a multiplayer game of parenting and civilization building
You are not logged in.
Sad to see that griefers are setting the tone of development of this game, same like most others.
Griefers can come back and grief, solution: no one can come back anymore. Brilliant.
Rationalization: OP post
This game started from "I want no inherent restrictions from the server side" to "Now you are not allowed to..."
Still I get it, I see why you made those changes, and I actually expected them.
I was still kinda hoping for a surprise though, maybe a new way of thinking about game design, but maybe it's too much to hope for.
Not being able to stay in the same lineage does not solve the reborn griefer problem in an intelligent way, it simply makes people not even care about someone griefing a colony they would never see again!
I actually predict a rise in griefing because of that.You'll notice some griefing going on around your colony and you'll go: "Welp, so much for this colony. Guess it's time to quit and go somewhere else since this is what's going to happen anyway. In fact, since I have like 5-10 minutes left to live here anyway, why not join the fun and destroy this place before I go, i didn't like the sheep pen design here anyway."
No more sense of belonging which brought this whole experience together.
Even worse, you wait till the next day, and miraculously find yourself in the place you started the day before, you feel the joy and happiness, only to see your mom saying "SORRY TOO MANY". Awesome experience, great story, would recommend. And no she is not a griefer, she's just a responsible parent who ruined your experience, and crushed your dreams because the "server" would not allow you another chance today.
Anyway, good luck dude. I am really rooting for you (and not just with words btw) and I wish we'll get out of the dark ages really soon.
I have to disagree with you Roolstar. Yes, it helped fix the repeat griefer problem, but that was more of a bonus in my opinion. It really gave the game some much needed direction and impact in my opinion. Now your city is much more important considering you can't just suicide and boringly trek your way back. It gives the bell a purpose other than being a major annoyance. I think it is short sighted to say that this was only focused on solving the repeat griefing problem. This, along with the lineage cool-down are very welcomed additions.
And as far as the mentality of, who cares what happens to the city cause I probably wont be back to see it, is entirely lost on me. I don't spend an hour tending the carrot farm just so I can have food when I come back, I don't forge a plethora of tools and risk someone getting nervious about the steel file I'm making just so I we can have mutton pies and wool clothes when I come back. I've recently started playing the game more with others and respawning back repeated, and I can see the appeal. But that's not what shines about this game to me, that's just a kind of nifty feature.
@ YAHG
I posted this in the other thread, but I'll do so again here. I think this was a misunderstanding on my part. I've been conditioned to assume that "killing kids" meant that you were not feeding them and leaving them to starve. I'm used to people saying "murder" when it involves that kind of killing. So with that being the case, I would like to say that I see your point and I'm not against you. I probably wouldn't do it myself (meaning going out to destroy civs like this), but I can't say I have a problem with it.
@pronghorn
ohhh, well that would explain it. If he was reffering to kill in this sense, then it's starting to make sense. I've been conditioned to assume that when people say kill babies, it means you starve them by not feeding them. People usually say murder when they talk about killing in this sense. If that's the case then have fun with that. If you're destroying a civilization made of assholes, then knock yourself out.
@YAHG
If this is what you were referring to, then I'm sorry I misunderstood. I wasn't aware you were referring to actual murder of boys. I could wish for more clarity but it's just a matter of miscommunication. If this is not the case, then I maintain my stance.
@ YAHG
I feel like you're ignore the basic game mechanics. Women and men work differently in this game, women are a necessity while men are not. Now I do disagree with the notion that boys are useless, they are the most effective form of birth (population) control. But that has nothing to do with gender, and everything to do with game mechanics. Replace boys and girls with anything else, and I think you may get what I'm saying. Unless you're on a crusade to destroy ignorance? But that's not the vibe I'm getting.
Of course, then someone is likely to decide "This place is stupid for raising too many children! So I will take matters into my own hands and kill everyone!"
Yep. Simple fact of life, you can't please everyone. Someone will always be upset.
None of you retards would be pissed if he did it because they killed him every time as a brown baby, so fuck off.
I think you may be letting your personal feelings cloud your judgement. That's a terrible example because brown babies and white babies in the game are exactly the same. So in your example, the only reason is them being brown. But boys and girls are not the same in the game, one allows for your lineage to continue, and the other does not. There is a reasonable argument to be made, excluding the gender fact. Now if both men and women worked the same, then you'd have a point.
Joriom, the hero we need. Seriously though, was thinking about the same thing but haven't had the time to put in it. Thanks for doing the work for us.
+1
and feed only boys.
Did you, perhaps, mean girls?
FeignedSanity wrote:So what's the message again? If I'm not mistaken, it's "not to have an all girl civ or some dick is gonna come by and try to destroy you?". I feel like people try to destroy civs for a plethora of different reasons, what makes this one so special?
