One Hour One Life Forums

How would you anticipate late stage wells interacting with this mechanic? Would they be as they are today, or set a new timer and cool-down on the well?

Foolish words, but to be expected from a foolish bovine butter believer.

Everyone knows fertility is a blessing from Rufus, god of mutton and sheep skin. Sacrifice your sheep by the village well and surely your entire family will be blessed. Bring your vegetable mash to the shepherd in the sacred sheep sanctuary, so that they may continuously prepare new offerings to Rufus. No town has ever starved, nor starved for children, while the sheep blood still flows.

Nitpicking time!!!

For the exact same reason I don't want to play (serious) rugby against professional athletes, women (by-and-large) don't want to play against men (add as many caveats as needed here, such as depending on sport, not all women, etc) - it wouldn't be fun.

It's the exact same reason golfers play with a handicap. Sure, there are competitions where all that matters is who is the absolute best at the sport, but when most people play it's because they enjoy playing, and a handicap allows two players of different skill levels to have an enjoyable and competitive game with each other.

You got me! Good old Spoonwood (intentionally?) misinterpreting a common turn of phrase to avoid answering the question. To spell it out: under what authority or argument do you seek to stop people spectating all-women sports, through the removal of all-women sports?

This was a Spoonwood trap! If you have an extremely small sample from an extremely large population, that sample is statistically insignificant. When I say that the person has achieved more than everyone else who has ever lived it is of course not a literal statement, but an exaggeration. Your persistence in quibbling over these patently incorrect interpretations of language and grammar continues to paint you as someone unable to develop their comprehension skills. If you don't want to appear that way, then as many here have suggested you should ask yourself "what is the main point this person is trying to make" and then argue against that.

Did you not read what I wrote? "People who have, as a group, decided to compete with each other." No one individual is deciding what other people can or can't do when they play a sport (no matter how much you would like to) but instead when enough of them want a change they make it happen. School students have less political capital than most sport participants, due to the power dynamics of the institution, but even there they have the power to not compete, as attested to by the number of students who walk the cross-country every year. Still, if school students are going to trip you up then carve them out as an exception to what I said above. How do you respond for all other sports?

Consider a population of 1000 people: let's go half men and half women for this example. In the real world these people would all have different preferences for what they do with their spare time, but for this thought experiment let's say they all just *love* to do the 100 dash.

In Scenario A we take the Spoonwood forced mixing of competitors approach. All 1000 competitors race in rounds of races, until we have the 10 fastest qualifiers compete in the final. Due to the inherent difference in running speed between men and women, these 10 competitors are all men, and as expected the top 10 fastest people are given millions of dollars of cash each, and fame that lasts thousands of years, ensuring that the best runners are appropriately compensated for their efforts.

In Scenario B we have the exact same set up, except that men and women compete separately, and have separate finals.

For both of these scenarios we now ask: How many people participate in the competition *next year*?

In Scenario B it is every single person again, but in Secnario A none of the women compete because there is no chance they can ever win.

Hence, Scenario B has more competition (1000 people competing) than Scenario A (500 people competing)

You're cherry picking your evidence, at best. For individual sports a lot can be achieved by competing against yourself, especially in a group of amateurs that will have vastly varying levels of skill (like a high school cross country team). The fact that you enjoyed mixed workouts has no bearing on if competitions should be mixed. For some sports it can make sense, but the physical differences between men and women (just like between children and adults, and man and machine) necessitates that competition is segregated. The world would not be a better place if you forced these competitions together.

Forcing different levels of skill and ability to compete together will reduce the number of people who participate in your sport, and those people will just go play by themselves without your silly rules.

Your thought experiment is not well thought out Spoonwood.

Sports and competitions are not participated in simply to achieve recognition. For most people, playing a game of tennis, competing in a track meet, swimming in a race, playing rugby, they do these things because they enjoy doing them. If you went in and said "Right! No more split between women's and men's tennis, it lessens the achievements of men" the women would not miraculously start playing with the men. They would just start their own competition.

There is a huge audience of people (a lot of them women) who enjoy watching women play AFL against each other, or cricket. Who are you to tell them they shouldn't?

If your concern is purely that there are men who deserve recognition and don't get it, your solution is not a solution at all. In the first place, to the people who actually care, it's obvious that even competing in an olympics is an enormous achievement and recognition of your skills. To even come last means that you have achieved more than (statistically speaking) everyone else who has ever lived in the world.

