Completely bonkers food rework idea

Spoonwood · 2019-11-08 09:45:30

jasonrohrer wrote:

This may seem obviously stupid at first blush, but the implications for social organization are pretty deep and complex. Food becomes a metaphor....

A metaphor for what? Also, I don't think the griefing issue results if people could eat as many pips as they would drain at say optimal temperature for say 40 years (or maybe near-optimal temperature). But, I think the sense of 'being' someone who lives a life is gone entirely if you can gorge on food and then live for 40 years without eating at all. Then again, LowImpact didn't have to eat for a large number of years once: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/411734181

DestinyCall · 2019-11-08 16:19:27

Spoonwood wrote:

jasonrohrer wrote:
This may seem obviously stupid at first blush, but the implications for social organization are pretty deep and complex. Food becomes a metaphor....
A metaphor for what?

Based on some of his comments, I think he is thinking of it as a "metaphor" for individual consumption of collective resources.

jasonrohrer wrote:

Yes, tobiasisahawk, good thinking there.
You're right that it wouldn't make the game fundamentally "easier" long-term. Short-term, it would definitely change the rhythm. I've never thought that the current rhythm was all that great. Food is running out over time, that's the main threat. Dealing with that threat requires a lot of planning and skill. Remembering to eat every X seconds is more of a necessary annoyance than anything else. It's just busy work necessary to make the food run out.
But if people could "tank up"... well, it really creates some interesting situations. Take it to the extreme as a thought experiment. Say you had 100 or 1000 food pips instead of 20. Now what? Well, it would be possible, as Eve, to eat every damn berry around, which would give you a huge personal stockpile and make starvation impossible for you. But what about everyone else? Well, they're all screwed! Suddenly, there's a whole new moral game to play. Can I justify tanking up? What do I need that personal stockpile for, exactly? In the current game, someone munching pies repeatedly on a nearly-full stomach is griefing to waste food with no benefit to themselves. But if each person had 1000 food pips.... that pie-gobbler would be reaping a huge personal benefit at the expense of the collective. That's a much juicier moral situation.
And yes, it would make it more difficult, collectively. When your neighbor starts gobbling food, what do you do? You see the food disappearing, better gobble some too, right? Seems like this would open up the game to all kinds of rationing schemes, etc. Looking at it another way, food you put in your own belly becomes your inalienable personal property. This is similar to taking a bunch of pies in the current game and putting them behind your fence. But everyone is carrying their own personal fence with them at all times.
Most extreme thought-experiment version: everyone has infinite stomach size.

Anyway, this is definitely food for thought, amirite.

The one place that I'm still given pause with all of this is babies and children and old people. They currently have a faster rhythm than everyone else, and I don't want to undercut that. If we pick a fixed stomach size that we like, say 40, then it seems like BB stomach size could start at 4 and grow up to 40 by age 16, just like it does now.

jasonrohrer wrote:

Likewise, infinite stomach (which I probably won't add), fits symbolically. It represents your "fair share" of the collective output, and all the negotiations about that. Those negotiations have been going on since the dawn of time, and continue to go on today. In fact, it could be argued that no single issue shaped the 19th and 20th centuries more than this one issue. How rich is too rich?

....

So basically, Jason is asking himself the age old question: "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck. If a woodchuck could chuck wood?"

And the answer is, of course, that a woodchuck would chuck, he would, as much as he could, and chuck as much wood as a woodchuck would if a woodchuck could chuck wood.

CatX · 2019-11-08 16:36:25

Spoonwood wrote:

jasonrohrer wrote:
This may seem obviously stupid at first blush, but the implications for social organization are pretty deep and complex. Food becomes a metaphor....
A metaphor for what?

I think he meant a metaphor for private property.

DestinyCall wrote:

So basically, Jason is asking himself the age old question: "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck. If a woodchuck could chuck wood?"
And the answer is, of course, that a woodchuck would chuck, he would, as much as he could, and chuck as much wood as a woodchuck would if a woodchuck could chuck wood.

