a multiplayer game of parenting and civilization building
You are not logged in.
Either way I think seeing a bear eat people in town is just an ohol right of passage.
Game was released to the public before bears existed. So, no, bears eating people is not some *rite* of passage.
A problem with writing the way the way that you speak lies in that spelling differentiates words differently than hearing.
Bear skin rugs are popular, no?
It's not that clear how popular it is for players to go out and hunt bears *specifically* for the purposes of rugs. I would often just leave bears dead or skin them and/or leave the skin nearby. Taking rugs back to town wasn't worth the time.
Far, far more many bears get killed after they have come to town or got hunted after one of the two main causes of bears getting released:
1. Someone wanting a quick exit from the game (since there is no instant death option, unlike 2HOL).
2. Destructive players luring bears to hunt other players.
Bear rug popularity concerns how often people specifically release bears to make rugs. For sure, that happens much more rarely than 1. and 2.
Here's the problem with indicating that someone has a lot of curses:
What if a griefer team (or mult account team) targets you, and gives you a bunch of curses for no reason?
Given that such did keep people away from each other, then that team wouldn't have that person to harass, attack, annoy, pester, or cause mayhem too. To use a metaphor, wolves need sheep. So why the hell would Reformed or Kilian do something like that in the first place? They curse in game, because it's not all that effective at removing people. If it were, then it simply wouldn't be in their interest to use tactics to try to remove people from the play area. Therefore, if a "griefer team" did such, then we'd live in alternative reality where socially destructive people are so stupid as to try to destroy future societies as a possibility.
Currently, you don't care, b/c you don't want to play around the griefers anyway, so the curses will keep you away from them.
So you described the griefer cursing the normal player. Given that the normal player does not curse the griefer, the griefer can still get born to the normal player, since players can get born to those who have they have cursed. So, no, such cursing as it works doesn't keep players away from each other.
One of the coolest things about personal curses that it's impossible for there to be undesirable side-effects.
There exists an undesireable side-effect in that it becomes impossible logically to morally condemn such a player for one's descendants or other players. Instead of having the ability to have serious moral judgement of relevance to some community, the moral situation degenerates into a sort of moral subjectivism/relativism. With that also follows the question as to whether moral facts can even exist, or whether morality is just a matter of personal taste. This is not a cool state of affairs, because there cease to exist any sort of means of saying whether or not a person was right or wrong.
Maybe we need a whitelist system instead? Where we can collectively discover the good non-griefing players?
There were people suggesting a "bless system" years ago.
The problem with this is that brand new players will always be suspect
If you have three states "whitelisted", "cursed", and "unknown", it doesn't follow that new players will be suspect for most people, because most people simply won't infer that "non-cursed" is equivalent to "cursed".
Bear caves only release one bear per server reset. This in my opinion is fine as this means you can clear caves once per week as a means to protect town.
No, this doesn't follow. It would if there was only one play area per week. But, there's plenty of new towns further west each week.
Would it be horrible if bears were biome locked?
Nope.
In fact, since bears naturally live in a smaller area than most other animals, it would make more sense if they were biome locked than any other animals.
I'm sure there are problems with them being locked, like them being easier to kill if you stay on the edge or badlands will probably fill up with bears due to griefers.
It isn't a problem that it's easier to kill a boar instead of a domestic boar, since the first is biome locked and the second is not. So, I see no reason to believe that biome locking makes for any sort of problem.
I don't know what exactly can be done about this ...
I can tell from your post that bears aren't funny.
Bears could also get removed from the game. They don't have anything to do with multiple players surviving, building, or parenting. So, they don't fit at all and never have.
Wild animals as danger could be a cool thing, but I propose bears shouldn't be released as a griefing tool, players shouldn't be able to poke bear caves and lure them into villages, instead bear caves could spawn a bear after 2 or 3 hours for example, so they would still be a natural threat once in a while to villages, instead of being used as a weapon of war or a constant problem every life.
There's only one bear per cave. If each cave released a bear every 2 or 3 hours (and no other changes), you would probably see bear packs coming to town even more often, since lots of the bear packs that come to town come from somewhat distant spots.
He still hasn't figured out how he's being mocked, chat.
You never figured out that I was being mocked in the first place.
