidays, though so it'll have to wait.

Tarr wrote:

With the apocalypse coming back isn't better for everyone to have people killing off the advanced towns to prevent everyone from being wiped? In what world does it make sense that you should have to kill yourself from your own line to protect it by killing another.
Time to see if the update that nearly killed the game finishes the job in its second coming.

Where was that announced? I was just going on a total tangent, if you got that impression from my rantings.

Edit: Ah, saw the changelog. Hmm. Mysterious. If I read the history of the apocalypse right, it was originally taken offline due to cheats causing it to fire repeatedly right? I'm assuming that system wouldn't be used.

Last edited by Greep (2018-12-26 00:33:08)

Booklat1 · 2018-12-26 03:08:38

CrazyEddie wrote:

Tarr wrote:
So with this ""Fix"" what is the meta going to look like?
If by "meta" you mean "the way that Tarr and a handful of other elite players approach the game"... well, I guess that's up to you. Maybe play solo / small teams on private servers?
If by "meta" you mean "the way that most people will play" then nothing will change at all. Most people haven't been using /die to respawn as a new Eve in the towns they just left.
What will be interesting to see is whether any towns at all ever develop advanced tech without Tarr and company there to make it happen using serial lifetimes.
You can still starve yourself at 29 so you don't get lineage banned and then /die to get back to your project if you're that desperate to be your own legacy.

what should """""""elite players"""""" do then? Get tenths of irons every life? make compost to feed 3 gens?

I agree it'll be fun to see if towns can stay alive without people reviving them with the exploit but I don't think cities will become ghost towns any more often than they already do. I mean, except the very rare tarr + deathrage example tarr mentioned (I was actually there, had a good life, made a ton of oil and ate kraut). But even in this case of a very artificial second eve spawn immediately after the first w saw the second line dying suddenly due to no girls. What I think will probably happen a lot more is town wipes.

Tarr · 2018-12-26 13:36:19

CrazyEddie wrote:

If by "meta" you mean "the way that Tarr and a handful of other elite players approach the game"... well, I guess that's up to you. Maybe play solo / small teams on private servers?
If by "meta" you mean "the way that most people will play" then nothing will change at all. Most people haven't been using /die to respawn as a new Eve in the towns they just left.
What will be interesting to see is whether any towns at all ever develop advanced tech without Tarr and company there to make it happen using serial lifetimes.
You can still starve yourself at 29 so you don't get lineage banned and then /die to get back to your project if you're that desperate to be your own legacy.

You sound like those goofballs who thought fences would be used after trash pits were nerfed. With any major change like this an actual meta shift occurs from what previously was acceptable.

For example: Trash pits are removed from the viable animal pen pool. Originally we looked to adobe since it was the next easiest thing (which is still somewhat used) and eventually someone started moving to bell tower bases. Now instead of seeing trash pits everywhere we see mostly bell tower bases due to something being shifted in play.

When bananas were first shown everyone knew they would be incredibly OP. The game was literally warped around finding a spot with banana trees. Are you telling me that there isn't going to be some sort of negative consequence to the removal of Eve revival? At the very least I see people playing how they do on low population servers and only keep females in a village to prevent losing everything.

It probably won't go as far as needing to imprison other players but I very much see Amazonian tribes returning.

mrslax · 2018-12-26 15:16:02

As the game continuous development, it will take more and more gen to complete tech tree. so an extra life for living to old age as an eve is relay no big deal. If anything it gives the town a better chance of becoming stable and surviving to bell. Even if the same eve lives 4 lives back to back in the same town, there is no guarantee that the town will make it to bell and within a week the town will be lost forever on the server.

For a "civilization building" game Development has been mostly focused on keeping civilization from being built.

There are two kid of rewards in the game build a town to get tech or destroying towns due to boredom

CrazyEddie · 2018-12-26 17:03:12

Tarr wrote:

Are you telling me that there isn't going to be some sort of negative consequence to the removal of Eve revival? At the very least I see people playing how they do on low population servers and only keep females in a village to prevent losing everything.
It probably won't go as far as needing to imprison other players but I very much see Amazonian tribes returning.

