Why there are no wars

fatalwolf · 2019-04-02 10:00:11

I think the main reason we don't see war/trade/family ties is because of how short 1 hour is. We are living like flies. I know 1 hour one life is the primary design of the game, but the idea of these social ideas are intriguing but cant happen when death has no meaning. Only way I can imagine the game having these aspects is if losing someone had an impact.

A longer life span allows you to actually care for the village and develop bonds. Building houses would become immensely important so you can keep out would be murderers and thieves when your offline/sleeping. How cool would it be to login/wake up the next irl day to find out that your daughter/son that you have been raising and playing with over the past couple of days was murdered by a nearby tribe that raided the town. Most people would go out to find the the cause because you developed a bond with that unknown person and now their gone. Right now in game we just don't have the time to deal with these issues and death is meaningless. Connections and bonds is what this game is missing.

For the game to have the social depth that you want the game itself would have to fundamentally changed.

Elsayal · 2019-04-02 10:56:01

Hi,

regarding the soul / gene question, a thought come to me : isn't human more definied by his culture ? So a soul would be a correct answer too. But what if we can combine them (since it's a game) ?

Being that specific "gene" guy / girl give me special abilities (culture). Like a special stew, who give more food and last longer. You can do the same for the tools too, using different factor : a furnace that last longer, a berries bushes that give more berries / resplenish faster, or give more food pips. To make it better, and clearer, you can use a slightly different visual design too.

In that scenario, all town want to find other girl child (with new genes) to get everything mastered. And from this point stealing a baby girl is something. So maybe you have to kill her mother first... Like with the lamb to get the special sheep.

If it's not a war, but you will start chasing Eves with baby girls. Maybe this could lead to future war ? If a small camp want to survive and have boyos, they maybe be want to return fire to the town...

Last edited by Elsayal (2019-04-02 11:04:04)

st2019 · 2019-04-02 10:59:42

The fact is that the game only becomes more realistic when ownership is introduced and ownership can be inherited.

An Idea:

People live in houses, which can be inherited. You lock houses so that you can secure your property there. In OHOL I can not secure anything at the moment, just hide something behind a tree or carry it very far away. The only currently inheritable is my clothes and the contents of my backpack. But that does not have such great value for my descendants to strive for a lifetime. There is anarchy and everyone owns everything. Or rather, everyone comes too easily to all objects. The resources are well distributed throughout the world, and as Eves keeps spawning everywhere, there is no reason for envy, war or conflict.

There would have to be some kind of key that you can not duplicate and that fits only a single door. Although I can currently assign a letter for a key and a lock, the code can be posted outside the game, so security is quickly over. Inheritance is therefore difficult to achieve. It only promotes reincarnation and the locked property does not benefit anyone in the meantime. At some point too many players would know the code and there is anarchy again. Or nobody knows it. There must be something in between. A "special" key.

This special key can be passed on to anyone (For example, by command: "I pass on to Jason" and the player's answer Jason: "I want inherit".) It fits, as I said, only in a unique single door. The possession of such a key could be represented with a necklace. To make it clear, it's not an item like a pie or a knife. It's an access right that is visualised by something like a necklace. You carry it like a hat or boots. The key can not be take off by the player himself but is inherited if both players want it. After all, you also have to be able to deny a legacy.

If the Key Carrier is murdered, the key will remain with the corpse as long as it is bloody. After that, anyone can take it even if he is not relative. If a player dies without first inheriting, everyone can instantly take the key. It is not a (last) will, but a handover. Only that one who owns the key can go through the door.

My descendants would choose to be my heir, since there can only be one heir. They would protect and defend their possessions, expand and re-inherit them. From generation to generation, ownership grows and only the best assert themselves and become heirs.

Good neighbors are of course important, maybe a city wall. There would be settlements of high value after some time.

Anyone who has property can trade. At some point the resources in the area will run out. Traders will come and offer me goods that I pay for with a portion of my property. Robbers will come and try to break in. As I said, good neighborliness will be important. Cities and settlements and fortifications and trading posts are created.

If I am born again, I have absolutely no guarantee that I will get "my property" back. That's a change to the existing locks and keys (Which of course should still be implemented).

As settlements grow, so do the birth rates. Resources become even less. OHOL humanity will emigrate and build neighboring cities. Some may build factory towns, others build agriculture. Maybe there are also airports and a road system.