Within the intricate tapestry of the game we contemplate, players find themselves enmeshed in the delicate dance of indirect judgment. Their virtuous efforts and contributions, driven by self-interest and the perpetuation of their genetic lineage, resonate throughout the game's ecosystem. As their lineage thrives and their town prospers, their gene score ascends, silently heralding the positive appraisal of their peers.
Another doozy above. Apparently, gene score actually changes mid-life! There is no positive appraisal of peers when gene score changes. That last character that the player played is dead.
Indeed, this intricate interplay of survival, lineage, and communal recognition unveils a philosophical landscape where the continuation of one's genetic heritage serves as a proxy for positive judgment. Through the unseen currents of evolutionary dynamics and the whispered tales of virtuous acts, players are judged in absentia, their efforts immortalized within the digital realm.
No one has ever played this game would write something so nonsensical as "efforts immortalized", unless they were stupid. Everyone who has played, sooner or later, knows how temporary what they have done is.
As annoying as Spoonwood is, at least he's too stupid to recognise when he's being mocked.
And you think that the above by the "ScholarGodKing" even comes close to my style?
I guess the bot's text may be funny in how utterly paradoxical, nonsensical, and contradictory it is. I did laugh reading this: " it is precisely within the realm of impossibility that true freedom is found".
It apparently didn't read my edit:
The absence of rigid objectives liberates players from the shackles of prescribed purpose, allowing them to transcend the confines of traditional narratives and delve into the uncharted territories of their own imaginations.
Except, transcendence gets refuted by the game not even being equal to traditional narratives in terms of judgments. And I said that in the 14:22:25 edit, while it posted on 18:12:16.
The bot doesn't even bother to come back to the point that I had in the header. Possibly because the bot never got that sort of input, or couldn't understand that as the point.
And again, players don't become the architects of their own moral judgments to an appreciable degree. They have no meaningful way to express any judgment of any other players as positive. It has gotten discussed many times on these forums that there is no "bless" system. And there's no way for players to condemn the actions of a player for a very, very long time or permanently or condemn a player for a very, very long time or permanently.
The game is both morally stupid (bears and mean pitbulls) and morally boring.
However, might we not consider these elements as mere metaphors, symbolic representations of the adversities one encounters in the ceaseless struggle for survival, an inherent aspect of the human condition?
The notion of a ceaseless struggle for survival is not an inherent aspect of the human condition, because of the reality of suicide.
And mean pitbulls and bears both fail as metaphors, because they don't share a similar structure to real adversities in human life. Bears don't gain anything from eating, nor do mean pitbulls gain from biting. Countries that wage war successfully gain in territory, and even viruses like Covid-19, gains in reproductive ability as they spread. Adversities that humans face have some benefit to the source of the adversity. But, bears and mean pitbulls do NOT have any benefit from their actions. Therefore, bears and mean pitbulls are not structurally similar to adversities that humans face.
Could it be that their presence serves as catalysts for introspection and personal growth, allowing players to grapple with the fundamental questions of existence, such as the fragility of life and the pursuit of self-preservation?
The pursuit of self-preservation is not a fundamental question of existence. The fragility of life is also not a question of existence.
Moreover, you lament the absence of a comprehensive vision compelling players to engage in acts of survival, parenting, and civilization building as a means to maintain interest. Yet, might I posit that the absence of such a narrow focus affords players the boundless freedom to forge their own narratives, unshackled by predefined notions of purpose?
I don't know if you can or cannot posit such. But if you or anyone did posit such, it absolutely does not afford players the boundless freedom to forge their own narratives. They are simply unable to forge a narrative similar to the narrative posited in the fourth paragraph in the original post in any meaningful way.
In the absence of rigid objectives, players are liberated to craft their own path, to explore the intricacies of the human experience and engage in a tapestry of diverse activities that defy the constraints of conventional morality.
If players were liberated to craft their own path, then they could meaningfully express judgement, including severe judgment like I referred to in the fourth paragraph above. The intricacies of humans' experiences include such judgments.
Also, crafting a narrative of resisting rigid objectives is not something that players can craft, since there do not exist rigid objectives of the game to begin with.
