Replacement for the current annoying/pointless baby feeding system

Dodge · 2021-03-23 20:47:36

Currently the way babies are fed is pretty annoying and doesn't even acomplish the goal that it was supposed to in the first place.

Jason's philosophy is something along the lines of feeding babies shouldn't be something that you can just set and forget then dont think about it anymore it should be an active thought process and decision making, is the baby hungry right now?, should i do this or take care of the baby instead? that type of stuff.

But the current system is really just a pain in the butt and doesn't even achieve that goal since most players will usually just pick them up without thinking about it or asking even if it wastes more food, they pick them up then leave them, then come back, nice interaction...

Instead carrying a baby should slowly feed them one food bar at a time and it should cost you more food than they get, so something like 1 food bar for the baby costs 3 for the mother but when you carry the baby it doesn't lose food also.

This acomplishes a couple of goals:

1. Keeping and taking care of a baby will have a significant cost in food so depending on the state of the village it can be an important decision or a tough choice on what you should do.

2. You cant just pick a baby feed it then leave it, forget about it and come back later to feed it again, you have to actually take care of it since you have to actively carry the baby to feed it.

3. Since caring about the baby is not about some weird mechanic about picking the baby at some optimal time then forgetting about it but about the time you spend with the baby and the food cost of taking care of a baby it allows to add objects like baby sling in the game since it doesn't change the decision you have to make overall but also carrying a baby while it's not hungry will slowly deplete your food bar so there is still communication with the mother and baby to know when you shouldn't feed it anymore.

TLDR: Replace current timing system with a recurring question: This baby will cost me food should i take care of it? This question is one that you will ask yourself constantly while taking care of that baby and depending on your current evolving food situation.

Also related and unrelated: start of game should have much more wild food, like 5 times more berry bushes etc instead of some weird "generationnal food value depletion" but value of same foods should stay the same all the time.

GamingDorito · 2021-03-23 21:46:44

yeah i like this suggestion.

it sounds like a good idea, and, while you can already just roleplay in the game to do this, its good to make it happen so that the roleplay part of the game gets a little more attention.

this game also has a lot of potential for roleplay stuff like kingdoms, wars, that stuff instead of just speedrunning the tech tree as fast as possible.

also we need cheese to be a thing. completely unrelated but cheese bro

TheRubyCart · 2021-03-23 23:16:54

GamingDorito wrote:

yeah i like this suggestion.
it sounds like a good idea, and, while you can already just roleplay in the game to do this, its good to make it happen so that the roleplay part of the game gets a little more attention.
this game also has a lot of potential for roleplay stuff like kingdoms, wars, that stuff instead of just speedrunning the tech tree as fast as possible.
also we need cheese to be a thing. completely unrelated but cheese bro

"The cheese, gromit, cheese!"

Spoonwood · 2021-03-24 00:00:45

Dodge wrote:

But the current system is really just a pain in the butt and doesn't even achieve that goal since most players will usually just pick them up without thinking about it or asking even if it wastes more food, they pick them up then leave them, then come back, nice interaction...

I'm glad you've enjoyed such interactions Dodge. Since it's "really jut a pain in the butt", with your enjoyment of such, it sounds like you enjoy a good spanking or maybe would like a covid vaccination in the butt.

I really don't like that the baby doesn't get fed when picked up and the 'no' emote showing the baby not getting food. Before I would usually pick up the baby and put it down, often trying to wait a while doing something. Now I find it confusing what to do after picking it up and getting the 'no' emote, since if I put it down it might have something like 3 pips instead of fully full, and thus I'll need to come back to it sooner on top of taking a pip away from myself.

DestinyCall · 2021-03-24 00:40:23

Umm I am confused ... why do you think Dodge enjoys such interactions? Pretty sure he made this post specifically because he doesn't like the current system.

And I agree. Not a fan. I am not really clear on how the slow drain would work in-game but if it means that I get a baby sling, I am all for it.

One question I have - how do I feed ten babies at once?

