Jason you have an SID Problem

Bremidon · 2019-12-10 07:04:56

Legs wrote:

Personally, my infant deaths come from hopelessness. I'm born and I immediately see that this place is doomed. Yesterday I was born to see that everyone's naked and there's no well. Not even a spring site. A primitive camp with a small farm fueled by pond water. Any work I do here is pointless. What alternative do I have to suicide? Wander through bland uninteresting wilderness for an hour? Realistically my absolute best hope would be to find a dead town, and even then I would be alone since I was a boy.
Rather than waste a real time hour of my life I'd rather just die and try to find somewhere better.

Happens to me too. I usually do this:

1. Try to convince to move
2. If this works, great: moving camp is actually a fun type of life. Getting things organized, getting people there safely, finding a good spot...these are all interesting things to do.
3. If it doesn't work, pack up my things and go east. Pick up a horse if I can. I usually find a town within 15 minutes. Play the game there.
4. If I'm stuck hitting dead towns the whole life, try to pick up as much stuff as possible and hope to find a living town before I die. This is not my favorite type of game, but bringing in 5 BPs full of stuff to a town trying to get on its feet is decently rewarding.

Alternatively, I use the hopeless town as a chance to try something where I have no clue what I'm doing. At least in a hopeless town I know that my fumbling around is not going to actually do any lasting damage.

If these are all so unappealing to you that you absolutely have to use "die", then ok. That should cost you.

The thing is, I get into these "hopeless" situations about once every twenty starts. This is not a major problem. The problem is that too many people are using "die" and "starving" to get out of perfectly viable starts that are, for whatever reason, not their preferred start.

jcwilk · 2019-12-10 07:19:32

testo wrote:

Legs wrote:
testo wrote:
"play the hand your dealt everytime".
Very often that means folding when you know it's hopeless. You never bet on a losing hand. This analogy only proves that infant suicide is very often the wise choice.
It is ridiculous as analogy but whatever, you are just trying to justify /die has a valid gameplay. I don´t really care in the end, but don´t feel wise because you are choosing to play only "winning hands". Has Jason said, the game is suposed to be hard. I´d be happy if the game had a 3 life/hour limit or even a hardcore 1 life/hour. But relax, that is just too unpopular so you all can be as picky as you want, choosing how to spend your ohol hour gameplay and which towns you want to play in. I can play with a mod and eat cooked beans for my yum, you can /die all you want. That´s the nature of the game.

1 life/hour would be pretty awesome... I'd be into that. Sadly most players would not and it would majorly throttle spawns even if they were and it's pretty low population already

Spoonwood · 2019-12-10 07:50:18

Bremidon wrote:

The thing is, I get into these "hopeless" situations about once every twenty starts. This is not a major problem. The problem is that too many people are using "die" and "starving" to get out of perfectly viable starts that are, for whatever reason, not their preferred start.

No, the problem lies in a reluctance to empower players to have more choices with respect to their lives and a reluctance to rethink game philosophy. It isn't one of dealing with the hand you're dealt from the ground up. Why? Because from the ground up the game has to be potentially enjoyable for a single player on a server at a time. That makes Eve chaining a necessity without enough people around, because otherwise were the game to barely have anyone playing it at a particular time, as some low population servers currently experience, it would be no more than a version of Donkey Town, and that would barely be a playable game. And when players Eve chain they are NOT dealing with the hand that they get dealt so to speak, at least not usually.

Also, there's the problem of refusing to try to understand why players suicide.

The notion of "these people should get punished" for trying to make choices that do NOT harm others (sudden infant deaths are not a cause of death of you or your family... an Eve doesn't have to found a camp... she can keep moving) does not have a sound basis.

If anything, at this point in time, players that suicide should get rewarded. For only by fully understanding why they suicide and coming up with a system that accomodates their desires can a system which addresses concerns about suiciding babies get resolved well. And there will be a reluctance for them to talk in general with the ongoing hostility towards them. People who keep on talking in the face of rampant hostility, at least from what I've seen, are rather rare.