Exactly. So there is no real lesson here for anyone.
Maybe the lesson he's trying to teach is that if he catches you doing it he's basically threatening you with the same fate? In which case, okay guy.
So what's the message again? If I'm not mistaken, it's "not to have an all girl civ or some dick is gonna come by and try to destroy you?". I feel like people try to destroy civs for a plethora of different reasons, kind of par for the course.
Hey, I just had a thought. I don't know if it's already been said because I'm kind of bored with this thread, but what if the supposed lineage cooldowns were different if you got murdered. Let's say you die and get the normal one, but if you actually get murdered, it's doubled or maybe permanent. I think it's an interesting mechanic to get rid of griefers being born into your settlement at all (or at least for longer) and makes murder have a little bit more weight. The problem is, some people are already under the impression that being murdered is the worst thing that can happen to you in the game and this would just exacerbate that.
The problem is that they are random, and some times there are massive ones already. I have occasionally seen ones were you can be an adult with max hunger boxes, and you would starve to death before you can run from one side to the other. In fact the largest, you might starve twice before you can run across it. I have also seen them where they are like one tile.
I agree with this. I would also like to add that even a lot of the bigger biomes don't have what you need. I've seen huge swamps with one goose pond (or even none), or massive savannas with like 2 rabbits. It's kind of silly. (slight exaggeration on the size, but they're still fairly decent sized biomes with bupkus)
KucheKlizma wrote:Biomes are nice and all, but it's already hard enough finding a good spot for a village without more RNG put into it, as none of the biomes is self-sufficient and you need all of them nearby.
The ideal village has indeed all the biomes nearby, but when adding more biomes this will no longer be the case
In this case, villages will have different items which will allow trade between them.
This would be awesome.What is important in my opinion, is that you are able to sustain a village in these biomes.
Otherwise nobody will settle nearby them simply because they would die of starvation.Right now, the only sustainable biomes are:
Swamp: because of the water you can use to keep your carrot farm going
Desert: because of cactusfruit that regrows and the temperature bonus that makes you eat lessThe biome that often gets picked by Eves is Grassland. This may have some food to start with, but will quickly run dry.
I agree more with KucheKlizma, and there's no guarantee that all the other biomes would become viable (to open up this option to diversify and lead to trade).
I think we have enough and the ones that are there need to be balanced more before we add anymore. But it is an interesting thought if all biomes were viable, either one way or another. It would limit all the time you have to spend as an eve looking for the "optimal" spot.
I think I'm going to use the "boiling a frog" approach here, and start by testing out a small lineage cool-down. Even a few hours would work wonders to stop repeat griefing of the same village and make baby suicide spam less effective.
Might I make a small suggestion to maybe have it based on a generation limit rather than an actual time limit? I think it's more interesting if you don't know exactly how long the limit is.
Yeah, I feel like that's a good approach to take. And I'm done fighting, bygones be bygones, agree to disagree and all that. Sorry if I was a nuisance.
@Drakulon
Yeah, I actually just got back on to apologize for resorting to name calling. I had gotten frustrated and slightly mishandled it. You should never resort to name calling. But I was not referring to him voicing his opinion. I was talking about his misuse of the English language. Maybe he meant to say that griefing is a more prevalent issue with people you don't know, but he was saying the contrary. Anyway, apologizing for insulting, I will continue to work on not letting frustrating people, or even trolls, get the best of me. Please do mind that I've been dealing with him for the past couple of days and have had him personally insult my character and make insulting accusations along the lines of being a coward and not having friends. So I can be excused if I wanted to retaliate slightly. Again, I know I shouldn't have.
I didn't even know it was up, thought it was still outdated. I will definitely hop on when I have the time.
jasonrohrer wrote:Kubassa, this isn't a game that is meant to be played with friends.
Yet you are posting about how to solve 'griefing issues'.
Damn it Kubassa, your idiocy just knows no bounds, does it? For fucks sake, if you misspoke, then just admit it. But allow me to break down the English language for you.
You quote Jason as saying this isn't a game that is meant to be played with friends. Then you respond by saying "yet you are posting about how to solve griefing issues" YOU. LITERALLY. JUST. SAID. THAT. HIS. POST. ABOUT. SOLVING. GRIEFING. WAS. CONTRADICTING. HIS. INTENTIONS. FOR. A. GAME. THAT. IS. NOT. MEANT. TO. BE. PLAYED. WITH. FRIENDS. In other words, you are saying that that solving the griefing problem has nothing to do with playing with people who aren't your friends. I can spell it forwards and backwards, but that's all I can do. I can't explain water to a fish.