Someone with property will have to be productive otherwise. But that only gives players the time to trade. Maybe one player has a Newcommen Lathe, the other an iron store. The two have to act. Another does not produce anything by himself, but lives on the sale of cars that he gets from other houses. There are many possibilities.

To make it short: Handover without fixed letter code for lock and key. Only one heir to each key carrier. Only one door per key.

Last edited by st2019 (2019-04-02 11:29:35)

Twisted · 2019-04-02 11:25:04

jasonrohrer wrote:

Quiz: You just had a girl baby, and suddenly another unrelated girl baby walks out from the bushes and asks for food. She's one year older than your baby. You realize you only have enough food resources for one baby. Which one do you save?

If you only have enough food resources for one that means you don't have any food whatsoever, which means you're all going to die anyways.

jasonrohrer wrote:

Quiz: Your family is running out of food, and your last girl child is about to starve to death, resulting in the end of your family line. Nearby in the same town, there's an unrelated family that has plenty of extra food. You ask for some assistance, but they refuse. You have a knife, and they don't. What do you do?

I don't have to ask for food, they don't own it. There is no concept of personal property in this game. The only reason to hoard all the food is if you're griefing and trying to starve out the entire village.

jasonrohrer wrote:

In real life, if your baby ran off into the desert, you'd chase it endlessly. You'd call to it. You'd plead with it. In this game, you just shrug your shoulders and move on.

That's because in real life, the baby is an actual baby. In OHOL, it's another adult sitting at their computer.

jasonrohrer wrote:

So I need to get to the bottom of WHY the Smiths and the Joneses are just sharing everything without a care in the world. I need to figure out why it doesn't matter, currently. If they're just sharing everything, how can they ever engage in trade? Or employment? Why do we need laws? How could there ever be a real, multi-generational feud?

There are no Smiths and Joneses. There's only players, and those players have a different last name every life. Waging a war against another family is no different than waging a war against your own family. You don't know where you're going to respawn when you're die, you might come back as a Jones, you might come back as a Smith, or you might come back as a Rohrer. If you wage war against another family you're just sabotaging your future lives. Besides, if people wanted to play a game where you wage war they'd probably play a different game. IMO most people play OHOL because it's completely different, wholesome story generator.

jasonrohrer wrote:

Where's the heated town meeting where we decide to load up the covered wagons and strike out for greener pastures? Where's the heated town meeting where we load up the bows and arrows and decide to raid the next village?

It's easier for one person to bring the needed resources to the town than it is to move the entire town to a different location. Why would you bother raiding a different village when you can just cooperate with them instead, or grow your own resources?

Besides, how would you find the location of the other village, organize a raiding party, head out, raid, and come back in a single life? Unless the stars align that's completely impossible, and even if you do succeed it's: a) incredibly inefficient to raid instead of growing your own resources, and b) making your future lives worse.

jasonrohrer wrote:

We have separate food supplies in real life because this stuff matters. This stuff doesn't matter in the game, so we don't. It currently would be dumb to have a wall around your garden and only let your family in to eat food, because your family doesn't matter. But if your family mattered, it wouldn't be dumb at all. In fact, it would be dumb to not have a wall.

I don't care about my last name, I care about the town. Other players are not my blood, they're just other people sitting at their computers playing the same game that I am.

If I play the game on Monday, by the time I launch it again on Tuesday all the lineages I lived in the day before will be gone, and even if they somehow lasted 24 hours, spawning back into them would just make me think, "Heh, that's neat I guess, what are the odds."

On the other hand, when I spawn into or find the same town I played in before, now that's a great moment. It's something I can connect with, as it's a product of many people doing one small thing to make something great.

When I get a baby I know it's just another adult playing a game, and I don't usually connect with them unless I'm roleplaying. I'll spend as little time as possible raising them because it's not necessary most of the time - I don't need to teach them anything as they're not an actual baby, they're a player that has the ability to learn on their own. And if they die who cares - they don't actually die in real life, they'll just respawn somewhere else.

jasonrohrer wrote:

As a result of all of this, I don't think the stories that occur in the game are as interesting or as meaningful as they should or could be. That's my fault, and it's my job to fix it.

