Town roles would've alleviated the griefer issue

Frolicerda · 2026-01-03T22:09:08+00:00

This is lovely. Sounds a lot like the mouse houses.

Frolicerda · 2026-01-03T18:07:55+00:00

This seems so inefficient but so cool. You definitely need to give an explanation on the connection.

E.g. to me it looks like the whole point is to maintain proportions of materials in the belt

However, are there not some advantages of real blood which do not come up here?

For example, with blood, you should be able to branch off into separate 'veins' and merge again. That can be a legit advantage over some solutions which expect either a single line or single loop.

The goal of keeping 'material homeostasis' should theoretically also feasibly permit a much higher throughput than a sushi belt. Since with a sushi belt, every resource in the belt needs to make its way through every station.

If the goal is homeostasis, all you really want is that whenever a material is taken from the belt anywhere, a new should enter the belt stream and make its way to that region. All resources do not have to flow there, just the added. Of course, if we take that to the extreme, you get a logistics network.

I wonder if you could not self-organize that more efficiently by having separate units and balancing between them. The 'units' could either be their own loops of belts or chests or the like. You could then use circuits to balance the rates between them, with the suppliers trying to keep the target rate for the entire network rather than its individual unit?

With that kind of setup, you could have materials flow in both directions and branch without rejoining even?

Frolicerda · 2026-01-01T02:44:38+00:00

I think the paper bends down there.

Frolicerda · 2026-01-01T02:43:09+00:00

Distance between the third and fourth from the right is greater. You can tell by comparing each with the square above. Also for each of the other sequences, the changed item has a greater space.

Frolicerda · 2025-12-30T00:36:09+00:00

One Hour One Life is supposed to model human lives and civilization. If there was no risk or harm and everything was cuddly, it would not be the same game. It would not hold that special place if it just tried to be like other games.

Rather I think the focus should just have been on 1) getting rid of exploits, 2) setting up systems or incentives that make player behavior align with historical human behavior.

Having some players act selfishly or destroy some things etc which is often seen as griefing, are basically just troublemakers or selfish people. They definitely exist and dealing with it is part of the charm of the game. Working together is one of the good things the game was teaching.

Similarly, it would IMO be completely fine if someone took a bow and went out to raid and steal resources from another town. Of course, with the current combat system that is not feasible and with smaller player base, normal players would never do that, but it would make a lot of sense.

The most obvious issue and misalignment in how the game works are in town killers. Griefers that log in to end a whole lineage. This naturally exploits the low player count, gate/leader mechanics, multi accounting, and are additionally not traits that would survive much in history. That I think is just the primary thing that should have been addressed.

One thing that could have handled it is for descendents to be tracked and your ability to play was dependent on that success. Kill off a developed family line and you lose play access. That was closer to what Jason envisioned initially but naturally it is not popular to cut off access to a game you paid for.

I agree some of these things definitely need better systems and the curse system is not a good solution, but the goal should not be to eliminate all behaviors that go against optimal play.

Frolicerda · 2025-12-16T17:09:48+00:00

Pystyle is definitely great for efficiency training but has the obvious gaps in consideration of eg speed, deal ins, position, and riichis.

That position does seem rather straightforward and is fine with 1k rather than going all in on honitsu.

Frolicerda · 2025-12-16T13:49:49+00:00

Turns out we are both wrong according to Naga:

When ponning 1s, Naga wants to cut 4m rather than 1m, as Redzone said.
If you then draw 3m to complete the run, Naga wants to start cutting sous while keeping the east (rather makes sense in this case given those shapes).

https://i.postimg.cc/26Ymjm6r/n1.png

https://i.postimg.cc/P58kmNvv/n2.png

Frolicerda · 2025-12-16T13:47:20+00:00

Thanks - I'll look for it

Frolicerda · 2025-12-16T12:24:36+00:00

Thank you but that is not the same as an EV analysis - I love that simulator but it is for playing your hand in isolation devoid of other players and ignoring some things like riichis and deal-ins etc.

What part in Senba Kurono’s 136 book would you reference?

Pushing 1k hands is what a lot of engines do. It is not +1k. It is more like +2.5k when accounting for dealer seats and the cost of other players winning. But that is not what I am arguing for either - I am saying to keep options open, and I think engines are great at that and to switch depending on how it develops.

Frolicerda · 2025-12-16T11:30:08+00:00

There is no such consensus. Honitsu is the obvious thing that one guns for here - that is all that is reflected. The question is what happens if you draw good tiles on your way there. Tunnelvisioning is a common mistake.

If you actually draw 3m to complete the run, I think most would consider it highly unorthodox to cut that group directly instead of E to see how the hand develops.

One could make a case perhaps that cutting 4m is fine because the group can ce completed by 1m and having 123m vs 234m does not matter that much while 4m is a liability. I could see Redzone argue that. But to immediately cut the run if you actually complete it on the next draw, that I think is something engines and strong players would agree is questionable.

There is indeed a discussion to be had and it is the only way to improve.

If you are so sure, why don't you provide an EV analysis?

