Rethinking the player's role in the game

lychee · 2019-06-05 23:41:33

futurebird wrote:

So, they'd pick a family name from the list, knowing that they can't be Eve, and then /die? Why not just wait a bit and pull that list up again later to see if there is an Eve slot free?

Well I mean, under Jason’s proposed system you have to been in the game to /die in the first place, consequently you wouldn’t have any way of knowing an eve slot is available until after you /die.

People who really want to Eve would still /die spam until an Eve spot pops up.

futurebird · 2019-06-05 23:44:17

lychee wrote:

futurebird wrote:
So, they'd pick a family name from the list, knowing that they can't be Eve, and then /die? Why not just wait a bit and pull that list up again later to see if there is an Eve slot free?
Well I mean, under Jason’s proposed system you have to been in the game to /die in the first place, consequently you wouldn’t have any way of knowing an eve slot is available until after you /die.
People who really want to Eve would still /die spam until an Eve spot pops up.

I thought it would keep popping up once unlocked from then on?

What happens if a person sees nothing in the menu that they want to play? Do they need to quit the client or can they just bounce back to the start up screen and ask to be born again and keep doing that until they see "Eve" That's probably less annoying than what we have now, but it means the only people who will be Eve are the people who do that.

lychee · 2019-06-05 23:50:02

If that’s the case, I don’t get why Jason is so attached to having the /die command link to the selection menu.

It would be just as easy to have a secret keystroke sequence from the main menu that takes you to the special selection menu — it saves the trouble of the initial /die to get to the preferences menu to begin with

TofuInjection · 2019-06-06 00:26:48

^^This also feels like a decent compromise^^

futurebird wrote:

TofuInjection wrote:
I sincerely don't understand what the big hatred for /DIE is though.
The hunger pips, and bone spam are part of it, but so is being interrupted. When I have a kid I stop what I'm doing and get ready to do everything I can to help them survive. I start thinking of a name I take my hands off the mouse to type it. Pick them up... "YOU ARE...." oh you're dead. Great.
In that time someone has taken the cart I was using and I can't even remember what I was working on anyway. OH! another kid... Dead too.
It's awful.
I also really resent that people use /die to be Eve or play in Eve camps because *I want to do that too* I LOVE gen 1-3. But, using /die to get there just feels wrong to me when I know how much it annoys me. That's another reason for the hate.
I wouldn't do all of that to you but you'll do it to me.

I do get this completely. I've often felt the same way when I'm a mom. The thing is, I also don't want to play with people who don't want to play with me. A game forcing people to play it in a way they would rather not, doesn't feel like good design to me, and I wouldn't choose to continue.

I just think the better solution is making the mechanic less punishing for the mother instead of more punishing to everyone.

Edit: I will also say that big city life is just a bummer for me as I reckon it is for a lot of people. Too much clutter, too many people, too many griefers, hard to find a nice working rythm. Instead of working to force players to play in cities, I feel the goal should be to provide interesting mechanics for people to want to stay in cities. I think time would be better spent pushing the tech tree out farther, build up higher. Late game options currently seem focused around war, property and conflict, which was never interesting to me in the scope of this game. There are a million games that do conflict better than One Hour One Life. There are way too few that do cooperation.

Last edited by TofuInjection (2019-06-06 01:08:40)

jasonrohrer · 2019-06-06 01:06:43

So I'm not sure what your objection to a birth choice screen is, Tofu... lack of magic? But if you're using DIE 20 times before quitting and not even living a life at all, where's the magic in that?

Also, I'm starting to question my decision to reduce us down away from 1200 Eves per day. I'm guessing that at least some of those were accidental.... people who did DIE so much, looking for their favorite town, that they ended up as Eve.

If I have a birth choice screen for advanced players, I might as well put an Eve button in there and just let the chips fall where they may. There are only so many non-Eve babies to go around, and competition will be extremely stiff, but so be it, right?

To eliminate griefing by Eves, I'm going to have to move each new Eve out into a completely green pasture (area that has been reclaimed, as close as possible to civilization).

But roads now survive reclamation, so it is possible for a new civ to find its way back.

TofuInjection · 2019-06-06 01:12:55

jasonrohrer wrote:

So I'm not sure what your objection to a birth choice screen is, Tofu... lack of magic? But if you're using DIE 20 times before quitting and not even living a life at all, where's the magic in that?

