[Discussion] Biome Exclusivity vs. Biome Efficiency

Wuatduhf · 2019-12-10 02:07:30

This thread is to really dig into the Racial Specializations update, the good and bad that come from it, and to argue why it should be treated in the same way the Language system was handled.

The language system is a good mechanic. While rough on its launch, it's now in a good place. On the surface, communication between families is impossible, but given enough time or resources, families could still learn to communicate with each other to be able to cooperate.

I believe that is how Biome Specialization should have been treated, and still can be, by introducing "acclimation".

Acclimation is nothing that doesn't exist IRL; various ethnic groups are better acclimated to warmer, colder, wetter, or drier regions because they've lived there, and have grown accustomed to the area's conditions. However, this does not prevent people alien to those conditions to be unable to live and operate within it.

I believe that players should be able to 'acclimate' to a specialty biome if they spend enough time in it, suffering from the biome's conditions during this process. From there, the methods of implementation are one of two ways; either the player has to survive 3 minutes straight (which means no eating during that entire time), or they would need to have a cumulative total of 10 minutes spent within the hazardous biome.

This effect would happen for each type of biome, Jungle, Desert, and Snow, so that unlocking one does not unlock the others. Races can be special without being forced to have entire parts of the world only manageable by them. This goes counter to the game's experience by completely locking content away, and removing any agency for the player to overcome it.

"But that's what Tool slots do!"

Not really. You are free to learn whatever tools you want, but you are capped on the maximum amount you are able to learn. You still have the choice to be able to experience specific content. Biome Specialization inherently excludes you from content because you were born a specific race and you have no choice besides SID.

"How does this change the current multi-cultural towns at all?"

Because towns will no longer have a mandatory NEED for multiple races to co-exist for it to survive. If given enough time, a family of gingers could invest time in their members becoming acclimated to the desert and the jungle to be able to retrieve the materials they need for their skin tone to do anything for them. But you have to keep acclimating someone in every single generation to continue to have access to those resources, so there is still a value in working with other races.

"But Jason plans to add more biomes for more races in the future!"

And this works to that perfectly! The more biomes there are, the more places where time has to be spent acclimating in order to exploit its natural resources. Some villages could get away with it, while others may just go the route of cooperating with other families to do the work for them in exchange for them working their own places.

In conclusion: The key point here is not "exclusivity" as the title says, but about "efficiency". It's more efficient to work with a black family to go into the desert for resources, because it saves your village from acclimation time. However, if the player always has the option to waste their own time getting to that same resources, then it's no longer an arbitrary blocker forcing families to be together.

DestinyCall · 2019-12-10 02:17:42

I like it. Options are good. And this would allow villages to benefit from close neighbors while not completely dooming isolated villages.

Spoonwood · 2019-12-10 03:33:50

No, this should not happen by race changes. It should get connected to family, meaning that such has a solid genetic basis, not a superficial one like race. Yes, all content should be accessible, but not equally efficiently by each family. But why not just have it so that each family can make a specialty object? Also, I don't see how your proposal discourages multi-racial villages.

I proposed this back in November. Please ignore the apocalypse concept:

Spoonwood wrote:

The apocalypse happened in such a way where some people had specialized knowledge survived. But, that knowledge was more about how well to do a particular task. For example, some Boots who survived the apocalypse had knowledge of *how to make* an object which some German who survived the apocalypse doesn't have. Such an object JUST improves the amount of resources that can get obtained from doing something. Like there's some object that Boots has knowledge to make which enables to get two tanks of kerosone from tarry spot instead of just one. That knowledge gets passed down through each generation also, even though Boots won't be applying that knowledge herself. People have changed such that they no longer can remember such pre-apoclyptic knowledge if they stand too far away from where some Boots, German, Bear, or Uno spawned (I don't quite like this... seems too silly even in a post-apocalyptic scenario, but it might limit multicultural settlements). Also, for some unknown reason when people pop into a post-apocalyptic world the first person would have knowledge on how to get more from a rubber tree, the second how to get more oil from a well, and so on.

