a multiplayer game of parenting and civilization building
You are not logged in.
Isn't it pretty trivial to put stone walls back up?
Yes.
Well, just to put it out there, there's this cycle someone talked about where civilization has been in a loop for thousands of years.
Basically civilization building is very violent and it's advancement is like the stock market, with many periods of steep drops and fast growth.
Horsemen come from the east and subjugate/kill/enslave the locals. Generations go by and the conquerors cease their nomadic lifestyle, they become civilized and soft. Then a new wave of horsemen come from the east and the cycle continues.
Every new empire begins with the age of the pioneers, courageous individuals with passion and vision who conquer new territories
Next comes the age of affluence where the best cultural aspects/knowledge from the conquered and conquerors are combined to become an economic power house.
After affluence in the age of decadence (age we seem to be in most of the time), many people choose to behave in ways that are unsustainable, apparently unaware of the consequences
growing numbers are denied access to work; they can find no meaningful involvement in their community, so their potential goes unfulfilled. When people are prevented from fulfilling their potential, they often self-destruct
If no one from the outside is able and willing to conquer, a coup d'etat will happen to restore order.
This cycle usually takes about 250 years in real life. Year for year we'd expect some form of chaotic time of upheaval of the social order every 4 hours or so. That kind of does happen, once everything it built you search for meaning and can find none. Therefore you create chaos because your civilization no longer has to contend with outside threats; you turn on your own family or behave in ways that serve no one, embracing the nihilism Jason engendered into the game.
Really though what I was getting at in my first post is that life very quickly gets too easy. Living to 60 is easy as long as you don't have a griefer posse nearby or are born into a completely stripped-of-food eve camp. The environment poses no threat to an experienced player. When the environment no longer challenges a player(pve too easy), they seek challenge from players (pvp) so in order to discourage pvp the pve aspect of the game needs to be made more challenging.
floods/droughts/storms/disease/decay/temperature fluctuations/ pest control/climate change/permanent injuries/smart animals would all be welcome additions to make PvE more challenging, encourage more cooperation, and generate meaning so meaning doesn't have to be sought through griefing/trolling/pvp
No matter how many challenges are added to PvE it will become easy as long as it is very predictable, so chaotic and frequent aspects that make players adapt to the situation is probably needed to stave off intragroup conflict.
Hungry work for chiseling stone and placing stone wall.
It is already such a pain to remove poorly placed/sized stone buildings
The only real threat to living a full life once you've become an experienced player is other people.
Therefore, less people around you = easier to live to 60 if you're experienced.
Even in eve camps starvation wouldn't be a threat if it wasn't for your 5 sisters eating all the food within a 30 tile radius.
I made this account after months of lurking just to say that whatever you do, please change the name. 'Genetics score' is misleading and makes very little sense with the way it is now, and as someone very interested in actual genetics it pains me a lot ^.^
In what way? what name would be better?
I do agree genetic score should be based upon "The reproductive success of a genotype, usually measured as the number of offspring produced by an individual that survive to reproductive age relative to the average for the population."
However, that number is mostly beyond a player's control because you don't choose if you reproduce or not and men cannot reproduce.
If your kids survive that is a sign your genes are good, if your kids die your genes are bad. Since men don't reproduce it is based on his sisters' kids.
Also, comparing to the general population is difficult because during hours before peak, population is growing so score would be higher. During hours where population is declining score would be lower.
Keyin wrote:No more mega towns, just the family lodge and family sheep pen and family farm.
Until the bells come back haha
True, I had forgotten about bell towers. At least not EVERY life will be in a big town though. Makes it more special ![]()
I do agree that baby distribution is too good-
New eves should be a regular occurrence rather than being based on # of players and established families should have to compete by keeping warm/yumming
Keeping the family alive isn't a priority because the algorithm makes sure your family has plenty of opportunity to save itself.
I also agree there isn't much to do because population is stable and the resource demands of a few well dressed people is very low, population density is also much lower outside the rift so theres more resources per capita.
However I disagree when it comes to ideal number of family members. I tend to prefer towns with 3-5 adults. I think it is near the sweet spot in my opinion. Anymore than 5 adults and you don't really get to know everyone. Even 5 adults feels like too many to me.
