Can we finally have finite wild berries, pls?

Coconut Fruit · 2020-03-25 22:12:36

I would like finite berries even more after current iron changes. It doesn't really matter that getting iron from mines is hungry work, because with infinite berries it's still free to get iron. If you are on a horse, it's even easier to get iron for free.

Wild berries are too OP since they are infinite, I never liked how OP they are.

Going outside of town to harvest tons of milkweed or iron doesn't even require getting a single food from your town, I would like it to change.

Elsayal · 2020-03-25 22:16:17

It will be the same without infinite berries : nature is providing in wilderness.

Legs · 2020-03-25 22:19:15

I agree, goose ponds should also have a finite non-replenishing water supply with only one goose and one egg per pond.

Spoonwood · 2020-03-25 22:30:26

If you don't like infinite berries in the wild, you can play by refusing to eat them in any life by your own choice and cursing anyone who tries to feed them to you (which doesn't seem likely to happen anyways).

If you don't like other players having access to infinite berries, why is that? Are you so sure that if something feels OP for you, it feels OP for other players also?

If no one ate wild berries, infinite berries wouldn't exist. So you could also try to persuade others not to eat berries from the wild.

Really, one might be forgiven for saying that they expect to already be taking measures to never eat berries from the wild, and to encourage others to do so *voluntarily*.

Have you already been trying to eat only berries from domestic bushes?

jasonrohrer · 2020-03-25 22:35:06

Good points!

I think I'll still let you water them to refresh them over time.

Coconut Fruit · 2020-03-25 22:46:56

jasonrohrer wrote:

I think I'll still let you water them to refresh them over time.

That's great idea.

Spoonwood · 2020-03-25 22:49:10

jasonrohrer wrote:

Good points!
I think I'll still let you water them to refresh them over time.

With all due respect to Mr. Coconut Fruit, I find it rather likely that s/he refuses to take responsibility for playing in such a way as if the game had finite berries. If such a person was serious about wanting to play that way, it would be likely that they would have *already* taken steps to not eat wild berries. So, I don't think this person has spoken on a solid knowledge of understanding oneself about how they will enjoy playing. It may be lack of self-knowledge for this person.

Even if the above isn't correct, the above post is not about having players take responsibility for their own gameplay or try to play on the basis of their own self-knowledge.

Without players trying to play on the basis of self-knowledge this game certainly doesn't encourage people living an examined life, and thus would likely get condemned by Socrates who believed that the "unexamined life is not worth living".

pein · 2020-03-25 22:58:06

Jason, could those bushes move like rabbit hole shovelling?

If the bush gets empty it could despawn and respawn further.

I don't think it's a huge issue, I saw cities with 20ish wild bushes and no one picked them down, that was high value, really shouldn't discriminate the people who actually go out to scavenge.

Spongewood, are you always this stupid or you are making a special effort today?

Watering wild bushes and still having them spawn over time, seems a bit weird, maybe if their spawn timer would be faster if you water them, then it would be okay.
Doemstic berries are more annoying to me, people just plant tons of them and it's hard to say or do anything to stop it. Maybe they could die out eventually. Could it be done like the Newcomen well? If it runs out of uses it dies out. So speedign up the work on them could gett rid of them eventually. That way we wouldn't waste water on diggging out, but picking them and watering them like 4 times and 5th time it would die out.
Or maybe rework the seed system that you could only plant a domestic one if you fully empty a wild one. That would give one seed, and you couldn't make seeds from domestic ones. That way people would need to go out, scavenge for seeds and have way less bushes and focus more on other food types.

Coconut Fruit · 2020-03-25 23:05:21

Stop it Spoonwood... I remember you even requested to make the game with no need to eat at all. I want this game to be more interesting and you trying to make it boring af.

I won't refuse eating will berries as long as they are infinite and there is no reason to not eat theme. Going outside of town should be more risky and should require getting food supply from your town. This change would also encourage people to yum, which is also interesting. Both yum and making yum foods is interesting.

We never teach new people to yum, we teach them farming, cooking basic pies and smithing sometimes, but we don't show them how different foods look like and how to eat them, it would be interesting to teach them this too.

Spoonwood · 2020-03-25 23:13:17

pein wrote:

Spongewood, are you always this stupid or you are making a special effort today?

What exactly do you find stupid?

Unless fed by someone else, there's no need for any player to play as if wild berries are infinite. You want to argue that players in Eve camps have to eat them? They could still limit their own self to a finite number of berries like 2 or 3.

Bottom line: coming up with a variant whereby a player or players simulate the conditions of finite berries isn't all that complicated. Thus, the original post does NOT make good points.

Morti · 2020-03-25 23:21:18

jasonrohrer wrote:

Good points!
I think I'll still let you water them to refresh them over time.

Is nothing sacred?

Morti · 2020-03-25 23:45:49

Jason, you've already not just taken my cactus fruit away from me for 3/4 of my time, but of that time, 100% of the joy of making that fruit abundant and available to others, is gone, because I cannot just flood the world around the cactus for every passerby to enjoy.