Alec · 2019-12-10 08:17:27

There is no penalty to use SID now.
So, I'm using /DIE in my playing. And I caring about fitness score too.
SID doesn't effect to fitness score in the long run. Don't you know?

Spoonwood · 2019-12-10 10:22:39

Someone on discord is saying things like:

"SOMEONE JUST MAKE THE KEROSENE IN BRO TOWN
CRUDE OIL IS PREPARED THERE"

I've also seen other people post about oil there in the past week. Edit: Pein sent me some information on some family that could use help in that respect.

I also saw a town on stream which had a problem with its diesel water pump for at least two lives of the streamer (she got born nearby in the second life in some other town and found out she was nearby to that town soon thereafter)... no one making kerosone with none in town.

But then I think about what I would do if I wanted to help out for one of those situations. I would not only need to suicide to Ginger, I would also need to suicide to an appropriate town. That's more suiciding needed than before systemic racism got instituted for helping those people out I think. Anyone else thinking that such cases might be a cause of at least some of these suicides?

Last edited by Spoonwood (2019-12-10 10:24:36)

Toxolotl · 2019-12-10 12:07:54

Spoonwood wrote:

But then I think about what I would do if I wanted to help out for one of those situations. I would not only need to suicide to Ginger, I would also need to suicide to an appropriate town. That's more suiciding needed than before systemic racism got instituted for helping those people out I think. Anyone else thinking that such cases might be a cause of at least some of these suicides?

Yes. If it were not for race restrictions there would be no reason to /die. Since a towns survival hinges on having all three races i imagine this fuels a lot of SIDs. If you just had a life in a bell town and the last female in the black family was going to be old soon you might feel a dedication to go back to ensure the town survives.

Not saying this is a healthy tactic but it may be a necessary one in order to keep towns alive.

Before the race updates it didnt matter what race you were, every family had the same opportunities. Multifamily cities were a really rare and special thing.

Kinrany · 2019-12-10 14:41:41

jcwick wrote:

1 life/hour would be pretty awesome... I'd be into that. Sadly most players would not and it would majorly throttle spawns even if they were and it's pretty low population already

Yeah. It's an obvious solution to prevent "/die" from being a way to change to a new life.

The punishment must be the same for both using "/die" and suicide by bear. Accidents are indistinguishable from suicide, so this punishment should cover all deaths. "/die" should be a shortcut to instant starvation and not special in any other way.

But whatever the punishment for deaths is, it shouldn't depopulate the server and it shouldn't make people quit.

We want people to be born in random situations, but we don't want them to be born in situations where they'll just "/die".

I'm aware of two reasons people "/die":
1. They want a specific tech level. E.g. being an Eve, or being able to build a car.
2. They don't want a dying town.

Maybe we can find a way to match people with villages that will be acceptable for them.
But this shouldn't make childbirth too much of a popularity contest between villages.

Twisted · 2019-12-10 15:44:44

Legs wrote:

testo wrote:
"play the hand your dealt everytime".
Very often that means folding when you know it's hopeless. You never bet on a losing hand. This analogy only proves that infant suicide is very often the wise choice.

The only hopeless situation is when you are alone with your mother and she dies before you're able to feed yourself. In every other situation you can do something to make life better for your family or town.

Bremidon · 2019-12-10 16:29:42

Spoonwood wrote:

No, the problem lies in a reluctance to empower players to have more choices with respect to their lives and a reluctance to rethink game philosophy. It isn't one of dealing with the hand you're dealt from the ground up. Why? Because from the ground up the game has to be potentially enjoyable for a single player on a server at a time. That makes Eve chaining a necessity without enough people around, because otherwise were the game to barely have anyone playing it at a particular time, as some low population servers currently experience, it would be no more than a version of Donkey Town, and that would barely be a playable game. And when players Eve chain they are NOT dealing with the hand that they get dealt so to speak, at least not usually.

