Some Different Ideas for Server Systems

Spoonwood · 2020-01-14 16:54:16

Another thread prompted me to think about how things might alternatively work. Here's a copy of what I wrote about the idea of maximally spreading people around who aren't checking custom server:

Spoonwood wrote:

If any changes to the system for people not using a custom server, players should get spread out equally between all servers. This way consequences of design decisions in the game like race restrictions and tool slots would become more apparent. I think it would also minimize the load. It would result in less pressure to veteran players trying to support newer players. There would probably exist more time to teach with smaller groups. There wouldn't exist a need to rush water technology, because of fewer mouths to feed. There might exist more freedom for more players to take on projects that imagine they would find of value. There might not exist so much staleness in town design, because there would exist more of a variety of towns. It would also make for more possible contexts in which stories could develop, and thus suggests a wider variety of stories available.

Also towns might develop slower, thus it would be less likely that civilization getting too built up would lead to an issue, or allow a little more time for advanced technology to get balanced. Sales wouldn't cause such drastic changes on players, because there wouldn't exist a drastic change in the number of players that play in a group. Camps would spread out more slowly over time or newer players might have more of an understanding of early game camps, and thus have a greater appreciation of the value that technology can provide without feeling a need to rush things.

Right, that wouldn't work for updates. So, one server gets server for an update period, since it's irregular anyways. There's also probably some value in some players only playing with players who have checked a custom server. So, another server for that perhaps.

Looking at the numbers server1 would make for a suitable choice for the update server. Maybe the server which is available only by getting checked, is a randomly selected server that gets posted with every update, this way there's possibly an efficiently developed town on one of the servers that players not checking a custom server might discover during the week? Perhaps that would make fit with the discovery of an ancient town as possible?

Addendum: Also, what if players could give birth to bots during the later years of their fertility period if had no children alive? I've heard that the person who has gone by Toxic has some bots running on the discord.

Last edited by Spoonwood (2020-01-14 23:39:06)

fug · 2020-01-14 17:12:36

I have played this game in almost every version with almost every issue possible.

Less people on the servers is bad. The game is not meant to be played with <20 people what so ever and isn't remotely balanced around it. Ten people and three families was completely ass to play with and the issue can be seen and discussed in this specific thread:

https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewt … d=5019&p=2

Clearly the pictures are gone since I delete shit when I go on hiatus due to some change I really dislike but for an actual quote on how numbers were at one point:

Greep wrote:

Huh, 28/44/60/76 feels extremely low. I would've expected like double or triple those values. That would mean it's seriously expected that servers can survive 76/5 = 15 population. Which is kinda ridiculous.
It's also kinda weird that server1 is always the lowest by a wide margin. That wouldn't give a great experience for new players as people who choose a custom server are people who know most about the game, and server one is just going to be eve hell w/ extreme newbie concentration.

Just a reminder that a year ago we had times with over 200+ players.

Anyways, anything sub 20 is bad imo and having two servers with multiple families would be awful.

Spoonwood · 2020-01-14 18:04:02

fug wrote:

Less people on the servers is bad. The game is not meant to be played with <20 people what so ever and isn't remotely balanced around it.

Huh? The game is intended to be completely playable by a person on a private server as this thread makes clear when Jason talks about solo play: https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=4848

fug wrote:

Ten people and three families was completely ass to play with and the issue can be seen and discussed in this specific thread

If you are correct, then the foundations of the game I do not believe were solid fug, and should have gotten improved on.

Also, I completely disagree. I played during that time and did not feel that the game was complete ass then.

fug wrote:

Just a reminder that a year ago we had times with over 200+ players.

And we don't now.

fug wrote:

Anyways, anything sub 20 is bad imo and having two servers with multiple families would be awful.

You repeated an emotion several times. All you did effectively was shout "AWFUL, AWFUL, AWFUL"! I'm not finding any reasoning in your response. You did a similar thing in the thread you referenced. That got what you wanted I suppose from Jason, since he's always liked your bug reports. But, did it really lead to more diversity in player experiences? Did it really lead to having the ability to see what the game needs to improve on for it to become superior?

I don't understand Dodge's complaint as how it would end up relevant. He wanted more high tech expereinces? Check a custom server more often, and you'd end up more likely to spawn where you were an Eve.

You said this:

Tarr wrote:

The issue is even when picking your server you can be stuck in an Eve loop due to nowhere on the server being able to continue a lineage past one or two generations.

So what? There is no hope of longevity due to updates anyways at present. More heads would be aware of the problem of lineages dying out due to game mechanics and thus perhaps something other than masking the problems plaguing lineages with more people could get thought about or discovered.

Tarr wrote:

As soon as you are lineage banned from a town on these lop pop servers you're going to be in a constant state of Gen 1 or Gen 2 and the only fix for this is to leave the server thus lowering the population further until the other servers start having die outs to refill your own.

Does a lineage ban still exist? I don't think it does.