Wuatduhf · 2019-12-10 04:42:16

Spoonwood wrote:

No, this should not happen by race changes. It should get connected to family, meaning that such has a solid genetic basis, not a superficial one like race. Yes, all content should be accessible, but not equally efficiently by each family. But why not just have it so that each family can make a specialty object? Also, I don't see how your proposal discourages multi-racial villages.
I proposed this back in November. Please ignore the apocalypse concept:
Spoonwood wrote:
The apocalypse happened in such a way where some people had specialized knowledge survived. But, that knowledge was more about how well to do a particular task. For example, some Boots who survived the apocalypse had knowledge of *how to make* an object which some German who survived the apocalypse doesn't have. Such an object JUST improves the amount of resources that can get obtained from doing something. Like there's some object that Boots has knowledge to make which enables to get two tanks of kerosone from tarry spot instead of just one. That knowledge gets passed down through each generation also, even though Boots won't be applying that knowledge herself. People have changed such that they no longer can remember such pre-apoclyptic knowledge if they stand too far away from where some Boots, German, Bear, or Uno spawned (I don't quite like this... seems too silly even in a post-apocalyptic scenario, but it might limit multicultural settlements). Also, for some unknown reason when people pop into a post-apocalyptic world the first person would have knowledge on how to get more from a rubber tree, the second how to get more oil from a well, and so on.

The latter concept is what I wanted instead of Biome specialization, but here we are. I'm going to disregard it - not because I disagree, since I very much agreed with and discussed that being a feature months ago - but because it's irrelevant to the now-existant feature that is Biome Specialization. We have to work within the scope of what exists within the game, and I don't think either of us sees Jason deleting all of that development.

"I don't see how your proposal discourages multi-racial villages."

I never said it did? Acclimation would remove the hard requirement of other races. You would no longer be coerced into finding Browns/Blacks/Gingers. You are suggested to finding them to make your life easier. Griefers would lose their benefit over pushing for mono-family town ruling, or stirring up violence to get one family to kill off the other, and accelerate the village's death. On the opposite end, families would no longer feel the 'pressure' that may hold the less-moderate players back from partaking in genocides.

Both of those outcomes are things Jason would very much want to see played out in the game.

Spoonwood · 2019-12-10 05:34:33

Wuatduhf wrote:

We have to work within the scope of what exists within the game, and I don't think either of us sees Jason deleting all of that development.

Thanks for the link. I didn't remember that.

Wutaduhf wrote:

We have to work within the scope of what exists within the game, and I don't think either of us sees Jason deleting all of that development.

It's not part of the core development of the game. Remember, given that a server's population drops below 15, race restrictions cease to exist, same goes for tool slots. Both rely on hope that the bigserver2 context had the capability of a consistent number of players to handle them. The institution of racism and tool slots lie more in the interactions desired between players than the opportunities that players have. Jason may insist that players will find benefit in them because of numbers on bs2. But, I don't see enough reason to believe that he will necessarily maintain his insistence on both of those indefinitely, since he knows that they are not part of the core development of the game. And players can work around both restrictions to some degree, probably to a very large degree. Wild food exists and migration is possible, so trading can get avoided in principle under the current institution of racism. If NO families decided to even try to trade on bs2, do you really think he would be happy with a situation where no family made it past a deep well? Planes and cars not happening is one thing. But if there were no oil, no rubber, no pumps whatsoever, no horsecarts, and basically little to no people using content in speciality biomes, do you really think he would then stubbornly stick to the current institution of racism? Racism is a lot less content than what's in jungle, in deserts, and tundras after all. It took far more updates to put everything there that exists there and figure out how they work than the institution of racism, and the division of tool slots.