I actually said I'm ok with it as a compromise. Hiding an option in the settings probably also works.

I like the randomness flavor of being born in new spots and I play different lives for different reasons. I've been away from the game for a couple weeks, but trying to get into it today, I didn't see that same randomness. Every life was born into a big city, or to a mom speeding away on a horse cart. To me, there isn't a lot of magic in seeing that setup every time.

To the rest of your post above, it all sounds like a great idea to me.

If you don't mind my asking though, do you see a problem with my suggestions as regards to /DIE babies?

Last edited by TofuInjection (2019-06-06 01:20:55)

pein · 2019-06-06 01:27:57

we had some info why people die but from forums
i think this people are smarter a bit
they keep up with changes cause they read a lot

first of all, why just not limit the options for hours played?
they say if you do something for 3 weeks, becomes a habbit
so if someone plays 1 hour for 3 weeks that's 21 hours
ofc if you start this game you play a lot of short lifes, but i guess people still wont play more than 2-3 hours
so in 2 weeks they push like 30 hours then they can get options
if they get that good that fast, it's not a big limitation

eve licence: i enjoy to help newbee eves but are they really the eve when their kid does everything?
you already got the tutorial breakout
if someone cant do that with al lthe resources, then what kidn of Eve will he be?
like is bare minimum to make bowls and a farm, maybe the tutorial should include that with some egg cooking and pottery
then they get some options if they die

then the axe and shovel and full acces to eve runs
if someoen wants to learn how to eve, does this 10 times a day until gets better

now there is the side of the information
lot of people cry but this was the way to go
no reason to have 100 eves for 120 players cause then the lucky 20 gets kids and the rest dies alone

i suggest a screen with the ongoing families

ok top reasons why people /DIE by my knowledge:
-bad town- this was he biggest by forum users, not that they want to eve (bad location, lazy people, racism, stupid cults and roleplays, mean people, kills)
peaceful mode: checkbox for peaceful mode then it puts you in a place where no kills happened in area for x hours x range
now people would check or uncheck this based on preference and im sure most people agree that if they want to fight a bit then people who don't are boring and if they want to farm then the agressors are bad
this is legit, i wont stay in a town with bad location, bad buildings, i don't mind a bit of dirty language or kils for a reason but lot of people will die cause of it

-eve runs
if there is an info that you can not eve cause there are 10 lines going with a predicted average of 4 kids, maybe changes peoples mind

-gender
like 65-70% of people prefers to be a girl, and generally all males die by the age of 20 if they not they reach older age more frequently than females
lot of females die after age 40 when they cant have kids
now this could cost something to play only female and would be a pay off to play as a male, this is tough, but if someone has a strong preference, then will die every time if this is not allowed to choose

population
this is also legit that some people don't mind gende but don't want to guilted into yumming and stnading in fire
or feeding 30 people in a small citty

going back to a project:
like it or not but people enjoy a life and a coming undone feeling is bad
left a horse cart? died gathhering iron? revenge someone? keepig up a line? having a good then a bad life and checking if the good line is alive?
they will try regardless if they can or not
so rather tell them explicitly: Blondin family died out
you are area banned from Blondin, Pie , etc etc. you cant go back until Xy mminutes

generation/age of town etc:
some people like early gens, some like older gens
some may stick with it, some dont know they can skip it

stupid reasons: they don't like the name or someone, or they don't get clothesand crowns right away

i think the token idea was good, some people could spend all on a life to get their gender and location and town age
or spare or an eve run and stick with whatever

each day you get 5 tokens which you can spend to change options or curse different people
this token decay in a few days but you can wager them by playing
earning like 100 tokens guarantees an eve run if the number of families is lower, maybe 2 families are reserved for people with tokens

i think a big part of the die babies got o information if they can or cant go back where they want or the new skip list makes it easier to get a snapshot of the current lines
i go with my first life and then scroll around once
same could be archieved with a screenshot of the city around the baby fire, most people born there anyway

mayeb ingame people could send some info what they are focusing on:
tech
roleplay
buildign
vanity
now if each living person chooses one you see a profile of the city, you got some info on possibilities

but at least show on main menu that 10 lines going: Pie, Hawk, Cucci ... etc
you can join 7 of them currently
the Dupont family oldest girl kid 13 year old: que for 2 min

if things cost something, people wont spam it, ofc you made a skip list for free so people die even more to look around

lychee · 2019-06-06 01:32:47

jasonrohrer wrote:

Also, I'm starting to question my decision to reduce us down away from 1200 Eves per day. I'm guessing that at least some of those were accidental.... people who did DIE so much, looking for their favorite town, that they ended up as Eve.
If I have a birth choice screen for advanced players, I might as well put an Eve button in there and just let the chips fall where they may. There are only so many non-Eve babies to go around, and competition will be extremely stiff, but so be it, right?