The berry of the desert is a thing of the past.

Don't make the berry of the world the same. It is an icon of the game, a staple, of it's deck.

Spoonwood · 2020-03-25 23:46:26

Coconut Fruit wrote:

Stop it Spoonwood... I remember you even requested to make the game with no need to eat at all.

I don't think I requested that.

Coconut Fruit wrote:

I want this game to be more interesting and you trying to make it boring af.

You claim that finite berries would be interesting, but you won't ever take a means to actually make that the case for you when you *can* do so.

Coconut Fruit wrote:

I won't refuse eating will berries as long as they are infinite and there is no reason to not eat theme.

Your post were it reflective of what you want implies that there would have existed a reason for you not to eat them; because you would find finite berries in the wild more interesting. But it's clear as the noonday say that you won't follow your own proclaimed interest by your own choice when you could already do so and could have been doing so for a long time. People who can choose to do what they want generally follow their own interests.

Coconut Fruit wrote:

Going outside of town should be more risky and should require getting food supply from your town.

You say that, but you wouldn't even subject yourself to more risky conditions when you could have done so.

Coconut Fruit wrote:

This change would also encourage people to yum, which is also interesting. Both yum and making yum foods is interesting.

But you haven't taken measures to change your own play style to yum in a manner similar to what you propose. So, I honestly just don't believe that what you actually want is what you say you want. And that's because I don't find it hard to conceive that you could have already simulated such.

Coconut Fruit wrote:

We never teach new people to yum, we teach them farming, cooking basic pies and smithing sometimes, but we don't show them how different foods look like and how to eat them, it would be interesting to teach them this too.

You could have taught people to yum before. Apparently, you haven't been doing that either. Again, were you to believe it interesting for people to yum, I believe that you would have already been trying to do such in game.

Last edited by Spoonwood (2020-03-25 23:48:55)

DestinyCall · 2020-03-26 00:14:27

Morti wrote:

Jason, you've already not just taken my cactus fruit away from me for 3/4 of my time, but of that time, 100% of the joy of making that fruit abundant and available to others, is gone, because I cannot just flood the world around the cactus for every passerby to enjoy.
The berry of the desert is a thing of the past.
Don't make the berry of the world the same. It is an icon of the game, a staple, of it's deck.

Nothing is sacred, Morti. I'm sorry.

pein · 2020-03-26 00:26:18

Spoonwood wrote:

If you don't like infinite berries in the wild, you can play by refusing to eat them in any life by your own choice and cursing anyone who tries to feed them to you (which doesn't seem likely to happen anyways).
If you don't like other players having access to infinite berries, why is that? Are you so sure that if something feels OP for you, it feels OP for other players also?
If no one ate wild berries, infinite berries wouldn't exist. So you could also try to persuade others not to eat berries from the wild.
Really, one might be forgiven for saying that they expect to already be taking measures to never eat berries from the wild, and to encourage others to do so *voluntarily*.
Have you already been trying to eat only berries from domestic bushes?

Ok step by step:

Setting yourself limits is roleplay at best, want to make it harder on yourself? sure, it won't be actually harder.
The real challenge is when you want to beat the game at all times, so using the information you got the best way to ensure your survival.
The best games got balancing to prevent that, for example Pro evolution soccer has an AI which learns your patterns over time, so each game you will find harder to do the same thing and creativity is rewarded. To curse over the berries? seriously? you might be the only one who gets so butthurt because people don't see the world the way you do.

But I guess you are the only one who thought that an unintentional side effect of the yum mechanic was an actual feature. Limitless yum made players selfish and uneffective and you were the only one trying to convince others that is worth it, while the math was all against it.
First, try to understand why the wild berries are needed: it's early game insurance that people can survive a while or move forward, it has to sustain a few people but it has to have some pressure to make them fail if they don't hurry.
The mechanics of the late game is the same so wild food is free food, which is way better than settling down. I think that players who go on exploring and scavenging still have to be rewarded. The good balance would be a high early game bonus but a lower late game bonus or a different way of rewarding players.
The real challenge would be that some wild food spawns around you, but you got a limited time to find it so, for example, you got 1 food in 40x40 and that would take 3 min to see all of it but you need to eat within 1.5 min.

I guess 1 bite wild food would be decent, where you got food for each person, but it would be totally random locations and you would have to uncover several spots, like pushing bushes away or digging down in piles, look under stones etc.
Fixed spot regenerating food can be valuable since we had a lot of water nerfs. Also what I think it would work is that everyone has wild food only visible to them, and limited to barely sustain them, others wouldn't be able to see the same thing. This could have a bit of an issue, so you couldn't point others to wild food, but it would be interesting from a game theory standpoint that if others can't pick the same food up, and if you give to them you decrease your own chances, would you share it or not. So a procedurally generated wild food system where every time you are hungry a food spawns somewhere, so there would always be a correct path, but you would be the only one who can solve it. That would be challenging for newbies and easier for skilled players since newbies are afraid to go far and take risks and get disoriented in the wilds.

