Why there are no wars

Lexyvil · 2019-04-03 14:24:38

Actually I'm very intrigued at the idea of being able to be reborn in the same community if buried properly, after being murdered.

That does sound easy to exploit though for those who want to stay longer in the city they've built.

Maybe I'm mistaking and it's about bringing someone back from the dead (being revived) at the exact same age the person died at? That could be interesting too: Someone who got murdered could return back to life and resume work from where they left off if buried properly, but at the cost of being patient. Like how there can be miracles, where the dead either comes back or not. In this case, players could either be brought back if they stayed on the 'You have died' screen during their burial and hope for a second chance, or miss miss out on that opportunity entirely by getting reborn or leaving the game.

Last edited by Lexyvil (2019-04-03 20:24:57)

Redram · 2019-04-03 15:02:45

jasonrohrer wrote:

Unless they get a 1 hour ban no matter what, and the burial just ensures that they will come back "later" at some point.

Yes, I think there should be a delay. I'm with some of the other commenters, in that i think that part of the charm of the game is that you have to learn to let go of what are probably typical control-tendencies common to survival game players. You just have to accept that when you die, other people are going to live and do things in your absence. I think burial allowing rebirth in anything less than an hour would be a mistake. Everyone you knew in your previous life needs to be dead, so that it feels more like a new life, even if in the same town. But it really would probably be a good idea to add a rebirth button for lines in which you're eligible. Otherwise people will just suicide till they get there. Why exacerbate the suicide problem?

As for griefers, I like the idea of curses from within your family line excluding you from that line at a lower threshold than donkeytown. Even if some innocent gets caught up by accident or deception, it's not the same as being sent to donkeytown. They can still play the normal game with other normal people, just not in the town they were in. This family-line-curse-ban should be longer than donkeytown though, if not permanent. And frankly I still think - as I suggested months ago during the original curse discussions - that it would be good to provide a complicated means by which people can permanently keep someone out of their family line.

Also, graves are great and all, but crypts would be a really good thing. Stone wall + another pile of stone = crypt wall. + candles = consecrated crypt? Maybe only in an enclosed building though? And you can place like 4 or 9 or whatever bone piles in there. Again, help with clutter.

Last edited by Redram (2019-04-03 15:04:46)

Twisted · 2019-04-03 15:24:37

What if being buried halved your remaining lineage ban time instead of outright removing it?

Sukallinen · 2019-04-03 15:32:29

I posted an article (meta-kind, topic:"Keeping stuff to next life is wrong"), about keeping stuff/being identified from life to next. Since there are suggested tattoos, chromosomes, you name it. I like (though newbie) the thing you never know where you are born and what to do. Do you see your hand twisted and going with the flow, Twisted ?

You have changed your opinion a bit towards keeping stuff to next life. That's about 180 degree turn !

People would check who is born and identify that one, by any and all ideas said here. About half of babies I have die in my arms now-you don't want interrogation of babies or ID's... Going Stalin `?

btw love your videos Twisted !

BerrypickerAF · 2019-04-03 18:49:51

IDK if it's been mentioned, but how about making a more in-depth linage scoreboard with ladder resets so it's not forever dominated by older lines from a time where the game was completely different.

It doesn't seem fair to compare those lives lived facing very different challenges and advantages. Aside of that, make families smaller so people care more for their kids. Perhaps only related women could breastfeed children so they won't just get dumped at a nursery?

Reducing birth rate might make raising kids and keeping them alive way more important as well.

happynova · 2019-04-03 19:30:59

BerrypickerAF wrote:

Reducing birth rate might make raising kids and keeping them alive way more important as well.