I am talking about players who are just bailing on suboptimal starts and you talking about chaining Eves. Let's talk about the first one. Chaining Eves is an interesting topic that does not belong here.

Spoonwood wrote:

No, the problem lies in a reluctance to empower players to have more choices with respect to their lives and a reluctance to rethink game philosophy.

In other words: the entire reason the game developer developed the game. Nobody here is saying you have to like it, but why try to tell us that we are all wrong and that the developer is wrong, and that only a different game would make you happy?

Spoonwood wrote:

It isn't one of dealing with the hand you're dealt from the ground up. Why? Because from the ground up the game has to be potentially enjoyable for a single player on a server at a time. That makes Eve chaining a necessity without enough people around, because otherwise were the game to barely have anyone playing it at a particular time, as some low population servers currently experience, it would be no more than a version of Donkey Town, and that would barely be a playable game. And when players Eve chain they are NOT dealing with the hand that they get dealt so to speak, at least not usually.

We are not talking about Eve chaining here. Perhaps there is a way to make that work like you want, and maybe not. Whichever is the case, this is not really the right spot to debate it.

Spoonwood wrote:

Also, there's the problem of refusing to try to understand why players suicide.

I'm pretty sure we all have a pretty good grasp of why people are suiciding.

Spoonwood wrote:

The notion of "these people should get punished" for trying to make choices that do NOT harm others (sudden infant deaths are not a cause of death of you or your family... an Eve doesn't have to found a camp... she can keep moving) does not have a sound basis.

I refer you to my post where I described how mass SIDs actually does impact other players, even if the score is not directly affected. Also, at least from my perspective, I'm not calling for punishment. I am calling for a cost that makes suiciding a more balanced decision. Right now, it's not balanced at all.

Spoonwood wrote:

If anything, at this point in time, players that suicide should get rewarded.

*raises eyebrow*

Spoonwood wrote:

For only by fully understanding why they suicide and coming up with a system that accomodates their desires can a system which addresses concerns about suiciding babies get resolved well.

I hope that they will speak up and present arguments that are persuasive.

Spoonwood wrote:

People who keep on talking in the face of rampant hostility, at least from what I've seen, are rather rare.

I don't agree with your assessment. "Rampant hostility" sounds either like a rhetorical flair bordering on hyperbole or like a great band name. People disagreeing with you or looking for a solution to stop the mass suiciding are not hostile to you. They are just people who disagree with you.

jcwilk · 2019-12-10 20:13:44

Bremidon wrote:

Spoonwood wrote:
If anything, at this point in time, players that suicide should get rewarded.
*raises eyebrow*

Classic spoonlogic

Spoonwood · 2019-12-10 21:23:55

Bremidon wrote:

I am talking about players who are just bailing on suboptimal starts and you talking about chaining Eves. Let's talk about the first one. Chaining Eves is an interesting topic that does not belong here.

Nope. If you want to understand the game from the ground up, then you have to understand it from the start of one player on a server and what can happen. That means talking about Eve chaining is relevant.

Bremidon wrote:

In other words: the entire reason the game developer developed the game.

No. You're being naive like there existed a sole single reason as to why Jason developed the game. Like expected profit money or prestige among people he cared about was never any sort of motivating factor. I'm not saying Jason cares about such things too much. But, to ignore them as part of his motivation just doesn't work.

Bremidon wrote:

Nobody here is saying you have to like it, but why try to tell us that we are all wrong and that the developer is wrong, and that only a different game would make you happy?

I have not argued that such would make me happy. I have argued that people who use /die now would be more happy with more choice. I don't think I've used /die in months, since early July. I don't plan on playing on bs2 even if a choice screen existed, because of other things I don't like about large population bs2 OHOL (silly racism... incoming classism). And the sids issue is only one for bs2 players so far as I know. Low pop players have no objections to SIDS in that context that I know of.