I couldn't disagree more. The average life in OHOL is more meaningful than any game experience I've ever had. I'll never forget the time when my father Apollo was wrongly killed, or when I shot my own bloodthirsty brother in order to secure peace between ours and another village, or when I created the Rite of Passage and other people followed it, or when I abandoned my family in their time of need to find the promised Bell Town, or when I hid in the woods as a child in order to survive a griefer attack and ressurect the village, or when I taught Queen Queen how to make compost from scratch in the town's time of need, or the life where I was high on mushrooms the entire time and Steve took care of me.

omlinson · 2019-04-02 11:28:24

jasonrohrer wrote:

Maybe it's because in Rust, you aren't starving from the get go, and you have time. But I bet that even if I removed food pressure completely from OHOL, people wouldn't suddenly start making locks as their top priority. Something else is afoot here.
Imagine if the Montagues and the Capulets lived in the same house and shared the same garden and took care of each other's children. There's no room for macro drama there.

Wars are about gaining power over the other.

In Rust, your inventory / treasures are a way to showcase and maintain power. You use a lock to maintain power over time as you as an individual are not always online to keep ownership over your inventory.

The easiest way to gain power in Rust is to kill someone with more power using skills, teamwork and subterfuge.

IMO, there are two ways to show power in OHOL: knowledge of the tech tree & the curse system.

Knowledge: RP players love crowns and will fight over them. People build monuments and stupid signs. Everyone jumps to hog the radio, car or airplane. Huge towns built by individuals coming back to a city over and over again are still just showcasing of game knowledge.

Curses: Getting people to react negatively to your actions shows you have power over them. The town will decay through time, griefing is purely a way to get a rise out of people to show you are better than they are. This is a juvenile attempt at power compared to knowledge and can easily be done with little skill. There are artist griefers.

Neither knowledge nor curses will ever lead to war. Both are also indivudal displays of powers. In Rust, an inventory can be shared with a group or clan causing group warfare in additional to individual warfare.

What could be a third way of showcasing power in the game that could be passed along generations?

Quick shit analysis of Romeo & Juliet to demonstrate this: Montagues and Capulets were enemies but were still trying to maintain a certain status quo when it came to elements that let them stay in power (the feud with no backstory). When Romeo & Juliet die, they see that the feud may lead to less children -> breaks status quo in a way that shows that at scale the feud will reduce their family's chances to stay in power due to extinction versus resolving the issue and allowing free love between the families.

Last edited by omlinson (2019-04-02 11:29:40)

Potjeh · 2019-04-02 11:50:29

jasonrohrer wrote:

But I'm still asking probing questions about WHY these things haven't emerged. To say, "We just don't have time for it," is an easy, dismissive explanation. "We don't lock our houses, and pass the keys on to our children when we die, because the keys get lost." What? Keys are just as easy to lose in real life. There has to be another reason. It's because houses don't matter, and property doesn't matter, and "children" don't matter. If such things really mattered, the key would be a huge priority, and it would not be lost.

It may be an easy explanation, but it's a true one. If you want to build a house and a fenced garden to go with it, you'll need about ten lifetimes, but you only get one and you can't go back when you die. Private property is simply impossible in game's current format. You either need to make impossible to keep returning over and over to the same place or you need to make construction trivially easy (like getting ten tiles of fence from a single long shaft etc.).

JonySky · 2019-04-02 12:33:32

I believe that wars generate good stories, and in the right doses it can be a good addiction...

But I don't think OHOL is currently prepared to have wars.

The main problem I see at OHOL is what Jason calls "families."
I never really feel like I'm in a family.

Most of the time my mother abandons me / parks in a campfire and a babysitter or some other child feeds me so I don't starve to death.
and although sometimes my mother accompanies me throughout my childhood, she only parked in a campfire with me in my arms without a word.
In relation to my "family" or people of the town or city... they are only individuals who perform individual tasks, annoying each other when someone invades the little space that remains or taking objects that someone else needs, each one carrying out his own task, without anyone's collaboration, without hardly speaking to anyone or relating to anyone... sometimes you only see text messages asking the blacksmith to create a specific tool... but honestly I don't see it in too many...
occasions... if someone needs something, you end up doing it yourself.

for me this kind of character dance for 60 minutes is not a family, do not create links

just like Jason says, sometimes I just look at the genealogical tree to see if my sons/daughters follow the lineage much more... (and most of the time they don't last more than 2 generations, after mine)
Babies do not stop committing suicide and it is a bit frustrating to have 6 children and only 2 live to 30, the rest .... death subita

There are no families here... and if there are no families there can be no tribes, no factions, not even united cities.

Logically if there is none of this... neither can there be wars between cities... only a few murderers or griefers who generate a little internal chaos in the cities ... but nothing else

And this is only one of the many things that hold OHOL back in this aspect and in aspects such as trade, or politics, etc...

There is no collaboration between the characters, there are no mechanics that unite the citizens of a city and it really feels like a real collaboration ... with a common goal and a result visible to everyone ...

Currently if someone builds a house it is very possible that this person ends the house at the end of his life ... neither he, nor his closest relatives enjoyed that house .....
Only distant relatives will enjoy them... that's why people work on individual jobs... because everyone has a different vision of what is best for a city... there is no common goal....
We do not even bury the elderly who have done a great job such as finishing a hospital or finishing a bakery ... we only lift their bones off the ground if they bother us and we throw them in another place

Even if someone sees you burying the bodies, they can be annoyed because you are breaking the shovel .... this does not generate family ties ...
the citizens of many cities look like robots

Apart from this thought, I also believe that UNIQUE articles should be created that generate some kind of benefits for the city
for example craftear some statues that generate more bonus of YUM to the inhabitants of that city, or more births to women, harder crops, more pleasant temperatures
these statuettes (style indiana Jones stones in the cursed temple...Sankara Rocks) if they can be a reason for envy of other cities

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTsp7ATMqAxFHBzQezQc2DYQV1qVRG1meG9I6EFiiXOhYBQszuP 61amoi2gk2L._SY550_.jpg

Currently people create sanctuaries in cities, but there is no object in the game that accompanies this practice ... (with real results and with a goal) currently it is only an imaginary role play ... with these objects let's make it real!

Mental note: and if to create these objects we need the murder of several babies that are not of our lineage?

I'm very happy to buy the game and still enjoy it, but if the game wants to get more, Jason must create a real team game...

Last edited by JonySky (2019-04-02 13:18:39)

futurebird · 2019-04-02 12:35:35

What about bumper biomes? In one biome milkweed gives string. In another trees give extra wood. In another crops grow faster. In another wild foods respawn. etc. Space these out and people will focus more on the "bumper" from their region.

Potjeh · 2019-04-02 13:42:01

Yeah, I definitely agree with Jony, there's no real connection between people. There's simply not enough reason to get to know other people and communicate with them, because you won't be spending enough time with them. What if people preserved identities between lives in some way, so you could recognize people you've met in previous lives?

Spoonwood · 2019-04-02 14:46:25

jasonrohrer wrote:

Imagine if the Montagues and the Capulets lived in the same house and shared the same garden and took care of each other's children. There's no room for macro drama there.

Romeo and Juliet would have both lived and had happier lives. It would have been better if the Capulets and Montagues were not fighting. Additionally, you aren't correct here. There DOES exist room for drama without the families fighting. The story of Pyramus and Thisbe has a strong dramatic element because of both characters completing suicide because of believing that their lover is dead. The suicides do NOT involve the families fighting, because the first suicide happens as a result of believing that a lioness had eaten Thisbe. The families at war just creates a condition by which the separation of lovers becomes plausible. Other conditions than the families feuding could create the separation of lovers as plausible.

People have wanted to have things like marriages in game. Don't make war, make love.

Glassius · 2019-04-02 14:47:51

I am really happy you Jason came to this point. There are many possible solutions, but answer firstly to yourself and to us: how much of your original design ideas can you sacrifice to have families, trade and war? Can you abandon "everything runs out" philosophy? Can you include fathers in reproduction? Can you allow for more PvP? Can you resign from your beautiful graphic design and allow implement zoom mod on yourself? Can include voice chat? Can you allow players to live trough multiple lives in one family/city? Can you play around food burn engine, AGAIN? Maybe you have to resign from all this complex social behaviors, in case to leave each live a methaphisic, short existence focused about leaving a small mark in big world, for future generations you will never see again.

I think lack of FTW (families, trade, wars) is not only a result of lacking features. This is mostly the output of your design. You wanted every life to be unique and one-time experience. That design has unintended consequences you now realised. I'm going to make comprehensive topics about lacks you asked about.

Because , i will shock you: there are rules of nature, which cause war, trade, parentship and others. You're just clearly not aware of them!

ryanb · 2019-04-02 15:04:50

It sounds like you want both of these statements to be true:

1. Players should care about their lineage.
2. Players should only live one life in that lineage.

These are in conflict because why should a player care about something they will never see or experience again?

In real life children are a clean slate which we can teach our ideas to. They are an extension of ourselves and a way for us to influence the world after we are gone. In OHOL you care for a child until they are 3 and then they are on their own, just another player with their own ideas. They do not feel like an extension of yourself, and I don't think they ever will since it is another human behind the character.