I guess -- I don't have the confidence to support one system or the other here, so ultimately I'm neutral. XD

If births were entirely "free-choice", my prediction would be that we'd see even more than 1200 Eve's per day -- players (like futurebird) who like to Eve but don't like to /die for it get added to the equation.

Fertility competition would be crazy hard, yup. And we'd probably be back to the shallow generation depths after the pump update (the generation depths increased again after the ClutterBeGone Eve-restriction update -- there was 101 generations with Jane family 4 days ago).

The question, really, is what Jason prefers.

I don't even know what I prefer, haha. XD

lychee · 2019-06-06 01:44:27

pein wrote:

you already got the tutorial breakout
if someone cant do that with al lthe resources, then what kidn of Eve will he be?
like is bare minimum to make bowls and a farm, maybe the tutorial should include that with some egg cooking and pottery
then they get some options if they die

Oh I think this is a cool idea!

Maybe expand the tutorial with more torches; lighting more torches unlocks more features.

You could effectively make this into a single-player "campaign" mode (or "challenge" mode) to the game, which I think some players would really appreciate the option of having. When I just started out, I really wished there was more opportunity to practice stuff by myself (and some of the forum members here basically learned how to play OHOL on mods like the OneCity mod that were good for practice). .

I really like how pein's idea ties together teaching more (optional) content in exchange for a reward.

Make it could be Steam Achievements style -- like unlocking "50 achievements" in this tutorial/singleplayer mode unlocks the Eve button on the preferences menu.

Examples of achievements:

- Bring a (XXX - like a domestic sheep skin) to Torch XYZ.
- Create a signpost that says ABCDE next to Torch UVW
- Trap a wild boar in a shrine (lol)

And perhaps players could wander around and attempt the torches they think they know how to do.

If it were riddle style, it would be even cooler, haha. XD

Last edited by lychee (2019-06-06 01:48:47)

jasonrohrer · 2019-06-06 01:47:04

TofuInjection wrote:

If you don't mind my asking though, do you see a problem with my suggestions as regards to /DIE babies?

I have no problem with those suggestions, but at 5000 /DIE babies a day, I feel like I can't just paper-over the problem. If there were way less /DIE babies, then the bones and the family tree stuff wouldn't even be a problem, right?

The fact that there are 5000 means there's a big problem with the design that should be fixed.

Remember, this is 5000 out of 10,000 total player births. It's a heck of a lot. This means that every other baby in the game does this.

lychee · 2019-06-06 02:11:19

I'm sort of back-of-envelope calculating this, but...

10,000 total player births, 50% of which are /DIE babies (so not real lives).

If births were "free choice", let's assume most people wouldn't /DIE anymore and now we have 5,000 real lives.

Except now we'd be back to 1200+ eves, so a minimum of 1200/5000 (25%) of lives will be eves.

So at any given moment when 100 players are online, ~25 will be eves, and if we approximate fertility rate as equal between families, the ballpark probability of being born to any given family drops to around 1/(N+25) where N is the original number of families. IDK where to take this from here... For reference, after ClutterBeGone, we initially only had 2-3 families, then number of families increased to SERVERPOP/15 families (N=~6-7)... so this is 33% => 16% => 5%

Last edited by lychee (2019-06-06 02:11:49)

futurebird · 2019-06-06 02:18:19

I like the suggestion for a hidden key combo or something in settings that would show you the available families.

I think that the game has been much better since the number of eves has been reduced. I've been Eve once out of about 15 games and Eve's kid like 4 times. It was super exciting to be Eve and felt like I should make the most of it, not just give up if the spot wasn't perfect.

But, even if giving a menu and showing Eve as an option on that menu when it's available makes people bounce on the menu I think it'd be fine. Even if that boxes out most random Eve spawns. At least the people doing it WANT to do it.

