Why there are no wars

Tarr · 2019-06-04 15:01:46

futurebird wrote:

pein wrote:
feelings are roleplay

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

Real playing game* Jason doesn't like roleplay.

futurebird · 2019-06-04 15:08:44

If it weren't role play we'd just have usernames and not call each other "mom" and "son" or have things like graves in the game or...

I mean I think you get this point tarr I think there is a kind of stigma to "role playing" l blame the SCA and comic cons...

I don't know why some people use it like it's a slur "that's just role play" -- role play is integral to this game it make no sense unless to some degree you take on your "role" as mother or worker or whatever.

I think people use "role play" to mean "talking a lot and not working" -- but if you totally opt out of role play you are -uh- "playing optimally" you need to give your kids a reason to stay, you need to name them, you need to think about the need of your town and family. You need social skills to really be pro. Git gud. Make some friends, help people they will respond by helping YOU. That's RolePlay with a capital R and P.

Really many good games have elements of role play it helps you to identify with your character and "really care" Maybe Jason rejecting that he's made a role play game is part of the reason he has trouble getting people to "really care" -- that caring the stories we make up about what happens in the game while playing it are classic roleplay.

Last edited by futurebird (2019-06-04 15:10:35)

Spoonwood · 2019-06-04 16:04:21

Dodge wrote:

So you think current fertility is good?

It's good with respect to how the trailer depicts it. The next player gets born as a child of Eve out of nowhere without the Eve having any input as to when a baby should get born.

Pregnant women going into battle is a disaster. Given that enough players who are women won't play within the bounds of their sex role in times of war (and I think that enough won't), then the system as it stands right now with respect to fertility makes war a disaster. Maybe if players could have a button to control whether or not the possibility of them having children, then useful wars to a family would become a little more conceivable. But, then more Eves would exist. Things wouldn't be as challenging and chaotic. And female characters could default to not caring for offspring without having any signs that such is needed beyond numbers. Lives become less unique for women in the game, since pregnancy can roughly get timed. And families could control their family size also, which conflicts with the insistence on challenge.

pein · 2019-06-05 01:03:16

rôle play in this case means that you cant consider a game play element to build a fence cause has no logical use for it
you can tell people that you made buildings more useful but in reality it's optimized for 1x5 size and they gonna find out eventually and wont build them

respect of a king in a city wont come automatically, maybe from newbees but for me it represents lazy idiots who demand respect for nothing

rp doctors who run around 55 minutes, stealing fleece and demanding aprons and knife, and are away in the 5 min they are needed
rp guards who run around with weapons out then get bored and kill someone for no reason
rp sheperds who beg for pack and knfie then too slow to do any work with sheep and refuse cleaning pen cause that's too boring for them

a pen has 4 corner entrances, that is a stabilized meta
a berry farm is 3x3 surrounded with roads, that is meta
2 kilns 1 away and a newcommen 2 away, that is meta
it's not a rule but it's a logical habit which gets spread cause makes sense and it's good even if people don't know the reasons behind it

if you get a coin for raising a kid, it's logically useful
if you can elect a king and he can decide that you go to war, you might not agree but you got to follow it
if you can give a task to a kid to fill a bowl of berry and you give a backpack, then no more beggars

sometimes you need to simulate and motivate things that in real life come natural
respect for elders? backbone to stand up and fight for your opinion? you never see that in game

want wars? if someone gives you a war threaty and you get prepared for attack and get rewarded/punished by the results it feels better than someone runs in and stabs half of the pop then someone from the same family comes in and tries to talk to you

if you adopt a kid and her kids starts murdering you cause thy werent there when you made peace is just plain too chaotic, for the 50 year old guy who saved the city from attack feels like a betrayal, for the 3 year old kid feels like first encounter and they need to give a chance

Hstrike · 2019-06-05 12:44:49

jasonrohrer wrote:

The lack of wars in this game is a symptom of a larger problem, I think. There's also no long-term trade, no long term culture, no policy-making, treaties, etc.

I think there are two explanations as to the lack of wars in the game, Jason. My background is in political science and in international security, so maybe I can give a bit of hindsight on that.