I think for players to care about their lineage more you'll need to loosen the second statement. If their lineage is a way to bypass the area ban then it is their only ticket back into the town. Suddenly players will care a lot more about their lineage and you'll probably see lines live longer on average because everyone is trying to make them survive. Wars will break out and property will be owned by lineages because they will want their line to survive.

Perhaps letting someone return to their lineage at any point is too easy? What if the players can decide if you can return after you are gone. For example, what if burying someone releases the area ban? Burying could be a way to "put their soul to rest" and allow them to return. You will then have an interesting choice after each person dies, should you bury them? Did they improve society, and do you want them to return?

If you do this, burying will no longer become role play, it will become real play like you spoke of. If you see a pile of bones in the wilderness, you'll have the desire to bury them to increase the chance of more players being able to play in your line. Also venturing out yourself will feel more scary because if you are not found and buried you will not be able to return.

What do you think?

happynova · 2019-04-02 15:11:14

DestinyCall wrote:

I think it is worth considering that property rights as we know them today are relatively recent human invention. Historically, there are MANY examples of cultures who did not view land and property as something that could be owned by one person or even by one group of people. They were something that should be shared by all people within the village/tribe. Because the community was more important than any individual person or family.

Yeah, there are certainly traditional human societies where the Jones' hypothetical pie-hoarding would be regarded as deeply anti-social and weird, just as it would in the game.

Wanting more sources of excitement is one thing, I guess, but just because the game world isn't spitting out 21st-century American capitalism doesn't mean it's broken.

futurebird · 2019-04-02 15:12:19

I really like the burying idea but i think it should also require a grave.

Broken · 2019-04-02 15:26:36

Short answer: I didn't start playing this to play Battle Royale or League of Legends. I started playing this because it was an interesting survival game.

The longer answer is that wars are fought for many reasons but one thing they have to have is two groups ready to kill each other over one of them.
There are no maps so they can't find each other
There are no reasons to give loyalty to a town or family to fight for them
There isn't enough time for getting things ready to fight a war when you spend half-your life trying to make a bow and the other half travelling to the other town only to die of starvation because you couldn't bring enough food and the other town took out all the wild food earlier.

Also there just don't seem to be enough people. You have a huge world and not enough people in each one to concentrate them all close enough to start a war. Even if I had a reason there is no map and no real fast travel enough to get to the other place to fight them over it. I would die half-way to most other towns and get bored sometimes or would die most times of a boar wound or snake bite because I can't carry enough stuff to heal myself on the way to fight others.

Your game isn't built for war and to be honest- if it was I probably wouldn't be playing it.

Taz · 2019-04-02 15:43:03

jasonrohrer wrote:

So I need to get to the bottom of WHY the Smiths and the Joneses are just sharing everything without a care in the world. I need to figure out why it doesn't matter, currently.

You already know.

Being a Smith in OHOL is a temporary state. I might be a Jones in my next life. So of course I'm going to share the fruits of my labor with the Joneses. Their prosperity is potentially my future inheritance.

Twisted · 2019-04-02 15:49:33

ryanb wrote:

What if the players can decide if you can return after you are gone. For example, what if burying someone releases the area ban? Burying could be a way to "put their soul to rest" and allow them to return. You will then have an interesting choice after each person dies, should you bury them? Did they improve society, and do you want them to return?
If you do this, burying will no longer become role play, it will become real play like you spoke of. If you see a pile of bones in the wilderness, you'll have the desire to bury them to increase the chance of more players being able to play in your line. Also venturing out yourself will feel more scary because if you are not found and buried you will not be able to return.
What do you think?

I love this idea. Currently the only reason to bury someone is roleplay, as burying people actually drains valuable resources and the only thing you get in return is even more organization problems as the potential play area becomes smaller. If your child/mother/sibling dies the best thing to do is to ditch their bones in the swamp far away from the town, which always felt really weird to me.

If being buried made you ignore the area ban then we'd see a lot more burials, you'd want to bury a good player so they can come back, and if someone was causing problems just exile their bones far away so they can't come back. You'd also want to bury random unknown bones that are always scattered around towns, as buried bones = more babies for your family.

Murdered people should not be able to avoid the area ban though.

We could also get several types of tombstones, just for a variety's sake. You should also be able to see the name of the person buried there - right now it just says tombstone, and you have no idea who your ancestors were.

I'd love to be able to talk a walk through the family graveyard in a future life and see what type of grave my children made for me.