"Only keeping females" only helps if you can persuade the males to /die. Otherwise you're just giving up one of your limited number of birth slots, where each birth produces a positively-contributing productive tribe member. If you coordinate a group of players on Discord you can all agree to /die and thereby have a keep-the-city-alive private party, but the bulk of players on the public servers aren't going to adopt the "if you are born male you should /die because it's the optimal strategy" mentality.

"Imprisoning players" (actually just imprisoning avatars, the players themselves will respawn/rebirth on a new server assuming they know how to) is a way to gain additional birth slots, which means a town with captured lobotomized brood drones will have an advantage in the competition for babies over other towns on that server when the server population starts falling. (Protip: imprison them on a jungle and feed them diverse food to maximize the heat and yum birth chance bonus.) I predict that fewer than five players will ever do this. Very few players are so ruthlessly dedicated to optimizing on one particular variable such that they will begin farming people.

"Prevent losing everything" is going to be impossible. It was always supposed to be, and the only reason it isn't is because of a bug in the server code that resulted in gameplay (Eves spawning in random abandoned towns and reviving them) that Jason didn't even know existed until yesterday.

lionon · 2018-12-26 17:09:47

CrazyEddie wrote:

"Only keeping females" only helps if you can persuade the males to /die. Otherwise you're just giving up one of your limited number of birth slots, where each birth produces a positively-contributing productive tribe member. If you coordinate a group of players on Discord you can all agree to /die and thereby have a keep-the-city-alive private party, but the bulk of players on the public servers aren't going to adopt the "if you are born male you should /die because it's the optimal strategy" mentality.

Since the rare resource is actually players, /die is a stupid idea, better suicide as a male and be reborn as a female, the birth cooldown for the mother is a minimal setback compared of losing a player willing to contribute to the line.

Discord organized people /die on low pop servers (<10 players) (or <= dunno) when born as male since the lineage ban only kicks in after this threshold.

Last edited by lionon (2018-12-26 17:10:13)

CrazyEddie · 2018-12-26 17:39:23

lionon wrote:

CrazyEddie wrote:
"Only keeping females" only helps if you can persuade the males to /die. Otherwise you're just giving up one of your limited number of birth slots, where each birth produces a positively-contributing productive tribe member. If you coordinate a group of players on Discord you can all agree to /die and thereby have a keep-the-city-alive private party, but the bulk of players on the public servers aren't going to adopt the "if you are born male you should /die because it's the optimal strategy" mentality.
Since the rare resource is actually players, /die is a stupid idea, better suicide as a male and be reborn as a female, the birth cooldown for the mother is a minimal setback compared of losing a player willing to contribute to the line.

Oops, you're right. My bad. Overlooked the lineage ban of /die (was focused on the birth cooldown).

Greep · 2018-12-26 21:39:08

Tarr wrote:

CrazyEddie wrote:
If by "meta" you mean "the way that Tarr and a handful of other elite players approach the game"... well, I guess that's up to you. Maybe play solo / small teams on private servers?
If by "meta" you mean "the way that most people will play" then nothing will change at all. Most people haven't been using /die to respawn as a new Eve in the towns they just left.
What will be interesting to see is whether any towns at all ever develop advanced tech without Tarr and company there to make it happen using serial lifetimes.
You can still starve yourself at 29 so you don't get lineage banned and then /die to get back to your project if you're that desperate to be your own legacy.
You sound like those goofballs who thought fences would be used after trash pits were nerfed. With any major change like this an actual meta shift occurs from what previously was acceptable.
For example: Trash pits are removed from the viable animal pen pool. Originally we looked to adobe since it was the next easiest thing (which is still somewhat used) and eventually someone started moving to bell tower bases. Now instead of seeing trash pits everywhere we see mostly bell tower bases due to something being shifted in play.
When bananas were first shown everyone knew they would be incredibly OP. The game was literally warped around finding a spot with banana trees. Are you telling me that there isn't going to be some sort of negative consequence to the removal of Eve revival? At the very least I see people playing how they do on low population servers and only keep females in a village to prevent losing everything.
It probably won't go as far as needing to imprison other players but I very much see Amazonian tribes returning.