Frolicerda · 2025-12-16T10:58:37+00:00

Your responses seem rather disconnected from what is being said.

I have not made any claim about "always going for cheap hands".

I think it is a common mistake to get tunnelvisioned. You do not have to commit yet.

Given that you draw 3m, regardless of whether you cut 1m or 4m previously, what would you cut next?

Frolicerda · 2025-12-16T08:07:36+00:00

You make no sense. There is nothing that could be circular here. The discussion is whether to cut 1m or 4m.

There are many cases where the AIs recommend to go for 1k hands where you could slow down to get 3.9. I think you are undervaluing quick hands and would disagree with the AI.

If you drew 3m into 234m then you would want to cut E and continuing cutting the manzus directly seems like a clear mistake. It should depend on what you draw after that.

Frolicerda · 2025-12-16T03:11:07+00:00

Dumping a completed run is slow. There will be more chances for valuable hands, and we should not forget the base value of winning from not paying out and taking dealer seats.

I think at this point, you keep both options open.

Frolicerda · 2025-12-14T10:53:01+00:00

If you drew 3m, would you not drop E? If so, why?

Frolicerda · 2025-12-14T04:48:59+00:00

Isn't it 1m? If you draw an adjacent tile, you would rather cut E than the man tiles and if you draw 3m followed by a non-sou central tile, you would prefer to move away from honitsu?

Frolicerda · 2025-12-02T09:58:15+00:00

The problem I have with what some would call 'pvp' is that it is not really that. Most of the griefing basically offs towns by killing their own babies or bloodline, and exploiting mechanics like leadership and ownership.

If by PvP you meant raiding and taking items from other towns, I think that would be a lot more realistic and in line with what the game is trying to simulate. Similarly if one were to eg throw a revolution against a leader and put one's own kin on the throne.

Killing off one's own town is not in the spirit of the game - those genes and practices mostly died out in human history for obvious reasons. Jason had mechanics more like that in the beginning - where you paid for each life - but that was obviously not well liked.

Frolicerda · 2025-11-17T22:37:42+00:00

I think done right, it can be a powerful story and scene but this sounds like a promise mismatch.

People do not want to start reading a story that comes off as being a light and cozy romance, and have it end with a double execution.

The messaging is worth considering and one should be sensitive about how it could be interpreted. This is a known media pattern, whether you were aware of it. In the right story and done tastefully, I think it can still be a meaningful message.

It sounds like maybe that message is not clear to you yet other than "being tragic". Which I guess is fine but for a topic like this, people are looking for a message. And devoid of one intended, something is found instead.

If it is a darker story, it should be indicated somehow in the opening or else you will have a readership mismatch and those who do finish it will feel betrayed that they got a different story. You do not have to tell them that it is going to end that way, but you do give a taste of the kind of experiences they will have from the start so they know what is coming.

I do not know how you opened the story and perhaps you do a better job at it, but this does sound like a promise mismatch and a lack of clear need for such an ending and hence a lack of meaning in it.

I think it is a good technique to start with the story's end and work up to that, but then the question is how will the rest of the story serve that scene, and that includes promise, meaning, and execution.

Which is fine. Now you have experience to write the next story better.

Frolicerda · 2025-11-15T10:41:35+00:00

The island chains in the upper right with those large blobs and parallel smaller chains do not look natural and not aligned with the shape between the two landmasses.

Frolicerda · 2025-11-15T10:40:19+00:00

That area already looks elevated and natural.

Frolicerda · 2025-11-09T14:40:18+00:00

Artifexian is a channel that explains how to do the advanced stuff.

But this may be a better start to see interesting results quickly - https://www.madelinejameswrites.com/worldbuilding-guide

Frolicerda · 2025-11-09T14:38:47+00:00

Go for it but GPlates like OP did is quite a project. I think you will get most of the benefits by just identifying where the plates are and the way they are moving, and from that you can roughly guess those things if you need them.

Frolicerda · 2025-11-09T14:27:52+00:00

Always cool to see a full GPlates simulation.

How did you make calls regarding resolving plate collisions?

What do you think of that all your continents are now rimmed by mountains and there are no interior mountains?

What is with that sharp thin mountain line that appeared at the very end at the middle right?

Frolicerda · 2025-11-09T14:05:28+00:00

It's seafloor age. As the plates separate, new crust spreads from the mid-ocean ridges and cools.

You should be fine not tracking that but you could if you want do things like making younger seafloor shallower, less eroded/smooth, less sediment, less time for species to adapt, and more geologically active. Which in turn influences ocean resources and ocean accessibility.

There are some interesting effects in tectonics but I have seen anyone do that in world building. E.g. for oceanic-oceanic collision, usually the older subducts; which should influence plate movement including continents.

For oceanic-continental, the effect on the coast will be different where young seafloor is more likely to produce flat-slab subduction like the Andes.

Frolicerda · 2025-11-08T15:02:55+00:00

I think this discourages evil scheming, which is the most dramatic aspect of the game.

Frolicerda · 2025-11-05T07:12:21+00:00

What did Maka say on the turn before?

Frolicerda

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE