Coming Soon: Boundless World 2.0

miskas · 2019-11-07 16:28:37

Gogo wrote:

Toxolotl wrote:
Genetic score counts for almost nothing and relies on having competent players as kids. You can spend almost all your life with a new player, teaching and taking care of them but leave them for a few minutes and they die, bringing down your score.
How about assign best players to best moms, everything based on genetic score? This will naturally distribute players to similar playing people.

Even if this would be Amazing and realistic it seems so dangerous for a game.

The question is how do you get away from lower ranking. If you can prove me or implement some changes that would make sure one can start from the lowest rank and go up to 1st I would fanatically approve the idea.

Also, you have to make it noob friendly. noobs need good and caring players to keep them alive.

Last edited by miskas (2019-11-07 16:29:08)

Toxolotl · 2019-11-07 16:43:53

Did someone say "players with the worst scores get born to players with the best, and vice versa"? Lol. My main point was that i think being productive and beneficial to society should count for something.

Sometimes you have to choose between work and children and with the current system its going to always be children. In real life working hard and building a legacy is something you can pass onto your family. I dont think it should count for much but it would be nice if it counted for something.

In theory you could have something like letting bears loose docks your score where as killing them adds to it. If you hunt down a bunch of bears (letting them out and hunting them) you could see gains. Like 1 part negative points for letting them out and 2 parts positive for hunting them.

A system like this could benefit workhorse moms and deter griefing even more. I think pro moms who truly deserve to be eve could easily manage babies and work and would see a boost from both ends.

Last edited by Toxolotl (2019-11-09 20:05:02)

jasonrohrer · 2019-11-07 16:52:15

I've thought about grouping the "fit" folks together. The problem with that is that beginning players will get sent to the worst players. Beginning players need help and guidance from experts.

jasonrohrer · 2019-11-07 17:00:51

Toxolotl, I agree about improving society, but to what end?

If you build a great house for your grandkids, but they all die of starvation before they even get to live in it, what's the point? Where's the legacy?

The only "end" there's ever been has been the next generation. We don't know why we keep doing this, and it doesn't really make sense, but it's all we've got, so we keep doing it.

In real life, people build up society for one other reason that doesn't directly benefit their offspring: to bolster their reputation and thus attract high quality mates. Skyscrapers, fast cars, symphonies, mathematical proofs, and even funny jokes..... all the crazy stuff that men (generally) do to differentiate themselves from the pack.

And yes, this aspect is definitely not represented directly in OHOL, but in the bigger picture, "attracting high quality mates" is the same thing as "high quality offspring."

So, yeah, offspring. Full stop.

DestinyCall · 2019-11-07 17:04:44

jasonrohrer wrote:

I've thought about grouping the "fit" folks together. The problem with that is that beginning players will get sent to the worst players. Beginning players need help and guidance from experts.

Or maybe do the opposite - the highest genetic fitness players should get all the new players.

Those players are the most capable at keeping people alive and able to handle the responsibility of caring for our game's true children .. the noobs.

Toxolotl · 2019-11-07 17:08:48

Grouping them would also guarentee that new players would hardly ever get to be eve or be born to eves. In the early days of playing eve runs and early settlements were what really got me intune with the fabric of the game.

Big towns can be really overwhelming and for fresh eyes it can be hard to see how everything interlocks. At least that was the case for me. I think diversity of lives is an essential part of this game and i would hate to see more options removed due to genetic score.

DestinyCall wrote:

Or maybe do the opposite - the highest genetic fitness players should get all the new players.
Those players are the most capable at keeping people alive and able to handle the responsibility of caring for our game's true children .. the noobs.

I like this idea

Last edited by Toxolotl (2019-11-09 20:05:34)

DestinyCall · 2019-11-07 17:12:04

If your ability to Eve is based on maintaining a high genetic score, new players already don't get the chance to try Eveing until they have mastered the meme score.

Toxolotl · 2019-11-07 17:16:47

jasonrohrer wrote:

Toxolotl, I agree about improving society, but to what end?
If you build a great house for your grandkids, but they all die of starvation before they even get to live in it, what's the point? Where's the legacy?
The only "end" there's ever been has been the next generation. We don't know why we keep doing this, and it doesn't really make sense, but it's all we've got, so we keep doing it.
In real life, people build up society for one other reason that doesn't directly benefit their offspring: to bolster their reputation and thus attract high quality mates. Skyscrapers, fast cars, symphonies, mathematical proofs, and even funny jokes..... all the crazy stuff that men (generally) do to differentiate themselves from the pack.
And yes, this aspect is definitely not represented directly in OHOL, but in the bigger picture, "attracting high quality mates" is the same thing as "high quality offspring."
So, yeah, offspring. Full stop.