You know what, I'm wondering if the opposite might be kind of true, if what Jason wants is competition and trade instead of boring communal kumbaya sharing. Because, the thing is, that kind of free sharing, the "We're all one big family and of course we're going to give each other what we need to keep going" isn't really unnatural, and isn't exactly a sign that something is missing or wrong. I think it's actually a pretty common thing among real-life humans in small isolated communities. Stuff like currency and markets and maybe even really strong ideas about private property, those tend to come in when civilizations begin to get big and complicated, where there are far too many people for you to know everyone, and things are big and complex enough that the "everybody does what they see needs doing and takes what they need to do it" system OHOL works on right now just won't cut it.

So it occurs to me that if Jason is hoping to see people focus more on their own little family group as opposed to the whole civilization at large, if he wants complex behaviors like trade and barter and private property, what he needs, perhaps, is the exact opposite of fewer people to make them more precious. It's big, sprawling, complex cities with huge populations.

Of course, how you get to that is another matter entirely...

jasonrohrer · 2019-04-03 19:51:43

I don't think that small communities share freely with each other, now or historically, ever. I think that's a utopian myth.

That leads to tragedy of the commons, and everything destroyed.

Even housemates don't share freely with each other. They label shelves in the pantry. They do this for a very good reason.

If I spend my entire weekend planting tomatoes, and water them for four months, when they are ready, do you think there's really going to be a free-for-all where everyone in my small community comes over and takes as many tomatoes as they please?

In fact, it might be the primary factor that leads to family lines dying out in this game. There is no ownership of anything, so nobody cares about anything. The classic bury-munching freeloader problem in spades.

happynova · 2019-04-03 20:10:09

Well, I certainly don't mean to imply that all small societies are utopian. But you also don't get late-stage capitalism in a community of 20 people. Size and complexity of civilizations do have a huge effect, and what makes sense and seems natural in a city of a million people can be utterly ridiculous in a tiny family settlement.

And I think the roommate analogy would only work if the roommates were stuck together in the apartment forever, with nothing but wilderness around, no outside jobs, no outside society, and no money.

happynova · 2019-04-03 20:48:23

Also, I don't think it's lack of private ownership that leads to family lines dying out. That doesn't fit with anything in my experience in the game. Family lines die out because of low birth rates, because of griefers, because of RP drama resulting in stabbings, because of suicide babies, because of new players who die quickly, and because life is hard and kind of on the edge in Eve camps and very early settlements.

Now, some of the suicides and RP stabbings are no doubt because some people find town life dull. Would private property make life less dull and give those folks a reason to care? I dunno. It doesn't sound particularly exciting to me, especially if it feels like it's forced on us from the outside. I certainly have never once thought to myself "You know what would make me care about this place? If I owned a thing! That would make it all worthwhile!" But I'm not one of the suiciders and I don't how how they think, nor can I predict all the knock-on effects such a thing might have.

I'm thinking now about what does make me care, because, I'll be honest, I have by now gotten to a point where I'm not having the regularly scheduled emotional experiences I used to have. A lot of that is due to the fact that I'm experienced enough now that I hardly have to interact with anybody in order to contribute, coupled with the fact that I've seen most of the types of stories that come out of this game a lot already. (The first time you're the last male in a dying down, it's profoundly affecting. The hundredth time, it's business as usual.)

What still engages me and makes me feel things? Teaching someone who is grateful to learn can really do it. Interactions with family can do it, when we have a reason to stick together and work with each other, rather than every kid running off as soon as they have hair, possibly never to be seen again. (One recent good experience involved a son of mine who spent much of his life helping me care for his AFK sister, who we really wanted to keep alive because of a lack of women.) So, for my money, I think the question of how to engage and motivate me isn't to give me a way to keep my tools, it's to give me a way to keep my kids. Or to make connections to people, generally. Hell, anything that gives me a reason to talk to somebody might help. Maybe more jobs that require two people and/or some actual verbal coordination?