This is how you play the game? You can't convince others to do or not to do things, not everyone. The game has to give you tools to limit other activities. People follow you if you are a good leader, a fast worker if you can arrange things differently. You can come up with efficient setups. You still won't be able to get rid of habits like planting too many bushes, just by telling them not to do it. In an ideal game, good behaviour would get reards and bad would get punished. Ofc everyone will do what the game allows them to do when we had the carrot bug, people lifted carrots over and over so they don't have to eat at all, that's obviously a game error and people shouldn't abuse it. Butt the current problem is how to help the early game and the exploration without making it too efficient compared to settling down.

What you are talking about is some sort of self rules, which is totally unrelated to this and wouldn't solve a thing.
I had many lives where 60 people die around me and I still survived, many lives where I made a viable city with a pen, enough iron but the family still died out. So in my standpoint, the food game is way too easy, and when I first played with others on different server I was wondering why the player base is so bad on surviving while travelling short distances. Nevertheless, there were plenty of lives where I couldn't survive cause there was no optimal path to take, and we were fighting for the last bite. I guess you won't understand cause you are playing low pop server most off the time.

It's not a question about making things harder for yourself or others, it's about finding an optimal output that is challenging but balanced.
Right now is Op to eat wild food and not really pressuring for leeches who just eat but don't work, and the game doesn't force people enough to go out and bring back food. Even if it would be optimal to collect wild berries and branches around the town no one really does it.

It's a survival game and it's multiplayer, stop acting like it should be a linear rule to it how things work, people should be pressured over time to learn, it's satisfying to overcome problems, it's not satisfying to do illogical self rules to artificially make things harder for yourself.

Spoonwood · 2020-03-26 01:42:24

pein wrote:

Ok step by step:
Setting yourself limits is roleplay at best, want to make it harder on yourself?

For roleplay to exist there has to exist a *role* that one plays. There is no role played by someone who doesn't eat wild berries or only eats an a priori fixed amount of them. So, NO, such is not roleplay. Doing such would be a variant.

pein wrote:

sure, it won't be actually harder.

Yeah, I don't see how you can say that seriously, unless you've never played a variant. I've played enough variants to know that they do make things harder in general.

pein wrote:

The real challenge is when you want to beat the game at all times, so using the information you got the best way to ensure your survival.

Whatever 'beat' means gets assumed as constant, given that the player has some condition for winning.

pein wrote:

The best games got balancing to prevent that, for example Pro evolution soccer has an AI which learns your patterns over time, so each game you will find harder to do the same thing and creativity is rewarded.

I don't know why you bring up beating a game when talking about this one. Look, this is simple. It's a survival game. You die. Your family dies out. You play again you will die. Your family will die also. There is no survival. Not for you, nor for your family. You thus CANNOT win the game ever. You want to talk about balancing? The game has ZERO balance for winning, because winning doesn't exist. It's all lose, lose, lose, always has been, and always will be from what I can tell. So why in the world do you want to talk about a sports game where you can win, when you can't win at OHOL ever?

pein wrote:

To curse over the berries? seriously? you might be the only one who gets so butthurt because people don't see the world the way you do.

The player of the variant could inform the other player of the variant as a first warning and then curse after I suppose. But, sure seriously. You play the game. Why you curse is up to you.

pein wrote:

But I guess you are the only one who thought that an unintentional side effect of the yum mechanic was an actual feature. Limitless yum made players selfish and uneffective and you were the only one trying to convince others that is worth it, while the math was all against it.

I don't think so. I don't think something like yum makes players selfish or not.

pein wrote:

First, try to understand why the wild berries are needed: it's early game insurance that people can survive a while or move forward, it has to sustain a few people but it has to have some pressure to make them fail if they don't hurry.

They fail. No exceptions. It doesn't matter whether berries are infinite or finite with respect to their success or failure. Berries have to sustain people? No, there's no necessary amount of time that players have to survive. And players don't survive individually nor collectively.

pein wrote:

This is how you play the game?

I've played lives trying to yum the entire time and others not yumming at all, or rather minimally. And that's like not in the first month of play. So if the question is, do I play variants? I guess I could answer yes.

pein wrote:

The game has to give you tools to limit other activities.

No, it does not have to have a finite food limit to wild bushes. Never did. Players can often limit things for themselves. You could play a variant. You don't want to, you don't have to. But, if you problem is that you want something in game, and you could make that condition happen in game yourself, and you don't take the responsibility of playing a variant, well I think you just don't understand what you want.

Players may lack the imagination to come up with variants in some cases. But, a food variant only having so many wild berries possible over time, can get simulated without all that much creative thought. And food variants aren't that difficult in general. Don't eat any wild berries. One wild berry per life. Two wild berries per life. What is difficult in concept in any of those? I don't see anything difficult.