However, your disquietude seems to emanate from the perceived inability of players to adequately address the presence of serially destructive individuals within the game. You express a desire for mechanisms that enable the manifestation of profound judgment upon these players, a yearning for enduring repercussions that reflect the gravity of their actions. Yet, could it not be argued that the game's design, rather than condoning or endorsing their destructive tendencies, presents an opportunity for players to exercise resilience, adaptability, and the ever-essential virtue of patience?
I don't know if it could or could not be argued. However, if such were argued, then the game design does not present such an opportunity for *habitual* destructive players. Patience with those who have ill-intent is not a virtue. Nor is adapting to those who have bad intent and seek to act badly.
Alas, you also evoke the concept of meaningful storytelling, yearning for narratives imbued with weighty curses and divine retribution. However, let us ponder whether the absence of such explicit consequences engenders an environment ripe with moral ambiguity, wherein players themselves become the arbiters of judgment. The absence of predetermined outcomes allows for the emergence of intricate webs of interpersonal relationships, where forgiveness, redemption, and empathy might find fertile ground, thereby sowing the seeds of morality in the hearts of players.
What players do with respect to other players is not a predetermined outcome.
But, it is a predetermined outcome though that no collection of players has the ability to permanently rid the main area of play from any other player. It is a predetermined outcome that player characters will die. It is a predetermined outcome that towns will die. And there exist plenty more predetermined outcomes of the game. And again, it is a predetermined outcome that the community removing a player from the main area permanently is impossible.
Forgiveness presupposes condemnation as having happened in a previous time. So does redemption. And empathy consistently does not find fertile ground for habitual destructive players.
In conclusion, my dear interlocutor, it is evident that your assessment of the game's moral landscape lacks the requisite depth to comprehend its profound subtleties.
This is a truism FOR THE WRITTEN ASSESSMENT ABOVE, because such is writing, not the mental activity of someone with a brain.
The interplay between challenge and purpose, the boundless freedom of self-determination, and the intricate tapestry of human interaction all conspire to create a morally engaging experience that transcends the limitations of conventional narratives. Instead of perceiving the game as a yawning abyss of tedium, perhaps it is through the lens of philosophical contemplation and an embrace of its inherent complexities that you might discover the moral richness that lies within.
I'm of the opinion that ScholarGodKing is not a human (first post ever was above). It insists that there must exist some sort of moral richness in the game. But there simply cannot exist moral richness without serious, meaningful judgment. And that some forms of serious, meaningful judgment are simply impossible in the game holds true. Thus, it doesn't have moral richness. It's hollow.
Additionally, for the game to transcend the limitations of conventional narratives it would have to, in part, have the ability to be adequate to conventional narratives. But, the game is not adequate to conventional narratives, since conventional narratives can have strong moral judgments with real meaning, while this game cannot have narratives like that. Therefore, it does not transcend the limitations of conventional narratives. It's weaker than many other forms of storytelling.
That the game is morally stupid follows from traps in the game like bears and mean pitbulls. They don't have substantial constructive purposes. They show that there does not exist any vision of players playing for reasons of surviving, parenting, and civilization building as sufficient to maintain interest.
That the game is morally boring follows from how little players can do over time with respect to serially destructive players. There exists little that players can do to express serious judgment of serially destructive players. The design of the game works out that players should basically *accept* serially destructive players. Push them back when you can, with the expectation that they will show up later. That sort of expectation of them showing up signals that the player gets expected to "just deal with" such players. It doesn't create interesting stories to "just deal with" such players. It leads to never-ending cycles, and constructive players end like Sisyphus having a repetitious task which doesn't have any end.
There is no opportunity for enduring judgment of player behaviors, nor of players.
There is no opportunity for an interesting story where players would take an action with a *meaning* like "Cursed be he when young and cursed be he when old; cursed be he when he walks and cursed be he eats. Cursed be he when he dies from the server and cursed be he when he logs into the server." (adapted from translations of Spinoza's curse). There is no opportunity for players to have a MEANINGFUL story like "Kilian, you have lied so many times and destroyed so many things that players have done, and repeatedly violated community standards. Perhaps there is a God who will have mercy on your soul, but perhaps also there is a God who will make sure that you rot in hell and even burn." Why? Because there's nothing that could force players by their ip address to end up in donkeytown whenever they log in.
No vision at all for a morally interesting game.
The game got designed for people to "just deal" with serially destructive players.
