Weeks to build score, one day to loose it.

Toxolotl · 2019-11-16 20:25:55

So recently i had hit #1 on genetic score. My score was 50.42. Didnt play for 24 hours and now its gone. Never really cared much about the rankings but i guess i lost all my tool slots as well as any chance at an eve run. Very cool system.

Spelled lose wrong *facepalm*

Last edited by Toxolotl (2019-11-16 20:27:02)

Keyin · 2019-11-16 20:39:37

Your score is still the same. You just aren't ranked because you haven't played. You will be on high score board once you live another life.

Toxolotl · 2019-11-16 20:43:09

Ok good to know. Thanks for the info.

miskas · 2019-11-17 00:30:00

How did you reach 50?
How many kids do you usually have when you play?

Toxolotl · 2019-11-17 00:37:17

Didnt do much, just didnt /die. Usually have around two kids on average. I also tend to play during low population as well.

Gomez · 2019-11-17 04:06:41

he coat tailed on a good cooks back probably. there is a bit of a luck factory involved but you can def impact your fitness score. get good at cooking, eve and living to sixty and your score should stay above thirty.

i was third at 48 and change it's def nice having 9 tool slots, but back down thirties cause low tech and server changes.

Last edited by Gomez (2019-11-17 04:09:38)

Toxolotl · 2019-11-17 06:06:48

What a profound ego gomez. Respect.

You might be surprised but i know a lot more than just baking. In fact baking was the first thing i got good at, because its easy. Eveing is my speciality.

If you're a skilled player good at stabilizing a town, live to sixty, and nothing catastrophic happens you should go up at least half a point every life. Even at 50+.

Gomez · 2019-11-17 09:53:33

well then you held out or were modest if all you share is hey i live to sixty did nothing special if you cooked you earned your rank period or didn't know how you got good fitness but when i dont cook my fitness tanks.

cool man keep on bossing cooking. it wasn't a shot a cooks lol

also yumming is bad for fitness tbh having less kids prob made the difference tbh

yeah for sure being able to stabilize town is essential for gaining fitness. knowing whats needed next in the step of civ planning ahead settin next gen up to win.

Last edited by Gomez (2019-11-17 10:01:38)

pedrito confesiones · 2019-11-17 09:56:30

get used to it, you should know better

Gomez · 2019-11-17 11:27:31

oh yeah forgot make meds, wear an apron and be sure to lock in weapon skill in your slots. Kill and curse griefers that one bad apple can cost you a lot of fitness.

By make meds I mean like full apron 2 or three bowls with needle and thread in different locations and monitor them.

If you do spot a bad apple alert town before attacking, make sure others observe the person first so you don't get killed as the "griefer" or so the town doesn't waste meds healing the griefer.

At 45+ fitness living to sixty only get you .2 fitness btw

Last edited by Gomez (2019-11-17 11:33:08)

DiscardedSlinky · 2019-11-17 17:29:05

Uno on the Discord is a known Gene score grinder and she was number 1 recently for a while, but after one bad life she dropped down to the 70s.

It's a little too harsh once you reach the top in my opinion.

Gogo · 2019-11-17 20:24:14

The genes are fucked up system when it comes to tool slots. I saved my ginger village, but a lot of babies died, there were so many of them. So in reward I lose score under 30 even I saved them and provide stable village for them.

Last edited by Gogo (2019-11-17 20:25:42)

Toxolotl · 2019-11-17 20:54:05

Yea genes are pretty dumb. Part of why i went for a high number. Some people take it really seriously but its really easy to get to the top. There isnt a proper technique. Just stay alive and hope your kids do. Its a bad measure of skill and can be tanked easily if you have a bad eve run or a griefers pillage the town you're in. Though ive had that happen and still had my score go up.

Personally i think skill slots should be dependent upon skill and spawns should be dependent upon genetic score. Eves are chosen from players who have the highest average of both.