If that doesn't explain it, then I don't know what will. And quite frankly, I'm done wasting my time with you. You've effectively become a troll at this point. Also, congrats on responding to this post and not the explanation I gave you after you "called me out". Like I needed any more reason to not waste my time with you. Although I suppose it is nice to know that you crumble when you can't just throw baseless accusations and when anyone actually responds to your bullshit with a detailed and thought out explanation. So I suppose I wont be expecting a response from this either, which suits me just fine.
Challenges are things you can overcome.. Impossible things can not be overcome by definition.
The math he used isn't the right numbers, you don't want 20 people an hour to sustain a 20 person population.
You want 60/(average lifespan) * 20 people an hour, and not only that you want the lifespan of people who live in towns.
I don't know how he detailed he tracks the census but a good way to see if someone was civilized is if they watered
or picked crops at least once in their life.
Yeah, I can see your logic now. I agree. Now the question becomes should it be impossible to survive indefinitely? I think that all good things should come to and end so that something new can start. I can definitely see the appeal of keeping the same thing going forever, and ever, and ever. That just seems boring to me personally.
But let's set that aside, you said it would be impossible to survive, and I argue that it wouldn't be. I wouldn't be impossible to get through the entire tech tree or even make a metropolis, but it would have to end eventually. Surviving indefinitely would be impossible, but indefinitely is the keyword here.
Now I want to take into consideration something I don't think we have. What about the bell? Sure maybe you're lineage couldn't last indefinitely, but as it stand right now, your city could. Maybe you use the bell as a last ditch effort to keep your metropolis alive even if your lineage wont be in it. Then, hypothetically, you could be reborn into your city.
As far as the math goes, I'll take your word for it, cause it's getting late and I got to sleep. Thank you for the intelligent discussion.
111 generations is not an unreasonable standard, we could have gone on indefinitely, we just got tired and none of the public wanted to play with our city. I was in a civ that reached about 70 generations (rough estimate, I hope Jason could tell us the 2nd longest generation) on the main servers but it died out largely due to underpopulation. Jason's figures are a rough estimate. We'd never even reach 50 generations if people were banned from dynasties for 24 hours. The way 70 generations was reached was through the eventual settlement of 4 neighbouring cities. This meant that if one civ got griefed, the others could resettle later on. Settling multiple cities would be tantamount to griefing if this goes through.
I was meaning unreasonable in the context of the base game. Something you can go off and accomplish outside of the intended game, okay that's cool beans and all that. But I'm talking about unreasonable as far as the base game goes, which is what the game should be balanced around.
There's two glaring problems of the permanent lineage ban that nobody seems to be addressing.
1. Jason's maths doesn't account for off-peak, which is about 30-40 players and lasting for a few hours. This already "culls" the less desirable civilisations from the world, as a much smaller playerbase is born to the same amount of cities. Also, how many of these players have been hit with that civs lineages "ban"? I doubt we'd ever see a dynasty last more than 18 hours ever again.
2. This would make migration or forking the population an inherently bad thing. I personally like to splinter off if my civ is in a suboptimal location and I think I can find a better place. However, this would mean that my new civ would be in direct competition with the old civ for babies. This means we'll be cycling through the potential players at double the speed as before. No longer will I be able to tell girls to migrate out of the city and form new settlements, and instead when it comes to population management, my only options will be either to murder, or create conditions in which they'll starve to death. There'd be no longer a means to pleasantly solve overpopulation... A new "grief" will emerge where when born as a girl, you migrate and waste that dynasties babies.
One pro is that if Eves did coord track and find their way back to the civ, it'll mean there's an incentive to keep around non-dynastic members. I think there'd be great RP value to running around your village seeing the Smith family and the Deatherages coexisting. The problem with the current meta is that bell towers would not enable this, since a dynasty will no longer survive long enough to complete a
Yeah, I believe these are very valid concerns. Personally me, I'm okay with civilizations not lasting forever, but I understand if many are not. I don't like the idea of being born into a generation that has survived hundreds of years, it's more than likely you're not progressing anymore. You're just maintaining the status quo, or I guess you're just endlessly expanding until the whole server is in one city...then you start maintaining a status quo or just keep expanding for the sake of. It reminds me of the argument against immortality, that it inevitably ends in boredom.
And I definitely see this as a potential grief far greater than someone else's concern that someone would run off into the woods and let their kids die. You could start your own "new civilization" and then you'd be competing with their "child resources". But is it really a new civilization? Or someone else's civilization that you partially hi jacked because you thought you could do it better? Why not just die if you don't like it, spawn as an eve, then truely set up your own civ in a location you deep "optimal" Maybe this could turn into a kind of battle between the the main civ and the traitors, and you have to wipe one of the other out for the sake of your future. I think that's interesting...the problem is, how would you know that it's happened? You're probably not keeping tabs on everyone. Lot's of stuff to think about, thank you for adding to the discussion.