Yawn.
I'm surprised that you didn't break out Merriam-Webster's dictionary for that one.
How do you know if I did or didn't, since I didn't say anything Merriam-Webster's dictionary?
Thanks for that hot bit of arithmetic. Really contributes to the conversation.
I feel confused by your message. I read "hot bit" as implying that there was something like a "hot take" with my arithmetic. For sure, I don't see how the little bit of reasoning and math I did there is some sort of "hot take". I didn't draw any further inferences. Nor did I state any opinions about Tarr's suggested number of families.
Maybe I'd do better to just say "you're welcome", and maybe I've read into what you wrote, but I have a feeling you read into what I wrote.
And I would say that sometimes consequences do get missed. So, making an inference and doing some arithmetic CAN be a contribution to a conversation.
But then again, OHOL doesn't encourage arithmetic and is poor at encouraging reasoning too.
And people who resettle old towns, likely are poor at reasoning also, since it leads to the nonsense of spread out families.
The game is properly balanced (imo) around 10-15 people per family, not too much struggling and not too much to worry about.
This implies that for a server of 120 players, the game would have 8 to 12 families on a server.
From a reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/onehouronelife … _opinions/
"All families should be rebuilding from scratch in making new settlements"
Indeed. That's the point of the game.
From the Steam page:
Leave a legacy for the next generation as you help to rebuild civilization from scratch.
From another reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/onehouronelife … n_falling/
Once a family dies out their town is usually looted for the benefit of the future towns.
Since no one is around to inhabit the dead town, the supplies and resources are scavenged by looters. This process may be compared to the practice in medieval Europe of repurposing Roman stoneworks for use as construction materials.
This has literally always been a thing in this game.
The issue in my opinion is that because Jason changed iron to only be unlocked once people who would prefer to play in either a new area or start a new village are screwed over because they cannot know if their iron has been used or not.
Not literally, but for a very long time. Like maybe a few days after the first 2018 release. But, honestly I don't think it wasn't so bad between the Steam release and The Come Together Disaster. ALL parts of that update were bad that I recall... I DO mean the artificially imposed MIS-TRANSLATION of PLAYER GENERATED messages also... were bad. Honestly, the messaging system can get compared to taking a text in English with an expectation that it gets translated into Spanish for a Spanish speaker, but it gets translated in ancient Mayan where none of us know the vocabulary of ancient Mayan or it's grammar.
The problem got worse after The Rift, since new settlements couldn't get built.
And though maybe better for a short period, it got worse after the iron changes and food generational decline.
The real source of the issue? The issue comes about, because someone in the family can go to an old town. One solution seems simple enough: one family per server. If it had always been one family per server, then every single family would have been rebuilding from scratch as a family.
The problem is the massive amount of springs made dry when a well is dug.
Families can't live within 200 tiles of each other.
Plus the eve system spawns eves so far away from current families.
Fix wells, and eve spawns please!!!
Language is just indicator of how broken the mechanics truly are.
Eve spawns seem to spawn just to the left of the most recent dug up well. I say this based on two consecutive Eve lives as Ginger (the first one my child died at 14). On the second life, I ran a little right looking for milkweed, like around 40 tiles, and I saw the furthest iron vein that I had unlocked from the previous life. The first life I had run maybe 80 tiles left. So, it seems to spawn Eves just outside of the 160-tile iron unlock radius from the last iron unlock. Families though spreading out happens in the following ways I think:
1. Some family like ginger Weasners survives a long time. There are many Eve spawns along the way. So, they eventually get farther and farther from other families. I note that the ginger Weasners started from scratch.
2. One Eve runs right back to an old town, while another Eve runs left. Depending on how far the Eves run, that can very much spread out families. Wouldn't really matter if they spawned in the same column.
No tapout though would make it likely that Eves could find closer spots to old towns in more cases. But, there's still iron to consider. Even without iron to consider, there's still the issue of Eves running in opposite directions. In the end, there's ultimately no workable fix within the context of race restrictions. At some point in time, two families will be far away from each other horizontally due to some family wanting to resettle an old town and another wanting to start from scratch or because of some family surviving a long time, while many other Eves spawn. It's one big mess, and the mess shows that the core idea is flawed with families dying out all the time and families existing in different eras... like the other day I went to the tan family to get latex and palm oil as black. IRL was in the tan family and said:
"I just started as Eve and you want rubber." or something like that.