You can't limit yourself in terms of what you eat? No way. You're a free person and have that sort of self-control.

pein wrote:

You still won't be able to get rid of habits like planting too many bushes, just by telling them not to do it.

You've digressed into talking about domestic berry bushes. This thread was about wild berry bushes before this.

pein wrote:

Ofc everyone will do what the game allows them to do when we had the carrot bug, people lifted carrots over and over so they don't have to eat at all, that's obviously a game error and people shouldn't abuse it.

I remember playing during that time. No, I didn't only eat carrots. And I for sure as hell didn't have to do such. The game allows plenty of behavior that I've never done, and you've never done either, because behavior includes combination of actions, and who the hell wants to spend the time to see the edge of the map?

pein wrote:

Butt the current problem is how to help the early game and the exploration without making it too efficient compared to settling down.

So did you try doing so last week or the week before by playing a variant where you only ate certain types of foods or a limited amount of foods? Again, if you didn't play such a variant, I don't believe that you were interested in what you say. I have a hard time believing such as ever being an in-game problem, because creating conditions like such in game doesn't seem difficult to think up.

pein wrote:

I had many lives where 60 people die around me and I still survived, many lives where I made a viable city with a pen, enough iron but the family still died out. So in my standpoint, the food game is way too easy, and when I first played with others on different server I was wondering why the player base is so bad on surviving while travelling short distances. Nevertheless, there were plenty of lives where I couldn't survive cause there was no optimal path to take, and we were fighting for the last bite. I guess you won't understand cause you are playing low pop server most off the time.

I'm sure as can be that you can play a variant on bigserver2 and could have done so long before. Again, I don't see any reason why you can't play a food restriction variant on bigserver2 in the future. I also don't see any reason that players couldn't play food restriction variants on bigserver2 before.

pein wrote:

It's not a question about making things harder for yourself or others, it's about finding an optimal output that is challenging but balanced.

There is no such optimal output, because the player population varies too much.

pein wrote:

Right now is Op to eat wild food

Nonsense. Were you to believe it OP you would have long ago played a food variant, and would have told anyone who claimed such was "roleplaying" to go away.

pein wrote:

and not really pressuring for leeches who just eat but don't work

Right, leeches. This "OP" stuff is just about hating on players who don't want food restrictions and making things harder on them. It's NOT about co-operating with them. It's about degrading those players. Probably because the game has no win condition, you feel like you're winning if you do better than them. But you're not. You only lose this game. Always. It doesn't matter if the food system becomes harder on new players, you will still lose and fail at winning this game.

pein wrote:

the game doesn't force people enough to go out and bring back food.

Oh, so the game has to force players, because they aren't free agents who can make decisions for themselves. Yeah, nonsense. They can take up such on their own initiative. They don't want to do so? Then it's not *attractive* to them. Trying to force people to do things doesn't make doing that something more attractive to them. It just makes such more necessary for some purpose. But, what purpose in the end? If you want to compare to a football game, there is none, because there is no winning in this game.

pein wrote:

It's a survival game and it's multiplayer, stop acting like it should be a linear rule to it how things work

So one person plays a variant. Another doesn't. Do you think such is like a linear rule? Because I don't think so.

pein wrote:

people should be pressured over time to learn

So have you been pressuring yourself to play variants like not eating any wild berries?

pein wrote:

it's satisfying to overcome problems

So have you been creating your own problems to overcome?

pein wrote:

it's not satisfying to do illogical self rules to artificially make things harder for yourself.

There is no violation of any logical law by a self-rule.

You not liking self-rules isn't consistent with how you type and your writing style pein. Lack of punctuation. Rambling all over the place. You set your own self-rules for your writing style pein. So, I just don't think you don't like self-rules. I think you like them, you just haven't recognized yet that you enjoy them.

Spoonwood · 2020-03-26 02:30:09

Pein,

Your first objection was that playing a food restriction variant would be roleplaying. Again, roleplaying can only exist if there's a role that gets played. Roles are social by nature in that they have to exist in some sort of social situation. Eating food in this game isn't a social behavior usually, it's an individualistic one. That food variants don't qualify as roleplay from the nature of such as a food variant, thus follows when eating isn't done for social purposes, but individualistic ones.

pein · 2020-03-26 04:07:29

Half of your answers are just to oppose anything or just you take things out of context. The rest is saying the same thing over and over.

The win condition is to survive to 60, or it should be, in any condition, any life, it should be challenging but possible. I can see how some people fail, but I adapted long ago. I wouldn't make harder for myself, I just do things effectively, to save time for things that matter.