1. Lack of polities and political organization

First, let's take a look at the lack of war due to the lack of political societies. Three main figures in political theory - Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke- have extensively discussed the origins of man to discuss human nature. I'll discuss each separately, and then try to say where OHOL currently stands.

Hobbes saw the life of the earliest people as ”nasty, brutish and short”, plagued by violence. This violence is due to the fact that in his world, men are inherently evil and greedy. In Hobbes' world, the state of nature - that is, the state in which individuals lived before government - was a state of war. To escape this state of war, eventually, the people chose a Leviathan - someone capable of protecting the peace of individuals through a social contract. A Hobbesian ruler would be omnipotent and rule with an iron fist: to escape this neverending cycle of violence, the people had given power to a ruler through a social contract, a set of laws to abide to. Hobbes wrote during the English Civil War, a period one could draw a parallel to the state of nature where war between all reigned. As a result, Hobbes believed that rebelling against a ruler would draw people back to a state of nature - and he believed that was the worst thing that could be done by men.

I can discuss all this at length in a separate post if some are interested because I have read those books over four years ago, but all I can tell is that OHOL is nowhere close to Hobbes' vision. We are not in a perpetual state of war because we all produce more together than alone, and perhaps because there is good between OHOL players. Ultimately, those who wish to grief are not unlike the thiefs and murderers of the earliest of times - but in OHOL, people are in my view held much more accountable and the communities live together because of how resources are distributed. The few with knives deliver justice to those who are guilty of crimes. Most people find it easy to just live their lives outside of drama.

OHOL is perhaps closer to Rousseau's view was that individuals are inherently good. While in the state of nature, according to him, there is no state of war - people live free from the oppression of society. It is private property, according to him, that tips the balance towards an undesirable state: when a man decided to dig a peremeter in the earth and declare that what was inside was his. This, in his view, bred inequality and most of the problems that derived from there, including tyranny. A will of all, based on a common good, is what drives society forward - and governments only execute this will.

Locke's view is quite the opposite of Rousseau and Hobbes. Individuals who decide to enter into society give up their natural freedom to assure the protection of their lives, liberties, and estates, all of which Locke considers property. Property is seen as a positive factor per Locke, and ultimately people consent to a ruler and can revoke consent - even rebellion is tolerated if rulers are particularly unjust and cruel. Clearly, OHOL has not reached the levels of polity yet - wearing a crown does not make one a ruler yet.

In a way, Jason, this game has not been replicating the buildup of society because murders, in my opinion, got nerfed. As a result, there is no reason to even have a ruler - someone who controls all or most of the weapons. There are no lords as a result. Politics is also currently irrelevant right now - beyond RP, the hunger chime pushes people to constantly move to keep that yum chain up and the hope of a lasting civilization running is detrimental to talking in game. I think those mechanics explain why it's hard for people to coordinate and reach a system of rule-making.

2. Lack of culture, tradition and symbolism

Let's move on to what I think could be an issue towards the consolidation of societes - there needs to be a sense of belonging.

Jason, you focus a lot on the place of the individual on the equation. Why do individuals fight in wars for their country, tribe? According to political scientist Benedict Anderson, people fight and die because nations are imagined communities - they do not exist in reality, they are a social construct.

I propose the following definition of the nation: it is an imagined political community-and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign. It is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion.... Communities are to be distinguished, not by their falsity/genuineness, but by the style in which they are imagined.... Finally, [the nation] is imagined as a community, because, regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship. Ultimately, it is this fraternity that makes it possible, over the past two centuries for so many millions of people, not so much to kill, as willing to die for such limited imaginings.

In my view, the lack of traditions is ultimately the reason why no factionalism has emerged in this game.

Social psychologist Robert Cialdini, for example, highlights that one of the key principles of human nature is to desire what is rare. We desire what is rare and get attached to what is rare because it is scarce, and because the loss of a scarce item would entail a loss of some degree of freedoms and privileges. As a result, we attach fictional value to items that are scarce.

Give different families unique art or items they can craft, whether it's statues or flags of sorts, and you'll help complete that missing part of the puzzle. Families will want to seize what isn't their if the items have a symbolic value, and not just a practical one. All the iron in the map could not equate to the sacred words of an eve transcribed in a book or to the statue built in the center of the town. I want to be proud to carry on a tradition that some before me have started or that I may even start myself.

If you put work in these two directions, Jason, I'm sure your game will get even more multifaceted and complete. I hope it gives you some elements that fit within your vision.

Last edited by Hstrike (2019-06-05 12:50:22)

Spoonwood · 2022-09-15 20:14:24

jasonrohrer wrote:

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.

Last edited by Spoonwood (2022-09-15 20:19:14)

Arcurus · 2022-09-18 23:12:24

Its funny, that Spoon necroed this thread... i found an idea in it which is long time already implemented in Opfen Life Reborn:

ryanb wrote:

Twisted wrote:
Murdered people should not be able to avoid the area ban though.
If a griefer murders a good guy it would be nice to bring them back by giving them a proper burial. If you see a griefer murdered you can hide the bones so no one buries them.
Also +1 on showing the name when mousing over a tombstone.

Where you incarnate depends on your grave.

Graves with a Stone increase your chance of incarnation there drastically.

Bones not only reduce your chance to incarnate there drastically on top of it you are cursed as long as you are close.

So others see that you are cursed and as long as cursed you will receive also more damage.

With this you can protect an area against a griever.

Also im thinking about implementing a better property system, so that you can protect your stuff while you are offline:

- you can fortify stuff like doors / walls / chests with spending hungry work and some basic stuff like a stone
- you can attack fortified stuff by spending hungry work and using a tool
For example spending 5 hungry work plus a stone on a door the door has a strength of 5 an needs 5 tool uses / hungry work to be removable / loose their owner

- fortified stuff can be owned account based / or alternative with a key that you can carry or that is in your grave
- fortified stuff can be made leader owned and allow all allied access similar to ally gate

this system could also replace then the hole decaying property fences...

The amount of effort to undo fortification would be the same you had making the fortification.

By the way in Open Life Reborn you get an message if one wants to be your ally, so you have some time to exile him before he is your true ally. The grave protection with ally doors should allow to protect against unwanted outsiders...

Also im thinking about allowing directional doors, so from one site you can always open the door. So you could use your grave with grave stone to 'incarnate' inside and then take ownership of the ally doors again...

- additional dogs / tame wolfs and so on could be used to protect the stuff

This would allow to build some kind of 'dungeons' with protected stuff inside.

Last edited by Arcurus (2022-09-18 23:23:54)

Arcurus · 2022-09-18 23:34:01

And to making families meaningful:

Why not ability to create a tool depended on the family?

A family first needs to invent the tool by spending hard X work
Once invented the hole family can make this tool

Maybe also some more skill points for each tool can be added that reduce hungry work when this tool is used?

To make the last living child of a family more meaning full sols close to this family could incarnate as guardians that can speak and help little bit the last kid, but are otherwise invisible.

The last child could even get some last call survival skills depending on the prestige of the family.

By the way currently in Open Life Reborn Players are saved, so families can survive a server restart. The Ai takes over until the human soul reconnects. Also if one has connection problems the Ai takes over until a player reconnects.

Last edited by Arcurus (2022-09-18 23:36:22)

Arcurus · 2022-09-18 23:41:24

Spoonwood wrote:

(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..

By the way, annexing different kind of people is not so easy as you might think. They might rebel even if they have lost a war. Also they might have a total different culture that does not go together much with the culture you have... Also winning some battels and occupying a big chunk of land with tons of people are two different stories. And in case you yourself have a Democracy then good luck with taking in by force tons of new people that can outvote you or at least have a big influence over the outcome...

Last edited by Arcurus (2022-09-18 23:43:08)

One Hour One Life Forums

#151 2019-06-04 15:01:46

Re: Why there are no wars

#152 2019-06-04 15:08:44

Re: Why there are no wars

#153 2019-06-04 16:04:21

Re: Why there are no wars

#154 2019-06-05 01:03:16

Re: Why there are no wars

#155 2019-06-05 12:44:49

Re: Why there are no wars

1. Lack of polities and political organization

2. Lack of culture, tradition and symbolism

#156 2022-09-15 20:14:24

Re: Why there are no wars

#157 2022-09-18 23:12:24

Re: Why there are no wars

#158 2022-09-18 23:34:01

Re: Why there are no wars

#159 2022-09-18 23:41:24

Re: Why there are no wars

Board footer