As it stands a player can sit around with tunnel vision and just bake. Or a player can run around the entire town, cycling the farm, making compost, processing oil, building fence kits, cycling iron to steel, making tools, and filling the bakery in one go on the oven. Both will likely have the same uptick in score but the latters children will have a better chance in the future. I think whatever system that is used to measure player skill should reflect that.

DestinyCall · 2019-11-17 22:01:11

Personally, I think that too many variables are involved in being a "good villager" to be able to accurately distill it down to single number. Your chances of survival depend as much on the village you are born into as they do your own personal efforts.

Yes, a skilled player can make the best of terrible circumstances, but if your family is filled with griefers or has gone generations without water, you will not be able to save them by yourself. Even with optimal play, your best efforts will not accomplish much. It would be better to give up and let yourself die rather than try to help save such a town and end up living long enough to birth a bunch of doomed babies.

Yet I would consider someone who sticks with the town and tries their best to save it, against all odds, to be the better villager than someone who only cares about their precious genetic score. It is a selfish kind of charity that you only help others when it helps yourself.

jcwilk · 2019-11-17 22:25:47

In team fortress 2 there was a vaguely analogous situation... The most obvious scoring metric is kills but players who only go for kills are not very helpful to the match objective (it's stuff like ctf, koth, etc if you're not familiar) so making progress towards the goal adds to your score also, and healing people who are getting points, etc... Basically most different activities that are probably contributing add to your score in rough proportion to how likely it is you're helping so that the top 3 scoring players who get shown as the mvps to everyone at the end are probably the ones pulling the most weight. If you're carrying the flag often and mowing down dudes as you go then you're gonna have the one spot for sure, but if one person is running the flag peacefully while their buddy clears the path then it might be a toss up, as it should be.

I wonder if you could get points for your family eating food you grew/baked/etc, points for fires you built from wood you chopped warning your family, buildings you helped on being inhabited by your family, etc... Plus it would make keeping families together more meaningful, and it would make multi family households more contentious (a good thing imo).

Sure it could be spammed/gamed but so can babies in a low pop server. Basically it should be balanced so that if you're doing lots of stuff around the village it'll end up being way more points than spamming out hundreds of fires and having bots stand near them or whatever the exploit would be. Would give men more of a purpose too

DestinyCall · 2019-11-17 22:31:04

I agree - hard working villagers should be rewarded for contributing to the village, not just "baby factories" or helicopter moms. And I think this will be even more important moving forward, since many of our villages will be composed of multiple families. Helping the village means helping more than just your genetic relatives. You must contribute to society as a whole.

jcwilk · 2019-11-17 22:41:10

DestinyCall wrote:

I agree - hard working villagers should be rewarded for contributing to the village, not just "baby factories" or helicopter moms. And I think this will be even more important moving forward, since many of our villages will be composed of multiple families. Helping the village means helping more than just your genetic relatives. You must contribute to society as a whole.

Oh actually I was thinking the opposite, that helping another family in your same village, or even a too-distant relative would not contribute to your genetic score... Since it's a genetic score and its purpose (as I understand it) is to indicate how capable you are of taking care of your own immediate relatives. Maybe there could be a separate good villager score too?

I was thinking that adding this element of tension between families would mimic the awkwardness of living in a multi family community in real life where you have to weigh the good of the community vs the good of your own family, and might make multi-family villages a less obvious solution, or at least one with an added cost/complexity over having a single family village that trades/raids as needed

jcwilk · 2019-11-17 22:43:39

But yeah like for example it would make it worthwhile for a baker to lock up their pies and make sure their own family is where they end up so that they get credit for all of them. Or a selfless baker that believes that having a strong community is the best way to keep their family alive long enough to eat their pies might end up sharing them and take the hit of only getting credit for half the pies but perhaps tripling the chances of their family's survival in the process

DestinyCall · 2019-11-17 23:00:33

Perhaps I just have a different view of the game. I care about my family and my village as the same thing. As long as you are not actively harming the village, you are welcome within it and deserve to be helped. Not a big fan of encouraging selfish behavior to add "realism". In my opinion, it does the opposite - pushes people to chase after an imaginary game statistic, instead of paying attention to the needs of the village as a whole. It makes interactions feel more artificial, rather than naturally occurring based on interactions within the game.