I do think the temp update, leading to the return of the "parking babies by fires and letting the wet nurse feed them" meta has damaged my feeling of connections with my kids, too. I don't necessarily carry them around and talk to them the way I used to. I often feel less attached them as a result, and I'm less likely to find out if they're new or need help. I know babies are supposed to be hard but the more I think about it the more I wonder if the much-demanded baby sling might actually really help. (The suggestions others have made about more skins and clothing so you can tell at an easy glance whether you're looking at your kid or a complete stranger would doubtless help with that, too.)

jasonrohrer · 2019-04-03 20:56:15

Parking babies by the fire has been a thing forever....

Are you saying that the temp update made that even easier? B/c with a building and such, you could really get a perfect temp for the baby by the fire, where before, it wouldn't be perfect, and you'd have to feed them more?

happynova · 2019-04-03 21:10:06

Parking babies by the fire has been a thing forever....
Are you saying that the temp update made that even easier? B/c with a building and such, you could really get a perfect temp for the baby by the fire, where before, it wouldn't be perfect, and you'd have to feed them more?

Kind of the opposite, actually.

Before the temp update, I'd mostly carry the baby to near where I was working and park it in a desert spot, or, ideally, on the edge of a desert. Since towns were built on the edges of deserts, there was usually a good, maybe even a perfect spot pretty close to me, wherever I might have been working. It might be close enough for me to interact with the baby while I worked, and would at least be close enough for me to be able to go back and feed it regularly without interrupting what I was doing very much.

Now, there aren't convenient spots like that scattered around anymore. There's generally one main fire, because building fires all over town would be wasteful. If I'm trying to make stew and I bring the baby with me to the stew farm, the baby will be cold and need to be fed inconveniently often, especially if I'm not able to get it fully clothed. So if I want to keep working, I dump it off at the main fire instead and visit it much less often, or possibly not at all, if there's someone else there who is watching the kids. Which makes me kind of sad. But it also makes me kind of sad not to be able to keep working if I want to hang out with my baby. Lately, I do often kind of feel like I have to choose.

Edited to add: I feel I should say, just for the record, that I don't think the temp update is to blame for families dying out, either! If anything, I think family lines are lasting longer now than they used to. But if part of the goal is to make people really, really care about their own kids, specifically, there may be a slight unintended side effect working against that.

Last edited by happynova (2019-04-03 21:26:10)

Tarr · 2019-04-03 21:12:33

jasonrohrer wrote:

Parking babies by the fire has been a thing forever....
Are you saying that the temp update made that even easier? B/c with a building and such, you could really get a perfect temp for the baby by the fire, where before, it wouldn't be perfect, and you'd have to feed them more?

But the buildings don't make it any easier considering how minuscule the bonus to your surrounding is. If your baby is smart he'll just dance back and forth across the flame to the open room to cool himself off and save you both food in the process.

Right now buildings are more of an aesthetic thing for towns sort of like when we had the desert meta you would build flooring around the bakery and forge even though it was actively costing you more food to do so. These buildings we have now only really exist to say "This is a bakery" or "This is our nursery" with the nursery being the only place that probably should have four walls around the area however, babies can dance around to not worry about being too hot/too cold. The people getting the advantage of the fire in the room are the moms who sit next to the fire watching the kids not the babies who are placed on the fire. Though, you very well could do the same thing without the restricting nature of a building just as well if not better.

In the other thread you talked about making building materials cheaper however this wouldn't make our buildings anymore useful. Each building as is requires a fire which no sane person in the village is going to light up a fire per room. Obviously something like a space heater would sort this problem out but the main issue with buildings wouldn't be solved.

You get too little for having a fire in your building which leads to the perfect building either being larger than the heat grid or something like a bakery that shares a wall with the sheep pen and this is due to storage is much greater than the itty bitty bonus the fire gives.

Ignoring the top wall being funky and the overall small size, something like this is a better bakery overall than if they would have had a southern wall and a fire inside the bakery. By requiring both clothes and a fire to hit perfect temperature inside a building clothing definitely overshadowed fire by a mile and a half which leads to good town design being buildings with walls made of boxes instead of stone or adobe.

