Maybe why we'll always get down to one family (tipping scales)

Keyin · 2019-08-27 05:54:00

Given enough time, the likely becomes precidented, the possible becomes likely, the improbable becomes probable, etc.

Given the population, if we assume an even distribution of gender and age that leaves 25(years fertile)/60 /2(sexes) ~20% fertile female. Then in order to support 3 fertile females the minimum population should be 0.2x=3 -> 15 players needed for three families to have average of 1 fertile female.

This means when server population drops to around 30, each of the three families will have on average 2 fertile females which is pretty vulnerable.

For example, the odds of having 4 boys in a row is 1/16 , and if there is only 30 people, assuming 1 death/birth every 2 minutes, each of the 3 females would get a baby every 6 minutes, fertility only last for 25 mins so that is 4 babies. Very easy to skew if one person has 3 girls 1 boy or 3 boys 1 girl, etc.

This also does not account for that fact that players who die more often make up a disproportionate amount of the offspring.

If I die once every 20 minutes average, I am 3x as likely to be your child as someone who dies once every 60 minutes.

If I die every 10 minutes, I will be your child 6x!!! as often as someone who dies every 60 minutes.

This doesn't even account for yum/warmth and you can already see why hope would be dismal for maintaining more than 1 family long term.

If you look at asexually reproducing simulations of genetic drift, you will see that even if you had 50 fertile females split evenly between 5 families and a stable population of 50 fertile females, you'd very quickly be down to only 1-3 families.

OHOL doesn't have stable populations; when there is a population boom in the evening some families are more prepared to deal with it than others.

When there is a baby drought due to everyone going to sleep ~3am EST the families that benefited from the baby boom's advantage is leveraged.

In order to have multiple familes survive long terms, I think you would need somewhere close to around 300 young females during the slowest time.

Again, even if all females are equally likely to have a baby that reaches adulthood and has children of their own, pure randomness makes the unlikely chance of having no daughters that raise a daughter of her own goes from unlikely to certain given enough time.

ALSO again, I do not think people are factoring in the fact that players who die before having kids will make up a disproportionate amount of the babies born. (If I die every 10 mins, I am a new baby 6x as often as someone who dies at 60)

Jk Howling · 2019-08-27 06:19:51

jasonrohrer wrote:

But here's another perfect example of why the rift/arc is so good. This problem has been around for 18 months, and it's never been pinpointed. Families die out, sure, and there were many theories as to why...

Just gonna point out right here that it's been common knowledge to the longer-term playerbase for quite some time that the #1 cause of a family's downfall isn't food, wild animals, or even griefers- it's lack of females/players. This isn't a new discovery in the slightest. You're really late to the party on that aspect.

As someone who thoroughly loved playing as an eve or eve's child, such runs were often almost impossible to get off the ground solely due to the lack of children born, and of those, how few stayed. A single female competing with established towns with multiple fertiles for children rarely worked out, even in the best of circumstances.

Of course, that's no longer really a thing now, since the rift and eve window has been introduced. It's still there though to a degree, I'm sure, for families that had it rough from the start or suffered griefing problems / other incidents. Would love to see something done that gives smaller families a better chance, but I don't really have any ideas for you that haven't already been thrown out there. Something that's able to balance female ratios in both small and large families would be nice though.

DestinyCall · 2019-08-27 07:47:45

Keyin wrote:

In order to have multiple familes survive long terms, I think you would need somewhere close to around 300 young females during the slowest time.

This is a alarmingly high number. I could be wrong, but I don't think that our average player population gets that high even at the BEST times.

It suggests that relying on true randomness isn't going to work for stability. Some kind of evening of the odds will need to happen to reduce RNG-base zero female baby die-off (or RNG-ZFBD syndrome, as I am now calling it).

BladeWoods · 2019-08-27 07:50:03

Keyin wrote:

Given enough time, the likely becomes precidented, the possible becomes likely, the improbable becomes probable, etc.

Given the population, if we assume an even distribution of gender and age that leaves 25(years fertile)/60 /2(sexes) ~20% fertile female. Then in order to support 3 fertile females the minimum population should be 0.2x=3 -> 15 players needed for three families to have average of 1 fertile female.

Keyin, but age distribution is *very* uneven. Someone should be able to get the exact distribution with the life log data if someone wanted to. But because of people dying, the distribution is gonna be skewered towards the lower end. Also there's 26 years of fertility afaik.

But I think Keyin is on the right track. We have a small amount of players + unstable family populations just mathematically means families dying out. Even in a world with infinite resources and no eves (before rift we had infinite world but never no eves) I believe all but one family would still be bound to die.