Even if a woodchuck could chuck wood and even if a woodchuck would chuck wood, should a woodchuck chuck wood?

DestinyCall · 2019-11-08 16:47:00

CatX wrote:

Even if a woodchuck could chuck wood and even if a woodchuck would chuck wood, should a woodchuck chuck wood?

Now we are getting to the real questions ...

Does life have a reason?
Why do we do things we do not like to do?
Does free will exist or is every action predetermined?
What’s more Important: doing the right thing or doing things right?
Can artificial intelligence be creative?
In a zombie apocalypse, is it better to be a survivor or a zombie?
Do we control technology or is technology controlling us?
If death is inevitable, why bother doing anything?
Even if a woodchuck would chuck wood, should a wooodchuck chuck wood?

jasonrohrer · 2019-11-08 17:12:17

Yes, I think you guys are finally getting what this game is actually about...

I mean, it's hard to put into words, but these words are getting pretty damn close.

jasonrohrer · 2019-11-08 17:19:58

Also, I had an AI add to your list:

DestinyCall wrote:

Does life have a reason?
Why do we do things we do not like to do?
Does free will exist or is every action predetermined?
What’s more Important: doing the right thing or doing things right?
Can artificial intelligence be creative?
In a zombie apocalypse, is it better to be a survivor or a zombie?
Do we control technology or is technology controlling us?
If death is inevitable, why bother doing anything?
Even if a woodchuck would chuck wood, should a wooodchuck chuck wood?

AI One wrote:

How can we make the future better?
Do you know the difference between the following statements:
-It is more important that someone survives
-It is more important that an event is observed to happen
-It is more important to act now or wait to do so later
’What do you think the answer is?
What are your favorite non-scientific questions? Leave a comment below!

AI Two wrote:

Is our society too materialistic?
Is the government too big?
Are we living in a simulation?
What if there are multiple universes and we are just part of one of them?
Do you see the light?
Do you want to be an alien?
How do we know we're not dreaming?
Do you have any dreams that we don't see?
What's the point of having a soul?
Can you get someone else to kill you

AI Three wrote:

If a spider was smarter than us, would it want to eat us?
Do zombies even exist?
What happens to the world if a zombie apocalypse begins and the zombies have taken over the world?
How does religion and science mix with the zombie apocalypse?
Would the zombie apocalypse affect the weather? Would the undead make it snow? Would zombies be a threat to a hurricane?
If the zombie apocalypse was real, would people need to have religion to survive?

AI Four wrote:

How can we tell the difference between a tree, a dog, and a wolf?
Do you have a good time or do you have a bad time?
Do the people around you enjoy life?
Can we tell what is real from what is not real?
Do we have free will?
What is a good way to spend a day?
What do you value in a friend?
Is there a right way to die?
What is the true meaning

https://talktotransformer.com/

DestinyCall · 2019-11-08 17:35:18

"How can we tell the difference between a tree, a dog, and a wolf?"

I think AI Four must play OHOL.

Stormyzabeast · 2019-11-08 17:42:16

jasonrohrer wrote:

Dodge, how would you suggest implementing "tanking up" without allowing one adult to eat all the food? The original suggestion was just doubling the stomach size. Could be 2x or 3x or 4x without allowing one adult to eat everything in sight.
On the other hand, the most extreme version (infinite stomach) has the most depth. Unfortunately, the raw griefing potential is enormous. One guy running around eating every wild berry, etc. It's unfortunate that every idea gets hamstrung by griefing. "No limit" is much deeper than "limit." But we have to deal with players who are playing sub-optimally on purpose. I wish there was one giant, super-clean way we could deal with griefing once and for all, so that every design innovation didn't have to tiptoe around it....
It's like with chopping down trees. The deepest option is to let you pick how many to chop, anywhere from 0 to "all of them," with some middle amount being optimal, and it's up to you to figure that out. Then along comes a griefer who chops down all of them. Then I have to insert some arbitrary limit on the upper end....