And I'm like "yea, well, that's how it works."
I also recall one time being a black Eve and someone comes and drops off palm oil, and then I got her sulfur (didn't... and couldn't... ask what she wanted... put sulfur in her bowls with her horsecart, and she left).
I also remember one time watching a streamer with a truck as ginger go to an Eve to get latex and palm oil. It doesn't make any sense.
There is no way to expect that families will consistently be at similar levels of development. That can only get expected to happen at arc reset, and oh that part about when I was black Eve and getting palm oil? That was *just* one or two days AFTER an arc reset.
If race restrictions will not be removed and we're still not allowed to have multifamily towns at least consider removing the language barrier so families can communicate and work together effectively.
The language barrier almost surely functions as a big time waster for new players. They have 60 minutes to live. I remember one streamer the other night saying he wish he knew how to do more in the 60 minutes he played. But, he didn't get pressured to get rubber or other supplies, I think. I ended up the other night being white and found some tans. They were both new, and I had to explain everything about getting latex and palm oil. With the language barrier in place, they almost surely are massively confused. Even them figuring out that paper dropped at their feet is legible/readable for them is very tricky. Other times I've gone to blacks and tried to get sulfur. I get confused looks. Even after I get them to a desert with a note saying something "CAN SOMEONE COME WITH ME TO A HOT SPRING TO GET SULFUR PLZ", getting a new player to get sulfur from a hot spring is very, very time consuming and no doubt confusing for them. I feel confident in saying that their experience would be more enjoyable if I could talk to them and explain to them how to get things, like how I sometimes can teach someone new to some or all specialty stuff in PXChat something like "6 bowls of palm oil fit in a bucket".
The game would also easily be better if it had a universal chat system available *to all* players. That the game doesn't have one, shows another longstanding deficiency with it's design, as it's also one way that destructive players become less effective. But, then again, removing the language barrier would require a lot less effort than designing a universal chat system for all players.
The lack of wars in this game is a symptom of a larger problem, I think.
There aren't meaningful wars in OHOL, because they just mean population losses. They are anti-family survival.
Wars in the real world haven't necessarily been so simple. Yes, of course, there are many casualties. So, the total number of people has declined because of wars. But, when America conquered Mexico and kept only what is now Nevada, Utah, California, and some other territories, it's at least possible that America had more citizens after the Mexican-American War than before. Perhaps there weren't more Americans after that war than before, I don't know, but the point still stands that in the real world a successful war can result in conditions which lead to an increase of the members of one's nation (and the United States had the possibility of annexing Mexico completely after that war, if you don't know), and thus could increase that nation's future survival potential.
Also, it seems reasonable to believe that in the real world, some families have grown via war after say a child loses their biological parents in the war, and the family adopts them. "War orphans" is a term out there.
But in OHOL, instead, there exists a very narrow notion of a family. Only breastfeeders can become parents, and they can only have children that get put upon them. As JonySky made a post about a while back, there are no adoptions: https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewt … p?id=10081 And families are completely racially based and of a rather uniform character.
If people were actually put into some sort of survival scenario with tens-a few hundred of people on the planet, and someone knew that they were the last member of their family AND such a person viewed their family survival as paramount, they wouldn't go try to pet a wolf and get bite by that wolf. No. Such a person would more likely try to find a lost child, persuade someone else to let them adopt their child, or use other means to get some child, raise them, and then have that child continue their name. After all, in the real world, we have a broad enough of a notion of family like that. Or at least some people do.
Edit: In the real world, there are groups like Boko Haram who have engaged in mass child kidnapping. Protection from such groups probably has been one rational motivation for war.
I tried to use a skewer on clay to make a nozzle, and it gave me some message about being full. I then tried again while full and got the same message, and no clay nozzle.
Also, I used '/leader' and it crashed my client.
Recently when watching a video from the Foundation for Rights in Education, I heard of a professor referring to the labor theory of property in a land acknowledgment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_property
In addition to talking about the labor theory of property and John Locke's theory of property, the wikipedia there refers to the first possession theory of property, and there exists a utilitarian theory of property rights apparently also.