In the rift we always got down to two families and you had half the server in your family. Families now are much closer nit now and I like it that way.
No more mega towns, just the family lodge and family sheep pen and family farm.
if we are in an overpopulated eve camp I just walk in one direction until i find plenty of wild food. Over populated is probably more than 2 babies/toddlers/children per adult/teen. I stay a good 50+ tiles away until my stomach is big enough that i feel confident I will survive (usually after 12).
Get others to curse them with you. If you get a few really active people to curse them who play the same hours as you, you probably won't see them again for a week.
I have had to pick up pads to stop people from healing in past or hide pads
The word swastika comes from Sanskrit meaning 'conductive to well-being' or literally 'good being' and is considered a holy symbol by Hindus meaning sun, prosperity, and good luck.
Jainism, Buddhism, Navajo, Vikings, Romans, Greeks, Christians/Byzantines, Indus river valley civilization, Mesopotamians, etc all use/used swastika.
Point being, you cannot say definitively the intent/meaning behind it. I think it is important to give the benefit of the doubt in cases like these.
One person might interpret it as edgy, another as hate speech, another as prosperity, another as good luck, etc.
In non-western countries most people associate the symbol more with a religion than with the national socialists.
National socialists only used the symbol for 9 years, the symbol has been used on pretty much every continent by all sorts of cultures since as far back as our records go.
Just because someone bad used the symbol means it can't be used anymore? In that case we would have to ban hammers & sickles too.
why not do something similar to Haven and Hearth to balance it out?
In Haven and Hearth, when you overeat it makes you slow(to represent being stuffed)
Something like 20-30% lower speed I think would be good.
If you decided to do that, you'd also need to make it so that people can't overfeed you to make you slow as a way to grief/troll.
Also, maybe lower the food pips to 15 like you were saying and make your max food bonus 3x your stomach? so a baby with 3 pips max bonus could be 9 pips.
Just ran out of lives from all the moms starving their kids to end arc
Yeah, a series about rebuilding society. There were multiple times I thought 'why hasn't Jason added that?' while watching
I don't understand what you're trying to get at? Your perception of "close family" just isn't necessarily the one put forward by this game. If he was born when you were alive, he's family, and you should be caring for him, that's all. Just because he's not your direct descendant does not mean he's less important to your family as a whole, and thus to you. You just seem misguided as to what constitutes the relevancy of an individual to you.
But by that same logic 'family as a whole' thinking, shouldn't ALL family members born during my lifetime count then? You say you don't understand what I am getting at but then address it immediately afterward. The game should match fairly closely to peoples perception of close family. The incentive to take care of closer related family should be greater than for more distantly related people.
50% relatedness(mom, dad, brother, sister, kids) takes precedence over 25% relatedness(grandparents, nieces and nephews, aunts and uncles, grand kids), which takes precedence over 12.5%(1st cousin,great grandparents, great nieces and nephews, great aunts and uncles, great grand kids) and so on.
I haven't played anymore since that life, and look how much my score has changed due to obscure relatives whom I never met and share very little DNA with (12.5% at most, 3.125% at least)
almost a 6 point jump
I shouldn't be benefiting from their longevity in my opinion. Currently, my great great nephew Killis contributes more to my score than any other individual, that doesn't feel right to me.
You aren't alone. Modern humans have been on the earth for 200,000 years and we only got to engines a couple hundred years ago... meaning we've only had engines in real life for about 0.1% of human history.
Currently, you can reach steel tools before Eve dies in the game. That would be the equivalent to getting steel 195,000+ years early.
I'm pretty sure it has to do with the fact that Jasonjr was born during your lifetime. Not genes or DNA.
I know that. My question is why should his life have any effect on my genetic score when we only share 3.125% of our DNA? I share 12.5% with a first cousin but they don't count toward my score.
Current genetic scoring incentivizes saving someone who has 3.125% over first cousin who shares 12.5%
My question is, why does his life count toward my score? we share so little of our genetic code. I don't even know any of my great uncles in real life.
I share 50% of DNA with my sister, her kid(niece) is 25%, here kid's kid is 12.5%(great niece), her kid's kid's kid is 6.25%(great great niece), and her kid's kid's kid's kid is 3.125%(great great great nephew)... Why should I care about him if we only share 3.125%?? Can their lives at least be weighted by degree of relatedness so I can prioritize closer relatives over others? Or maybe a cutoff at 12.5%?