Spoonwood wrote:

It isn't one of dealing with the hand you're dealt from the ground up. Why? Because from the ground up the game has to be potentially enjoyable for a single player on a server at a time. That makes Eve chaining a necessity without enough people around, because otherwise were the game to barely have anyone playing it at a particular time, as some low population servers currently experience, it would be no more than a version of Donkey Town, and that would barely be a playable game. And when players Eve chain they are NOT dealing with the hand that they get dealt so to speak, at least not usually.

Bremidon wrote:

We are not talking about Eve chaining here. Perhaps there is a way to make that work like you want, and maybe not. Whichever is the case, this is not really the right spot to debate it.

No, it is appropriate to talk about, because it exposes that the 'dealing with the hand your dealt' has been, is, and will remain impractical at the core of the game. Thus, the game, in terms of how the code runs, is not actually founded on that concept.

Bremidon wrote:

I'm pretty sure we all have a pretty good grasp of why people are suiciding.

You sure do sound confident without having a list of why people suicide. No, I don't have a complete grasp on that.

Bremidon wrote:

I refer you to my post where I described how mass SIDs actually does impact other players, even if the score is not directly affected.

People are not affected by the sids themselves, but their appraisal of what SIDs mean.

Bremidon wrote:

Also, at least from my perspective, I'm not calling for punishment. I am calling for a cost that makes suiciding a more balanced decision.

Such a cost would be a penalty, in other words, a punishment.

Bremidon wrote:

People disagreeing with you or looking for a solution to stop the mass suiciding are not hostile to you.

I'm not suiciding on bs2. You've called for a cost for players suiciding on bs2 though. That expresses a hostility towards their behavior.

Bowser · 2019-12-11 10:36:33

If baby doesn't want to join me, baby doesn't want to join me. It's fine. Better than forcing them to join me and making my life hell once they get bored and bust out a knife and we have to put them down and deal with their mess... or you know, just play badly or go afk or whatever. I don't mind SDIs, they typically do not affect me in any way.

The only exception I have to this is a case where I saw that a baby had sudden infant deathed over 20 times on a mother in a lineage that was actively being griefed--to the extent that the family died off. Circumstances like this are pretty rare.

Last edited by Bowser (2019-12-11 10:37:20)

Spoonwood · 2019-12-11 10:43:53

I agree with Bowser that it's better to have a SID, then have a child that grows up and tries to grief you or your family, because he or she couldn't SID. Also, better to have a child that SIDS than a child that goes and deliberately gets bit a mosquito. Instant death at any age was once nice to have.

Bremidon · 2019-12-11 13:18:41

Spoonwood wrote:

I agree with Bowser that it's better to have a SID, then have a child that grows up and tries to grief you or your family, because he or she couldn't SID.

That's a strawman argument: either we have rampant SIDS or mass murderers. It's not even as if anyone is taking SIDS away. Making it cost more, especially if it's a ramping cost, does not take away the freedom of choice. It's out of balance right now, and the picture I put up in the beginning shows that fairly well.

Spoonwood · 2019-12-11 13:35:38

Bremidon wrote:

That's a strawman argument: either we have rampant SIDS or mass murderers.

I don't think I made that argument.

Bremidon wrote:

Making it cost more, especially if it's a ramping cost, does not take away the freedom of choice.

You're not respecting other people's choices when you seek to penalize a behavior. You are trying to affect someone else's behavior when you call for a measure, or make that measure yourself, which penalizes another's behavior.

Bremidon wrote:

It's out of balance right now, and the picture I put up in the beginning shows that fairly well.

No, it's only one picture. It doesn't show the bigger picture. The balance concerns the bigger picture.

Spoonwood · 2019-12-11 15:14:50

I found this:

Iwontdisclosethename wrote:

I had tower 500 from the easter most bell
idk how ppl didnt find it
it was in jungle so only tan man could fuck with it even if they found it.
with 24 lives i had 24 chances to be a tan lady so thats the only thing that u need really to do it again.