Jason, say there's two families each with half the population. Say two kids are born. Is it totally random who those kids are born to? (I would guess it is) So they could both be born to the first family or both be born to the second family just by chance. By RNG the families are now no longer are equal. Maybe the birth distribution could be more controlled, so you ensure that one kid goes to the first and one kid to the second. Or if a family has 1/8th the population you ensure that 1 out of every 8 new people go there, etc. Might help some by removing that kind of birth rng.

Last edited by BladeWoods (2019-08-27 08:09:46)

DestinyCall · 2019-08-27 07:58:42

BladeWoods wrote:

Theoretically, I believe what we should do if we want to maximize survival is to not raise any boys. Always suicide if you're born boy until you're born female. If every player on the server is female, it minimizes the chance of any family dying since it removes one way they can die, no girls rng.

Can't we all just lay self-fertile eggs, like mourning geckos? Is sexual reproduction really so important when we already have no fathers?

Parthenogenesis ... it is the answer to all our problems.

Keyin · 2019-08-27 08:26:55

BladeWoods wrote:

Keyin, but age distribution is *very* uneven. Someone should be able to get the exact distribution with the life log data if someone wanted to. But because of people dying, the distribution is gonna be skewered towards the lower end. Also there's 26 years of fertility afaik.

Yeah, an over simplification, but even if we assume that everyone dies at 40, that's still only 26/40/2=36% of pop is fertile female... not too much better. 36% of 30 people is still only about 10 fertile females shared by all families. With numbers that small genetic drift WILL happen, the probability of an even sex ratio with only 30 people is very unlikely. Very easy to get an edge just from getting lucky with the # of girls.

Even with big numbers(only a few hundred is still small compared to real life populations) due to randomness and player preference the number of families will still converge to just 1 eventually.

example:

if there are 5 fertile females and I have 20% chance to be born to each, it would not be uncommon to get something like 5 babies being born to

Mom1, Mom2, Mom3, Mom1, Mom3

assuming a 2 min gap between babies, or even just 1 minute it is possible Mom 4 and Mom 5 get none of the 5 babies, and after the 5th one Mom 1&2 are already off of cool down ready to compete with Mom 4&5.

Add to this the 50% chance of getting a boy, and the probability of your daughter dying before she becomes fertile, and the probability that all of her surviving kids are boys, etc.

Now imagine compounding that over generations... I'd say a low population has a 20% chance of dying out every generation... so 80% chance of surviving one generation;

0.8^2= 64% chance of surviving 2 generations

0.8^3=51.2% chance of surviving 3 generations

at 4 generations, a family is more likely to be dead than alive.

Even if a family has a 95% chance of surviving each generation, after 15 generations 0.95^15= 46% chance of survival

pein · 2019-08-27 10:10:52

based on my data collection males die often before 20
they are tageted by others, they curse them, kill them, they get bored, they quit
if they live to 20, it's actually a higher chance that males live to old age
but overall they SID more as a baby

the percentages were around 60-65% female reaching age 3 while males were under 35% generally to reach toddler age if i remember well

dunno if there is a predictive algorythm, more males born on low server pop and more girls when the server pop is higher

there shouldn't be too much mechanics involved, if the family has higher male ratio, like 60% then the next kid will be female
could be a wiggle room of 10% from middle, just random until it scales to 60% on a gender

elders could boost fertility as they need a replacement and they proved their skill, and the town is better probably

overall, i think it should be a top how much a family can have, like i still think 20+ per fam isn't viable, no one can keep up with that amout of clothes and gear and food, around 10-12 it's ideal if it's a good ratio and backup. lets say each elder bump this up by two and each old person by one, so it can be closer to 20 if everyone survives, each death -0.5 down to 12 (no data how many people die at older age)
we got females 14 to 40, old females, males
this technically means on equal ratio, equal age differences, 25% of population is viable to bring in new people

as kids die more often, it should be some checks, that until a kid is reaching age 3-14, it should have a reserve
between 14 and 40 shoul be skill based, people need to stay alive, it's just dick move to reach that and quit
but should be some punishing if fertile females arent well threated
after 40 a female isn't so useful and a lot of people quit that age, tons of them, is quite weird
seems like people enjoy lifes where they can have kids and they don't really care after

so overall a healthy family would look like
A under 3 all ignored, some arranging that the genders are equal
B from 3-8 around 2-3 girls
C from 9-14 around 2 girls
D from 14-27 at least 2 female
E from 27-40 at least one female
F 40-50 boost to max population regardless of gender
G 50-60 twice boost to max population regardles of gender

that's already like 9-10 females and then the males and elders

i really think there is no point forcign people to born as male more than 50% of time
i really experiencing a lot, that im born as male cause others suicide cause of this
so this means that much more males suicide and much more females stay, so basically it's a waste of tokens or a waste of life, it could be adjusted that males born less likely a bit or buff them somehow