To resolve the issues with buildings you probably need something like:

-Tech related heat object that isn't just a fire in every building.
-Fire or heat sources need to heat a building much more effectively than they do right now.
-Some sort of punishment for babies constantly running on and off a fire otherwise smart players start to dance.
-Cheaper or different building materials than just stone/adobe so people want to build specialized buildings.

Last edited by Tarr (2019-04-03 22:52:07)

Amon · 2019-04-03 22:49:44

central or floor heating would be good, really good.

Imagine connecting piping to houses for water and a setup of radiators. Radiators could be placed along the walls and take up minimal/no space but provide ideal/adjustable heat. (ac alternatives too)
Definitely higher tech to fuel the whole system.

And the bakery? Why have a fire in a house with wooden flooring? let us make packs of matches with multi uses.

Also. Baby cribs. Prevent them from moving untill a certain age. there.

Redram · 2019-04-04 01:07:20

Tarr wrote:

To resolve the issues with buildings you probably need something like:

I still think we just needs to forget about buildings and heat. You're trying to use one variable (temperature) to create demand for two things (clothing and buildings). So guess what, they're fighting each other. And right now clothing wins by a mile. And of course it does! You can take it with you! Jason keeps getting obsessed with the 'perfect' math to make the building sim right; it's never going to work. Something is always going to be out of balance. Buildings need their own reasons to exist that don't compete with clothes, and there are plenty of possibilities:

- food (and baskets) that is not in a building decays faster
- Only inside a building can you build shelves and clothes racks (clothes racks make clothese not decay as fast)
- machinery like newcomen devices will eventually rust solid if left outside

Perfectly good reasons to build a building, and they do not compete with clothing for heat bonus. Keep it simple.

Booklat1 · 2019-04-04 01:13:29

Redram wrote:

Tarr wrote:
To resolve the issues with buildings you probably need something like:
I still think we just needs to forget about buildings and heat. You're trying to use one variable (temperature) to create demand for two things (clothing and buildings). So guess what, they're fighting each other. And right now clothing wins by a mile. And of course it does! You can take it with you! Jason keeps getting obsessed with the 'perfect' math to make the building sim right; it's never going to work. Something is always going to be out of balance. Buildings need their own reasons to exist that don't compete with clothes, and there are plenty of possibilities:
- food (and baskets) that is not in a building decays faster
- Only inside a building can you build shelves and clothes racks (clothes racks make clothese not decay as fast)
- machinery like newcomen devices will eventually rust solid if left outside
Perfectly good reasons to build a building, and they do not compete with clothing for heat bonus. Keep it simple.

How is designing completely new mechanics and systems easy? How to define and check for a building is something Jason would also need to create and balance.

At the very least we need more structures like ovens for people to orbit around.

I like the idea of shelves and machines rusting,b but using current mechanics.

ryanb · 2019-04-04 01:15:53

Redram wrote:

Buildings need their own reasons to exist that don't compete with clothes, and there are plenty of possibilities:
- food (and baskets) that is not in a building decays faster
- Only inside a building can you build shelves and clothes racks (clothes racks make clothese not decay as fast)
- machinery like newcomen devices will eventually rust solid if left outside
Perfectly good reasons to build a building, and they do not compete with clothing for heat bonus. Keep it simple.

A weather system would also give reasons for buildings. Imagine a temporary cold snap or hot spell. Or hurricanes. If you get stuck out in the wilderness you will need to eat a lot more to survive.

If that is added it would be nice to add a tent or temporary shelter object. Something we can setup quickly and hide in while we are out scavenging or in early settlements.

Redram · 2019-04-04 01:49:44

jasonrohrer wrote:

I don't think that small communities share freely with each other, now or historically, ever. I think that's a utopian myth.

