8 days was too long, but what would be ideal?

jasonrohrer · 2019-08-11 20:35:09

Essentially, what I need to figure out is this:

What placeholder can I put in place so that this thing "runs itself" for the next week or so, so that I don't need to worry about it and can enjoy the rest of my vacation with family.

8 days was way too long. Things got stale.

There was always the idea (for the future) of a "win" state, where if you made it that long, you all won, and the map reset. So, you clearly won this time.

I need to set up a goal post for you all, just to keep things fresh over time. Game is GREAT right now, right? New towns starting up, interesting stuff happening, etc. Game won't be great in 8 days, clearly.

So.... maybe 3 days? That seems like plenty for a nice rich arc. Or 4 days?

What I'm going to do is (temporarily) add a hard time limit for an auto-reset every X days.

Spoonwood · 2019-08-11 20:38:14

You don't need need to do any of this. Just go back to how things were before the rift.

Also, you can't predict a time period. Griefing could happen earlier or later. And once it gets going, the state of the game is doomed.

rkrn · 2019-08-11 20:42:50

Let it be 4 days, we're gonna live hahahah you'll gonna have a field trip with the code when back.
Have fun with the family!

DestinyCall · 2019-08-11 20:50:08

It is not the duration of time. It was the intensity of griefing.

But as a short-term fix, three or four days is a reasonable duration to cycle though the stages of grieving for our dying world.

Last edited by DestinyCall (2019-08-11 20:53:53)

Spoonwood · 2019-08-11 20:52:53

DestinyCall wrote:

It is not the duration of time. It was the intensity of griefing.

And there's no necessary correlation between the two, so a time duration change won't ensure good results.

jasonrohrer · 2019-08-11 20:55:03

I'll make it 3 days for now, just to be on the safe side and not let things drag on too long. That's 216 generations, which is pretty long.

Anyway that means there will be about 2-3 arcs (min) between now and when I get back from vacation.

jasonrohrer · 2019-08-11 21:02:50

Change is live on bigserver2:

https://github.com/jasonrohrer/OneLife/ … 9e983ad611

DarkDrak · 2019-08-11 21:08:12

I'm afraid you're operating under the wrong assumption that time is the major factor in how interesting/stale the arc is. Time clearly is a factor, but it's not the decisive one. Greifers Players are.
In this arc things went more or less smoothly for the first few days; then it precipitated down over two days and the last few days were spent trying to figure out a way to make an apocalypse happen.

What happened is that a few people decided to systematically rid the map of a few select, vital resources and the map turned into a wasteland in no time. It's no fun to play in a wasteland.

In my opinion, if you want to let this thing run itself, you should either make vital recourses hard to systematically destroy or make them non-vital.
Im sure that nobody would care about juniper annihilation if we could start fire without tinder.

Spoonwood · 2019-08-11 21:28:03

Pein had this to say on the discord:

pein wrote:

peinToday at 5:24 PM [EST on Sunday]
people already ruining the map

and:

pein wrote:

peinToday at 5:25 PM [EST on Sunday]
half west missing juniper and animals

Apparently, no time period seems like enough.

So, it sure does look like finding a time period just won't work. Better to just accept that the original idea was poor and go back to a better system.

jasonrohrer · 2019-08-11 21:39:15

Ah, yes, because juniper trees are not hardwood, so they can be chopped without hungry work?

Unfortunately, from where I sit out of town on vacation, making that kind of change is pretty difficult. I don't have an editor set up here, etc.

And even if I did, it would be an endless game of cat-and-mouse that I don't have time for on vacation. If I fixed Juniper, I'm sure they'd find something else to destroy, right?

I don't necessarily mind this. Cat-and-mouse can happen in the game to some extent, in each arc. "Whoa, next time, we need to protect and farm juniper!" Of course, if the arcs are endless, this can't happen.

The thing that I still don't fully understand is that, if it really WAS a barren wasteland, why were you all still surviving so handsomely in there? Average age hadn't fallen that much, etc. This means that everything is very out of whack in terms of survival pressures. Seems like you can survive just fine in a barren wasteland (without fire? Without iron?).

This is a very bad thing. This means that the game is fundamentally broken, bankrupt, etc. This means that the challenge of the game is just an illusion, just a shell game. In the end, you can survive just fine without fire!