anyway, the biggest boost we need is when the youngest female is closer to 40
and should never be only one fertile female so at least each 14 min 2 guaranteed baby girls who live to 3 at least

as it cant be nerfed that other categories, cause everyone starts at 0, then each alive female baby girl should nerf any coming baby girl until they die
like totally, and if this would cause a male boom that block babies totally
until you got 2 fertile girls you can have max 2 female girl kids (elder boost 3-3 maybe?)
if you got more than that then no girl comes until a baby girl reaches 14 or a fertile reaches 40 or any of them die
if you got less than that, the females will have baby girls each 3 minutes until a girl reaches 3
if a kill happens, this should reset right away, giving buff to the family

every time a baby is born and a gender is 60%+ then it would guarantee that the baby is in the minority gender
so 41-59 random like now but if you ever hit 6 out of 10 males, then you get a female next
maybe male minority should trigger at 25-30%? or it would result in a loop where all males born and none of them stays
we would need a top limit to families, lets say 8-10? this could be increased temporarily by older people and elders who don't count into the limit

maybe each 3 minutes a check on family
number of fertile females > 3 then 6 min nerf
less than 3 then 6 min buff increasing by the minutes left the youngest female hits 40

above 4 females under age 40 (not quads) family top limit applies until youngest female is 14 or less then the next 7 min the nerf doesn't apply, recheck in 14 min

actually realized that one issue is that we dont have a predictable birth system, and the randomness kills families cause people group up too close to each other
like when nobody posts on discord, people go to play then they die and born same time and block a lot of families out

Keyin · 2019-08-27 10:25:11

jasonrohrer wrote:

This is also interesting... because I always assumed it was new Eve families and lineage/area bans causing families to die out. But families are still dying out just fine even WITHOUT those factors. It's kinda crazy, really.

Even with 99% chance of surviving each generation, after 70 generations 0.99^70=49.48%

So, even if a family had only a 1% chance of dying out each generation, after 70 generations we would expect the family to have died out 50.52% of the time.

If each generation is about 30 minutes average, we would then expect to lose half of the families every 35 hours.

Obviously, this is not realistic. I think 99% survival is too generous plus the survival rate will start much lower and will increase with each competing family eliminated.

I think in order to get a good survival rate like 99.9% you would need each family to have at least a couple dozen fertile relatives at all times.

To get 99.99% you'd probably need closer to a hundred, maybe even more.

As a side note, I think the suggestiom of making 'stressed' mothers having a sex ratio tilted towards girls is a good suggestion. Females with high yum and warmth can be tilted towards having more males and vice versa.

This would help families that aren't well off survive, and is surprisingly realistic.

Much more females are born than males during war. (bad times)

After the end of a war, a very high ratio of males to females tends to be born. (good times)

Heres a link to an article about it: https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/19/1/218/690115

MrsDuckGirl · 2019-08-27 10:43:36

Also this should never happen : http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/serve … id=5194487
I was the Eve and had only boys. Not even a /died girl. How is the familly supposed to last ?
Me and my sons were a bit sad to "play for nothing", we hoped for a girl until I turned 40. Nothing. Fortunately another Eve came to our town with her two girls, and if I remember well she had 2 more girls after, so we worked for them. But our familly was dead. How is that I had only boys (I was dressed and yumming) and the other Eve had quite only girls ?

DestinyCall · 2019-08-27 14:36:28

It is like flipping a coin and getting a run of heads. Except that you need at least one tails flip to survive and you only get a limited number of coin tosses.

High-stakes gambling.

One Hour One Life Forums

#26 2019-08-27 05:54:00

Re: Maybe why we'll always get down to one family (tipping scales)

#27 2019-08-27 06:19:51

Re: Maybe why we'll always get down to one family (tipping scales)

#28 2019-08-27 07:47:45

Re: Maybe why we'll always get down to one family (tipping scales)

#29 2019-08-27 07:50:03

Re: Maybe why we'll always get down to one family (tipping scales)

#30 2019-08-27 07:58:42

Re: Maybe why we'll always get down to one family (tipping scales)

#31 2019-08-27 08:26:55

Re: Maybe why we'll always get down to one family (tipping scales)

#32 2019-08-27 10:10:52

Re: Maybe why we'll always get down to one family (tipping scales)

#33 2019-08-27 10:25:11

Re: Maybe why we'll always get down to one family (tipping scales)

#34 2019-08-27 10:43:36

Re: Maybe why we'll always get down to one family (tipping scales)

#35 2019-08-27 14:36:28

Re: Maybe why we'll always get down to one family (tipping scales)

Board footer