What makes you so sure of this? You should watch the opening sequence of the movie The Gods Must Be Crazy. It showcases just such a society. A primitive family-group-village, that has no sense of ownership, because everything in their life is found in nature, effectively unlimited. Their lives are upended when a glass soda bottle is thrown from a plane flying overhead, and they find it. They find it very useful, but it is the only one that exists in their world. And it causes bad changes in their society. The latter part about the bottle is scripted in the movie of course, but my understanding is that the lack of ownership was in fact true until relatively recently, when they were rounded up onto 'reservations' and could no longer continue their traditional ways of life.

Despite being scripted, I think the premise of the movie could hold true for the game. There is no ownership right now because we depend on each other, and everything we have (aside from iron) is found in limitless quantity everywhere in the world. Introduce unique resources that only one family can control, and you will have ownership.

Last edited by Redram (2019-04-04 01:59:35)

Monolith_Rans · 2019-04-04 02:41:18

if you were in a long line, you could have a birthmark hat appears each following life.

Monolith_Rans · 2019-04-04 02:42:32

wars are fought over land.

Grim_Arbiter · 2019-04-04 03:47:23

Redram wrote:

jasonrohrer wrote:
I don't think that small communities share freely with each other, now or historically, ever. I think that's a utopian myth.
What makes you so sure of this? You should watch the opening sequence of the movie The Gods Must Be Crazy. It showcases just such a society. A primitive family-group-village, that has no sense of ownership, because everything in their life is found in nature, effectively unlimited. Their lives are upended when a glass soda bottle is thrown from a plane flying overhead, and they find it. They find it very useful, but it is the only one that exists in their world. And it causes bad changes in their society. The latter part about the bottle is scripted in the movie of course, but my understanding is that the lack of ownership was in fact true until relatively recently, when they were rounded up onto 'reservations' and could no longer continue their traditional ways of life.
Despite being scripted, I think the premise of the movie could hold true for the game. There is no ownership right now because we depend on each other, and everything we have (aside from iron) is found in limitless quantity everywhere in the world. Introduce unique resources that only one family can control, and you will have ownership.

THIS

Make the NEXT part of tech need TWO families to complete.

A family can only make one part of said tech. They need both families to put it together.

The first person that makes said resource in a family sets it for the whole family, and they can no longer make the other resource that is needed to complete the tech. They must find, cooperate, and coordinate with another family to progress.

It may be a small first step, but one step at a time though Jason. I just worry about you changing too much too suddenly trying to force results. I know there HAVE been these drastic changes in the past, but you let us learn it for awhile before you change it or something else. I guess I'm just saying don't hit us with two major changes in a row lol.

How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

How do you tweak everything to meet your expectations, but not completely overhaul it, so you don't just end up somewhere else you need to then fix? One major change at a time.

timmeh87 · 2019-04-04 03:55:41

Redram wrote:

jasonrohrer wrote:
Unless they get a 1 hour ban no matter what, and the burial just ensures that they will come back "later" at some point.

Yes, I think there should be a delay.

If you think about it, there will automatically be a delay while the living players bury you. In a few cases someone might just be able to dig you into the ground where you lie, but practically people will at least have to move your body, and find a shovel and probably a flat stone. Unless you sit there staring at the login screen waiting for your friends to tell you on discord that you have been buried, you will most likely play another life somewhere else anyways

are we assuming you have to be reburied each life before you come back?

Spoonwood · 2019-06-04 04:29:44

jasonrohrer wrote:

The core idea in this game is that you care for your offspring because they are the future that gives what you accomplish in the game meaning.

Given that wars still don't exist in the game and the era of griefer Eves was just gang violence, the very core idea of the game is why war doesn't exist in this game. Or given that wars now exist, the following explains why *good* wars don't exist in this game (no evidence of good wars happening has gotten produced so far as I know... only hypothesizing). You mention culture, family, ethnicity, and all that about human interactions, but you forget something... sex differences and sex roles. Sex roles end up rather natural and much less controversial when women are pregnant in the real world. I'll note that all women can effectively get regarded as pregnant in bs2 OHOL, and they just have miscarriages here and there. Sex roles entail the following with respect to war: able bodied men fight in combat, while pregnant women do not fight in combat (nations violating that maxim to a significant degree would put their population numbers in peril). Players just won't take on sex roles as things stand at present voluntarily. But, again, all fertile women effectively can get regarded as pregnant.