Well, except that you were somehow still baking pies on the last day, right?

I think there's also an issue of magnification of just one player's random experience. This leads to broad "the REAL problem is" pronouncements.

BladeWoods · 2019-08-11 21:42:27

jasonrohrer wrote:

Ah, yes, because juniper trees are not hardwood, so they can be chopped without hungry work?
Unfortunately, from where I sit out of town on vacation, making that kind of change is pretty difficult. I don't have an editor set up here, etc.
And even if I did, it would be an endless game of cat-and-mouse that I don't have time for on vacation. If I fixed Juniper, I'm sure they'd find something else to destroy, right?
I don't necessarily mind this. Cat-and-mouse can happen in the game to some extent, in each arc. "Whoa, next time, we need to protect and farm juniper!" Of course, if the arcs are endless, this can't happen.
The thing that I still don't fully understand is that, if it really WAS a barren wasteland, why were you all still surviving so handsomely in there? Average age hadn't fallen that much, etc. This means that everything is very out of whack in terms of survival pressures. Seems like you can survive just fine in a barren wasteland (without fire? Without iron?).
This is a very bad thing. This means that the game is fundamentally broken, bankrupt, etc. This means that the challenge of the game is just an illusion, just a shell game. In the end, you can survive just fine without fire!
Well, except that you were somehow still baking pies on the last day, right?
I think there's also an issue of magnification of just one player's random experience. This leads to broad "the REAL problem is" pronouncements.

Because of WILD BERRY BUSHES that never stop growing berries. The average life expectancy of someone naked running from bush to bush may be even higher than someone living in a town. That's why there's no life expectancy drop when all goes to hell.

Playing cat and mouse is fine but it's way too easy to destroy junipers just like it was way too easy to destroy maples. Making it hungry work will make the cat and mouse fight a little more fair to the people trying to not destroy the world.

Last edited by BladeWoods (2019-08-11 21:43:49)

D3mon1cblack · 2019-08-11 21:46:48

jasonrohrer wrote:

The thing that I still don't fully understand is that, if it really WAS a barren wasteland, why were you all still surviving so handsomely in there? Average age hadn't fallen that much, etc. This means that everything is very out of whack in terms of survival pressures. Seems like you can survive just fine in a barren wasteland (without fire? Without iron?).

its quite easy get a bowl fill it with berries and run from town! eat cacti, berries, and what else you can find abandoned in the wild. You could also survive on milk, corn, and green beans without even touching fire (yes i know you need a hoe but it isnt hard to find a tilled row)

jasonrohrer · 2019-08-11 21:48:21

Yes, that's true.

But it's interesting that it took them a few weeks to discover Juniper destruction, right? When I blocked maples, they didn't immediately gravitate toward junipers.

Post-reset, I walked around and saw lots of dug wild carrots... I guess carrot seeds are next. Sheesh...

And yes, wild berry bushes and infinite cactus fruits are clearly a problem. Again, hard to solve these things remotely (and with something as fragile as the bootstrapping infrastructure, I wouldn't want to try remotely).

D3mon1cblack · 2019-08-11 21:51:41

jasonrohrer wrote:

Yes, that's true.
But it's interesting that it took them a few weeks to discover Juniper destruction, right? When I blocked maples, they didn't immediately gravitate toward junipers.
Post-reset, I walked around and saw lots of dug wild carrots... I guess carrot seeds are next. Sheesh...
And yes, wild berry bushes and infinite cactus fruits are clearly a problem. Again, hard to solve these things remotely (and with something as fragile as the bootstrapping infrastructure, I wouldn't want to try remotely).

i called it on day one when you added hungry work first thing i asked to a twitch streamer to cut down a juniper to see if it removed food and it didnt. i stayed quiet after that in case of ppl catching on and cutting them all down. and look what happened at the end of the arc -.-

BladeWoods · 2019-08-11 21:58:52

jasonrohrer wrote:

Yes, that's true.
But it's interesting that it took them a few weeks to discover Juniper destruction, right? When I blocked maples, they didn't immediately gravitate toward junipers.
Post-reset, I walked around and saw lots of dug wild carrots... I guess carrot seeds are next. Sheesh...
And yes, wild berry bushes and infinite cactus fruits are clearly a problem. Again, hard to solve these things remotely (and with something as fragile as the bootstrapping infrastructure, I wouldn't want to try remotely).

