The instant-suicide mod

Twisted · 2019-02-21 23:47:12

jasonrohrer wrote:

After the update, /DIE will work up to age 2, to help people who have slow hard drives.
Some of the largest sprites in the game are natural objects (trees, etc.), and those usually need to be loaded always.
I suppose I could make a "natural object sprite pak" and slurp them all in from one huge file.
There is some complexity to code that, though.... hmmm....
Also, sprites are not currently compressed on disk. Often, its counter-intuitive, but compressed data loads faster (because the HD access for larger data is so much slower than the decompression alg).

But the idea is that, with 10K objects (eventually), they won't all be able to be loaded into VRAM at the same time. So they are only loaded as-needed.
This makes me hesitant to put them all in one big compressed file and load the whole thing at startup.

I personally don't mind the long load times. If I'm playing OHOL I'm going to play for at least an hour, so a minute of loadining is not a big deal to me.

JoshuaN · 2019-02-22 00:39:09

I counted in my head the time it took to load the first time and it was 40 seconds, the start of the loading bar and end of the loading bar were slow but there was a big jump in the middle. It was the first time i had booted up the game today since turning on my laptop. The rest of the times the game loaded in instantly. It was also a big town.

Turnipseed · 2019-02-22 01:29:56

I have a potato laptop from 2008 that runs this game perfectly fine!

The first load is long (sometimes im a dead baby by the time it loads), but the second, third, fourth and so on lives load quickly (10-30 seconds) and are relitivly lag free. Anyone griping about long load times or severe lag are having other issues than the game

jasonrohrer · 2019-02-22 02:09:56

Ah... well... just wait until this week's update, folks...

With the sprites compressed into one big file, they all load at startup like lightning, making map loading almost instantaneous after that (because they're already loaded).

Did you know that The Witness loads from a warm disk cache into the playable game in 4 seconds? Like, from launching it on Steam to playing where you last left off in 4 seconds. If a huge 3D game can do it...

On the other hand, JB is a much smarter man than me!

jasonrohrer · 2019-02-22 02:39:36

Okay, on a cold disk cache, loading all sprites from separate files (along with all the other loading that happens before login) is taking 35 seconds on my dev laptop.

After the separate sprite files are compressed into a glob file together, the total load time on a cold disk cache is 16 seconds. So more than a 2x speedup.

On a warm cache, the load time is now 6 seconds until Login screen. That is on this old, slow laptop. It's going to be much faster on my gaming machine, where I saw the 4-second load time for The Witness.

Spoonwood · 2019-02-23 16:25:02

jasonrohrer wrote:

And while I realize that time is a limited resource here, you act like the existing legal structures and procedures were handed down from god. People started with nothing, and came up with those structures and procedures over thousands of years. Under different circumstances (like in this game), different structures and procedures might emerge.
But "justice" itself is only a matter of consensus.

No. Justice is a matter of giving people their due, based solely on the truth. Truth is not a matter of consensus, nor is giving people their due. Just because something comes as hard to figure out, that does not mean that consensus determines the truth.

jasonrohrer wrote:

If someone is truly imprisoned injustly, there's nothing that can stop the masses from setting that person free. Same is true in this game. If you feel bad for the prisoner, perhaps you might look for an opportunity to help them break out.

No, not necessarily, given that masses mean the majority of people. Weapons of mass destruction exist in the real world. Also, prison guards are vastly outnumbered, but they have things like tear gas.

"When we return from break, Mr. Tucker sets a tear gas launcher and canisters on the table. “On any given day, they can take this facility,” he says. “At chow time, there are 800 inmates and just two COs. But with just this class, we could take it back.”"

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 … ion-bauer/

The masses can't win if they can't see.

Also, no, even with a very long time a decent justice system would not be feasible in the game. There's only 60 minutes, and talking comes as difficult. So, again a justice system emerging almost surely won't happen. The time constraints and the nature of talking make it beyond difficult.

jasonrohrer wrote:

So, this is the first multiplayer survival game where death has meaning, because there is no direct "respawn."