How about incorporating r selection? It should be # of grandchildren who live to adulthood. Those who fail to reproduce are failures in the eyes of evolution, and those who produce infertile offspring are also failures!
Right now the game rewards those who are genetic failures(have no kids) and punish those who have many(gaaaaah, my 10 nieces/nephews and 3 great nieces/nephews who lived to 30 average tanked my score!)
Rather than resources having a hard limit, I think it would be better if there were instead diminishing returns.
My reasoning is simple:
If I know that a resource will run out no matter how careful I am with it, I will use it liberally without a second thought.
There is no tough decision like Jason intends. After all, if two paths lead to the same outcome(total exhaustion of resource) I will take the path that is easiest for me(using resource liberally to make life easy/enjoyable)
We can kind of see that right now with oil; no one really speaks out against wastes of iron/water/oil like eating tons of domestic berries, making locks, or riding around town in a car anymore because oil is so plentiful(until it isn't).
Jason says resources should become exhausted like they do in real life, but the truth is resources don't really run out as far as I am aware.
For example; an 'exhausted' iron mine. An iron mine becomes exhausted once the inputs cost more than the value of the output. ex: if it costs $110 worth of time, money, resources, etc to produce $100 worth of iron the mine will be closed down.
You could still go to the mine and presumably find a large amount of ore, but all the rich ore is long gone, all that's left is the poor quality ore that requires much more processing.
Oil is the same way. Oil companies don't stop pumping oil once they have the last drop; they stop once it costs more to extract than what they can get for it.
Why I think diminishing returns is better;
Choices would become more meaningful because rather than me thinking 'well, it's going to run out one day anyway' I will think 'I am making extracting this resource harder for future generations, maybe I should only take what I need'
This would also make really old areas of the map at the very least livable. Sure, maybe it takes a whole hour to extract one tank of crude oil and will take longer to extract another, but at least we aren't forced to leave our beloved town full of rich history just because all the oil is exhausted within a few mile radius. Oil would be theoretically infinite, but eventually people are going to say to themselves 'okay everyone, it isn't worth it to spend 100 years pumping another tank of crude oil. Pack up the horses and get ready to ride'
I also like the idea of an oil rig/iron mine not being touched for many years because it's cheaper to import from elsewhere, then it becoming open again because imports have become too expensive.
But yeah, to reiterate right now people use oil like it will never run out precisely because there is no incentive to conserve, it's going to run out regardless of what you do. The pain of your wastefulness will only be small and will only be felt for a short period.
But with resources with diminishing returns, that wastefulness could potentially have negative effects for a much longer period of time, and you'll feel the difficulty increase with each tank of crude oil extracted. First the oil gushes out, super easy to collect. Later, it slows to a stream, then an occasional drip, etc.
Yeah, we live in a mob rule now where if you don't follow the cultural norms you get cursed by everyone in the mob and go to donkey town.
As far as I know, I had only been cursed by two people. One woman who had starved my baby and I stabbed that I couldn't understand (didn't know her language, her curse turned purple anyway though) and another who I got in a 'no u' fight with.
Because everyone lives so clustered together, I got born into donkey town despite not really griefing/trolling.
Also, theft isn't really griefing since you're taking from another family to benefit your own. Doing things that make no logical sense like randomly stabbing family members I would consider griefing.
If you're someone who enjoys conflict there is really no place for it in the game, as the only need we have is short term: food and long term: oil. Neither of these resources are well guarded and thus do not require conflict to get. Using conflict to get these is thus percieved as griefing because it is unnecessary.
and to address the whole 'eve grief' thing, you should be making a bow and arrow to get sheep early on anyway. So if you aren't able to counter one person coming in and shooting someone then walking slowly away, it is kind of on you/your family.
Honestly I think you should need to be 3rd cousin or closer to curse, because in-character I should not have to worry about not harming unrelated people. If my close relatives don't agree with my poor treatment of unrelated people they would still be free to curse me.
Anyway, later on in the arc even a group of 2-4 can be weak against a small town because there will usually be a bunch of wool pads and thread around.