I wouldn't say it took people a few weeks, more like 1 week or so to start chopping Junipers afaik. Junipers are a harder target than maples since there's much more junipers on the map than maples. I think like 3-4x as much? Since they spawn in grasslands and lots spawn in prairies. So since griefers are going for the much more common junipers now and not the maples it does show the hungry work to chop maples made things harder.

And I'm sure griefers will move on to the next easiest thing to destroy once Junipers become hungry work.

In case you didn't see in other posts and issues, there's also a big issue with people being able to teleport items across the rift by stacking baskets or by flying planes out.

Last edited by BladeWoods (2019-08-11 22:00:14)

Spoonwood · 2019-08-11 22:01:29

jasonrohrer wrote:

This is a very bad thing. This means that the game is fundamentally broken, bankrupt, etc. This means that the challenge of the game is just an illusion, just a shell game. In the end, you can survive just fine without fire!

Are you talking about just a player personally surviving or their family surviving?

jasonrohrer wrote:

I think there's also an issue of magnification of just one player's random experience. This leads to broad "the REAL problem is" pronouncements.

I haven't played recently, so I don't have recent experience. Thus, my conclusions are NOT the magnification of just one player's random experience.

This image, which I'll post again, I'm also fairly sure speaks to many players' experience:

https://i.imgur.com/QuZkgOM.jpg

I also didn't play bs2 after the 'come together' disaster until Eve spawning got changed back to a spiral. It had the same griefing problem, just to a smaller extent (again NOT drawing from my experience here, but other people's reports of their experiences, images, and occasionally watching people play on Twitch). And there's no reason to believe that a shorter time frame leads to less griefing. None at all.

Conclusion: putting everyone close together isn't compatible with the social dynamics of the players and almost surely won't be that way in the future. The rift idea thus comes as doomed as viable (even if big enough for some population, it could have similar problems for some bigger player population).

Last edited by Spoonwood (2019-08-11 22:05:02)

DarkDrak · 2019-08-11 22:02:12

jasonrohrer wrote:

The thing that I still don't fully understand is that, if it really WAS a barren wasteland, why were you all still surviving so handsomely in there? Average age hadn't fallen that much, etc. This means that everything is very out of whack in terms of survival pressures. Seems like you can survive just fine in a barren wasteland (without fire? Without iron?).

Some junipers were missed, some were replanted and protected, thus fire has never been doomed rift-wide. But it still led to some people running their whole lives around the map in search of some tinder, without finding any. just like it had happened with mapples.

Since only one resource was targeted at a time, the map wasnt exactly "barren", it was deprived of that single resource. Thus survival was possible and easy enough, but tecnological advancement was impossible/extremely difficult.

jasonrohrer · 2019-08-11 22:04:47

Will be interesting to see if "hell" happens before the 3-day timer expires this run.

Anyway, back to vacation.

Angel Carrillo · 2019-08-11 22:07:49

Ok, so, now that Jason is back on vacation, when he gets back, I have a question - will we be able to finally, for once, be able to eat onions (the ones that are farmed) and plant bananas and cactus?

CatX · 2019-08-11 22:10:42

Well, griefers were in the process of removing wild berry bushes as well, so eventually people would have died younger.

I fail to see how it is a problem that people can survive on wild berries though. Isn't the real problem that living like that is boring, and if forced to do so for a long time, people will quit playing? While at the same time, having wild berries as a safeguard helps people rebuild and construct final stand havens like the central Tarr city.

DestinyCall · 2019-08-11 23:59:05

Angel Carrillo wrote:

Ok, so, now that Jason is back on vacation, when he gets back, I have a question - will we be able to finally, for once, be able to eat onions (the ones that are farmed) and plant bananas and cactus?

No. You will not.

ollj · 2019-08-12 02:40:39

Dont worry jason. getting stale is no longer a matter of time, now that i killed almost all goose within the first 7 hours.
It is a lot trickier to make arrows, so the rift is already mostly a bear dominated wastelandand with the discordDome cavalry base at its southern wall.