Maybe make 1/2 of the Eve spawns go to the menu and the other half just random. Then I could forget about this issue. Only use /die if I start the game by mistake and realize I can't play (it happens) not have a million dead babies, be a good focused mom --

I have been a kid for a new player who was Eve and that game was AMAZING. I don't agree that Eve should be skill locked, I've also been Eve when I was a new player and I'll never forget it. It was intense crazy and harrowing. I was bad at it. But it was good game play. And somehow I didn't die... I almost think all new players should be Eve once in their first few games. That's how good it was.

TofuInjection · 2019-06-06 03:18:08

jasonrohrer wrote:

TofuInjection wrote:
If you don't mind my asking though, do you see a problem with my suggestions as regards to /DIE babies?
I have no problem with those suggestions, but at 5000 /DIE babies a day, I feel like I can't just paper-over the problem. If there were way less /DIE babies, then the bones and the family tree stuff wouldn't even be a problem, right?
The fact that there are 5000 means there's a big problem with the design that should be fixed.
Remember, this is 5000 out of 10,000 total player births. It's a heck of a lot. This means that every other baby in the game does this.

Sure, but if I do it 5 times in a row, then lead a life for an hour, then do it 5 times in a row, then lead a life for an hour, the stats are heavily weighed to show /die babies yeah? Thats one player over 2 hours and 12 different inputs. My point here is that of course there are an overwhelming amount of /DIE babies vs other lives. Other lives take a while, /DIE is instantaneous. I agree with you that some kind of option for how a player wants to spawn in should be a feature. I'm also all for making using /DIE viable and less annoying. If using /die wasn't the inconvenience it currently is to already existing players, people using it wouldn't be a problem right?

Like, I'm not convinced it isn't a working mechanic. I'm not saying I wouldn't welcome a better system because I totally would, but I think the system you have going is actually pretty elegant, and just needs a little tweaking, not a complete overhaul.

Last edited by TofuInjection (2019-06-06 03:35:19)

Saolin · 2019-06-06 03:42:41

Spoonwood wrote:

futurebird wrote:
ProNice wrote:
Also, If people really want to play as eves, why not let them choose.
There are more people who want to be Eve than we need. If everyone who wants to be Eve gets to do it whenever they want then families won't last very long we used to have this issue and it's a bit better now since the change.
Nope. More people are needed to fulfill the fudamental concepts of civilization building and parenting. More people being an Eve and trying to start a family and build up to a town means more players likely to fulfill the fundamental concepts of parenting and civilization building.

This is just wrong and you know it, spoonwood. There isn't close to enough players to support 1000 eves per day. Unless you're a griefer who wants to have 0 births as eve.

RodneyC86 · 2019-06-06 03:53:53

Civilization building isn't happening because we are stuck at 100 players at a time. Therefore we can't truly mimick a real growing (building) civilization. This is why towns are not sprawling. This is exacerbated by a large chunk of players wanting to eve - spreads players out even thinner. You can then forget about development of hierarchy, society and law enforcement (admit it, law is one of the tenets of a civilization - so far we only have the unspoken law)

Also, parenting doesn't happen because in small tribes, quite often ALL the adults are parents. Not mistaken, most small tribes work that way.

We will only see nuclear families rising when enough people pack in and sprawling is needed so that you don't have 30-50 people around a single campfire, which in reality would be very very unhealthy for everyone

Sorry I'm typing this at 3am, hope this makes sense lol

Spoonwood · 2019-06-06 04:34:42

Saolin wrote:

Spoonwood wrote:
futurebird wrote:
There are more people who want to be Eve than we need. If everyone who wants to be Eve gets to do it whenever they want then families won't last very long we used to have this issue and it's a bit better now since the change.
Nope. More people are needed to fulfill the fudamental concepts of civilization building and parenting. More people being an Eve and trying to start a family and build up to a town means more players likely to fulfill the fundamental concepts of parenting and civilization building.
This is just wrong and you know it, spoonwood. There isn't close to enough players to support 1000 eves per day. Unless you're a griefer who wants to have 0 births as eve.

I said what I believed. You can tell yourself that you know my own mind you want all day long, but that won't make you right. In my opinion people are often bad at reading minds... especially those outside of their social circle, and I've found this the case rather consistently in my life with my own mind.

