I think it would be cool to also fairly distribute babies between families, so we could have similar amount of people per family instead of having 20 people in one fam and only 5 in another, which happens pretty often.
]]>Arcurus wrote:wasnt there a limit of 1 baby per mother since some weeks? so first one needs to grow up little bit.
No, there is baby/mom ratio 1.0. That means we can have as many babies as fertile womans before a new Eve spawns.
so then its more a problem of distribution of babies between the woman?
]]>wasnt there a limit of 1 baby per mother since some weeks? so first one needs to grow up little bit.
No, there is max baby/mom ratio 1.0. That means we can have as many babies as fertile womans before a new Eve spawns.
]]>...
BB cooldown
I think the baby cooldown right now is fine. It makes for funny situations and memorable moments. If you know you're fertile, you KNOW you might get two sudden babies at any time, and you should prepare accordingly.
wasnt there a limit of 1 baby per mother since some weeks? so first one needs to grow up little bit.
Homeland gene score exploit
The homeland mechanic is primarily there to stop one family from permanently moving into a town into another family. What if mothers outside of their homeland could still have babies, but only boys?
What if mothers were super-fertile until the age of 25 and could have babies anywhere, but their babies born outside of the homeland could only have babies inside their homeland?
What if mothers that gave birth to no kids, but the game tried to give them at least one kid and it failed due to them being outside their homeland, got a -1 gene score penalty after they died? [Failed to spread genes, -1.0 gene score]
homeland can be fixed super easy, just make children from a minority group (fewer allies) join with 50% the race and family of the majority group. If the two families stay together, soon there will be only one family and race after few generations.
And its super visible that your child is another race....
Also kind of logic, that the genes of the mayority will dominate.
Even better, would be to consider for caclulation the majorty only males, still there would not be a father except VOG, but males could look for famales even from different races and still spread their familiy. So if you are happen to be the last male you still have a chance....
]]>Getting too many babies that you can't possibly take care of them (this has been mostly taken care of with recent updates)
Having too many children means you can't dedicate enough time to all of them, which in turns means you don't care about them (this happens ALL THE TIME)
In most situations, having only one kid makes for more meaningful experiences with that one kid. You live for 60 minutes, 46 of those after entering fertility. With one kid you can dedicate a maximum of 46 minutes to one child. With two each gets 23 minutes on average. With five kids each one gets nine minutes of your time on average - and that is assuming you spend the ENTIRE life just interacting with your kids, doing nothing else, which is very unlikely.
Some thoughts:
BB cooldown
I think the baby cooldown right now is fine. It makes for funny situations and memorable moments. If you know you're fertile, you KNOW you might get two sudden babies at any time, and you should prepare accordingly.
Max BB limit
What if the BB limit was not a static number, but instead adjusted dynamically on the fly? What if, when choosing a mother, the game calculated the total age of your currently living kids, and if it's above, say, 40, it doesn't consider you as a potential mother. This would make it so if your kids die, you get more babies to replace them. But if you take care of your first two or three kids well you'll reach a point where you won't get any more and you'll be able to dedicate all your time to your existing ones.
Homeland gene score exploit
The homeland mechanic is primarily there to stop one family from permanently moving into a town into another family. What if mothers outside of their homeland could still have babies, but only boys?
What if mothers were super-fertile until the age of 25 and could have babies anywhere, but their babies born outside of the homeland could only have babies inside their homeland?
What if mothers that gave birth to no kids, but the game tried to give them at least one kid and it failed due to them being outside their homeland, got a -1 gene score penalty after they died? [Failed to spread genes, -1.0 gene score]
if it is a gene score issue it can be easily fixed like this:
https://github.com/jasonrohrer/OneLife/issues/629
Problem:
The current gene score rewards in average having less kids / relatives instead rewarding having more..
Taking care of only yourself is lot more easy then taking care of other people. So in average each additional relative pulls you more down then up.
Genetically it should be exactly the other way round, since you reaching 60 alone has done nothing while having 3 kids even if one dies early did at lot.