Yea i agree. I dont think it should ever matter more than your children. If you spend your life working and let all your kids die you should be docked but maybe not as much as you would if you let all your kids die, didnt do anything beneficial or griefed with bears and etc.

Spoonwood · 2019-11-07 17:33:45

jasonrohrer wrote:

When we need an Eve, we wait for a player with a suitably-high genetic score to play Eve

But will people who have high genetic scores want to play as an Eve? I mean, it's only a reward to play as Eve for a high genetic score if you want to play as an Eve. I wouldn't be so sure that people who have high genetic scores want to play as an Eve.

luckynmd · 2019-11-07 17:49:36

Yeah! Make one hour one life great again!
Regardless of being in flocks or not, this is awesome news! Thank you!

zed · 2019-11-07 18:38:54

jasonrohrer wrote:

In real life, people build up society for one other reason that doesn't
directly benefit their offspring: to bolster their reputation and thus attract
high quality mates.

I think you're rather oversimplifying there. Human brains are complicated, and
people often have motivations which don't agree with those of their genes.
Anonymous altruism exists. Free software contributions are often purely
pseudonymous. Those taking our ecological crises seriously are foreswearing
procreation, because they value civilisation enough that they consider
increasing the pressures pushing it towards collapse to be too high a price to
pay for furthering their particular genetic lines. Anonymous whistleblowers
act to prevent social harms while actively avoiding their actions being linked
to their identity.

jasonrohrer · 2019-11-07 18:44:18

Zed, most of that stuff is virtue signalling, which I think routes its way back to the gonads eventually.

"I'm never having children because of global warming!"

"Wait, really? I'm never having children too, also because of global warming!"

"Sweet! So.... you wanna fuck?"

zed · 2019-11-07 19:38:57

jasonrohrer wrote:

most of that stuff is virtue signalling, which I think routes its way back to the gonads eventually.

Really, I think you're missing a significant component of human nature by
trying to reduce everything to a direct procreational drive (or drive to
advance the interests of close family). Some more clear human behaviours which
are difficult to explain that way: celibate religious orders; post-menopausal
women doing work of social benefit without proportional financial recompense;
laboratory tests of anonymous altruism, in which people act fairly towards
anonymous others at cost to themselves, even if their actions can't be
observed by the experimenter (there seems to be a small literature
on this). More generally, it's a basic fact that people have a tendency to
co-operate with strangers and treat them fairly. That's a product of evolution
of course, but that doesn't mean it comes down so directly to procreation.

See also this nice old Monbiot article:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr … ently-good

EDIT: another super-clear example: bittorrenters can choose to leech, but many
(I expect most) set a reasonably generous share ratio. Explain that with your
gonads!

Last edited by zed (2019-11-07 20:54:33)

HippoScope · 2019-11-07 20:43:08

Gogo wrote:

Toxolotl wrote:
Genetic score counts for almost nothing and relies on having competent players as kids. You can spend almost all your life with a new player, teaching and taking care of them but leave them for a few minutes and they die, bringing down your score.
How about assign best players to best moms, everything based on genetic score? This will naturally distribute players to similar playing people.

What if genetic fitness was similar to an ELO where if a player with a much lower genetic fitness than you dies, then it doesn't effect your genetic fitness as much.

jasonrohrer · 2019-11-07 20:58:22

HippoScope wrote:

What if genetic fitness was similar to an ELO where if a player with a much lower genetic fitness than you dies, then it doesn't effect your genetic fitness as much.

Ah, poor laddie. He was alw's the runt o' the litter. We ne'er thou' he'd make it.

Problem with this is messaging on the genetic score chart. Right now, it's very clear. The longer the person lives, the more points you get.

With this extra complication, you'd see someone live to 60 on the genetic score screen and barely get any points for them.... wtf.... oh, they had a high fitness score themselves!

