One Hour One Life Forums

This sounds worse than the hierarchy suggested in the other thread for multiple reasons

1) Power in the hands of one person- all it takes to become leader is kiss up to current leader to become heir
2) Only one layer of power- either you're in charge or your at the bottom, essentially creating a dictator
3)Limited to one per family and family exclusive- Ideally I think hierarchical structures should be able to include multiple families, and a large family could have multiple hierarchies completely separate from one another.

I think that the other system is better because

1)power is in the hands of each individual(you choose who you serve, they have to get your 'vote')
2)the system naturally puts people at the top with seniority and perceived merit(meaning, a tyrant is short lived and usually an old person whom the most people chose to follow will be in charge)
3) allows for multiple different hierarchies to form, split apart, merge together.
4)forms multiple layers instead of just 2/3(king, conqueror, peasant) -  The other thread used titles of King, Duke, etc but I think names should be different. Essentially you have a chief at the top, below them are the elderly councilor(s), and below them are the young adults, and finally the children.

But a busy person could easily become top of the hierarchy. People see you working really hard to make the village run and choose to follow you/trust you.

Most of the time person at the top will end up being a hard working old person.

Even tribes usually have a council of elders at the top, or a chief of some kind

If there are no mechanics people won't use it though.  The amount it helps from the way you described it seems trivial. It will be something too inconvinient for the amount of benefit it gives, like putting a fence + property gate around the whole town.

Having no friendly fire- at least none from those below you would help build trust. If someone serving you decides to leave, you know they're up to something and cannot trust them any longer.

There could even be submission wars. One town leader makes the leader from another town submit to them, and now the first leader is at the top of a two-town hierarchy, and can only be attacked by someone who leaves/exists outside the hierarchy.

I also assume someone born wont automatically be a part of the hierarchy? So there must be a distinction between exiles and the young, otherwise murderous griefers would just never serve

Honestly this kind of thing is contributing more and more to mob rule.

If you try to go against the norms you open yourself up to getting cursed. Even just messing around spam picking up/placing an item has gotten me death threats and curses. People want to shake up what they do in game, but if they rock the boat the mob will kill and curse them. So most people just do what they do every life. They don't rock the boat. Do what is expected or you'll get cursed. Don't do anything strange. This conrtibutes to every life feeling the same.

Groups are already powerful enough in my opinion. It seems like individuals keep getting nerfed. For example, combat cool-downs and slow-downs are nerfs to individuals. Posse is a nerf to individuals. War/peace update is a nerf to individuals. Elder removal is a nerf to individuals. Family specialty is a nerf to individuals. Skill slots are a nerf to individuals. I think individuals are weak enough at this point.

Think of the cases where half the town is in a discord group(quads). An individual has no hope of defeating them. The mob is in total control.

The problem there is it doesn't take long for everyone in a village to be related. With four families, everyone is a cousin after two generations. The system would rely on constant new families. family A,B,C, and D become familes AB AC AD BC BD and CD. Another generation and they're all ABCD.
Also, fug has a good point. Imagine being the only guy with a rare phenotype all your rapey town mates come after you to be their child's father... Families would start dying out again by no fault of their own unless sky babies were still the default.

Some other problems I have with the particular example you give of DDGG/ddgg is chocolates would be inheritly hybrids. They will be prone to birthing vanillas and coffees half the time. Also, coffees having ginger babies would be pretty weird.
better would be standard AABBCC and aabbcc or even just AABB and aabb

like in picture, coffees could stabilize to AAbb or aaBB and chocolates would never birth gingers.

Though in general I do support fathers, there is still the question of not only languages, but war/peace(whose side are you on?),My family owns this, etc.

Ideally I hope the game returns one day to the one-Eve concept. Only one family which diverges into many, one language diverging into many, etc though that is much easier said than done.

Returning to the % chance of a neighboring skintone baby would be nice, though 1/20 like it was before seems too high to me...

The hunger drain rate has been greatly reduced recently to allow players to cope with huge influx of new players.

Also, all food has been adjusted to give two additional hunger pips from before steampocalypse 2.0

The method of survival you describe was still possible under old conditions, but unless you had zoom mod it was difficult to pull off

Making fire is one of the few things the tutorial teaches you if I remember correctly.

Having to learn everything from a parent wasn't added because it would get very old/grindy/annoying after a few lives if I am remembering right

I am not sure but I think there is a distance limit of about 30 tiles. Where you standing close to where he died?

Yay, capitalist dream restored!

Agree 100%

If I remember correctly cursing was originally there just so the same griefer didn't keep spawning into the same village over and over again doing the same thing. That should still be the primary usage of cursing in my opinion.

Doling out justice on the other hand should be handled via imprisonment. You could argue death is the greater punishment, but in OHOL time is much more valuable. Don't let the griefers get off easy by sending them elsewhere; instead lock them up and force them to live the rest of the hour via force-feeding.

It is easy to see why dying as young as possible is the best way to boost your score.

This is because under this system you want to MAXIMIZE your exposure to people living above-average lives and MINIMIZE your exposure to people living less than average.

Dying young means exposing yourself to just the scores of adults for the most part(who will probably live average or above average lives). Living to 60 means exposing yourself to children, grand children, and great grand-children (who live above average, average, or below average lives).

i.e You're much better off dying young and exposing your score to people who are older than you because there's a correlation between being older than you and giving positive score.

Did you shift right click while holding the needle? I think I saw somewhere that it functions like snowball/knife