This makes me think that someone wanting to do an apocalypse will /die even more than some others, since

1. They want to try to get born as close to their sacred tower as possible.

2. They'll want some sacrifice for an endstone, thus will want a baby.

3. Race restrictions. Apocalypse makers not only can only get endstones from a dark nosaj in a jungle, they also want a dangerous area for anyone trying to mess their endtower up.

Punkypal · 2019-12-11 15:24:37

On the flip side of all this, I think it's bogus that you lose genetic score if you are born and your mother just leaves you to die and never even picks you up. She is the only one who should be losing genetic score.

Bremidon · 2019-12-11 15:27:10

Punkypal wrote:

On the flip side of all this, I think it's bogus that you lose genetic score if you are born and your mother just leaves you to die and never even picks you up. She is the only one who should be losing genetic score.

That sounds a little like a suggestion I remember reading: "die" goes on the baby; "starve" would go completely on the mother if she never picked you up. Something like that.

Bremidon · 2019-12-11 15:28:30

Spoonwood wrote:

Bremidon wrote:
That's a strawman argument: either we have rampant SIDS or mass murderers.
I don't think I made that argument.

Yeah Spoon. You did.

kaidu · 2019-12-11 18:27:41

Legs wrote:

Personally, my infant deaths come from hopelessness. I'm born and I immediately see that this place is doomed. Yesterday I was born to see that everyone's naked and there's no well. Not even a spring site. A primitive camp with a small farm fueled by pond water. Any work I do here is pointless.

I don't get that. One could argue it is an refreshing new, interesting start, with a lot of problems to be solved. But sure, its easier to just spawn in a village where everything is working.

arkajalka wrote:

Feel like, everytime im not in a huge bell town or so people just SID in hopes of getting to a town with everything ready. If im nomading stuff from town outskirts-->SID. I damn well can feed my bebe in the wild too, but its just too ez to die and not take the walk.

Same for me. Whenever I'm walking outside the town and get a child, it kills itself instantly. It's so stupid.

I definitely agree that we need less lifes and a slower refill of lifes. But as many commented here, if many players want to play in a certain style but are prevented from doing so, there might be something wrong in the game mechanics.

I could imagine to use the fitness score as in-game currency to:
- refill the life counter
- enforce a spawn as Eve
- enforce a spawn in a particular family

Such that players have to play several games in an old-fashioned way (random start) but can sometimes, if they collect enough fitness points, pay for a customized start.

The fitness score itself should be less random. Maybe it could be extended by some kind of achievement system, that gives the player an increase in fitness score if he builds a well, or a bell tower and so on. Would be also a possibility to introduce other items in the game which only purpose is to increase fitness score.

Spoonwood · 2019-12-11 19:19:30

Bremidon wrote:

Spoonwood wrote:
Bremidon wrote:
That's a strawman argument: either we have rampant SIDS or mass murderers.
I don't think I made that argument.
Yeah Spoon. You did.

You weren't able to infer that from what I wrote. Look, you quoted me as saying the following:

Spoonwood wrote:

I agree with Bowser that it's better to have a SID, then have a child that grows up and tries to grief you or your family, because he or she couldn't SID.

First, off the main verb is 'agree', and the key word 'better'. The proposition there is that I agree with Bowser with respect to which is better.

Second, you want to talk about a strawman like you know what you're talking about? Then don't characterize what some said by distracting from what got said by missing a clause in an 'or' statement. This is rather simple:

Spoonwood wrote:

I agree with Bowser that it's better to have a SID, then have a child that grows up and tries *to grief you* or your family, because he or she couldn't SID.

The or clause gets satisfied by a single of its disjuncts holding true. So, the child might only grief you. And in such a case that child would NOT be a mass murderer, because a mass murderer has to murder a mass of characters, and one character is not a mass of character.

Thus, I can assert and know that you created a strawman there Bremidon, because I can point out exactly the detail left out of your characterization of what I said. You did NOT do this with what I said with respect to what you said. And if you look again at what you said, I doubt I actually did create a strawman. You've made the claim, so the burden of proof lies with you.