I also agree there really should be some sort of in-built supplement to help establish a hierarchy/governing body. Time passes too quickly to negotiate roles/leadership/laws by chat alone.
Also, it feels weird that some old 7th cousin in another town whom I never met can decide I am at war now.
People basically still go to war the way they did before it was a thing, with no regard to peace/war status, but they just use knife/bow.
But does no one else agree that two curses in one lifetime with exponentially increasing curse radius with no regard to how related you are is a bit much? Some trolls will even birth you in the middle of no where and curse you for no reason.(happened to me 4+ times)
Just one misunderstanding can get you cursed by 3-4 people, which can quite possibly get you banned from the whole map (as I have experienced first hand with only 2 curses I am aware of)
Yeah, cursing being really strong is another reason people don't start wars. If you want to war you look really bad to most players and they will curse you for being warmonger. Really easy since curse timer is only 30 mins and even the family you want to take from can curse you, since after a few days everyone pretty much understands each other.
Also I have noticed people get cursed by someone who doesn't speak our families language, yet the text turns purple confirming the curse was used. Idk there might be a bug allowing cross-family cursing.
Also combat is really weird now. I tried to sacrifice a baby to nosaj but because of murder mouth and 1/2 speed the new newborn was too fast to kill.
Combat/cursing features have shifted to defenders favor too heavily in my opinion. There isn't really a reason to go to war as stealing is quite easy, just ride in with horse cart and take what you want
Hmm, looking through this list I'd have to agree with Saolin 8 skills may be too many.
List of skills I would want to have:
"Needle and Ball of Thread# +toolSew"
"Needle and Thread# +toolSew"
"Dry Diesel Water Pump# +tool"
"Hot Adobe Oven# +tool"
"Firing Adobe Kiln# +tool"
"Steel Axe# +tool"
"Smithing Hammer# +tool"
"Shovel# +tool"
"Wooden Tongs# +tool"
"Knife# +tool"
"Shears# +tool"
"Stone Hatchet# +tool"
"Stone Hoe# +toolHoe"
"Steel Hoe# +toolHoe"
And thats only 12. If I understand correctly, a genetic score ~30 could get you to 12? Obviously, I would take the other skills if they were badly needed...
Imagine the awkwardness of having tongs but not 'firing adobe kiln', or vice versa with no skills left.
Question, could someone use sterile knife without knife skill? would someone need to heat it for them first?
This topic is to address a pro-waller I came across in game.
I was born into the Righter family as Whitney Righter. My older brother Liam Righter said something along the lines of "Help me build wall"
I told him something along the lines of "Nah, walls are bad"
My baby brother Cole Righter said "No, don't listen to her she is noob, walls are good keep you warm"
As far as I am aware, in order for a building to keep you warm you need all doors closed and a fire inside the building. So as far as I am aware here is the cost benefit analysis I went through before coming to the conclusion walls are bad:
COST:
-Time to build/move rocks
-Iron for chisel
-Opportunity cost of other potential large rock uses
-Walls can severely limit movement, which adds up to a lot of time wasted over many lifetimes
-Walls take up a significant amount of valuable space near center of town
NEUTRAL: - Really hard to destroy/prevent rebuilding Can only destroy for a small window of time.
Can be good or bad. Bad if building is really small with only one door. Bad if someone placed many walls to troll. Good if building isn't huge or small and has doors on all four sides for easy access.
BENEFIT:
-Looks good to some people
-Arguably somewhat helps organization
-doesn't require maintenance
-keeps you warm late-game if all doors remain closed
Honestly, by the time the building is done your town is probably fully clothed already.
The only people who spend a lot of time inside one building with the doors closed are babies, and mothers will overfeed them anyway so no real need.
You can achieve perfect temperature as a baby by moving on and off the fire. Most babies don't do this and overheat, hence the mothers overfeeding their babies.
The first benefit doesn't apply to me, the second can be achieved using only wood flooring, and the other two are very niche benefits in my opinion.
Honestly the more walls a place has the less I want to play in that town.
So, due to the subjective nature of value, I deemed walls 'bad' and was called a noob by someone whom I imagine has quite a bit of experience. Just thought I would share my thoughts.
If I missed any costs or benefits, let me know.