a multiplayer game of parenting and civilization building
You are not logged in.
Three recent lines on bigserver2;
I am not seeing any patterns here corresponding to the theory of lineages dying out due to lineage ban.
These graphs look random to me.
My guess is that, when you're in the thick of if, it's hard not to perceive patterns in the randomness. Incoming players ebb and flow randomly, the way that babies are distributed is random, etc.
Offline
Perhaps look at how many of those babies played more than 2 lives in a sitting versus one to two lives per sitting. I think part of the idea about area bans killing towns is that players that are playing a lot in one go, don't end up back in the same places, and the lineage is left to casuals to keep it up. Even that logic is flawed though, as one powerplayer stops playing for the evening, there are two more that log on and start playing their sessions.
Offline
Out of curiosity, what kind of pattern would you expect to see if lineage ban was negatively impacting birthrate?
I'm thinking big spike of births followed by a big dip in births, which I do see in several places. Of course, this could also reflect server population fluctuations. Not sure what would be the "peak hours" for OHOL. But if a village is not getting any babies when the server population is high, something must be wrong.
Offline
Perhaps look at how many of those babies played more than 2 lives in a sitting versus one to two lives per sitting. I think part of the idea about area bans killing towns is that players that are playing a lot in one go, don't end up back in the same places, and the lineage is left to casuals to keep it up. Even that logic is flawed though, as one powerplayer stops playing for the evening, there are two more that log on and start playing their sessions.
This.
---
omnem cibum costis
tantum baca, non facies opus
Offline
I mean whenever you have a huge town population you boom//bust pretty hard. I've never seen a population of 20+ players stay that way for much longer than an hour where suddenly they have much fewer babies after. I don't think the games population rotates in enough players per hour to make up for the fact that potentially 1/5th of the servers population is suddenly banned from an area after an hour not counting any /sids babies that pop up.
If players play in one sitting vs multiple little sittings through the day it's very easy to just have too many players in one area get banned out and not return before the lineage is killed due to lack of available players.
fug it’s Tarr.
Offline
A graph of births in a growing city should show a steady climb, this is hard since people go to bed at night and server populations fall. The solution might be to limit the number of new eves when the serve population is low and make people cycle back through families they might otherwise be banned from. Or not give an Eve option on the list after you die if the server population is too low. But offer it when it's high.
I think at least some of the people who constantly Eve would rather play in a town than not play at all. And those who don't play at all won't be new Eves sucking up babies at times of day when they are most needed.
Another way to help is by tweaking the gender balance when there are fewer fertile women to favor female babies and make it favor males when you have lots of fertile women... this cold mitigate the boom cycle a little.
Point is, these graphs don't look good, it means every town hits bottlenecks due to server population and perhaps area ban too.
This leads to the unnatural feeling of being born in a bustling town then by the time you are old everyone is dead and there are no kids and there is no clear reason why... no murders, no bears, just suddenly no one is having any kids and the town dies a sudden and random-seeming death. Not the best ending IMO
Last edited by futurebird (2019-05-14 22:28:24)
---
omnem cibum costis
tantum baca, non facies opus
Offline