I don't find particularly interesting to keep in mind what I ate 2 minutes ago, not even in real life, surely I won't start doing it in a game. The yum mechanics were my idea, Stronghold had it, food variety was more important than the amount, you could set it on half ratios but 4 different foods, save on the time it lasts, micromanaging them you could buy the 1-2 other foods you were unlikely to produce, get more taxes. Ofc it was limited how much you can get but was a gameplay element that was important. Ofc in a multiplayer game you can't control people like that, so they do different stuff based on different information. Maximising yum was fun for 1 single life for me, and wasn't worth it so I didn't do it, I just do mutton pies 95% of the time and I'm fine with it. The almost unlimited variety made yummers a weird demographic who play selfish, do nothing and still think they are doing better than others, and didn't reall put the focus on variety, for that we would need a top limit so people don't focus on personal unique ones but general variety among multiple people.

I talked about a lot more stuff but you seem to misunderstand anyway, you rotate back to the same thing and can't get over it.

Winning always exists, as long as motivation exists. Maybe not for you, maybe you are too bored of the game, I am too, but I try to stay positive if I do something, or I won't do it. That's why I don't play lately. as long as players want to achieve something, winning exists, or even just optimizing cities that they last longer than the competitors, I showed quite a few times that my cities last longer than the others, they had a bit of unique wibe to them and an organization that kept certain players and pushed certain players away. Manipulating the masses can be a way to play it. It has a strategic layer, just not deep enough and therefore you can't really control the elements, I had enough influence on the way we play this game and even on some updates.

It's Jason's job to keep people interested and give the players the tools they need, also to challenge them.

Why should I play dumb variants? I got enough information to say that surviving in the wilderness alone is easy enough, aside from really fragmented maps and very high population games, I never starved when I didn't want to. Wondible was even able to find my kill ratings based on the life lengths I lived on average. I don't even die to wild animals for months but I can imagine it can be hard for some newer players.
The important thing is that certain actions aren't motivated by the game, there are plenty of players who prefer just chatting and doing nothing in-game. If the wild food is too oppressive but nobody moves out to get it, the game should motivate you to do so, if things get nerfed inside the city, affects the other parts of the game. Basically the whole "everything runs out" part is flawed since a game should always reward positive actions, punish negative actions, moving to late stages should be more fun than the early stages. Ever since the start, we had these backward situations where that isn't true, things got no value cause they don't have a goal. You can live a few lives wandering around the wilderness, bell runs and such but it isn't particularly fun, the only time I liked wandering when I did bell runs without a bell, just getting data out of the stdout logs, checking closest cities and going 600-1000 tiles to visit other living families.

Ther is always optimal variant, it's a game, maybe you need more complex mechanics, more levers to pull, you might not find a golden number right away but you still gotta work for it. Or you have to find a solution that makes certain strategies unoptimal compared to others.
When you made the town and have steady food production, it's an end of an era. So you wouldn't need much or any wild food around after that. There is many ways to solve that, either by setting distances from the city (if the game would even know whats a city) or as I said, one bite temporary ever-changing foods client-side adapting to each player.

Leeches exist, it's one thing to be a newbie, I accept that, I help them out, pretending to be a newbie is another thing, that's kinda disgusting. I don't say you got to produce your own food every life, you kinda should, but you gotta help them out in some other way at least. OFC I'm not cooperating with assholes. You can just read the comments on the forum, actually, hard workers get a lot of hate, for feeding and caring about others, and when they ask things from the other players, they are rude, and think they got the right to call others peasants and such, and live off of them, do nothing and waste their time, and they are even pissed when somebody has a problem with it. Now you can go and talk about how much you love twisted or aurora, but leeches are leaches, they live off of others and they should shut their mouth. Meanwhile, some players make others life easier, like Mirelli, works a lot and still roleplays in a fun way, always nice when you ask things, always vigilant of griefers, etc.

We got these communistic villages where you share things, cause that makes newbies life easier and the family survives longer if it would be an actual need to have private spaces, a lot of players would starve or would be forced to do at least minimal stuff, I don't think you cannot do minimal jobs and talk in the meantime. It's fun enough to prank those players, I guess I killed half of the player base several times and still got a lot of friends from them, but really shows their characters when they are forever butthurt even if they were totally deserving it. It's a morbid game with some dark humour, I like to do things differently every time and engage in competition sometimes, duels were one thing where people could technically win or lose and agree on fights since they could dodge. I don't think we got many goals now, or I did all of them before so is boring to even do them, which is something Jason should fix, he said he tries to make a "random situation generator", seems like it's not random enough right now.

These variants are in your head only. You can do anything the game allows and you would be wise to do so, only a masochist makes his own life harder for no reason. Also, you talking some shit only you can make up. By linear, I mean that the game should adapt to different situations and give different rulesets to keep newbies and veterans engaged and challenged, rewards and punishments, Jason nerf things to keep players challenged, at least that's his idea. Overcoming problems can be fun but he seems to be focusing on the punishments only, he makes up a limit, and you got to work harder to do that limit, which is weird for old players, new players might not know that it was ever different, also he made some limits that are not mechanical or logical, and therefore they cannot be solved by the players, like having a skin colour by birth, limits the things you can do and you can't change it. Same for tool slots slows you down to force you to ask others help, both of them are bad cause they are artificial problems with no solutions. Instead, he should make players want to do things for rewards, motivate themselves to do things. You want teamwork cause they could save you time and get closer to your goal. You want to overproduce cause you could sell the excess and unlock content with it. Right now it feels like you just have to avoid things, avoid starving, forced to interact with other families and forced to live in a box with other boxes around it containing resources, sacrifice fun for keeping others alive to get mechanical advantages for non-mechanical interactions.