In Poker, no limit with the deepest possible stacks provides widest skill spectrum. More possible choices, more gradation, more room for error. The lowest-skill variant is one-chip poker, where your only decision is whether to go all in or fold. The great thing about poker is that there's no such thing as griefing. Poor play is punished by huge financial losses. Go ahead, try to shove all in on every hand. That kind of "broken" strategy is easy to beat long-term. Players who play that way either weed themselves out by running out of money, or keep coming back with more money, which any sensible poker player would welcome. It's a self-solving problem.
But in OHOL... there's just no cost to the perpetrator for sub-optimal play, nor no benefit to the others...

Obese sprites would be nice. But there are a bunch of problems. First, GPU stretch looks horrible, so they would need to be hand-drawn at different sizes. And then we have the problem of clothes. Those would need to be drawn bigger too. So it's a content nightmare. Without different clothing sprites, the big body would "hang out" of the small clothes. This would look horrible.

Why not make it so that when you're cursed to donkey town a certain number of times, showing that you're a serial griefer, you get banished there for like, a month. I bet that shit would stop. Or the griefer would finally just quit playing

Kaveh · 2019-11-08 17:52:22

jasonrohrer wrote:

Also, I had an AI add to your list:
AI One wrote:
Leave a comment below!

hahahaha

jcwilk · 2019-11-08 17:59:22

jasonrohrer wrote:

I wish there was one giant, super-clean way we could deal with griefing once and for all, so that every design innovation didn't have to tiptoe around it....
It's like with chopping down trees. The deepest option is to let you pick how many to chop, anywhere from 0 to "all of them," with some middle amount being optimal, and it's up to you to figure that out. Then along comes a griefer who chops down all of them. Then I have to insert some arbitrary limit on the upper end....

In Poker, no limit with the deepest possible stacks provides widest skill spectrum. More possible choices, more gradation, more room for error. The lowest-skill variant is one-chip poker, where your only decision is whether to go all in or fold. The great thing about poker is that there's no such thing as griefing. Poor play is punished by huge financial losses. Go ahead, try to shove all in on every hand. That kind of "broken" strategy is easy to beat long-term. Players who play that way either weed themselves out by running out of money, or keep coming back with more money, which any sensible poker player would welcome. It's a self-solving problem.
But in OHOL... there's just no cost to the perpetrator for sub-optimal play, nor no benefit to the others...

Although this is easier said than done, to me the obvious solution to griefing is better combat and raiding dynamics. If there's a better sense of trespassing than simply slipping in when some kid opens the door, more reliable ways to end intruders, and to balance, a way to force one's way in through a property fence with greater effort than it took to build it (basically everything about attacking being greater effort than defending) then it means griefers can be defended against just like any other opponent.

It should be easier to sub-divide a town also with things like the ability to use a locked gate without the ability to give anyone else access to it. That way individual subclusters in a family can have their own food stores so they only have to worry about their own children turning into griefers, and to watch for anyone trying to break in via balanced raid dynamics.

My point is that it seems like combat and raiding have been pushed to the sidelines because it's not really a game about combat, but these are essential tools in civilization to keep people in line. The trick will be how to make that complexity approachable within the one hour window...

Starknight_One · 2019-11-08 18:21:36

jasonrohrer wrote:

AI Three wrote:
Would the zombie apocalypse affect the weather? Would the undead make it snow? Would zombies be a threat to a hurricane?

Coming soon, from the makers of Sharknado:

ZOMBIECANE!

Tropical storms have never been more deadly... and HUNGRY FOR BRAINS!

DestinyCall · 2019-11-08 18:34:16

jasonrohrer wrote:

I wish there was one giant, super-clean way we could deal with griefing once and for all, so that every design innovation didn't have to tiptoe around it....
It's like with chopping down trees. The deepest option is to let you pick how many to chop, anywhere from 0 to "all of them," with some middle amount being optimal, and it's up to you to figure that out. Then along comes a griefer who chops down all of them. Then I have to insert some arbitrary limit on the upper end....