Just because villages are not lasting longer that doesn't mean they shouldn't.
The game shouldn't make it so that it isn't possible to survive, hard is fine but not possible removes the challenge and just makes it dumb..
Well judging by the actual data, is seems that we haven't even come close to reaching the limit this sort of system would set. If the data showed that the current player base couldn't possibly support this kind of thing, then I'd see you point. But it's right there. Now I give you, his numbers are kind of "best case scenario", but if you even half it, it still reaches the standard set by the unreasonable 111 generation.
Also I don't see the logic in making something impossible taking away the challenge. Arguably, if it was impossible, it couldn't get any more challenging, no? Besides, surviving wouldn't be the impossible part. Surviving indefinitely for as long as time stands, would be impossible with an outright ban.
I think like 2 hour cool-down is fine, but other wise city is just gonna get choked out. You end up with the same
problem we had with worm composting, it is forced decay mechanism.Last time you were in a nice town, how many lives in total do you think lived there?
Then think how many unique players there are in a whole over a 24 hour period (to see city so not server wiped)
The longer the cool-down timer you have the more camps you split people in-between.
I think 2 hour is good because it serves the purpose of not being able to re-meet people as well as makes suicide
for old town not work. If they log out and play later that is fine.
I don't know, I see your concerns about there not being enough unique players and I originally had the same concern. However, Jason has posted some data and numbers in the official, unofficial version of this post (cause it's not about the servers being used to manage karma anymore). And with the data backing I think it's at least plausible. I'm honestly kind of surprised by his numbers, I figured things to be far lower. Also I'm of the opinion of a city not lasting forever isn't necessarily a bad thing.
I also think the whole "log out and play later" isn't really fine. One, you're just abusing the system again, but that's not really a big deal. The bigger thing is that I feel like it's incentivising you to not play, just because "you can't go back to your old city" right now. I feel like that kind of screws over the rest of the player base that might need the kids. I get it, I do, I just feel like it'd do more harm than good. Although I think a generational cool-down is more interesting. Something that isn't predetermined and isn't as easy to game. I still don't like it, but I think it's better.
Kubassa, are you really trying to sit here and say that "solving griefing issues" only applies to people that play with friends? Where is the sense in that? The people you're most likely to grief ARE random strangers, because you don't know them; who cares what they think about you. I feel like you live on a different planet, you feel so disconnected. And your comments lead me to believe that you've hardly played the game at all. First off, you are not doing the same thing every time. Just because you aren't playing with a group of friends, doesn't mean you're always born to eve's that have nothing and you're gonna be on carrot duty. A lot of the other "random people" know how to make a forge (crazy, and I thought you were the only one that knew how to do it as well). I don't know if I'm going to bother reading anything else you write because it's so nonsensical and frustrating. But yes, by all means, just because you're never going to see them again, be a dick. I'd say that logic sounds about right from what I've seen of you so far.
One question remains about a lineage ban for everyone (where you can only be part of a given family once): will the lack of new blood doom a thriving village and prevent longer-term group projects? How likely is a village to simply "run out of babies" because they run out of new players to participate in their family line?
I just ran some stats, and daily unique players for the past 3 days (Sunday, Monday, Tuesday) are:
1044
906
889Considering two days together, Monday and Tuesday, there were 1280 unique players over those two days. Thus, there is churn of 300-400 players each day.
If a village has 20 people in it which need to be replaced every hour, then it needs at least 20 fresh players born to it every hour to keep going. If there are 900 players to go through, the village can survive 45 hours before running out of people. Given that this is close to the all time record for a family line to survive, this seems pretty good. Add to that the churn of 300+ new players each day, and at the end of 45 hours, they should be have about 600 new people available, letting them go another 30 hours, at which point there will be 300 new people available, taking them another 15 hours, for a grand total of 90 hours. These are all back-of-the-napkin calculations.
And all this assumes that they don't ever go on a quest to recruit a new family line to their village (ring the bell, or whatever), which of course would let them extend their village as many times as they want.
Sounds pretty good.
And maybe there could be a glacial 24-hour cooldown on this effect, which is too long to wait out with an "I'll come back later" attitude, but would still allow you to "make the rounds" tomorrow and revisit villages you were once part of long ago.
Nice, then it seems like there's really no problem with it other than the people who will be unhappy with the change. Thank you for taking the time to calculate and share this data. Sure, it'll probably need tweeking and fine tuning (like everything else). But it's nice to see that "best case scenario" it's possible, and worst case (at least to me) sounds reasonable.