Jokes on you, my punctuation is way more precise than yours since I got two types of auto corrects, plus it isn't even my native language. But at least I can see through your bullshit, you repeat yourself over and over, with different words, might fool some people into thinking that you are actually smart, but you lack any sense of logic. As for personally attacking me, I don't really care, you don't know me, I got layers. As for not knowing myself, that's kinda funny statement. The only reason you call it rumbling cause you cannot follow up. It might sound differently reading it, but irl quite sure you would not say the same so quit analysing me cause it won't work, the things you think you know are the result of your imagination.

You mention the word "variants" like 137 times within 3 comments. Still has no logical sense. Make up your own rules all you want, that's your problem. A real game has it's own rules and the variants you talk about sounds like you want to entertain yourself, it does nothing to do with player skills or how the game addresses them. As I see you just want fewer constraints like the average joe who uses cheats in GTA. Doesn't really seem like you want your self rules to make it harder for yourself, just you want to troll people who think the game is too easy.
You could imagine that the floor is lava, or you could play chess cause the game is tile-based. Those are valid options for your imaginary variants.
Or you could imagine that the oldest guy is your father and don't start 48 topics begging, threatening and harassing Jason to add fathers to the game.

20 times "self rules", why don't you apply self-rule not to repeat yourself?
You are answering questions with questions like it would make it more philosophical. It just makes you dumb cause you are talking about some totally different things and you are unable to get off things so you turn any conversation back to its origins that you set, like you never ever wrong, but you can't be wrong if you don't have a real opinion or real thoughts. You just pretend that you are right and circle back to it without any logic.

[spoonwood]
I m g a y [/spoonwood]
I just quoted several letters you used
basically this is how it feels like when you grab things out of context while ignoring everything else, basically the essence of a comment
I don't even think you are trolling, you are so bad at it, seems like you even believe the things you say.

Feels like a waste of time talking with you.
You could maybe make some real posts about the game where you say whats your actual problem is and some viable solution to it, instead of criticizing everything and everyone.

pein · 2020-03-26 04:26:03

Spoonwood wrote:

Pein,
Your first objection was that playing a food restriction variant would be roleplaying. Again, roleplaying can only exist if there's a role that gets played. Roles are social by nature in that they have to exist in some sort of social situation. Eating food in this game isn't a social behavior usually, it's an individualistic one. That food variants don't qualify as roleplay from the nature of such as a food variant, thus follows when eating isn't done for social purposes, but individualistic ones.

Never said that I said that not doing something that the game allows you to do and it's to your own benefit, would be a roleplay at best, but most like stupidity. The only exception, bugs like the carrot one.

You just applied wordplay on rôle play that's far from actual logic. Also, you double flip the sentence and then you still think you got the opposite result. You mean "not eating" would be a social purpose (your weird self-rule of wild berry allergy) and 'eating' individualistic.

Eating food in this game is so that you don't starve and die. You can apply stupid stuff as Morti did like eating at 1 food bar to save on food and messing up, starving cause of it, while he had the most hours at this game and boasting with it, that's quite lame.

Nobody talked about food variants, just because it sounds fancy to you, you shouldn't put it in a sentence.
Thus follows, when "not eating" is done for your imaginary berry allergy is quite a social purpose to you, since the voices tell you not to, individualistic reasons would be doing something that is good for you.

behaviour behaviour behaviour behaviour behaviour behaviour behaviour behaviour behaviour behaviour

Dodge · 2020-03-26 04:39:23

Spoonwood wrote:

If you don't like infinite berries in the wild, you can play by refusing to eat them in any life by your own choice and cursing anyone who tries to feed them to you (which doesn't seem likely to happen anyways).

If you dont like not having a dad just choose a random guy to be your dad and curse him if he refuses to be #spoonwoodlogic

Spoonwood · 2020-03-26 05:18:31

Dodge wrote:

Spoonwood wrote:
If you don't like infinite berries in the wild, you can play by refusing to eat them in any life by your own choice and cursing anyone who tries to feed them to you (which doesn't seem likely to happen anyways).
If you dont like not having a dad just choose a random guy to be your dad and curse him if he refuses to be #spoonwoodlogic

No, Dodge. Being a dad is a role. So, it can get roleplayed.

Eating or not eating food is not a role. As I tried to point out to pein, roles are social in nature. Eating usually isn't social in nature, and thus can't end up as roleplay.

Your attempted analogy is complete horseshit and likely you're incapable of understanding why it makes no sense, or you just hope it will be funny to distract people from trying to think logically on things here.