Everyone is randomly assigned to families, so your brother might be a griefer, your sister is a new player, and your mom is a streamer. If my distant cousin is the only skilled player in the village, I need to make sure that he better equipped and healed first ... not my immediate family. If he is another skintone, even better - maybe we can do oil together.

But then again, I've never really understood the point of genetic score or how it could fit in properly with living in a multi-family village. I don't really see anyone living as a coherent "family unit" anyways. No family homesteads or houses passed down from mother to child. I rarely see my siblings after we grow hair. We organize and identify as a village, not as discrete nuclear families, so why score our success based on "good genes". It feels weird to me.

DestinyCall · 2019-11-17 23:08:59

jcwilk wrote:

But yeah like for example it would make it worthwhile for a baker to lock up their pies and make sure their own family is where they end up so that they get credit for all of them. Or a selfless baker that believes that having a strong community is the best way to keep their family alive long enough to eat their pies might end up sharing them and take the hit of only getting credit for half the pies but perhaps tripling the chances of their family's survival in the process

Word of warning - locking up pies is a great way to get stabbed. So probably not the best strategy for raising your genetic score.

Letting other people's kids starve while you hoard pies for your own family is not considered moral behavior in the game OR in real life. If you do it ... try not to get caught.

Kaveh · 2019-11-17 23:21:28

Although I understand why gene score is gene score (it is a game about parenting after all, or at least it should be), I do feel like it doesn't necessarily show being 'good' at the game. The only part you can have somewhat of an effect on is taking care of new players, by teaching them and making sure they don't starve for as least as long as you're alive. As an experienced player I really don't want to stick around my mom all the time, unless I want to help her out with a project or something. I'll check up on her, but I don't hover around her just so she knows her kid is still alive. That's why I can't expect other players to do that either. If someone wants to go their own way, I let them. IMO, that doesn't make me a bad mom, even if it resulted in them dying young.

If this game really is about parenting/families, there has to be something to makes people feel closer to that family. Roleplay helps a little, but there is nothing in game to help me feel like my mom matters more than my aunt. The only difference is some effect on a score, that I won't even know until after I'm done playing. As Destiny said, the skilled distant relations matter more to overall survival than my newbie mom does.

Something I mentioned before is I'd like to know when someone 'important' to me dies, and maybe where they are (! at the edge of screen). Just a little pop up like the tool/arc ones that says

YOUR SISTER [name] JUST DIED
CAUSE OF DEATH: STARVATION

It's not more than normal to be notified when someone important to you dies. If people are more aware of their close relatives dying, perhaps they would do more to prevent that. Cuz if family members are so important, why doesn't anyone [besides roleplayers] mourn their death?

Last edited by Kaveh (2019-11-17 23:22:57)

jcwilk · 2019-11-17 23:33:51

I totally get your position and it's reasonable, although I see a few of the underlying finer details differently:

DestinyCall wrote:

Perhaps I just have a different view of the game. I care about my family and my village as the same thing. As long as you are not actively harming the village, you are welcome within it and deserve to be helped. Not a big fan of encouraging selfish behavior to add "realism". In my opinion, it does the opposite - pushes people to chase after an imaginary game statistic, instead of paying attention to the needs of the village as a whole.

Even if we went with genetic score as the main point of the game (I'll come back to that later) I still think that making it only about your immediate relatives doesn't preclude any of the above. If what's good for the village is good for the family then by helping the village you're helping your family and therefore helping your genetic score. If what's good for the village ends up -not- being good for the family for some reason, ie, your family and village interests diverge, the other families are assholes, whatever, then this may not be the case, but that alignment of scoring with family competence (ie, not just being a good villager or good family member but knowing how and when to balance the two towards positive result) is, I think, what we want from genetic score... like what it tells us, and ultimately that it determines who is worthy to start a new family with a good chance of giving the greatest net positive impact on the family prior to death.

DestinyCall wrote:

It makes interactions feel more artificial, rather than naturally occurring based on interactions within the game.

This is super tricky and above my paygrade to talk about objectively and with the right terms, but this touches on that slippery complex "artistic coherence" thing jason frequently mentions... Optimal gameplay should align with optimal experience? Something like that. Ideally we want the right interactions that we would normally want to do in this game that have a positive result on ourselves, our "teammates", the virtual world, etc, should align with the incentivization mechanisms so that good players who don't care about or understand scoring will have it Just Work that they score really high if they're playing well, and people who are minmaxers and only care about score and nothing else will have it Just Work that they sort of accidentally fall into substantially helping out their family.

Going back to the tf2 example... If I just wanted an ego boost and wanted to see my name at the #1 spot then someone watching me who understands the game but doesn't know my motivations may very well think that I'm going ham on trying to help win as hard as possible, when in fact I may not care about my teammates or our team's victory condition at all but the scoring mechanisms align my behavior towards that anyways. Minmaxers are gonna minmax and rpers are gonna rp, you can't change their meta desires/goals but you can try to align it so that they compliment each other rather than degrade each others' experiences.

But yeah, jason would be able to describe this in a less armchair-y way... Let's just say it's complicated haha

DestinyCall wrote:

Everyone is randomly assigned to families, so your brother might be a griefer, your sister is a new player, and your mom is a streamer. If my distant cousin is the only skilled player in the village, I need to make sure that he better equipped and healed first ... not my immediate family. If he is another skintone, even better - maybe we can do oil together.

I mean it sounds like that distant cousin or foreign person is the last pillar holding up the village and if that person doesn't succeed then it's likely your family will not succeed, so a your-family-only genetic score still strongly incentivizes you to help that person. If you misjudged that person and they run off after you help them or they quit or whatever then too bad, you thought a villager was essential to your family but they were not and you should have spent that time on your family, and your genetic score would appropriately lack the bump upwards since you didn't end up helping your family after all.

DestinyCall wrote:

But then again, I've never really understood the point of genetic score or how it could fit in properly with living in a multi-family village. I don't really see anyone living as a coherent "family unit" anyways. No family homesteads or houses passed down from mother to child. I rarely see my siblings after we grow hair. We organize and identify as a village, not as discrete nuclear families, so why score our success based on "good genes". It feels weird to me.

Yeah I 100% agree with this, the role of genetic score IMO needs more tweaking. I'd like to see genetic score affect your likeliness of being awarded a child, and much more strictly, your eligibility for eve, and perhaps even your likeliness of being a woman rather than a man. I don't think using it as an indicator of who is "winning" OHOL is appropriate, and having it award tool slots is iffy although I could see that making more sense if my suggestion were implemented since people who helped out with many things around the village would likely be the ones with the highest genetic score.

Seems like there ought to be a different score for overall OHOL excellence, otherwise OHOL is basically reduced to a birthing sim if genetic success is the only success. And yeah, we can define our own success of course, but again going back to the alignment of minmaxing with rping, we might as well be chasing after the same type of overall civilization success right?

OTOH, it should be pretty possible for someone to make a third party scoring app which looks at the 24 hour delay logs and grades in much more sophisticated ways about how often you've been the last surviving female and bloomed into a massive family below you, how often you've killed your own family mates, etc, etc, so maybe it's best to not get hung up on leaderboards

Last edited by jcwilk (2019-11-17 23:35:57)

jcwilk · 2019-11-17 23:39:33

DestinyCall wrote:

Word of warning - locking up pies is a great way to get stabbed. So probably not the best strategy for raising your genetic score.
Letting other people's kids starve while you hoard pies for your own family is not considered moral behavior in the game OR in real life. If you do it ... try not to get caught.