Having 0 births as an Eve is not griefing. That's simply preposterous, because griefing is something a player does, while having babies is something that happens to the player.

Wanting anything is also not griefing. Wanting is an emotion, while griefing is the behavior of a player in game.

Have a nice day or night as the case may be.

futurebird · 2019-06-06 04:36:56

He didn't say that having 0 births as eve was griefing he said that Eve's who grief want to have no kids because they get in the way.

TofuInjection · 2019-06-06 05:48:01

Just a thought: Why can't Eves /DIE too?

I've been an Eve and had babies /DIE on me because they wanted to be in a town. It happens all the time. The problem is not limited to people wanting to Eve.

Have you ever been born to an Eve, got excited about the possibilities of what your life was going to look like, and then she suicided by picking you up and putting you down over and over again? Cause it's happened to me and it blows. But I'd never have had that experience if they could just /DIE. And it would open a new Eve slot which seems like plenty of people would want to take. Whats the problem?

Last edited by TofuInjection (2019-06-06 05:49:41)

Spoonwood · 2019-06-06 07:01:35

futurebird wrote:

He didn't say that having 0 births as eve was griefing he said that Eve's who grief want to have no kids because they get in the way.

You're right that I misread his statement. Your interpretation seems plausible. Looking at what gotten written again, I find it strange that the 'unless' lies there.

Saolin wrote:

There isn't close to enough players to support 1000 eves per day. Unless you're a griefer who wants to have 0 births as eve.

Oh... is what meant something like the following:

"There isn't close enough players to support 1000 eves per day. Unless you want only griefers who wan to have 0 births as Eve."

Or maybe the 'unless' refers back to the first sentence (which would an unusual grammatical form)

"This is just wrong and you know it, spoonwood. Unless you're a griefer who wants to have 0 births as eve. There isn't close to enough players to support 1000 eves per day. "

The number of a 1000 didn't get used by either you or myself futurebird.

Anyways, back to what you said.

You said that families lasting long was an issue. But, I don't agree that lineage length qualifies as a big concern with respect to the fundamental concepts of parenting and civilization building. Lineage length is a means to motivate people to engage in constructive play involving the fundamental concepts. At least that's how I interpret what Jason has written from the following:

jasonrohrer wrote:

The core idea in this game is that you care for your offspring because they are the future that gives what you accomplish in the game meaning.

https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=5806

But lineage length isn't the only means. Eve chaining exists (technically it exists on bigserver2, but there's a very short time period where it can happen during an update and who knows if anyone who lived to 60 as an Eve logged in within the right time frame... with respect to that I note that a few weeks ago I managed to jump in after quickly using /die on server1 during an update period and got reborn in the same spot where I had died in previous life... soon after the camp was bigger and got griefed by the time I Eve chained back to there... so it's possible to Eve chain on bigserver2 for a very short time period, even if it hasn't happened and is more difficult now). Thus, lineage length seems only to be an issue in terms of how much people's feel of lineage length on a server motivates people to play constructively to fulfill the fundamental concepts of survival, parenting, and civilization building.

But, there's also the issue of how much parenting and civilization building go on at any time (to what degree are people playing according to the fundamental concepts). From what I can tell, Eve camps almost invariably have parenting and civilization building go on to an appreciable degree, while it's less certain in later generations, because civilization maintainence comes into play and doesn't exist in an Eve camp.

Really, the number of Eves should only be a problem if

1. They are too likely to be griefer Eves.

2. Eves trying to play constructively aren't having at least one child who will also play in accordance with the fundamental concepts/constructively (note... the child does NOT have to be a girl).

3. Players will stop playing or start griefing, because they can't find anything else and won't play Eve camps.

At least that's my take on it so far. When do you think the number of Eves should and should not be a problem?

DarkDrak · 2019-06-06 09:41:13

Personally I use /die a lot. When logging in the first time in the day, i /die to see all available civilizations. Since then i /die to get born into the one/ones i like the most. It costs nothing to do.

The idea of a choise screen is awesome, but if it was implemented, i'd probably still /die until i see all the available civilizations (but hey, at least it wouldnt be annoying to the same person more than once). Also nowdays there are many cases of a lineage having spread over 2-3 towns, so a vast lineage would require more deaths to see all of their towns.
I also assume that people who /die because they didnt like their name or didnt receive cloth will still continue doing that, but again, at least they wont be annoying to the same person.