I don't know how many times I've gotten reborn as a child in a place that I had played in before in the low pop context. After the bigserver1 change, I ended up in Duck Town, Sand City, and another unnamed town many times. When I started up a new camp after Boundless World 2.0 I got reborn there a few times. I've also birthed children were the people with Eve spawns several times. So, no, your assertion about constant "Eve Hell" with a maximally spread out population could get avoided for someone like you Tarr, since you could use the custom server box and possibly use the discord to play with people that you want to play with to avoid what you call "Eve Hell". You could also have random children under my proposal.

fug · 2020-01-14 18:09:08

Spoonwood wrote:

fug wrote:
Less people on the servers is bad. The game is not meant to be played with <20 people what so ever and isn't remotely balanced around it.
Huh? The game is intended to be completely playable by a person on a private server as this thread makes clear when Jason talks about solo play: https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=4848
fug wrote:
Ten people and three families was completely ass to play with and the issue can be seen and discussed in this specific thread
If you are correct, then the foundations of the game I do not believe were solid fug, and should have gotten improved on.
Also, I completely disagree. I played during that time and did not feel that the game was complete ass then.
fug wrote:
Just a reminder that a year ago we had times with over 200+ players.
And we don't now.
fug wrote:
Anyways, anything sub 20 is bad imo and having two servers with multiple families would be awful.
You repeated an emotion several times. All you did effectively was shout "AWFUL, AWFUL, AWFUL"! I'm not finding any reasoning in your response. You did a similar thing in the thread you referenced. That got what you wanted I suppose from Jason, since he's always liked your bug reports. But, did it really lead to more diversity in player experiences? Did it really lead to having the ability to see what the game needs to improve on for it to become superior?
I don't understand Dodge's complaint as how it would end up relevant. He wanted more high tech expereinces? Check a custom server more often, and you'd end up more likely to spawn where you were an Eve.
You said this:
Tarr wrote:
The issue is even when picking your server you can be stuck in an Eve loop due to nowhere on the server being able to continue a lineage past one or two generations.
So what? There is no hope of longevity due to updates anyways at present. More heads would be aware of the problem of lineages dying out due to game mechanics and thus perhaps something other than masking the problems plaguing lineages with more people could get thought about or discovered.
Tarr wrote:
As soon as you are lineage banned from a town on these lop pop servers you're going to be in a constant state of Gen 1 or Gen 2 and the only fix for this is to leave the server thus lowering the population further until the other servers start having die outs to refill your own.
Does a lineage ban still exist? I don't think it does.
I don't know how many times I've gotten reborn as a child in a place that I had played in before in the low pop context. After the bigserver1 change, I ended up in Duck Town, Sand City, and another unnamed town many times. When I started up a new camp after Boundless World 2.0 I got reborn there a few times. I've also birthed children were the people with Eve spawns several times. So, no, your assertion about constant "Eve Hell" with a maximally spread out population could get avoided for someone like you Tarr, since you could use the custom server box and possibly use the discord to play with people that you want to play with to avoid what you call "Eve Hell". You could also have random children under my proposal.

I'm not reading any of that btw.

DestinyCall · 2020-01-14 18:14:54

Spreading the player population evenly across all sixteen(?) servers would probably stretch things too thin. As Fug pointed out, we wouldn't be able to support multiple towns on the same server, which cuts down on interesting player interactions. It would also make it much harder for players who want a true solo experience because it would pretty much eliminate low population servers from the base game. You would need to host a private server to play alone.

I do feel like Jason should utilize his servers better. We have so many of them, yet all to often, the majority of the servers are sitting empty. I'd love to see some alternative game modes. Like maybe the DEFAULT server is set to "easy mode" for new players with reduced hunger drain and more passive food bonus. And then there's a hardcore server for veterans who are looking for a real challenge that has more dangerous animals and less renewable wild food. You could pick the server you join to get a different player experience when the easy mode server gets too easy.

Spoonwood · 2020-01-14 18:17:00

fug wrote:

I have played this game in almost every version with almost every issue possible.

Also, my recollection comes as that you quit on the low pop experience with other people, and only use your private server for bug testing or, I would suppose, learning new things. I'm not at all convinced that you've tried to do anything creative on your private server. Isn't the game meant to get played for such a context also?

Spoonwood · 2020-01-14 18:29:52

DestinyCall wrote:

As Fug pointed out, we wouldn't be able to support multiple towns on the same server, which cuts down on interesting player interactions.

There could exist an exception:

ryanb wrote:

What if the players can decide if you can return after you are gone. For example, what if burying someone releases the area ban? Burying could be a way to "put their soul to rest" and allow them to return. You will then have an interesting choice after each person dies, should you bury them? Did they improve society, and do you want them to return?

What if burying someone made it so that the next time they got born, they would appear in the same spot as they died on the server where they died?

Jason took an interest apparently in burial return. https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewt … 987#p51987

DestinyCall wrote:

It would also make it much harder for players who want a true solo experience because it would pretty much eliminate low population servers from the base game. You would need to host a private server to play alone.

Couldn't players curse their babies now to have the same effect?

Spoonwood · 2020-01-14 23:41:05

Fug and DestinyCall:

What if players could give birth to bots if they were in their 30s and had no children still alive? From what I've heard bots already exist, programmed by the person who called himself Toxic.

DestinyCall · 2020-01-15 00:18:52

Personally, I don't like bots. Knowing that everyone in the village is a real person and everything was build by human hands is a big part of the reason why I can form deep emotional connections to the village and my family in the best of my OHOL lives. If some of my kids were replacedby bots, it would cheapen the experience.

But I would be perfectly fine with Jason adding the ability to build little robots that automatically pick berries, harvest carrots, and make compost for me.

That would be great.

Wuatduhf · 2020-01-15 02:09:13

Spoonwood wrote:

If you're playing games like WoW or Runescape with other players, you are doing it wrong. Games with social ties and civilization are all about the solo experience.
When have you ever played a multiplayer game and wanted to play with others?

fug · 2020-01-15 02:32:13

Wuatduhf wrote:

Spoonwood wrote:
If you're playing games like WoW or Runescape with other players, you are doing it wrong. Games with social ties and civilization are all about the solo experience.
When have you ever played a multiplayer game and wanted to play with others?

As someone who has played runescape nearly 16 years (on and off obviously) and WoW on and off since WoTLK I can tell he's talking directly out of his ass.

Runescape might be more geared towards solo play now years ago when I was younger it was chill to just waste hours playing minigames like castle wars and generally dicking around.

WoW is definitely played better in a social environment where you're doing stuff with others as pugging things (getting randoms to do stuff) leads to all sorts of nightmares vs doing things with a group which is tons of fun. Just thinking about how much fun it was had me looking back at parses and other things back in legion when I played wow seriously.

If he wasn't so dumb about these things it might be worth reading through his posts kek.

Spoonwood · 2020-01-15 03:34:43

fug wrote:

As someone who has played runescape nearly 16 years (on and off obviously) and WoW on and off since WoTLK I can tell he's talking directly out of his ass.

I never said any such thing fug. If you think I'm talking out of my ass, please address what I said, not what liar Wuatduhf wants you to believe.

It's one thing when you call me dumb. It's another when you get manipulated by someone like him, which apparently you have.

DestinyCall · 2020-01-15 04:13:35

I'm really getting tired of the fake quotes. I'm going to start reporting them to the moderators when I see it. Falsifying another person's words is disrespectful and disruptive forum behavior, in my opinion.

Wuatduhf · 2020-01-15 10:51:32

DestinyCall wrote:

I'm really getting tired of the fake quotes. I'm going to start reporting them to the moderators when I see it. Falsifying another person's words is disrespectful and disruptive forum behavior, in my opinion.

Tell me when we see falsification XD.

Nothing there is not the thoughts of OP. If "giving a crutch to support solo play" means "allowing full support for playing the game on your own" it's not an exaggeration that you're treating a game intended as an MMO as though it were a single-player focus.

Spoonwood · 2020-01-15 13:28:20

Wuatduhf wrote:

If "giving a crutch to support solo play" means "allowing full support for playing the game on your own" it's not an exaggeration that you're treating a game intended as an MMO as though it were a single-player focus.

OHOL is still not a game only intended as an MMO. It's suppose to be 100% playable with only one person online.

jasonrohrer wrote:

[...] was added a few years ago to make the game 100% playable if only one player is online.

https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=4848

One Hour One Life Forums

#1 2020-01-14 16:54:16

Some Different Ideas for Server Systems

#2 2020-01-14 17:12:36

Re: Some Different Ideas for Server Systems

#3 2020-01-14 18:04:02

Re: Some Different Ideas for Server Systems

#4 2020-01-14 18:09:08

Re: Some Different Ideas for Server Systems

#5 2020-01-14 18:14:54

Re: Some Different Ideas for Server Systems

#6 2020-01-14 18:17:00

Re: Some Different Ideas for Server Systems

#7 2020-01-14 18:29:52

Re: Some Different Ideas for Server Systems

#8 2020-01-14 23:41:05

Re: Some Different Ideas for Server Systems

#9 2020-01-15 00:18:52

Re: Some Different Ideas for Server Systems

#10 2020-01-15 02:09:13

Re: Some Different Ideas for Server Systems

#11 2020-01-15 02:32:13

Re: Some Different Ideas for Server Systems

#12 2020-01-15 03:34:43

Re: Some Different Ideas for Server Systems

#13 2020-01-15 04:13:35

Re: Some Different Ideas for Server Systems

#14 2020-01-15 10:51:32

Re: Some Different Ideas for Server Systems

#15 2020-01-15 13:28:20

Re: Some Different Ideas for Server Systems

Board footer