One Hour One Life Forums

I think I basically make a decision between two options: 

a) Is the community I find myself in direly needing something? (More food, more clothes, more soil?) Then make that. 

b) If not, focus on learning something new or making something I've never made before. I know in theory how to make blue or red clothing, for example, but I've never actually done it. So, if the chance comes up, that's something I'd like to aim for...

I think the resets are designed to deal with the problem of the map files growing very large over time. If a player goes on a long, long excursion out into the middle of nowhere, then drops a backpack and some clothes at the end of it, should that long "spike" into the empty map be saved and transmitted to every other player who plays on that server? If it is, the result over time will be needing to download a gigantic map file every time you play the game. 

Maybe "anchors" could lengthen the time to reset? So "normal" area would reset if nobody visited them for 24 hours, but "anchored" areas with floors, walls etc would reset if nobody visited them for a week?

You can play on one of the servers that has violence disabled... various types of griefing are still possible, but there's no more direct killing. It might suit your tastes better.

Am I the only person who runs away when a murder spree is going down? I know one can get very attached to a particular spot, but it's often true now that within fairly easy reach of a major settlement there'll be several small or medium sized settlements. Grab one of your kids, flee to the new area, then pick up where you left off. If different people run in different directions, the killer may be able to follow and kill some of them, but they're not going to be able to get them all. 

...or does fleeing just feel less "proper" than standing and facing the killer, even if it has a worse outcome?

Yeah, if you're an Eve, say "I am Robespierre" (for example) and that will become the family name of your line. 

edit: Robespierre is not on the canonical list. You can, however, name yourself Tsinnijinnie, which you probably should.

Semi-related rambling: 

If you're going for the record of most generations, isn't it dangerous to keep the whole family at one location? Isn't this "putting all your eggs in one basket"? 

Rather than killing "excess girls", why not have someone carry them over to a nearby village and start a "backup village" nearby? Wouldn't this give a bit more resilience and redundancy to the family line?

I'm not sure I agree with the solution... I do think there's something weird about the way players are responding to the gender differences in the game. On the one hand, villages can "die out" because of lack of girls, so, sure, it makes sense to want girls. 

However, they can also die out from overpopulation. And if you only have girls, doesn't it increase the danger that within a generation or two you're going to have a population explosion? Having a mix of boys and girls seems practical to me, even if the men are currently "biologically unnecessary". 

Ooh, this has just given me an idea...

"Thieving and murdering for no real reason is fine, it's just roleplaying as a thief and murderer lol." 
"When you get me back, though, that's griefing, it's unfair, you shouldn't be allowed to do that." 

WTH?

Also, the addition of new biomes and new elements to the map will happen, I think, in areas that nobody has visited yet. Which means that even if there's well-developed regions in the "centre" of a map, in order to take advantage of new resources being added to the game, players may need to travel a long way away from those regions in order to get access to the "cool new stuff".

I'm not sure why, but I've not actually seen that much griefing, myself. But from all the conversation about it, it's clearly a big issue for a lot of people. Anyway, my perspective may not reflect that of most other people because I haven't been that affected by it, but...

...I think within the context of the game, selfish and destructive behaviour makes sense as something that is "allowable". Successful co-operation is valuable partly because it's not automatic. Having a "ban" system or something else that artificially restricts selfishness doesn't, I think, fit the spirit of the game. The choice between good and evil, just as in real life, shouldn't have "magical" rewards attached to it that come from outside the gameworld. The reward for being good is just that you contribute to a community that makes progress; the reward for being evil is that you get the fun of ruining someone else's fun... but you never get to really create anything or the satisfaction of helping to move forward a project that is larger than yourself. 

It does seem at the moment that griefing is just a bit too easy; it makes intuitive sense that a single killer would be able to sneak into a community, kill one person, and probably sneak away without being caught. It makes much less sense that they would be able to walk into the middle of a thriving community of ten or more people and slaughter everyone out in the open without anyone being able to respond meaningfully or stop them or even escape. 

I'm not sure what the right answer is, but as much as people dislike the griefing, I think we should be leaning away from solutions along the lines of, eg, "ban griefers". Small changes with an element of realism but that help edge the balance toward "large groups of co-operative people" vs "a single destructive person" seem the most likely to fit in the spirit of the game, to me.

Thanks, this was great.

"Don't die in clothes on farms" is super important, but I'm not sure it deserves to be made a law. Losing a full set of clothes means the destruction of a ton of rabbit fur and milkweed thread, but OTOH that stuff is all fully renewable.