I mean... it's pretty rare nowadays in real life to not have a family store all of their shit behind locked doors, exclusively for the use of their own families. Charity happens but it's certainly a tiny minority of the food that flows from a family's coffers, no? It's not so much "starve please" as it is "this is the food i made specifically for my kids, the public food is over there". I agree that it's a tricky thing though, but tricky things are interesting, and if you got genetic points for your own family eating your own baked pies then I bet we'd see more of that rather than which family you belong to being almost totally meaningless in a multi-family village.

jcwilk · 2019-11-17 23:45:43

Oh and a conclusion that I kinda failed to get to was: If there are players who don't care about being eve, being female, and having children and they aren't obsessed with scores then they won't give a shit about the genetic score, will ignore the mechanisms pushing them towards good family/villager (villager because usually what's good for the village is good for the family and good for the genetic score, etc) behavior and the game will react to their dismissal of those mechanisms by awarding them a low score and reducing their involvement in the birthing and family starting cycle. So it's win-win for everyone, the best moms are moms the most often, the worst ones don't have to deal with the birthing bs, and everyone in-between is gently nudged towards good player behavior... Assuming everything is all balanced and defined well, of course, which is no small task

I mean this is how it is already, more or less, but I think a more rounded approach to scoring your participation in your family's success would lead to a more reliable score which could be leveraged more aggressively by game mechanics.

Last edited by jcwilk (2019-11-17 23:47:26)

Toxolotl · 2019-11-17 23:51:49

From what i can grasp communism will always be the meta. Not marxism but communism like the ancient inca for which the ideology was based on. Its far more efficient to work for society without materialistic gains and ownership. You reap what you sow and we have to work together to grow as a society.

People being selfish or doing things for their own gain are a liability for society. Hiding pies for example. Unless you made the every facet of that item (plates, bowls, soil, berries, carrots, wheat, rabbits, kindling, adobe kiln) you are essentially borrowing from society. To think you have the right of ownership because you put in a small percent of effort in that process is naive.

This game is about civilization building and parenting. The most important thing in doing both of those things is contributing to society and teaching your kids to do the same.

One Hour One Life Forums

#1 2019-11-16 20:25:55

Weeks to build score, one day to loose it.

#2 2019-11-16 20:39:37

Re: Weeks to build score, one day to loose it.

#3 2019-11-16 20:43:09

Re: Weeks to build score, one day to loose it.

#4 2019-11-17 00:30:00

Re: Weeks to build score, one day to loose it.

#5 2019-11-17 00:37:17

Re: Weeks to build score, one day to loose it.

#6 2019-11-17 04:06:41

Re: Weeks to build score, one day to loose it.

#7 2019-11-17 06:06:48

Re: Weeks to build score, one day to loose it.

#8 2019-11-17 09:53:33

Re: Weeks to build score, one day to loose it.

#9 2019-11-17 09:56:30

Re: Weeks to build score, one day to loose it.

#10 2019-11-17 11:27:31

Re: Weeks to build score, one day to loose it.

#11 2019-11-17 17:29:05

Re: Weeks to build score, one day to loose it.

#12 2019-11-17 20:24:14

Re: Weeks to build score, one day to loose it.

#13 2019-11-17 20:54:05

Re: Weeks to build score, one day to loose it.

#14 2019-11-17 22:01:11

Re: Weeks to build score, one day to loose it.

#15 2019-11-17 22:25:47

Re: Weeks to build score, one day to loose it.

#16 2019-11-17 22:31:04

Re: Weeks to build score, one day to loose it.

#17 2019-11-17 22:41:10

Re: Weeks to build score, one day to loose it.

#18 2019-11-17 22:43:39

Re: Weeks to build score, one day to loose it.

#19 2019-11-17 23:00:33

Re: Weeks to build score, one day to loose it.

#20 2019-11-17 23:08:59

Re: Weeks to build score, one day to loose it.

#21 2019-11-17 23:21:28

Re: Weeks to build score, one day to loose it.

#22 2019-11-17 23:33:51

Re: Weeks to build score, one day to loose it.

#23 2019-11-17 23:39:33

Re: Weeks to build score, one day to loose it.

#24 2019-11-17 23:45:43

Re: Weeks to build score, one day to loose it.

#25 2019-11-17 23:51:49

Re: Weeks to build score, one day to loose it.

Board footer