GamingDorito · 2021-03-24 01:35:21

DestinyCall wrote:

One question I have - how do I feed ten babies at once?

you would have to literally starve yourself because of the high amount if you don't have any helpers, but you just have to spam grab the babies as they start saying "f" lol

wondible · 2021-03-24 10:56:41

Dodge wrote:

Instead carrying a baby should slowly feed them one food bar at a time and it should cost you more food than they get, so something like 1 food bar for the baby costs 3 for the mother but when you carry the baby it doesn't lose food also.

Here is the problem I have with this. Babyhood is already a bit boring; even Jason considers this an unsolved problem. If I'm just standing around holding a baby, then I'm wondering if there is some small local job I can do while watching the baby. That gives me something to do and the baby something to watch, and maybe an idea of something they could do when they grow up. A high cost to pick up just encourages standing around the fire.

Spoonwood · 2021-03-24 11:33:33

DestinyCall wrote:

Umm I am confused ... why do you think Dodge enjoys such interactions?

He called such interactions 'nice'.

Dodge · 2021-03-24 12:03:58

wondible wrote:

Dodge wrote:
Instead carrying a baby should slowly feed them one food bar at a time and it should cost you more food than they get, so something like 1 food bar for the baby costs 3 for the mother but when you carry the baby it doesn't lose food also.
Here is the problem I have with this. Babyhood is already a bit boring; even Jason considers this an unsolved problem. If I'm just standing around holding a baby, then I'm wondering if there is some small local job I can do while watching the baby. That gives me something to do and the baby something to watch, and maybe an idea of something they could do when they grow up. A high cost to pick up just encourages standing around the fire.

Picking up the baby wouldn't cost anything the drain would be a fixed rate, it encourages you to take your baby with you doing wathever you want to do instead of dumping the baby on the fire like currently

Spoonwood wrote:

DestinyCall wrote:
Umm I am confused ... why do you think Dodge enjoys such interactions?
He called such interactions 'nice'.

Dodge wrote:

But the current system is really just a pain in the butt and doesn't even achieve that goal since most players will usually just pick them up without thinking about it or asking even if it wastes more food, they pick them up then leave them, then come back, nice interaction...

it was a very obvious sarcastic "nice"

DestinyCall · 2021-03-24 15:44:56

The biggest issue I see is that if the game decides to dump a bunch of babies on you all at once, like it sometimes does, then you can't even pretend to cope with the situation.

I think there would need to be some kind of limiter, like a birthing cooldown or baby cap that stops one mom from becoming a mother of millions. Multiple births, like twins or triplets will also be a major headache, but that's okay. They should be hard. However, I don't think a mother should be expected to keep multiple children alive under normal circumstances. It should be a rare occurrence.

Ideally, one kid at a time (with a baby sling) would be perfect. You have the baby, say hello, empty out your backpack and load him inside. Then you and junior go out to work in the fields, smithy, bakery, or where ever while you chat about life in the village or explain your current job.

After giving birth, you could get put on a two minute cooldown timer. This will prevent you from giving birth to another child until your current baby is almost ready to grow hair. There might be some overlap if you give birth immediately, but it would only require a little baby juggling for the last minute or so. If your baby SIDS out, your timer resets to zero so you can get a replacement. If your baby dies of natural causes or murder before reaching 3 years old, your birth timer doubles to four minutes, under the assumption that times are tough and you can't support another baby right now. This does penalize the mother more severely for runner babies, but I think it is a necessary compromise for allowing the game to detect when more babies are not a good idea.

Alternatively, it might be worth considering a four minute birth timer as the standard setting, rather than 2 minutes. Then you would only ever have one child at a time, unless you have a multiple birth or adopt an abandoned child. With a baby sling to allow you to work while caring for your child, this would allow you to focus more on each child and dedicate your full attention to their upbringing and education instead of burying you under too many babies for a single mom to handle.

A woman is fertile for roughly twenty four minutes, from 16 years old to forty. So if the cooldown is 2 minutes, you could have 12 individual children (ignoring multiple births) over the course of a single lifetime, if you are popping a baby out as soon as the cooldown expires. Technically more if some of them SIDS, but that would be the most you could actually keep alive if you were the world's best mom. If the birth cooldown is 4 minutes, the max would be six children in one lifetime. I actually think that would be a better number, if the goal is to foster a stronger parent-child relationship. More time alone with each of your children. More ability to teach them while you work in the village. More motivation to invest in each living child, because you won't get that many opportunities. The higher pip drain would make parenting a difficult task in an early village, but being able to carry your tot around with you, WITHOUT losing your ability to pick up other items, would be worthwhile and more engaging than standing around a fire or hanging out in the nursery for long hours.