Encouraging war in OHOL is like encouraging your pregnant wife or your pregnant sister to go out and fight, since the women aren't going to stay at home away from the battlefield, and it's like they are pregnant.

You'd have to completely rework fertility, and probably just remove people spawning in as children for good war to be viable for a group of players. And the result I don't think would be OHOL.

Dodge · 2019-06-04 05:16:05

Spoonwood wrote:

You'd have to completely rework fertility

So you think current fertility is good?

Current fertility makes it so that players are either amoebas or very unsavory people. But since there is no dad's it's seems amoeaba's or some immaculate conception is closer.

You can stay in the same village/lineage and not interact with others and your lineage will be fine which means village interaction is pointless right now.

So the fertility system does need a rework.

You're right there is no pregnancy so women cant know when they are getting a baby which makes preparation for anything random.

But imo poping out when you get born is one of the charm of the game so having some sort of preview screen before getting born would be bad.

But maybe pregnancy would mean your the next woman in queue on server getting a baby, it could be balanced so that you have 45s-1m30 to prepare for the baby poping out.

pein · 2019-06-04 14:14:21

feelings are roleplay

if you want to make us care about family, we need numbers to support this

if you want wars then we need combat system not a 1 hp system with perfect aim, it will only be slaughter, ambushes, backstabbing
war requires a sophisticated fighting system, even is more up to luck but lasts a bit longer, so we can even say we were fighting

also when 8 year old kids decide that they need a war for the lullz, kinda kills the whole leadership and alliance thing which is again roleplay

if you think anyoen ever gonna walk to every single baby and tell them policies regarding fences, other families and they will listen, well that's never gonna happen, and if it does then is too much work while people need to eat and have some fun too

Last edited by pein (2019-06-05 00:46:25)

futurebird · 2019-06-04 14:56:24

pein wrote:

feelings are roleplay

I don't know if you noticed but this is a role playing game.

One Hour One Life Forums

#126 2019-04-03 14:24:38

Re: Why there are no wars

#127 2019-04-03 15:02:45

Re: Why there are no wars

#128 2019-04-03 15:24:37

Re: Why there are no wars

#129 2019-04-03 15:32:29

Re: Why there are no wars

#130 2019-04-03 18:49:51

Re: Why there are no wars

#131 2019-04-03 19:30:59

Re: Why there are no wars

#132 2019-04-03 19:51:43

Re: Why there are no wars

#133 2019-04-03 20:10:09

Re: Why there are no wars

#134 2019-04-03 20:48:23

Re: Why there are no wars

#135 2019-04-03 20:56:15

Re: Why there are no wars

#136 2019-04-03 21:10:06

Re: Why there are no wars

#137 2019-04-03 21:12:33

Re: Why there are no wars

#138 2019-04-03 22:49:44

Re: Why there are no wars

#139 2019-04-04 01:07:20

Re: Why there are no wars

#140 2019-04-04 01:13:29

Re: Why there are no wars

#141 2019-04-04 01:15:53

Re: Why there are no wars

#142 2019-04-04 01:49:44

Re: Why there are no wars

#143 2019-04-04 02:41:18

Re: Why there are no wars

#144 2019-04-04 02:42:32

Re: Why there are no wars

#145 2019-04-04 03:47:23

Re: Why there are no wars

#146 2019-04-04 03:55:41

Re: Why there are no wars

#147 2019-06-04 04:29:44

Re: Why there are no wars

#148 2019-06-04 05:16:05

Re: Why there are no wars

#149 2019-06-04 14:14:21

Re: Why there are no wars

#150 2019-06-04 14:56:24

Re: Why there are no wars

Board footer