It is easy to believe that one likes the idea of personal property. But, one might not like the idea of personal property were that idea to happen in the context of a different theory of personal property.
If you want some type of class structure where there are benefits or deficits to different classes, I suggest making that a choice at the beginning of each life. Or something that can be chosen or changed by interacting with a specific object or waystone. Not something grounded in the color of people's skin.
I'm not sure I understand the mechanic. But, if I understand correctly, Gingers like temperature a bit cooler than whites, then browns, then blacks. Being a redhead in my younger hairs and less so these days, I seemed to get sunburn much more easily than anyone else I knew other than another redhead. Undoubtedly, people have different temperature preferences. Do those preferences have anything to do with the texture of their skin? I would think so.
Also, though there's differentiation between races here, how is it negative that gingers have a different temperature preference/optimization point? There exist different challenges for the characters from the get go with that. I don't see how different challenges is inherently negative. It isn't like some characters of some race couldn't reach their optimization point, or they were *deprived* of some ability, because of their race, is it?
If your point lies in that such may look bad, yea, sure. Anything which suggests any sort of connection between skin color and differences between people can become controversial. But, skin color is real. It has to correlate to some differences between people I would think, even if those correlations are weak. And if the differences are not negative, unlike suggesting that people of some race are inherently unable to do jobs, couldn't the problem lie with the people who cry racism over such? Why worry about those people if they are unable to even acknowledge that differentiating among people on skin color could be neutral or positive in some situations?
I mean black people can sunburn, I'm sure. I could be wrong, but I doubt it's as severe OR black people sunburning requires more sun exposure than hispanics or whites require in order to sunburn. Also, wouldn't it be negative if we didn't differentiate between redhead children and black children, and as a consequence redhead children sunburned more often and had more severe consequences than black children, since we treated everyone the same?
A lot of this makes for fascinating reading and interesting things to see.
I feel I should clarify that the time-based nature of games like OHOL hasn't seemed to fit me well lately. I have a personal concern that playing games like this make it more likely that I will rush through things. That could just be one of my worries, or could be more of a concern for me than other people.
I feel highly honored to see all of this.
-AI: and extra for jinbaili83: dont deconstruct Fire Bow Drill
Is it don't deconstruct fire bow drill, or something like "don't deconstruct firebow drill if there exists only one within a certain number of tiles"?
Spoonwood wrote:Yeah, I got an issue. You didn't post the right link. At the very least you should support Mr. Astley's work if you're going to refer to it. At least, I believe this is from his official channel, especially since concert dates get talked about.
Hey Spoon, just wondered where you have been!
I've been playing other games. OHOL, 2HOL, and the like haven't interested me lately.
Yeah, I got an issue. You didn't post the right link. At the very least you should support Mr. Astley's work if you're going to refer to it. At least, I believe this is from his official channel, especially since concert dates get talked about.
Laggy wrote:Eve Troll wrote:Wood seems pretty mellow tbh.
Lots of salt in the air. But to be honest. Wood didnt do shit and you immediately called him an alt and attacked him over nothing.
Chill, take the L, and move on.
Wood wrote:Eat a shit
Based on your forum interactions, You'd kill and curse me for burning a rabbit.
Seems like a chill response.
Eve Troll, your clueless.
______________________________________________
Wood and Eve Troll, What you lack in intelligence, you make up for with effort.
You're*
Well, that's actually a suggestion in this thread.
Spoonwood wrote:2HOL has new content.
It also has more people playing during the past two days (at two points during those days at least), if not longer, with likely smaller family sizes than OHOL.
2HOL is fucking boring. 2 hours is way too long and shits just confusing.
There's no rule that you have to play that for 2 hours at a time. Nor is there any genetic score penalty for stopping early. You can exit the game anytime, at any age, by using '/die', and you'll get the death screen with a message that says "killed by you".
2HOL doesn't have well reset or well tapout. It also doesn't have clothing decay, with the exception of the reed backpack which is unique to 2HOL I believe. It has a deeper mining system, with bronze based tools before steel tools. It's also free to download. Here's the link: https://twohoursonelife.com/
You also can use a seed to start in a part of the map every single life (someone else could end up there *by coincidence*). If you say 'NO BB' you won't have any children after that. Destructive players also get banned, as 2HOL has rules.
And it's free.