I would also add that in respect to adoption or multiple births, it should be possible to have a baby in your backpack AND hold a second baby. Twice the food drain and now you can't do anything but feed babies and talk, but an important option to support mothers of more than one child. A third child would require even more coordination and more food drain, since you would need to juggle kids. This would discourage one mom from feeding everyone's kids. It would make more sense to spread the responsibility between mothers. In fact, if you had a set of quads, you would probably need to seek out someone to help you feed the extra babies. Taking care of four hungry babies is not something you would want to attempt to handle by yourself, in the game or in real life.

I would also recommend making it impossible to feed babies solid foods until they grow hair. Only mother's milk and cow milk from a pouch. This would make it harder to keep abandoned children alive, especially if you are male or too old to nurse, but it would also make taking responsibility for your own children more important and the decision to adopt someone else's child more significant. And it would help balance out the food math, because it would be really dumb if it was cheaper to feed infants meat pies instead of nursing them.

Last edited by DestinyCall (2021-03-24 16:30:07)

TheRubyCart · 2021-03-25 02:34:53

DestinyCall wrote:

A woman is fertile for roughly twenty four minutes, from 16 years old to forty.

Actually I think they're fertile from 14 years old, when they get tit sprites

DestinyCall · 2021-03-25 03:07:02

Whoops.

I had a feeling I was wrong on the age, but couldn't be assed to look it up so I just tossed in a "roughly" and called it good enough. Ah well.

In that, case, you could have an unlucky thirteen offspring if the cooldown was 2 minutes, instead of a dozen.

How unfortunate.

Last edited by DestinyCall (2021-03-25 03:08:09)

QuirkySmirkyIan · 2021-03-25 18:33:59

Dodge wrote:

Currently the way babies are fed is pretty annoying and doesn't even acomplish the goal that it was supposed to in the first place.
Jason's philosophy is something along the lines of feeding babies shouldn't be something that you can just set and forget then dont think about it anymore it should be an active thought process and decision making, is the baby hungry right now?, should i do this or take care of the baby instead? that type of stuff.
But the current system is really just a pain in the butt and doesn't even achieve that goal since most players will usually just pick them up without thinking about it or asking even if it wastes more food, they pick them up then leave them, then come back, nice interaction...
Instead carrying a baby should slowly feed them one food bar at a time and it should cost you more food than they get, so something like 1 food bar for the baby costs 3 for the mother but when you carry the baby it doesn't lose food also.
This acomplishes a couple of goals:
1. Keeping and taking care of a baby will have a significant cost in food so depending on the state of the village it can be an important decision or a tough choice on what you should do.
2. You cant just pick a baby feed it then leave it, forget about it and come back later to feed it again, you have to actually take care of it since you have to actively carry the baby to feed it.
3. Since caring about the baby is not about some weird mechanic about picking the baby at some optimal time then forgetting about it but about the time you spend with the baby and the food cost of taking care of a baby it allows to add objects like baby sling in the game since it doesn't change the decision you have to make overall but also carrying a baby while it's not hungry will slowly deplete your food bar so there is still communication with the mother and baby to know when you shouldn't feed it anymore.
TLDR: Replace current timing system with a recurring question: This baby will cost me food should i take care of it? This question is one that you will ask yourself constantly while taking care of that baby and depending on your current evolving food situation.
Also related and unrelated: start of game should have much more wild food, like 5 times more berry bushes etc instead of some weird "generationnal food value depletion" but value of same foods should stay the same all the time.

I would only agree with this if they added baby slings with it because already babies are just a nuisance.

Spoonwood · 2021-03-25 19:30:23

Dodge wrote:

Jason's philosophy is something along the lines of feeding babies shouldn't be something that you can just set and forget then dont think about it anymore it should be an active thought process and decision making, is the baby hungry right now?, should i do this or take care of the baby instead? that type of stuff.