DestinyCall · 2019-08-12 04:04:41

ollj wrote:

Dont worry jason. getting stale is no longer a matter of time, now that i killed almost all goose within the first 7 hours.
It is a lot trickier to make arrows, so the rift is already mostly a bear dominated wastelandand with the discordDome cavalry base at its southern wall.

I would feel mad at you for griefing the whole rift on day one, but you basically did exactly what I assumed would happen after the last arch.

On the upside, I can now make a bunch of bear-related puns ... like how the griefing in this game has become completely unBEARable. I can BEARLly believe how bad it is right now. Since we have no arrows, we have to fight the bears with our BEAR hands. And it is important to build a solid BEARier around your village to keep out the griefers ... and the bears. I don't want to be a BEARer of bad news, but it isn't fun to play the game when it is like this. BEAR with me ... I'm sure I can think of another bear pun.

Hmm how about we end with a joke instead ... what do you call a bear with no teeth?

.
.
.
.

A gummy bear!

Nemir · 2019-08-12 06:16:23

Add hungry work for kill!

JonySky · 2019-08-12 08:14:58

DarkDrak wrote:

jasonrohrer wrote:
The thing that I still don't fully understand is that, if it really WAS a barren wasteland, why were you all still surviving so handsomely in there? Average age hadn't fallen that much, etc. This means that everything is very out of whack in terms of survival pressures. Seems like you can survive just fine in a barren wasteland (without fire? Without iron?).
Some junipers were missed, some were replanted and protected, thus fire has never been doomed rift-wide. But it still led to some people running their whole lives around the map in search of some tinder, without finding any. just like it had happened with mapples.
Since only one resource was targeted at a time, the map wasnt exactly "barren", it was deprived of that single resource. Thus survival was possible and easy enough, but tecnological advancement was impossible/extremely difficult.

spending 30 minutes in real time in a game looking for a juniper's tinder to make fire is no fun ...

Do you know what happens when a GAME stops being fun?

One Hour One Life Forums

#1 2019-08-11 20:35:09

8 days was too long, but what would be ideal?

#2 2019-08-11 20:38:14

Re: 8 days was too long, but what would be ideal?

#3 2019-08-11 20:42:50

Re: 8 days was too long, but what would be ideal?

#4 2019-08-11 20:50:08

Re: 8 days was too long, but what would be ideal?

#5 2019-08-11 20:52:53

Re: 8 days was too long, but what would be ideal?

#6 2019-08-11 20:55:03

Re: 8 days was too long, but what would be ideal?

#7 2019-08-11 21:02:50

Re: 8 days was too long, but what would be ideal?

#8 2019-08-11 21:08:12

Re: 8 days was too long, but what would be ideal?

#9 2019-08-11 21:28:03

Re: 8 days was too long, but what would be ideal?

#10 2019-08-11 21:39:15

Re: 8 days was too long, but what would be ideal?

#11 2019-08-11 21:42:27

Re: 8 days was too long, but what would be ideal?

#12 2019-08-11 21:46:48

Re: 8 days was too long, but what would be ideal?

#13 2019-08-11 21:48:21

Re: 8 days was too long, but what would be ideal?

#14 2019-08-11 21:51:41

Re: 8 days was too long, but what would be ideal?

#15 2019-08-11 21:58:52

Re: 8 days was too long, but what would be ideal?

#16 2019-08-11 22:01:29

Re: 8 days was too long, but what would be ideal?

#17 2019-08-11 22:02:12

Re: 8 days was too long, but what would be ideal?

#18 2019-08-11 22:04:47

Re: 8 days was too long, but what would be ideal?

#19 2019-08-11 22:07:49

Re: 8 days was too long, but what would be ideal?

#20 2019-08-11 22:10:42

Re: 8 days was too long, but what would be ideal?

#21 2019-08-11 23:59:05

Re: 8 days was too long, but what would be ideal?

#22 2019-08-12 02:40:39

Re: 8 days was too long, but what would be ideal?

#23 2019-08-12 04:04:41

Re: 8 days was too long, but what would be ideal?

#24 2019-08-12 06:16:23

Re: 8 days was too long, but what would be ideal?

#25 2019-08-12 08:14:58

Re: 8 days was too long, but what would be ideal?

Board footer