More importantly, you forget that these are competitions between people who have, as a group, decided to compete with each other. There are plenty of disagreements between people about who should compete against each other, and when there is a consensus these competitions do change. For example, my local rugby competition decided a few years ago that no one can be paid to play in the competition, it was strictly amateur. Is this unfair towards people that make a living playing rugby? Perhaps, but those people are free to go play in a competition where everyone gets paid, or people are happy to play with professionals.

By and large, organised competitions optimise for competition: weight lifters aren't competing against forklifts, children aren't trying to tackle 150kg men, and women sprinters compete in their own race. It would not be fun to watch the forklift win every time, watch child after child taken to hospital, nor exclude women from all elite sprint competitions, and it wouldn't be fun for the competitors either.

I was avoiding doing work...

It necessarily starts small, because sprinklers are so expensive, but as more sprinklers get made the farm expands. I guess it doesn't need to get very large because a well run farm can produce a lot of food by just one person.

I don't think you'll ever get rid of the normal farm in a typical town, because too many people are used to farming like that - and for a lot of the towns life that's the only way to ensure its survival. Once you get sprinklers we need dedicated industrial farmers to crank out the food and continue cranking out the food. That's the biggest problem with sprinkled farms I've found - people aren't familiar with them so they don't use them. I applaud this post because it takes us a step towards a consistent sprinkler-meta where people know how to use the sprinklers when they are set up.

For rooms, I think something like this is optimal. You lose doors from top and bottom, but you have doors near those edges so not a big loss. You gain a lot more usable storage like this.

Apologies I'm going to talk about the farm some more, and I don't have a picture for you as I have to go work and I know this is already going to take too long to write out - but I'll try and whip something up later.

My philosophy with a sprinkled farm is to produce as much food as possible, as quickly as possible, as cheaply as possible, and as varied as possible. Obviously these things are aspirational, so we compromise where we have to. I'll come back to this as I address your points.

> 1. Operational expenses of sprinkler are 1 bowl of water and 1/24 charge of kerosene.

Note that by a charge I mean 1/24th of a bowl of kerosene - it's not obvious how to name these as the word 'charge' can reasonably be taken as a bowl of kerosene as well.

Operational expenses for a full growth cycle include:
Per Plot
* 1 seed (except for berries and vineyards)
* for vineyards only, 1 use of the shears
* for milkweed and berries only, 1 soil
* for milkweed only, 1 use of a hoe
* if moving sprinklers, 2 uses of the hammer (to take it there and take it back)
Per Row
* 1 bowl of water
* 1 charge of kerosene to run the sprinkler
* 1 charge of kerosene to run the plough

Capital expenses for a farm include:
Per Plot
* 1 soil
* 1 use of a hoe
* for berries and vineyards only, 1 seed
* for vineyards only, 1 copper
* for vineyards only, 2 shafts
* 3 steel + forging time and resources for the sprinkler (divide by number of rows for doubled rows and if moving sprinklers)
Per Row
* 1 plough
* 1 sprinkler pump

> 2. Wheat does NOT take longer than most crops to cycle. Wheat stumps disappears in 30 sec.

Wheat takes 6m grow + harvest + 30s + plough + plant + water time to cycle
Cucumbers take 4m30s grow + harvest + plough + plant + water time to cycle
Tomatoes take 5m grow + harvest + plough + plant + water time to cycle
Carrots take 4m grow + harvest + plough + plant + water time to cycle

Wheat not only takes longer overall, you also have to wait after harvest before you can plough, which is super annoying. It's common to do other things while the grow phase is happening, so the actual grow time isn't *that* much of a pain, but the waiting to plough is interminable.

> 3. Wheat seed head disappears in 2 min. Corn kernel disappears in 5 min.

Wheat seeds are obtained by gathering threshed wheat into a bowl. Use the bowl on the plot to plant it, they are infinite.
Corn seeds are obtained by shredding corn kernels into a bowl. Use the bowl on the plot to plant it, they are infinte.

> Why would you move pipes at all? That's insanely painful task!!! not practical at all!