Spoonwood · 2020-03-26 06:26:13

pein wrote:

The win condition is to survive to 60, or it should be, in any condition, any life, it should be challenging but possible.

It isn't. The game only registers that you died. 2nd, the genetic score system refutes that also.

pein wrote:

I can see how some people fail, but I adapted long ago. I wouldn't make harder for myself, I just do things effectively, to save time for things that matter.

Then I don't believe you have any interest at all in the game being harder on a survival basis. I don't believe that Coconut Fruit says that he wants things harder. And I sure as hell don't believe Dodge if Dodge says that he wants that, because none of you are incapable of thinking up and playing variants based on food.

pein wrote:

I don't find particularly interesting to keep in mind what I ate 2 minutes ago, not even in real life, surely I won't start doing it in a game.

That's evidence that difficulty of survival is not what you care about.

pein wrote:

I talked about a lot more stuff but you seem to misunderstand anyway, you rotate back to the same thing and can't get over it.

No rational individual gets over truth. If I'm correct, there's no reason at all that I would get over it.

pein wrote:

Winning always exists, as long as motivation exists. Maybe not for you, maybe you are too bored of the game, I am too, but I try to stay positive if I do something, or I won't do it.

No. Winning is objective and publicly recognizable. Since you admit that winning can not exist for one person, that's enough to imply that winning doesn't exist, since it's not objective and only recognizable by some special group.

pein wrote:

That's why I don't play lately. as long as players want to achieve something, winning exists, or even just optimizing cities that they last longer than the competitors, I showed quite a few times that my cities last longer than the others, they had a bit of unique wibe to them and an organization that kept certain players and pushed certain players away.

Lasting longer than all the losers still involves losing in the end.

pein wrote:

Manipulating the masses can be a way to play it.

That's anti-social behavior game, not pro-social behavior.

pein wrote:

It's Jason's job to keep people interested and give the players the tools they need, also to challenge them.

No. Guy works alone. His job is whatever the heck he decides it is in the end. He doesn't lose his job if he doesn't do any of those things.

pein wrote:

Why should I play dumb variants?

The original post said that having finite/non-regenerative wild berry bushes would be better. If that holds, than a variant which involved limited uses of wild bushes would be intelligent, since it would result in more enjoyment of the game. But, the original poster has made it clear that such variants aren't possible. Thus, I reject that the original poster will enjoy the game more with finite wild berry bushes in it.

pein wrote:

If the wild food is too oppressive but nobody moves out to get it, the game should motivate you to do so, if things get nerfed inside the city, affects the other parts of the game.

So here you've implied that the game should motivate players to go out into oppressive states. People don't enjoy oppressive states. So your proposal isn't about increasing player enjoyment overall. It's about your sadistic desire for other players to feel oppressed.

pein wrote:

Ther is always optimal variant, it's a game, maybe you need more complex mechanics, more levers to pull, you might not find a golden number right away but you still gotta work for it.

There has to exist a clearly defineable goal for an optimal situation to exist. The game overall does not have a clearly defineable goal. So, no there is no optimal way to play.

pein wrote:

These variants are in your head only. You can do anything the game allows and you would be wise to do so, only a masochist makes his own life harder for no reason.

People play variants for reasons.

pein wrote:

Also, you talking some shit only you can make up.

No, other people could play such a variant.

pein wrote:

Jokes on you, my punctuation is way more precise than yours since I got two types of auto corrects, plus it isn't even my native language. But at least I can see through your bullshit, you repeat yourself over and over, with different words, might fool some people into thinking that you are actually smart, but you lack any sense of logic.

Pein you likely resorted to this, because you were trying to win an argument, instead of looking for truth and falsity in claims made. Arguments aren't about trying to win or lose, they're about trying to get at truth better. You think the above matters to truth status of what I said? Then you need to know exactly where I went wrong. If I had no sense of logic, I wouldn't have used conditionals as much as I have in my claims.

pein wrote:

The only reason you call it rumbling cause you cannot follow up.

Pein, above I responded point by point to your rambling. I've done so here. Thus it's actual that I have followed up. Anything that is actual implies that something is also possible. Thus, it's possible that I can follow up to your ramblings.

pein wrote:

It might sound differently reading it, but irl quite sure you would not say the same

You have never met me in real life. Thus, you can't know how I would respond in real life. Thus, you are not quite sure of such in terms of what you know.

pein wrote:

A real game has it's own rules and the variants you talk about sounds like you want to entertain yourself, it does nothing to do with player skills or how the game addresses them.

All variants happen within the context of the original game. Variants have rules of the game with additional rules also. Variants do have something to do with player skills, since players that can play the game under variant rules skillfully can also play the game without those variants also.

pein wrote:

As I see you just want fewer constraints like the average joe who uses cheats in GTA.

There's no reason for intelligent players to have more constraints in some general sense, since intelligent players can play variants and make up variants.

pein wrote:

Doesn't really seem like you want your self rules to make it harder for yourself, just you want to troll people who think the game is too easy.