And additionally, people can agree on hypotheticals. I said "I agree", didn't I?

Last edited by Spoonwood (2019-12-11 19:21:02)

PeachyCheech · 2020-02-19 03:58:13

These are the 3 reasons I've concluded that people /die.

1) The gender they were born. Your genetic score and settlement have a better chance at success when you're born female. If you just want to learn or build things or goof around then being a man is better.

2) Where they were born. They are looking for a certain settlement. They want to be born in the same village as their last life so they can be with the friends they made. They want or don't want to be in a new settlement. They don't want to have to revive a dead/dying settlement.

3) What race they were born. With race limitations there's no reason to be pale, why not /die and be reborn a more useful race? If you want to make rubber, /die until you're born the race capable of getting the ingredients.

My suggestions to help prevent a surplus of /die.

Make being a man have more of a purpose, if men are more resilient/strong, maybe give them the ability to work in the restricted biomes if they have XYZ. Move faster and use less food when carrying heavy objects like dug rocks. Use less food meter for hungry work. Give them more tool slots. Let men get 'married' and have married men also spawn babies. Men will be able to keep a village alive when all the females have died or they are no longer fertile.

Like the life limits and curse token, add a couple of opportunities to be respawned in the same family as their last life provided there is still a fertile female in the area (or married man if going by my above suggestion). Lower the life limit so that /die has more of an impact on your lives and you can't spam it without running out of lives.

As suggested on many of the threads regarding race restrictions, give other races the ability to work in the restricted biomes, just make it harder and require they have special food, clothes, tech, etc. before they can work in the biome, have them use more food meter in those biomes. Give pales their own biome so there's actually a reason to be that race. Make Horses spawn in more than the desert, make different breeds of horses for different biomes or make it so you can breed horses once you have one. Make it a bit harder than breeding livestock so there's some challenge but still achievable.

Right now there are no consequences for spamming /die. I don't think the option should be removed but I do think it needs to be limited so there's more reason to live with the life you were given and less justifiable reasons to do it.

Last edited by PeachyCheech (2020-02-19 04:40:27)

One Hour One Life Forums

#26 2019-12-10 07:04:56

Re: Jason you have an SID Problem

#27 2019-12-10 07:19:32

Re: Jason you have an SID Problem

#28 2019-12-10 07:50:18

Re: Jason you have an SID Problem

#29 2019-12-10 08:17:27

Re: Jason you have an SID Problem

#30 2019-12-10 10:22:39

Re: Jason you have an SID Problem

#31 2019-12-10 12:07:54

Re: Jason you have an SID Problem

#32 2019-12-10 14:41:41

Re: Jason you have an SID Problem

#33 2019-12-10 15:44:44

Re: Jason you have an SID Problem

#34 2019-12-10 16:29:42

Re: Jason you have an SID Problem

#35 2019-12-10 20:13:44

Re: Jason you have an SID Problem

#36 2019-12-10 21:23:55

Re: Jason you have an SID Problem

#37 2019-12-11 10:36:33

Re: Jason you have an SID Problem

#38 2019-12-11 10:43:53

Re: Jason you have an SID Problem

#39 2019-12-11 13:18:41

Re: Jason you have an SID Problem

#40 2019-12-11 13:35:38

Re: Jason you have an SID Problem

#41 2019-12-11 15:14:50

Re: Jason you have an SID Problem

#42 2019-12-11 15:24:37

Re: Jason you have an SID Problem

#43 2019-12-11 15:27:10

Re: Jason you have an SID Problem

#44 2019-12-11 15:28:30

Re: Jason you have an SID Problem

#45 2019-12-11 18:27:41

Re: Jason you have an SID Problem

#46 2019-12-11 19:19:30

Re: Jason you have an SID Problem

#47 2020-02-19 03:58:13

Re: Jason you have an SID Problem

Board footer