I definitely agree this will update will cause issues with big cities:

-Eve exploit fixed (Big nerf to city size (maybe (since it was complicated)) )
-Some form of server unknown apocalypse (Big nerf to city size)
-Yum bonus overnight (??? buff to overall city size)

Looks like it'll add up to a fair chunk of nerfing to big cities which is kind of the opposite I'd hope for xD

That said, I don't think players can really do anything about it other than ask their babies to commit suicide if male, or maybe try to trick them into it by staying near town instead of in it and picking them up if male (as most suicides seem to be players seeing an eve situation in my experience). If they're male and don't commit suicide, there's no reason to not raise your kid. Eve male abandonment occurs because if you can only support X players while your farming is getting set up, they may as well be female. However, it doesn't seem to have a point in cities that are in the post-rampup phase where you're limited by population and skill rather than the additional wild forage factor.

Edit: ah yeah as crazyeddie suggested

Last edited by Greep (2018-12-26 21:53:40)

Sylverone · 2018-12-27 05:58:52

Since Jason decided to go through with it, I figure it's best to just try and observe what happens, trying to correct for personal bias if possible. He has to experiment somewhat after all to see what really happens and with weekly updates reverting isn't likely to be a huge issue if thing do "go south". There is at least one possible benefit to yum chain fertility, for instance. If it does make Eve runs harder, it might mean fewer Eve lines competing for babies. It might actually be a good thing at night, because the surviving towns will have the birthing advantage. Doesn't change the fact that the last two servers get a bad roll though.

i'm interested to hear the regulars' reports on how different the birthing mechanic feels after the update.

Last edited by Sylverone (2018-12-27 05:59:12)

Gabby · 2018-12-27 13:56:50

I've been Eve-chaining in Server 9 for the last day, learning some recipes and experimenting with stuff that would be considered a "waste of resources" by experienced players. It was nice. I'll be sad to see this possibility go.

Elsayal · 2018-12-27 15:09:52

Sometimes, good things happen from unentended mecanisms. As Tarr said, if you enjoy only late game, there you are : you got yourself a playground, annoying no one.

One Hour One Life Forums

#26 2018-12-25 01:50:55

Re: Question about Eve spawn location "exploit"

#27 2018-12-25 05:05:35

Re: Question about Eve spawn location "exploit"

#28 2018-12-25 08:38:45

Re: Question about Eve spawn location "exploit"

#29 2018-12-25 08:45:49

Re: Question about Eve spawn location "exploit"

#30 2018-12-25 11:21:26

Re: Question about Eve spawn location "exploit"

#31 2018-12-25 12:19:07

Re: Question about Eve spawn location "exploit"

#32 2018-12-25 12:55:25

Re: Question about Eve spawn location "exploit"

#33 2018-12-25 13:28:49

Re: Question about Eve spawn location "exploit"

#34 2018-12-25 18:38:34

Re: Question about Eve spawn location "exploit"

#35 2018-12-25 19:45:18

Re: Question about Eve spawn location "exploit"

#36 2018-12-25 21:00:21

Re: Question about Eve spawn location "exploit"

#37 2018-12-25 21:11:47

Re: Question about Eve spawn location "exploit"

#38 2018-12-25 21:56:47

Re: Question about Eve spawn location "exploit"

#39 2018-12-25 22:05:49

Re: Question about Eve spawn location "exploit"

#40 2018-12-26 00:24:20

Re: Question about Eve spawn location "exploit"

#41 2018-12-26 03:08:38

Re: Question about Eve spawn location "exploit"

#42 2018-12-26 13:36:19

Re: Question about Eve spawn location "exploit"

#43 2018-12-26 15:16:02

Re: Question about Eve spawn location "exploit"

#44 2018-12-26 17:03:12

Re: Question about Eve spawn location "exploit"

#45 2018-12-26 17:09:47

Re: Question about Eve spawn location "exploit"

#46 2018-12-26 17:39:23

Re: Question about Eve spawn location "exploit"

#47 2018-12-26 21:39:08

Re: Question about Eve spawn location "exploit"

#48 2018-12-27 05:58:52

Re: Question about Eve spawn location "exploit"

#49 2018-12-27 13:56:50

Re: Question about Eve spawn location "exploit"

#50 2018-12-27 15:09:52

Re: Question about Eve spawn location "exploit"

Board footer