People who think the game is too easy can play variants to make the game harder for themselves. If they were interested in playing for the sake of challenge, they would have been playing variants yesterday. Since they don't seem to have been playing variants yesterday, they aren't interested in playing for the sake of challenge.

pein wrote:

20 times "self rules", why don't you apply self-rule not to repeat yourself?

I don't have such a self rule pein.

pein wrote:

You are answering questions with questions like it would make it more philosophical. It just makes you dumb cause you are talking about some totally different things and you are unable to get off things so you turn any conversation back to its origins that you set, like you never ever wrong, but you can't be wrong if you don't have a real opinion or real thoughts.

I repeat myself because it's my thought over and over again. You want to deny what I say as my own thought? Again, I repeat it over and over again. That should give you severe pause about writing things like that as if they had meaning.

pein wrote:

You just pretend that you are right and circle back to it without any logic.

Pein you made claim after claim without even trying to state the conditions of your claims. Claims without conditions aren't consistent with logical thinking Pein. Over and over and over again, logical thinking has conditions appearing. Thus, there exists a contradiction between your implicit claim of you being logical and you actually being logical, since you failed to provide conditions repeatedly pein.

pein wrote:

Never said that I said that not doing something that the game allows you to do and it's to your own benefit, would be a roleplay at best, but most like stupidity. The only exception, bugs like the carrot one.

You did imply such:

pein wrote:

Ok step by step:
Setting yourself limits is roleplay at best

pein wrote:

You mean "not eating" would be a social purpose (your weird self-rule of wild berry allergy) and 'eating' individualistic.

No, I don't mean that not eating would be a social purpose.

pein wrote:

Nobody talked about food variants, just because it sounds fancy to you, you shouldn't put it in a sentence.

I talked about food variants. Therefore, it is not the case that no one has talked about food variants.

pein wrote:

Thus follows, when "not eating" is done for your imaginary berry allergy is quite a social purpose to you, since the voices tell you not to, individualistic reasons would be doing something that is good for you.

No, I don't have any set of voices telling me anything here.

DestinyCall · 2020-03-26 06:32:25

Spoonwood wrote:

pein wrote:
Nobody talked about food variants, just because it sounds fancy to you, you shouldn't put it in a sentence.
I talked about food variants. Therefore, it is not the case that no one has talked about food variants.

Can't beat that logic with a stick.

Coconut Fruit · 2020-03-26 06:50:42

Making finite wild berries won't really make this game harder, Spoonwood, but more interesting... More fun. What are you afraid of, Spoonwood? Are you worried it will make you not able to live to 60? Eat pies or drink milk instead.

Morti · 2020-03-26 07:24:21

type less
play more

One Hour One Life Forums

#1 2020-03-25 22:12:36

Can we finally have finite wild berries, pls?

#2 2020-03-25 22:16:17

Re: Can we finally have finite wild berries, pls?

#3 2020-03-25 22:19:15

Re: Can we finally have finite wild berries, pls?

#4 2020-03-25 22:30:26

Re: Can we finally have finite wild berries, pls?

#5 2020-03-25 22:35:06

Re: Can we finally have finite wild berries, pls?

#6 2020-03-25 22:46:56

Re: Can we finally have finite wild berries, pls?

#7 2020-03-25 22:49:10

Re: Can we finally have finite wild berries, pls?

#8 2020-03-25 22:58:06

Re: Can we finally have finite wild berries, pls?

#9 2020-03-25 23:05:21

Re: Can we finally have finite wild berries, pls?

#10 2020-03-25 23:13:17

Re: Can we finally have finite wild berries, pls?

#11 2020-03-25 23:21:18

Re: Can we finally have finite wild berries, pls?

#12 2020-03-25 23:45:49

Re: Can we finally have finite wild berries, pls?

#13 2020-03-25 23:46:26

Re: Can we finally have finite wild berries, pls?

#14 2020-03-26 00:14:27

Re: Can we finally have finite wild berries, pls?

#15 2020-03-26 00:26:18

Re: Can we finally have finite wild berries, pls?

#16 2020-03-26 01:42:24

Re: Can we finally have finite wild berries, pls?

#17 2020-03-26 02:30:09

Re: Can we finally have finite wild berries, pls?

#18 2020-03-26 04:07:29

Re: Can we finally have finite wild berries, pls?

#19 2020-03-26 04:26:03

Re: Can we finally have finite wild berries, pls?

#20 2020-03-26 04:39:23

Re: Can we finally have finite wild berries, pls?

#21 2020-03-26 05:18:31

Re: Can we finally have finite wild berries, pls?

#22 2020-03-26 06:26:13

Re: Can we finally have finite wild berries, pls?

#23 2020-03-26 06:32:25

Re: Can we finally have finite wild berries, pls?

#24 2020-03-26 06:50:42

Re: Can we finally have finite wild berries, pls?

#25 2020-03-26 07:24:21

Re: Can we finally have finite wild berries, pls?

Board footer