The idea of putting an eve button in there though would inevitably get back the uncursable mass murdering eves. Unless that button had a cooldown of its own.

About your original gene idea though, correct me if im wrong, but you didnt come up with it just to fix the /diying babies™ problem, did you? The way it was described would only allow people to spawn in 3-4 lineages at most, which would make people less attached to the other 3-4 lineages and their towns and favour the war that you longed to see emerging. Do you still intend to implement it somehow?

Ruben · 2019-06-06 15:50:08

jasonrohrer wrote:

For example, if you don't really care, and everything is meaningless, why would you bother building a statue that will eventually be turned into dust? The statue turning into dust only works as aesthetic content if someone was motivated to build it in the first place.
The excessive /DIE behavior highlights a fundamental problem with the game, and I believe that problem is deeply related to the player's role in the metaphysics of the game.
If a player was specifically connected to this family, and then necessarily this life (because wasting a life in this family would hurt this family), then suicide would no longer be a problem.
But connecting a player to one family (which I've toyed with before) undercuts the "real goodbye" aesthetic and also, likely the "every life is different" promise.

To be honest, I loved that "real goodbye" when first playing the game, only to find out later that you can still get yourself into that same family by constantly /DIE-ing. At first, it made me upset, it felt like I have been deceived, and my urge to punish those who spam /DIE grew inside me.
But I can tell from experience, that those "punishments", fueled by hate, are just shortcomings of me trying to find a solution. It's like giving up trying to create an intricate system.

My actual problem is the desire to want more of that "real goodbye". I just cannot let it go - it has to be in the game, I mean, it has become a trademark of sorts, hasn't it?
But what if you wouldn't fear your own death, but the death of your entire family? Wouldn't that be much more devastating? Wouldn't that be the "REAL goodbye"?

Imagine I would be able to reconnect to my last family as a new child. It would still be "One hour one life" - you trip, you die, you (have to) respawn:
- My urge to protect this family has grown - everyone knows me, as a part of my name will not vanish when dying - and I know them.
- Griefers have long been cast out of this family by democracy (too many curses), they are no longer able to connect to this family.
- Protecting the "family" means protecting the "family name", which in turn could be a placeable thing, a banner, or artifact of sorts, first held by the eve.
- This banner can be destroyed by other families. Protecting this banner adds another layer to the survival part of the family - true warfare. Upon destroying the banner, players lose their family names and cannot respawn to that family, as it does no longer exist. This would urge players to fortify their belongings.
- Coorperating families merge their names, just like their language. They end up having the same banner, meaning that one banner will vanish. The merge is in favor of the longest existing family name.
- /DIE will no longer need to exist

Honestly, I wouldn't try to tinker with genetics very much. That system would just seem too rigid, whereas human families are rooted in a much more complex environment. A family name is, like in real life, virtual. It only exists on paper, yet everyone identifies with it. It is the essence of motivation.
And boy do I want to see a family trying to sneak their banner away from their hometown during a heavy siege .

Having infinite time in this open world would seem bland at first, but that's just because there are too many resources around. "Why do I have to stay in this rotting village, when theres untouched wilderness just 100 blocks away"?
Well, why would you live in a city, when you can get a nice house in the land? Because the city provides more "TECH", and it cannot be moved around that easily.
I for one enjoy playing for multiple hours at a time in the same village. It doesn't become bland at all - actually, the only thing stopping me from having fun is the sudden realization that this will not last forever, or shall I say: whether it lasts forever, or not, ->is not for me to decide<-.
As other players get to know each other only by session (1 hour), and not by family names (possibly infinite - fueled by my very own upkeep), everyone gets the feeling that they are alone in this world, and not part of a ->bigger thing<-.

Sorry for just spewing out my ideas, it is one of my offensive traits, haha. But I would really like to see something as unstable as this implemented, who knows what could happen?

Saolin · 2019-06-06 18:58:47

Spoonwood wrote:

Saolin wrote:
Spoonwood wrote:
Nope. More people are needed to fulfill the fudamental concepts of civilization building and parenting. More people being an Eve and trying to start a family and build up to a town means more players likely to fulfill the fundamental concepts of parenting and civilization building.
This is just wrong and you know it, spoonwood. There isn't close to enough players to support 1000 eves per day. Unless you're a griefer who wants to have 0 births as eve.
I said what I believed. You can tell yourself that you know my own mind you want all day long, but that won't make you right. In my opinion people are often bad at reading minds... especially those outside of their social circle, and I've found this the case rather consistently in my life with my own mind.
Having 0 births as an Eve is not griefing. That's simply preposterous, because griefing is something a player does, while having babies is something that happens to the player.
Wanting anything is also not griefing. Wanting is an emotion, while griefing is the behavior of a player in game.
Have a nice day or night as the case may be.

Lol you completely ignored my point. So do you think we have the player base to support 1000 eves per day?

pein · 2019-06-07 01:41:23

we need every player to spawn as eve and Ai babies

Spoonwood · 2019-06-07 01:46:55

Saolin wrote:

Spoonwood wrote:
Saolin wrote:
This is just wrong and you know it, spoonwood. There isn't close to enough players to support 1000 eves per day. Unless you're a griefer who wants to have 0 births as eve.
I said what I believed. You can tell yourself that you know my own mind you want all day long, but that won't make you right. In my opinion people are often bad at reading minds... especially those outside of their social circle, and I've found this the case rather consistently in my life with my own mind.
Having 0 births as an Eve is not griefing. That's simply preposterous, because griefing is something a player does, while having babies is something that happens to the player.
Wanting anything is also not griefing. Wanting is an emotion, while griefing is the behavior of a player in game.
Have a nice day or night as the case may be.
Lol you completely ignored my point. So do you think we have the player base to support 1000 eves per day?

I think I said this:

Spoonwood wrote:

More people are needed to fulfill the fudamental concepts of civilization building and parenting.

If you have a point you want to make, then go ahead and make it.

Last edited by Spoonwood (2019-06-07 01:47:10)

Spoonwood · 2019-06-07 01:49:10

pein wrote:

we need every player to spawn as eve and Ai babies

*laughs* That might be an interesting game. Could be a game of parenting and civilization building. But, it wouldn't be multiplayer. Then again, griefing wouldn't exist (just challenge from the AI that might be silly) if players were spread out enough. So it might be a better game to play (would Eve chaining be possible for all players)! Alright, it's probably not that simple. It can be more fun to play with other people.

Last edited by Spoonwood (2019-06-07 01:55:15)

One Hour One Life Forums

#51 2019-06-05 23:41:33

Re: Rethinking the player's role in the game

#52 2019-06-05 23:44:17

Re: Rethinking the player's role in the game

#53 2019-06-05 23:50:02

Re: Rethinking the player's role in the game

#54 2019-06-06 00:26:48

Re: Rethinking the player's role in the game

#55 2019-06-06 01:06:43

Re: Rethinking the player's role in the game

#56 2019-06-06 01:12:55

Re: Rethinking the player's role in the game

#57 2019-06-06 01:27:57

Re: Rethinking the player's role in the game

#58 2019-06-06 01:32:47

Re: Rethinking the player's role in the game

#59 2019-06-06 01:44:27

Re: Rethinking the player's role in the game

#60 2019-06-06 01:47:04

Re: Rethinking the player's role in the game

#61 2019-06-06 02:11:19

Re: Rethinking the player's role in the game

#62 2019-06-06 02:18:19

Re: Rethinking the player's role in the game

#63 2019-06-06 03:18:08

Re: Rethinking the player's role in the game

#64 2019-06-06 03:42:41

Re: Rethinking the player's role in the game

#65 2019-06-06 03:53:53

Re: Rethinking the player's role in the game

#66 2019-06-06 04:34:42

Re: Rethinking the player's role in the game

#67 2019-06-06 04:36:56

Re: Rethinking the player's role in the game

#68 2019-06-06 05:48:01

Re: Rethinking the player's role in the game

#69 2019-06-06 07:01:35

Re: Rethinking the player's role in the game

#70 2019-06-06 09:41:13

Re: Rethinking the player's role in the game

#71 2019-06-06 15:50:08

Re: Rethinking the player's role in the game

#72 2019-06-06 18:58:47

Re: Rethinking the player's role in the game

#73 2019-06-07 01:41:23

Re: Rethinking the player's role in the game

#74 2019-06-07 01:46:55

Re: Rethinking the player's role in the game

#75 2019-06-07 01:49:10

Re: Rethinking the player's role in the game

Board footer