Thinking more on this, the whole "it should be a decision to take care of the baby or do work for a town" shows a core problem with this game. It shows a lack of vision for people playing it and surviving. Then they get into their head that it becomes rational to disregard the interests of other people, since for such to be a decision it needs to be uncertain about the better thing to do. There is no sense of positive regard when players get abandonded as babies. There is no sense of valuing them as people playing the game. There is no positive social caring or empathy when people do that. It shows that there is no vision for a game where people matter, because players get encouraged to really consider that other players don't, and not because of their bad behavior.

And there's been about lack of player retention rates and why this game has so much *earned* criticism? One big reason lies in that it the whole trend to just disregard people mattering, because somehow it's necessary to disregard them as mattering.

Additionally, civilization was NOT built that also. Civilization got built when people had the access to enough resources and the fortitude to care about people mattering through things like food surpluses, NOT artificial scarcity.

Spoonwood · 2021-03-25 19:33:41

QuirkySmirkyIan wrote:

I would only agree with this if they added baby slings with it because already babies are just a nuisance.

Other players are a nuisance, I think because they have no option but to disrupt what you are doing currently and you probably couldn't prepare at all for their arrival. Or maybe there's something else not consistent with that or more to it? I much prefer the lives where I get "homesick" until 40 or just play as male.

Last edited by Spoonwood (2021-03-25 19:34:18)

Dodge · 2021-03-25 19:43:55

Spoonwood wrote:

...

If you systematically take care of them without having to take any important decision then their life is truly meaningless since it's something that you would do regardless of any situation or circumstances, might as well replace them with numbers at this point...

It's when you choose to take care of them despite any on going event as hard as they might be that it shows that you truly care (or that you are stupid and end up starving yourself and killing both you and the baby)

Saying keywords like "shows a lack of vision" that you keep repeating again and again doesn't make your argument good or interesting.

Spoonwood · 2021-03-25 23:04:52

Dodge wrote:

If you systematically take care of them without having to take any important decision then their life is truly meaningless since it's something that you would do regardless of any situation or circumstances, might as well replace them with numbers at this point

No. They get to decide if their lives are meaningful. They are other people, and there is no objective standard for determining whether a life is meaningful or not. Such depends on subjective judgement. Stop thinking that you can determine meaning for other people Dodge, and start accepting that they get to determine meaning for themselves.

Dodge wrote:

Saying keywords like "shows a lack of vision" that you keep repeating again and again doesn't make your argument good or interesting

Oh please. You say that as if Jason had a real vision of players caring for each other. He doesn't. He wants to force such as a "decision", because he wants people to rationally reject caring about other people playing the game. That way he doesn't have to worry about good people worrying about bad actors and he can continue to cover up that his servers can't handle a maximum of player numbers, and he can continue to believe in his ideas of "challenge" as something interesting in itself. Get your head out of the sand Dodge, Jason doesn't have a real vision of players surviving and caring for each other. He never did and likely never will.

He wants such as a "decision", so that he doesn't have to take responsibility for designing an anti-social game and he doesn't have to take responsibility for designing a bad system and him not having a vision of players surviving. That way he doesn't have to think about player achievement and can continue to relish in players feeling and acting anti-social to each other.

Spoonwood · 2021-03-25 23:37:11

Dodge wrote:

It's when you choose to take care of them despite any on going event as hard as they might be that it shows that you truly care

Also, the "truly care" part shows an ignorance that people who take care of other people when things come as easier for them do still care in truth. Perhaps there exists a difference in degree, but doing something for someone else when times come easy still shows caring, and thus shows that one truly cares.

Dodge · 2021-03-26 06:58:08

Spoonwood wrote:

...

He has a vision the execution is just poor, also i'm done arguing with you, you either get it or you dont that's fine by me.

Spoonwood · 2021-03-26 11:27:47

Dodge wrote:

Spoonwood wrote:
...
He has a vision the execution is just poor, also i'm done arguing with you, you either get it or you dont that's fine by me.

For such to be a "decision" there has to exist no expected way that players play the game, nor any optimal way that players play the game in such a situation. It would have to make just as much sense for players to keep the baby as to abandon the baby. But, that's no vision at all for player behavior. Jason wanting such to be a "decision" also shows how little he cares about player behavior, because he wants a system where he can excuse himself from taking the responsibility in judging whether player behavior is good or bad in the slightest, and so that other players can avoid taking the responsibility in judging other players behavior as good or bad.