Huh? Eve chaining exists. So, direct respawning exists. And it should. It allows for different ways to play.

Léonard · 2019-02-24 17:29:55

So I've thought a bit more about the prison subject and I still don't think this will ever work. At all.

jasonrohrer wrote:

I'm not planning to add anything to make prisons happen. You currently have all the tools you need with walls, doors, and locks. In terms of preventing escape, well, an air lock is possible. But if there is an escape, that would be pretty amazing. A prison break, in the game?

jasonrohrer wrote:

People started with nothing, and came up with those structures and procedures over thousands of years. Under different circumstances (like in this game), different structures and procedures might emerge.
[...]
A lot of this stuff may never emerge, but I'm going to at least keep those doors open.

Yes, the concept of emergence is something fascinating indeed.
But let's not forget that it also follows the principle of least effort.

You're giving people three ways to deal with griefers. Let me enumerate them from least to most expansive:
-Curse the griefer potentially sending him to DT
-Kill the griefer
-Expand a bunch of resources in building a whole jail cell and then more resources just to keep the prisoner alive
What do you think will happen? It's easy to predict.
People will NEVER build prisons just to deal with griefers. They would MUCH rather kill them personally and curse them.

But since you insist on leaving the door opened, griefers might start building some and try and stun innocent victims and imprison them and what not.
Meaning this will be yet again another feature exclusively abused by griefers.

jasonrohrer wrote:

My hypothesis is that it's because DEATH has no meaning in those other games. Society is a reaction to the reality of death. Without death, "Stop or we'll shoot" has no meaning. Thus, there can be no laws or police.

It's getting a bit philosophical here but that's alright, I like that.
I think there is MUCH more to this than you realize.

Okay so first things first is understanding that people will play your game regardless of whether or not they will die.
The very fact that you have people playing in smaller servers to continuously build gigantic cities absolutely proves that.
See what I mean? Whether or not people die, whether or not they can make sure they will return to what they have previously built, people keep on building/playing anyways.
Have you ever heard the saying "it's about the journey not the destination"?

Ok so now imagine if we made death meaningless in the game, as in people can continuously play or always spawn back to where they left.
Now imagine all those people would play alongside everyone else who used the smaller servers previously.
Do you think anarchy would arise? No. Absolutely not. People would still despise griefers like they do now.

Imagine if humanity evolved someday to become an invulnerable species. Do you think anarchy would ensue?
No. Society would still exist because society isn't the result of the reality of death, it's the result of the reality that you have to live alongside other people.
If humanity were to evolve to such a point, most likely breaking the rules would mean infinite purgatory. Infinite prison. Just as if death had meaning, only now it doesn't.
Communities form regardless of the fact that we will die. And communities have rules to ensure its people can live in peace and that anarchy doesn't arise.
Breaking the rules in any community results in you being banned/expelled/rejected from said community. That's how rules work.

Sure, if we are deathless, "stop or we'll shoot" has no meaning.
But if you think of something else like "I'm going to destroy this entire city you spent a lifetime building just because I can" suddenly people react even despite the fact that they won't die.
If we are deathless, "stop or we'll ban you from this community" or "stop or we'll forcibly put you into purgatory forever" will still hold meaning.
You bet people would form a society to protect and guarantee their values regardless of the fact that they won't die.

jasonrohrer wrote:

This is a work of fiction. "Slavery" in the game isn't the same as real slavery. Injustice and murder in the game are not real injustice or real murder. Corrupt police in the game are not actually corrupt police.

You might not have realized this, but this will never work for the exact same reason.
As you have pointed out, this is not real.
Sure, people might find themselves in such a situation and a few roleplayers might enjoy it.
But what do you think will happen with those that don't? Do you think they will simply stand and take it?
No. Absolutely not. People will just disconnect and make sure to wait one hour or that they have starved before coming back.

Imagine if, as a slave, my master forces me to do the most boring tasks of this game like taking care of his berry bushes my whole life. Or just straight out makes me spend my whole life in purgatory while force-feeding me.
Do you think I will stand and take this? No. I will simply not play your game if this happens. And this is why it won't work.