Sprinklers take
* 3 steel
* 1 use of a newcommen hammer firing (piston blank)
* 2 uses of a newcommen roller firing (steel rods)
* 2 uses of a newcommen bore firing (steel pipe)
* 3 uses of a newcommen lathe firing (2 for valve and 1 for fuel nozzle body)

Each firing of the newcommen takes
* 1 bucket of water
* 1 basket of charcoal

If you're fast you can get 6-12 uses from a firing newcommen, so roughly one sprinkler (8 uses) per firing on average - though logistics means it's often less than that in reality.

It is painful and expensive to make sprinklers, so reusing them (by moving them) makes a lot of sense.

> Lastly... I think you're little too obsessed with expenses of sprinkler. Just one bowl of water and puny amount of kerosene is revolutionarily cheap!

Definitely, but I'm more just quantifying the costs so I understand what's involved. The real value comes from not needing to create soil except for milkweed (and the water saving is nice too).

---
> I think the farm you want is something like this.
> ...Well, I've thought of this layout too but aborted it because,
> 1. Not enough empty space for compost or anything.

There is no need for compost except for milkweed, so that's fine.

You need space for the harvest, so I try and leave three spaces above and below my doubled row main farm.

*IF* you sprinkle berries and vineyards you build them in a completely separate area, so they don't impact the space for harvest.

> 2. There's no way eve camp would plant berry in a row for future sprinkler.

They won't plant anything in a row for a future sprinkler - just plant new ones and destroy the old ones if needed (though people will complain because 3x3 berry meta is strong, and for good reasons).

> 3. There's no need to harvest all the cucumber, tomato, onion, pepper etc... These aren't suitable for plow. Only carrot and cabbage MUST be harvested so is suitable for plow. (As for wheat, people just love cutting wheat anyway.)

I don't quite get why you come at it from this angle.

Like I said up top, I want to make a lot of varied food quickly, and these plants are the best for that. After their short growing cycle harvest them all to the square two above or below, they make a nice stack of 6. Remove the stakes, plough the row, and plant your next crop. If you need to move the produce, put them in baskets and ship them off to the kitchen or nursery or wherever. In practice I find shifting them up another two squares makes plenty of space for a few more harvests, and then I'm dead anyway. There is no reason to leave them on the vine - the farmland is too valuable.

I understand that you *can* leave them on the plant, but if you do that in a non-sprinkled plot then you are spending 1 bowl of soil and 1 bowl of water for every single plant you grow. It's so much cheaper to grow them in the sprinkled farm, so just harvest them when they grow and move on to the next crop.

---

A couple of closing thoughts.

In practice, I found a farm with 12 sprinklers was more then enough work for me. It has a good pay-off curve (the time taken to recuperate the water spent making the sprinkler system) and allows for one player to make a lot of food really quickly.

I avoid putting berries, vineyards, or milkweed in the main farm rows because they disrupt the plough+plant+sprinkle+harvest cycle and slow down food production. Additionally, you often start with a small farm because it takes so much effort to make the sprinklers, so you want a layout that can be easily extended. It's still cost effective to sprinkle them, which is why I move pipes (sometimes). I also move pipes to establish forests.

---

Apologies again for talking about farms and for the lack of photos, but I love the sprinklers!

I've spent a fair amount of time working with sprinklers.

The crops I prefer: Wheat, Corn; Tomatoes, Cucumbers, Hot Peppers, Squash (+Pumpkins), Beans; Cabbages, Carrots, Onions

Wheat and corn provide infinite seeds from their 'fruit', so are *very* easy to mass farm.
Tomatoes, Cucumbers, Hot Peppers, Squash, Pumpkins, and Beans produce seeds from their fruit, so are very fast to cycle but take time to make the seeds.
Carrots, Onions, and Cabbages require seeds to be gathered from the plant while still in the plot, slowing down the cycle a lot.
Wheat takes a longer than most crops to cycle, as the plough can't immediately go through after harvest, so better to do in one big go and then rotate other crops through quickly (to avoid a single wheat crop blocking you from ploughing the entire field).

----

All of these require operational expenses of 1 bowl of water, 2 charges of kerosene, and appropriate seeds to complete a growth cycle. The capital costs required to get this going are the sprinkler system, plough, and initial soil investement (1 per plot).
In this context I am referring to capital expenses as the one-off investements required to establish the farm, and operational expenses as the ongoing costs involved in producing the cops.