Toxolotl · 2019-11-07 21:08:13

HippoScope wrote:

What if genetic fitness was similar to an ELO where if a player with a much lower genetic fitness than you dies, then it doesn't effect your genetic fitness as much.

This would certainly help with climbing the ladder but i would worry it would encourage players to not take new players seriously. Once you get the new player notification you would know that even if they died it wouldnt hurt your score as much.

Anything that makes things harder for new players and makes the game less accessible is only going to hurt player retention.

I think new players with experienced mothers could be a good mechanism and perhaps you get a bonus if your offspring exceed their average lifespan. If a player's average lifespan is 10 min and you help them reach 30 min that is progress and i think progress should be rewarded.

If a player's average is 50 min that's kind of guarentee that you will get more points. I dont think we should ride on others coattails and i think there should be more reward for bolstering others who are struggling.

Last edited by Toxolotl (2019-11-09 20:07:03)

jasonrohrer · 2019-11-07 21:22:08

Yeah, Toxolotl, that's an excellent idea.

Right now, your score goes up or down based on how far away an offspring's lifespan was from YOUR average.

You're saying that your score should go up or down based on how far away an offspring's lifespan was from that offspring-player's average.

Unfortunately, we don't currently have a lifespan average being tracked for each player. What we do have is a SCORE for each player. That score is based on the lifespans of them and their offspring.

So what about this weird case:

--A player always lives to 60, but kills all of their own offspring always. Like feeds every baby to wolves.

--Such a player would have a VERY low score. Their babies (both good score and bad score babies) would always die younger than their own averages. This player would actually have a negative score (or 0 if we cap it).

--Now you have this player as a baby. They live until 60, as usual. This gives you the maximum number of points from them (they lived to 60, but their current score is 0).

--Seems almost like exploit potential.

The only way to prevent this would be to also keep a personal average for each player, in addition to their score.... like they would have to have two scores.

The other factor here is that this would allow scores to go up above 60 and down below 0. If you always killed your babies below their average, the negative points would add up, right? And if you always helped every baby live longer than normal, the positive points would pile up.

The current system doesn't allow this, which is nice: When we're actually using a genetic score, we know the range. (Of course, we could cap it).

Joseph Stalin · 2019-11-07 21:26:44

yes content!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

jasonrohrer · 2019-11-07 21:28:32

Also, I don't see this changing player motivations at all.

Even if you have a "bad player" as a baby, you want to have them live as long as possible in either system, right?

In the current system, they will likely dock your score, but if you help them live a bit longer, they will dock it less.

In your proposal, you would also want them to live as long as possible, hopefully longer than their average, to raise your score. The longer they live, the more it is raised.

But once your score hits 60 (which it will do, if you always help people live longer than normal), you lose all motivation to help people live longer than normal. I mean, assuming that scores are capped at 60.

In the current system, the player is always motivated to help every baby live as long as possible, no matter what their current score is.

DestinyCall · 2019-11-07 22:13:35

jasonrohrer wrote:

But once your score hits 60 (which it will do, if you always help people live longer than normal), you lose all motivation to help people live longer than normal. I mean, assuming that scores are capped at 60.

That assumes your ONLY motivation for helping others is based on raising your personal score, which is rather cynical. Helping other people when you are at max score can still help them reach max score.

Saolin · 2019-11-07 22:56:21

Toxolotl wrote:

My main point was that i think being productive and beneficial to society should count for something. Sometimes you have to choose between work and children and with the current system its going to always be children. In real life working hard and building a legacy is something you can pass onto your family. I dont think it should count for much but it would be nice if it counted for something.

It does, indirectly though. If I build an oil rig to supply the diesel well for example, the next few generations in town (including my own family) will survive more easily, having a positive impact on my genetic score after I die, on average.

Now if I'm starving kids to do this then its still a net negative; in real life you're generally going to be choosing your own kids first, even in a survival situation, but sometimes you might not if a certain task was needed for anyone at all to survive.

I don't think the gene score is perfect by any means. I'd like to see it balanced across stages of the game, so a predominantly early game player isn't at a fitness disadvantage compared to someone who prefers established towns. I also think it could be made less noisy by adjusting your score based on each offspring's performance compared to their own average performance instead of your average performance. If it seems too confusing to have different life score impacts from two players who died at the same age, list their genetic score beside their name on the genetic fitness screen to add the relevant context.

The_Anabaptist · 2019-11-07 23:08:48

Genetic fitness should probably give you a small plus each time one of your kids (male or female) reaches breeding age. And you should get a penalty only if you fail to live to breeding age.

Now maybe that means we need more environmental hazards to make living harder. Plague, Famine, etc. In order to not make it too unbalanced on the positive gain, or just make not living to breeding age be a bigger hit negatively. Yes, it makes playing a male a bit boring. Tough.

The_Anabaptist

Tempted · 2019-11-08 01:09:26

Maybe there will be a few less griefers, as many turned to griefing as a way of protesting the rift? That would be nice.

Coconut Fruit · 2019-11-08 02:54:22

How about making nameless eves unable to give birth? It would give them some time to find a good spot for a town before breeding. I think current birth distribution system will make that all babies will spawn to new Eve until she has enough kids, that may make things complicated if an Eve hasn't even found a good spot to live yet.

Toxolotl · 2019-11-08 04:39:55

Coconut Fruit wrote:

How about making nameless eves unable to give birth? It would give them some time to find a good spot for a town before breeding. I think current birth distribution system will make that all babies will spawn to new Eve until she has enough kids, that may make things complicated if an Eve hasn't even found a good spot to live yet.

That's the beauty of an eve run though. I love getting a squad going and hunting down a good spot. Sometimes spending my whole life finding one. Most kids wont be up for it but the ones that are are bad ass. This was one of my favorite things when the server glitched out forever ago.

You couldnt build anything because it would reset quickly. It basically turned into a family adventure where the goal was to stick together, explore, and keep each other safe. It felt so cool to be a roaming pack of nomads with no where to go but forward.

Normally this would be really hard but the server glitch allowed for infinite food, so you could feed an entire family off one wild berry bush. Its how i fell in love with exploring and eve runs.

I had like 20 hours at the time and its what really hooked me into the game. Over 700 hours later and here i am, still thirsty for adventure. So excited for the infinite map to return!

Last edited by Toxolotl (2019-11-09 20:08:18)

One Hour One Life Forums

#26 2019-11-07 16:28:37

Re: Coming Soon: Boundless World 2.0

#27 2019-11-07 16:43:53

Re: Coming Soon: Boundless World 2.0

#28 2019-11-07 16:52:15

Re: Coming Soon: Boundless World 2.0

#29 2019-11-07 17:00:51

Re: Coming Soon: Boundless World 2.0

#30 2019-11-07 17:04:44

Re: Coming Soon: Boundless World 2.0

#31 2019-11-07 17:08:48

Re: Coming Soon: Boundless World 2.0

#32 2019-11-07 17:12:04

Re: Coming Soon: Boundless World 2.0

#33 2019-11-07 17:16:47

Re: Coming Soon: Boundless World 2.0

#34 2019-11-07 17:33:45

Re: Coming Soon: Boundless World 2.0

#35 2019-11-07 17:49:36

Re: Coming Soon: Boundless World 2.0

#36 2019-11-07 18:38:54

Re: Coming Soon: Boundless World 2.0

#37 2019-11-07 18:44:18

Re: Coming Soon: Boundless World 2.0

#38 2019-11-07 19:38:57

Re: Coming Soon: Boundless World 2.0

#39 2019-11-07 20:43:08

Re: Coming Soon: Boundless World 2.0

#40 2019-11-07 20:58:22

Re: Coming Soon: Boundless World 2.0

#41 2019-11-07 21:08:13

Re: Coming Soon: Boundless World 2.0

#42 2019-11-07 21:22:08

Re: Coming Soon: Boundless World 2.0

#43 2019-11-07 21:26:44

Re: Coming Soon: Boundless World 2.0

#44 2019-11-07 21:28:32

Re: Coming Soon: Boundless World 2.0

#45 2019-11-07 22:13:35

Re: Coming Soon: Boundless World 2.0

#46 2019-11-07 22:56:21

Re: Coming Soon: Boundless World 2.0

#47 2019-11-07 23:08:48

Re: Coming Soon: Boundless World 2.0

#48 2019-11-08 01:09:26

Re: Coming Soon: Boundless World 2.0

#49 2019-11-08 02:54:22

Re: Coming Soon: Boundless World 2.0

#50 2019-11-08 04:39:55

Re: Coming Soon: Boundless World 2.0

Board footer