As was already said so many times: you cannot force people to play something they don't want to play.
And your idea of not letting people get out of lives goes against this. This cannot work by design. It never will.
Even if you charged people per life it wouldn't work.

It's also conflicting that you let babies suicide before they are 3 but not after.
Why is that? You let people choose their lives but only if they're young enough? Why?
I can already imagine the people being born to a slave mother using /die en masse.
Thus if you are a slave owner you would have to keep taking adults against their will or end up with no slaves.
A slave's lineage would most likely never continue and the other people you take by force except the occasional roleplayer here and there would just disconnect and wait it out anyways making slaves utterly useless and essentially unviable.
I can also imagine how being born as black might result in immediate /die.
I have already seen people ingame make the joke of calling me a nigger because I'm black. Like you say, it's not real so I don't care one bit.
But I'm willing to bet griefers or roleplayers will very much enjoy making black people slaves. The result would be insta /die for black babies. I guarantee this.

And all of this is because the idea is flawed by design.
The fact that you let people choose their lives if they are under 3 is absolute proof of this.
It makes the whole thing incomplete.
You either go all the way and never let people choose their lives and face the truth that this idea is unworkable while seeing hundreds of running babies or you let people choose their lives whenever they want.

Because, the truth is that everyone who plays this game is different. Everyone plays it for different reasons.
Some people play this game for its survival aspect, others for its building aspect and few for its roleplaying aspect.
Some enjoy dealing with griefers while others would quit at the sight of one.
Some like early Eve camps, some like megacities.
And all of this means that individual lives cannot satisfy everyone. The fact that you have the /die compromise is proof of that.
You need to have this compromise in the game otherwise it means only very few people would enjoy it and as a result it would not work.

jasonrohrer wrote:

I want to make a game where anything is possible, in terms of social structure, and it's totally up to the players.

This further shows the disconnect.
Sure, having anything possible in terms of social structure is fine and all, but there are still players behind their computer trying to play the game despite that structure.
It doesn't change the fact that if that social structure gets in their way of enjoying this game, they will simply no longer want to play it.
And as soon as that happens, the whole thing falls appart. People stop playing.
This is why you need the compromise. Rather than having your players quit your game because they aren't enjoying their current lives, you should instead be focusing on providing them the right tools for them to choose their lives and start enjoying it again and as a result play more and get more players.

jasonrohrer wrote:

A would-be murderer or thief does not actually fear for their life in the game, because respawning is cheap enough that it really doesn't matter too much. Yes, they can't come right back to the same situation, but they can keep playing.... That is in part why curses were added,

The curse system also is evidence of the fact that this game needs a compromise.
Even if you made death be meaningful, there would still be griefers.
Even if there was the risk of getting imprisoned they would still grief.
You know why? Because they would disconnect as soon as they're caught by force.
Even if you enforced a value to life (and so to death) by charging per lives, those people would still exist.
If what they enjoy is just watching the world burn, they would still pay every lives just to watch it burn once again.
Or if you made us deathless, those people would still exist.
Because at the end of the day, for these people, all that matters is that the world burns.

jasonrohrer wrote:

I also envision wars between villages.

You should definitely give this a lot of thinking.
Because if you do intend for people to fight in any meaningful way, that means you also intend for PVP to be a thing.
I would strongly suggest on working on the fighting system because as of right now it is purely frustrating and terribly lacking.

You also open a door by saying that you support PVP.
Some people, including me, had the impression that this game was never intended to have PVP (due to the way it 'works') and that instead building a civilization was the focus.
If you didn't have a strong building element in mind for this game, why else would you make a plane or a radio update for these people?
Giving more options for PVP might very well get in the way of the people who play in this game because they like its building element.
This comes down to the same issue which is that you cannot satisfy everyone.
If it ever comes to this and if the game ever becomes popular enough for it, I would strongly recommend setting up multiple public servers, some with a peaceful setting for people who don't like fighting/want to play the game for its civ building element only.

jasonrohrer wrote:

One thing that I might add, that would at least make prisons more likely, is some form of non-lethal force. Clubbing or something like that.