Milkweed requires 1 soil per plot in operational expenses per growth cycle, and takes a long time to decay if you leave one for seeds. Rope is very useful, but it will ruin your farm until you can replenish the soil.
Consider setting up a dedicated area for milkweed, and move the sprinkler system to water it (alternatively water by hand).

Moving the sprinkler system requires operational expenses of 2 hammer charges, 1 soil, and 1 milkweed seed per plot; as well as 1 bowl of water and 2 kerosene charges to complete the growth cycle. The extra cost of the hammer charges (1 to move the sprinkler there and 1 to move it back, so 1 steel per 100 plots) is offset by the time saved in the main farm cycling normal crops. There are no capital expenses for farming milkweed this way beyond the cost of the sprinkler system and plough.

Berries should not form part of the normal farm, but can be sprinkled by moving the sprinkler system in the same way as for milkweed. The capital expenses required for berries are 1 soil and 1 seed per plot; as well as 1 charge of kerosene. The operational expenses are 2 hammer charges per plot; as well as 1 bowl of water, and 1 charge of kerosene to complete the growth cycle.

Vineyards will also benefit from being sprinkled, but are more expensive to establish (an extra 1 copper and 2 shafts per plot compared to Berries) so it can be harder to get the minimal viable farm size required to justify the operational costs of moving and running the sprinkler system.

----

There is an assumption in all of the above that the farms (main, milkweed, berries, and vineyard) each consist of one long straight row of plots. Using two rows of plots for each farm doubles the operational costs of water and kerosene for all crops (and soil for milkweed); doubles the capital expenses of soil, water, and kerosene for berries and vineyards; halves the operational cost of hammer charges for milkweed, berries, and vineyard; and halves the capital cost of the sprinkler pipes.

Trading 1 bowl of water and 1 charge of kerosene per growth cycle for 3 steel (and manufacturing costs) per plot is a good deal.

Importantly, bending the pipes around into a U shape does not decrease the upfont steel cost (in fact it costs an extra 4 steel for the pipes), and it also doubles the operational expenses again (four times costs for water and kerosene listed above). It is a Bad Idea, from a costs perspective - though it may make the farm look nicer, fit into an available space, or simplify the logistics of dealing with so much produce.

Personally, I find the U shape makes it harder to harvest crops, as you have less available space to harvest the middle rows.

Finally, make wheat first and turn the straw into baskets. Harvest other crops into piles, and then while the next lot of crops is growing fill the baskets with your produce (two baskets per pile), and then place those baskets into carts to take back to town.

It's become A Thing. All my kids are named Jazz, or the various names you get once Jazz is taken (jazzabelle, jazzabella, etc)

Jason last updated us on the move 2 months ago in this thread https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewt … p?id=10289

He last updated the game 1 month ago, as per this thread https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewt … p?id=10372

To see his most recent posts to the forum look here https://onehouronelife.com/forums/searc … &user_id=2

You can see his development activity on his GiHub profile (at the bottom) at https://github.com/jasonrohrer, there hasn't been any work on OHOL since December.

If you'd like an rss feed of all Jason's development, consider subscribing to the feed! https://github.com/jasonrohrer.atom

Change their head size.

You can find the griefers by looking for all the kids whose mothers were infected by Zika virus.

This actually makes me realise there is a problem with this system - every new player starts with a score of 0. You'd have to do something like apply the 'new player' modifier for food, to give newbies normal sized heads that shrink over generations if they don't get their score up.

The bigger issue with dying is it means only quite advanced towns can have a teacher uniform.

Maybe that's ok, but it makes it hard to have a ubiquitous teacher in the current meta - as many of the situations you might want to have a teacher you won't have died clothing.

I like this idea in particular, but also anything where we try and use tradition and convention to enrich the meta of the game.

It needs to be an outfit that is relatively easy to acquire, and that no-one else would wear by choice.

Toque is a great choice for headwear, but I think the rest of the outfit should be standard too. My suggestions:

Head: Toque Blanche (cheap and uncommon)
Chest: Rabbit Fur Shawl (cheap and extremely uncommon)
Bottom: Rabbit Fur Loincloth (cheap, but common, until village gets wool clothing. other option would be reed skirt)
Foot: Wool Booty (relatively cheap, and seems to be the least common footwear that is easy to acquire)
Back: Backpack (gotta have a backpack, too useful and important to teach about)