I think the institution of racism a lot more fragile than you seem to think. There hasn't existed a massive revolt against it exactly, not an effective one. But if families were not to make it past a deep well for a week, I believe Jason would be reeling at basically no one having any sort of reaction to any of the content he developed for months.

I definitely can imagine Jason deleting all of the institution of racism. Whether that comes to pass though is another matter.

Wuatduhf wrote:

"I don't see how your proposal discourages multi-racial villages."
I never said it did?

No, you did not say that, you speak correctly. However, since it does not discourage multi-cultural villages, multi-cultural villages could be an alternative, and trading might just not happen because multi-cultural villages would be simpler.

Wuatduhf wrote:

Acclimation would remove the hard requirement of other races.

There is no hard requirement. I guess you'll find it silly for me saying that you could play elsewhere than bs2. But also, migration is possible. Lack of a diesel water pump is not a cause of death, nor is the lack of a newcomen pump, nor is the lack of a horsecart, nor is the lack of rosebushes, and so on. And the map is 7 times the surface of Jupiter or something like that.

Wuatduhf wrote:

You would no longer be coerced into finding Browns/Blacks/Gingers.

But you aren't coerced. It's your insistence of technology and playing in the bs2 context that leads to you needing that. Or perhaps insisting on rose bushes if you happen to be black. Migration is possible.

Wuatduhf · 2019-12-10 14:05:31

I have to disagree with everything you stated above.

While there are servers that are below the 15-pop count, I do not recognize those as actually playing the game to the interaction-level that OHOL was designed for. BS2 is without a doubt the intended way to experience the game, no matter how frustrating. Playing elsewhere is borderline sandbox mode. People can and sometimes migrate, but the vast majority won't if they want to see their town survive/thrive. They may form a multi-fam town, and just continue about their resource gathering specialties. But the moment they can be replaced with Acclimation and their family is being obnoxious, tensions can occur without the fear of dooming the entire population.

Acclimation isn't going to suddenly make trade exist either, please stop conflating other complaints to what I'm saying. For trade to happen, there has to be a compelling reason/environment for it to occur, and acclimation is only one pebble among dozens needed to make that exist.

The most common results of towns dying is very much contributed to the lack of water supply, a gap in food, or from a sudden murder spree/mass SIDs. I don't see how you can deny that. The town well running dry is the coercion that makes the villagers push for a better one; which leads to the Newcomen water pump, the "technology" that requires Black-Brown cooperation, and so on up and up.

Biome restrictions are here to stay. The reduced pacing of villages to diesel tech has proven the update a massive success in slowing things down ingame, even with its ham-fisted nature. It's up to Jason to complete it, or to move on and leave it in a rut.

Spoonwood · 2019-12-10 17:57:38

Wuatduhf wrote:

While there are servers that are below the 15-pop count, I do not recognize those as actually playing the game to the interaction-level that OHOL was designed for.

So when the reflector first starts moving players joining from s1 back to bs2, those people are not actually playing the game to the interaction-level that OHOL was designed for even though they are on bs2? Don't babies come rather fast during that period?

Were the people put onto server1 via load balancing not actually playing the game to the interaction-level that OHOL was designed for?

You've assumed an interaction-level that OHOL got designed for. Maybe there is no expected level, or a minimal expected level.

Wuatduf wrote:

... towns... towns... towns

But the metric isn't towns, it's lineages. At least according to game design. There is no measurement of towns. Genetic score, as flawed as it may well be, exists. Well, that's not exactly part of core development either, since no changes to it occur when playing on servers 2-15 I think. Though maybe that's based on population, I don't know.

Wuatduf wrote:

Biome restrictions are here to stay.

There is no guarantee that over the course of the week that bs2 will have more than 13 people when talking about months or years down the road. I watched Twisted's stream where he had the dropsy in one part of life, we suspected that he had gotten moved to server1, someone confirmed it, and he no longer had the dropsy in the middle of his life. Biome restrictions vanished out of existence in the same life. The load balancing procedure exists now, but is not constantly put into process, and apparently stops at some point in time. If someone ends up on server1 due to load balancing, the same may well happen if the player count grows like it did during the sale period, since when load balancing stops players joing or rejoing go back to bs2. So, biome restrictions can vanish rather quickly.

Bremidon · 2019-12-10 18:43:59

Wuatduhf wrote:

I believe that is how Biome Specialization should have been treated, and still can be, by introducing "acclimation".

Good idea. I think this could be a strong mechanic. There's lots of room to fiddle with the idea as well. Being born to someone who is already acclimated to a particular biome reduces the amount of time for the child to acclimate. Perhaps this is a potential power for the blondes: they can acclimate to any biome as if their mom was already acclimated.

I assume that you can acclimate to only one biome. At the very least, acclimating to another biome should cause you to lose any other acclimation you have.

Wuatduhf · 2019-12-10 19:03:27

Moving players between S1 and BS2 has no impact on my argument. Either scenario is playing with random strangers and making what you will of the world in imperfect collaboration. That's what the game used to be when first shown off on Steam and when there were 3-5 worlds of 50-80 people daily. That's not what happens in the "tertiary" worlds that are sub-5 people, who are intentionally playing there to have a narrow collaboration pool and work on their own projects.

I value towns more than lineages because lineages often get repeated in last name and die out a lot. I care much more about the experiences that get created in each town's existence, because their lifetimes vary so drastically and their challenges are unique based on their individual location and the presence of other towns nearby. This is also civilization building, so talking about towns is 100% fair in the scope of OHOL.

You know what I mean by them being here to stay, it's a feature. You may dislike it entirely, I may dislike how it was approached, but now that it exists in code I would be hard-pressed to see that completely cut out of the code. I can only see it getting revamped, and Acclimation is exactly how it can be revamped to bring it back "into scope".

Wuatduhf · 2019-12-10 19:09:03

Bremidon wrote:

Wuatduhf wrote:
I believe that is how Biome Specialization should have been treated, and still can be, by introducing "acclimation".
Good idea. I think this could be a strong mechanic. There's lots of room to fiddle with the idea as well. Being born to someone who is already acclimated to a particular biome reduces the amount of time for the child to acclimate. Perhaps this is a potential power for the blondes: they can acclimate to any biome as if their mom was already acclimated.
I assume that you can acclimate to only one biome. At the very least, acclimating to another biome should cause you to lose any other acclimation you have.

Very good point. I was thinking that Jason could re-tool the Blondes family to being able to do that, and further cement them as a 'jack-of-any-biomes' race, since a lot of people think that their ability to translate does nothing when alone, and is considered a 'drain' by others that just work and do no talking.

One Hour One Life Forums

#1 2019-12-10 02:07:30

[Discussion] Biome Exclusivity vs. Biome Efficiency

#2 2019-12-10 02:17:42

Re: [Discussion] Biome Exclusivity vs. Biome Efficiency

#3 2019-12-10 03:33:50

Re: [Discussion] Biome Exclusivity vs. Biome Efficiency

#4 2019-12-10 04:42:16

Re: [Discussion] Biome Exclusivity vs. Biome Efficiency

#5 2019-12-10 05:34:33

Re: [Discussion] Biome Exclusivity vs. Biome Efficiency

#6 2019-12-10 14:05:31

Re: [Discussion] Biome Exclusivity vs. Biome Efficiency

#7 2019-12-10 17:57:38

Re: [Discussion] Biome Exclusivity vs. Biome Efficiency

#8 2019-12-10 18:43:59

Re: [Discussion] Biome Exclusivity vs. Biome Efficiency

#9 2019-12-10 19:03:27

Re: [Discussion] Biome Exclusivity vs. Biome Efficiency

#10 2019-12-10 19:09:03

Re: [Discussion] Biome Exclusivity vs. Biome Efficiency

Board footer