On that note, you could make snowballs do that instead of outright killing people.
I'm curious, have you read the recent topics about snowballs/snowmen and what people think of them?

Spoonwood · 2019-02-24 18:00:19

Leonard has some excellent points! His post I think worth re-reading!

I do want to say one thing though. I think people on low-population servers feel even more annoyed by griefers than people on the bigserver. Let me say this. If someone griefs on a bigserver town that I like, then I do feel like a bunch comes as wasted. But, I really don't know much about the people who came before or what they did. I don't know their level of effort. People on low-population servers though I'm more likely to know that a few people have put in hours of effort to building their town, or city up. Those also almost surely have particular plans in mind, when that isn't as likely with big server towns. Or at least that's how I feel after playing both. Someone who griefs a town on bigserver12, I will feel much angry towards him or her. Someone who griefs a bigserver town, I will feel less anger towards him or her. At least, on average.

Peremptive · 2019-02-24 23:45:16

well it is probably difficult to grief on small servers. People probably have the mod, so you can see if the other people are carrying weapons from far off. Plus you probably have only one knife and bow. You can easily tuck the knife on you and the bow behind a tree.

Arcurus · 2020-04-25 13:10:05

Here some ideas about non deadly weapons and captivating people with rope once they are "stunned"":

the suggestions are not perfect yet, but a starting point how it could look

https://www.reddit.com/r/OneLifeSuggest … e_weapons/

https://www.reddit.com/r/OneLifeSuggest … in_chains/

With the majority deciding, that is not how reality it is functioning, in truth some people are always lot more skilled than others, these people then naturally have a bigger influence. Having simple easy to use non lethal weapons can help to give these less skilled people have a bigger say in the outcome.
To slavery, i don't think many players will enjoy it to be a slave, some few players might. Only possible way to make it work seems to allow slaves without player to fall into a NPC which performs basic tasks wherever he is placed.

To feeding imprisoned people, i think generally currently the starving, especially for newcomers is quite hard, since berries and other basic food dont give that much anymore. An solution to that would be to give people more time before they starve to death, but remove movement speed drastically. For example 0.2 if they starve to death but 5 times more time / 5 times less food use. Also it would be great to see more clearly people who are starving to death like giving them an very unhappy face expression, different color (at least if they write something), display a arrow to a close relative who is starving to death.

Some players may want a playstyle without much violence, some other players might want to have some fights. Why not use the incarnation system to increase the chance that violent players are born by violent players and the other way round?
And or allow some simple npc guards to protect a village and give the defenders more advantage.
Also a positive “curse” system would be great, like more likely to incarnate close by people where you digged a grave for and less closely by people which you murdered or where you were murdered by.

Last edited by Arcurus (2020-04-25 16:58:36)

StrongForce · 2020-04-25 19:43:32

You earned the title necromancer
Congrats you are annoying

Arcurus · 2020-04-25 21:25:24

lol at least some titel
> Congrats you are annoying
that happens if you cannot login anymore... you do some anoying stuff

One Hour One Life Forums

#51 2019-02-21 23:47:12

Re: The instant-suicide mod

#52 2019-02-22 00:39:09

Re: The instant-suicide mod

#53 2019-02-22 01:29:56

Re: The instant-suicide mod

#54 2019-02-22 02:09:56

Re: The instant-suicide mod

#55 2019-02-22 02:39:36

Re: The instant-suicide mod

#56 2019-02-23 16:25:02

Re: The instant-suicide mod

#57 2019-02-24 17:29:55

Re: The instant-suicide mod

#58 2019-02-24 18:00:19

Re: The instant-suicide mod

#59 2019-02-24 23:45:16

Re: The instant-suicide mod

#60 2020-04-25 13:10:05

Re: The instant-suicide mod

#61 2020-04-25 19:43:32

Re: The instant-suicide mod

#62 2020-04-25 21:25:24

Re: The instant-suicide mod

Board footer