Get your head out of the sand Dodge. When all actions are equally as good or bad, and there is no answer to optimization issues, then there is no vision.

Dodge · 2021-03-27 11:55:08

Spoonwood wrote:

...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3bv1nm-HZE

Spoonwood · 2021-03-27 18:20:50

Dodge wrote:

Spoonwood wrote:
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3bv1nm-HZE

Say what you mean Dodge in your own words. I have no patience anymore for your mindless, silly games showing how little you think.

Dodge · 2021-03-27 19:02:43

Spoonwood wrote:

showing how little you think.

How does it show how little i think? arent you the one without enough patience to think about it

Mindless games only become mindless when you have put enough thought into it, you clearly havent since you dont get it.

Spoonwood · 2021-03-28 02:10:43

Dodge wrote:

How does it show how little i think?

It shows how little you think, since it's just some YouTube video, not something coming from you. It's not something you said or made the intellectual effort to produce. At least not so far as I know. A link without context shows a lack of thought.

Dodge · 2021-03-28 05:45:21

Spoonwood wrote:

Dodge wrote:
How does it show how little i think?
It shows how little you think, since it's just some YouTube video, not something coming from you. It's not something you said or made the intellectual effort to produce. At least not so far as I know. A link without context shows a lack of thought.

That's where you're wrong i made the intellectual effort to choose that video depending on the current context, you failling to understand that context shows your lack of self awareness, put some thought into that

One Hour One Life Forums

#1 2021-03-23 20:47:36

Replacement for the current annoying/pointless baby feeding system

#2 2021-03-23 21:46:44

Re: Replacement for the current annoying/pointless baby feeding system

#3 2021-03-23 23:16:54

Re: Replacement for the current annoying/pointless baby feeding system

#4 2021-03-24 00:00:45

Re: Replacement for the current annoying/pointless baby feeding system

#5 2021-03-24 00:40:23

Re: Replacement for the current annoying/pointless baby feeding system

#6 2021-03-24 01:35:21

Re: Replacement for the current annoying/pointless baby feeding system

#7 2021-03-24 10:56:41

Re: Replacement for the current annoying/pointless baby feeding system

#8 2021-03-24 11:33:33

Re: Replacement for the current annoying/pointless baby feeding system

#9 2021-03-24 12:03:58

Re: Replacement for the current annoying/pointless baby feeding system

#10 2021-03-24 15:44:56

Re: Replacement for the current annoying/pointless baby feeding system

#11 2021-03-25 02:34:53

Re: Replacement for the current annoying/pointless baby feeding system

#12 2021-03-25 03:07:02

Re: Replacement for the current annoying/pointless baby feeding system

#13 2021-03-25 18:33:59

Re: Replacement for the current annoying/pointless baby feeding system

#14 2021-03-25 19:30:23

Re: Replacement for the current annoying/pointless baby feeding system

#15 2021-03-25 19:33:41

Re: Replacement for the current annoying/pointless baby feeding system

#16 2021-03-25 19:43:55

Re: Replacement for the current annoying/pointless baby feeding system

#17 2021-03-25 23:04:52

Re: Replacement for the current annoying/pointless baby feeding system

#18 2021-03-25 23:37:11

Re: Replacement for the current annoying/pointless baby feeding system

#19 2021-03-26 06:58:08

Re: Replacement for the current annoying/pointless baby feeding system

#20 2021-03-26 11:27:47

Re: Replacement for the current annoying/pointless baby feeding system

#21 2021-03-27 11:55:08

Re: Replacement for the current annoying/pointless baby feeding system

#22 2021-03-27 18:20:50

Re: Replacement for the current annoying/pointless baby feeding system

#23 2021-03-27 19:02:43

Re: Replacement for the current annoying/pointless baby feeding system

#24 2021-03-28 02:10:43

Re: Replacement for the current annoying/pointless baby feeding system

#25 2021-03-28 05:45:21

Re: Replacement for the current annoying/pointless baby feeding system

Board footer