Another issue is with grandkids and grandgrandkis often you cant do much about their life. A fair thing would be if they would be rated more positive then negative, since having grand kids is already a success.
Possible solution:
To balance this therefore i suggest to count yourself only negative, and all grand and grandgrandkids double positive. All other would be counted normal.
Effect:
This would reward to have more kids not less and make gene farming more difficult
So the key is allowing mothers to raise 1 baby at a time.
After each child of mine is born, I want a timer to start and I will not pop out another baby for guaranteed 3 minutes. If that child dies any time during that 3 minutes then the timer goes away. That 3 minute buffer I want to be longer based on how experienced the baby is. If the baby is a veteran player than 3 minutes is enough but if the baby is a new player then I likely will need to teach them something and will need extra time. So the buffer time could be a sliding scale based on how experienced the player is, vet = 3 minute buffer while a complete noob is 6 minutes.
]]>Do nieces and nephews affect your gene score when you're female?
If not fleeing homeland as a woman is a clear exploit.
I thought you were a pro and hero of the town. The answer to your question is no.
]]>If not fleeing homeland as a woman is a clear exploit.
]]>Are people regularly being overwhelmed with too many babies?
Because if so, that should be fixed, and that would solve this problem.
There is going to be some variability in how many kids each person has, due to various factors (player population change vs time of day and such).
This might be as simple as adjusting the birth cooldown to make it longer (remember that your cooldown is reset when you have a SIDs baby).
Here's an example of high variability, where one gen 3 had 18 babies, and gen 4 had only 4 babies.
http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/serve … id=6256645
But we really can't give too much control to players about "not having bb", because the incoming bb do need mothers.
If half the mothers opted not to have BB at all (for gene score reasons), then the remaining mothers would need to have 2x more BB to keep up with incoming players, or we'd have to spawn a ton more Eves to take up the slack.
This is supposed to be a game where 99% of players are born as helpless babies. The game isn't supposed to default to "eve mode" except in very rare situations.
This is a game about being in the middle of a chain.
I think we need some stats about how many BB each person has.
Home Sickness already gave players birth control. You cant enter your village between the ages of 14-39 but so long as your not jeopardizing your score alot of players think it worth it. The current system encourages to not just have a few children, but none at all, they are a gene-score gamble that people just arent willing to take. I cant tell you the amount of runner babies or new player starvation's ive had even though i tried my very best to look after them and end up tanking my score.
The main problem i see is theres no hindsight for edge cases like people that tank scores on purpose, or when you only have 2 girls, but they go on to have 3 kids each and as a result some of them starve.
]]>But we really can't give too much control to players about "not having bb", because the incoming bb do need mothers.
No, more control could get given to players. More players could start as adults. After all it did happen that everyone spawned as adults for a bit a while back. More players starting as adults, would also lead to a greater variety of stories (especially if some players started as men), since being a baby over and over again is samey.
This is supposed to be a game where 99% of players are born as helpless babies.
There is nothing in any advertisement that says such. It's a boring supposition, and leads to a poverty of possible stories.
This is a game about being in the middle of a chain.
Then the game will remain poor in the early game and then end game, because it's only supposed to be one way instead of multiple ways. Again, there is no advertisement that I know of that says the game will be this way or that on this matter.
A greater variety of stories is possible were it the case that more players started as adults, or even 3 year olds, instead of the mass of players starting as babies.
]]>Haven't been too overloaded lately; had one childless life. Extra babies can be troublesome when trying to teach a new player. Often I'll try to work with child, but get overwhelmed with more and go back to the fire.
I agree you can't have absolute fertility control when players need get into the game. But some players are overwhelmed, and others pine for children that never come. Perhaps we could express a preference, without having to hamper our own survival. Right now the options are:
Homeland (absolute block) - constrains your movement and activities.
Clothes - if you want to reduce your fertility, you have to increase your food use.
Heat - maybe standing around a fire (or out in the cold) isn't what you want to do.
Yum - kind of essential for survival now, somewhat limited by how fast you get hungry, and currently not possible to reduce.