In Poker, no limit with the deepest possible stacks provides widest skill spectrum. More possible choices, more gradation, more room for error. The lowest-skill variant is one-chip poker, where your only decision is whether to go all in or fold. The great thing about poker is that there's no such thing as griefing. Poor play is punished by huge financial losses. Go ahead, try to shove all in on every hand. That kind of "broken" strategy is easy to beat long-term. Players who play that way either weed themselves out by running out of money, or keep coming back with more money, which any sensible poker player would welcome. It's a self-solving problem.
But in OHOL... there's just no cost to the perpetrator for sub-optimal play, nor no benefit to the others...

Personally, I think that the core issue is that griefing is NOT sub-optimal play. It isn't someone playing OHOL poorly or making bad choices. It is someone intentionally trying to break the game - Making up their own rules so they can be the "winner" of their own private game-within-a-game. In a game of poker, the "griefers" would be people who count cards or cheat to get a hand-up on the competition. It would be someone who thinks that the rules of the game shouldn't apply to him and the other players' ability to enjoy the game isn't equal to his own enjoyment. In the real world, people who "grief" the game are not allowed to keep playing. In poker, you do not knock the cards out of other players hands or tip over the table, because you would be escorted out of the casino immediately if you did that. If you grief, it has to be subtle, so you don't get caught.

On a less serious note, imagine you are a child playing hide-and-seek with your friends. And one of the other kids keeps peeking when it is his time to be the seeker. What do you do? I'm guessing that you won't want to keep playing games with someone who doesn't follow the rules of the game. If he doesn't learn how to play properly, that kid is not going to be invited to play hide-and-seek again. If he doesn't like playing games with you and your friends, that is okay. He'll just leave and find something else to do with his free-time. But if he wants to keep playing hide-and-seek, he will need to learn how to get along better with other people.

So why doesn't it work like that in OHOL? That's simple ... anonymity. We know that some of the other kids are cheating assholes, but we can't tell them apart from the good kids. And we don't have the power to stop inviting them to play with us. So that kid can keep coming back and ruining our games of hide and seek as much as he likes with no consequences.

In theory, the curse system gives us the power to self-regulate and punish people who don't play nicely with others. And I think it does the job when it is working correctly. But it isn't a perfect system and not everyone uses it correctly. There are cracks and griefers can learn how to exploit those cracks to their advantage. If the curse system is too lenient, the same griefers keep coming back, over and over. If curse system is too harsh, innocent players risk being punished along with the guilty.

I don't think this is a problem with an easy answer. But I do think that the answer involves targeting the problem PLAYERS themselves, rather just trying to add in-game features to deter griefing, like arbitrary limits and combat mechanics. Any in-game tools given to the players are also given to griefers, because griefers ARE players. To deal with the problem directly, you should be looking at who is causing the most problems and kick them out of the casino.

Last edited by DestinyCall (2019-11-08 18:51:40)

One Hour One Life Forums

#51 2019-11-08 09:45:30

Re: Completely bonkers food rework idea

#52 2019-11-08 16:19:27

Re: Completely bonkers food rework idea

#53 2019-11-08 16:36:25

Re: Completely bonkers food rework idea

#54 2019-11-08 16:47:00

Re: Completely bonkers food rework idea

#55 2019-11-08 17:12:17

Re: Completely bonkers food rework idea

#56 2019-11-08 17:19:58

Re: Completely bonkers food rework idea

#57 2019-11-08 17:35:18

Re: Completely bonkers food rework idea

#58 2019-11-08 17:42:16

Re: Completely bonkers food rework idea

#59 2019-11-08 17:52:22

Re: Completely bonkers food rework idea

#60 2019-11-08 17:59:22

Re: Completely bonkers food rework idea

#61 2019-11-08 18:21:36

Re: Completely bonkers food rework idea

ZOMBIECANE!

#62 2019-11-08 18:34:16

Re: Completely bonkers food rework idea

Board footer