Broken wrote:

Your game isn't built for war and to be honest- if it was I probably wouldn't be playing it.

I agree with this 100%

One of the main reasons I love OHOL is because it's a game unlike any other, a game about cooperation and civilization building. So many games these days use conflict as the main driving force of the gameplay, playing OHOL feels really refreshing.

Last edited by Twisted (2019-04-02 15:51:33)

Turnipseed · 2019-04-02 15:51:46

If you remember almost a year ago when players made maps of different towns and there were several walled cities connected by roads there was a primative "trade", and wars between towns.

Several times i traded alum for pie or furs. Or a tool for a load of food. Or a cart full of pies for a female child.

Also we had caught theves and lead raiding partys to kill other towns.

It was a fun dynamic. It was easy when spawned as an eve to find your way to a town. This was before naming or cursing or the apocalypse or decay. Heck soil even lasted forever. Im not saying it would be better if it was like that again, but i am saying we are too far spread out still.

Theres a good quality to that but it feels like im born in a different world every life.

Even with huge roads going in every direction from a big town they all lead to nothing. Its very rare that 2 developed towns are withen walking distance from one another.

We cannot interact with each other unless we are closer.

Taz · 2019-04-02 15:56:50

Also Jason, you keep mentioning Rust.

What happens when you die in Rust? You respawn to the same life. Sure, your recently deceased body is out there, probably being looted of whatever was on it. But you're still basically in the same life, respawning at your "base", where you've stored resources that you can immediately re-equip yourself with if nobody has raided and stolen them.

If you want OHOL gameplay to be more like Rust, then you'll have to change the reincarnation system to be more like Rust.

DestinyCall · 2019-04-02 16:03:37

Twisted wrote:

Broken wrote:
Your game isn't built for war and to be honest- if it was I probably wouldn't be playing it.

I agree with this 100%
One of the main reasons I love OHOL is because it's a game unlike any other, a game about cooperation and civilization building. So many games these days use conflict as the main driving force of the gameplay, playing OHOL feels really refreshing.

I want to add my voice to the anti-war bandwagon. If the primary goal of OHOL becomes fighting and killing other villages to survive, it will have ceased to be a game I want to play. I love the cooperative feeling in a OHOL village. I like that we share our food with each other and we work together toward a common goal. I like that even without formal organization, we live and work without violence in the majority of villages. Peace = prosperity. War = poverty. There are plenty of games that make life cheap and war easy. I don't like those games.

I can get behind the idea of making a more connected world to encourage the development of trade. And I imagine that war will follow on the heels of trade. But I do not play this game to wage wars.

Potjeh · 2019-04-02 16:10:33

Yeah if I want to play Rust I go and play Rust.

Guppy · 2019-04-02 16:11:58

I love the Idea with the Tombstones too!
People are already building all kinds of shrines and gardens, why not have a nice graveyard instead?
Would combine RP and Gameplay at the same time, pleasing both sides

BlueDiamondAvatar · 2019-04-02 16:12:22

Jk Howling wrote:

This is where, personally, I think your idea of the game is... deluding? clouding? the reality of it.
Open your eyes, Jason.. See your game as it is, not as you want it to be. You'll find the two extremely different in comparison.

+100 on this.

Jason,
Your vision for the game makes it difficult for you to perceive the reality of how people actually experience the game. I watched a bit of the anniversary stream, and that group was not playing the way most people play.

I have an actual suggestion to remedy this... schedule some hours off from coding and content production, to play OHOL on the bigserver. Play for the standard 16 hours that most people play - on consecutive days in groups of 3-4 hours.

Try to interact with people in the way that you suggest, and figure out what the closest approximation is.

I've personally played over a thousand hours of this game, mostly on bigserver, or the populated servers from before that. I know how to influence other players, but it is NOT by talking to them or writing a note. You influence others by showing them how to do something right. Or creating a good space for what needs to be done, with all the tools collected.

For example, I have no idea who I convinced to work on compost with me yesterday. But I created the wet compost piles in several places, and they would come by with the sheep dung in less than a minute. I didn't say anything, or create a policy that every farm needs its own compost pile, I just DID it. Now that tradition might stick, or it might not.

Players actually are arguing about policy and town functions all the time, but a lot of it is nonverbal. And towns do raid each other. We steal the most precious resource of all - people. We just do it by ringing a bell, instead of sending a war party.

Best Regards,

jasonrohrer · 2019-04-02 16:13:59

futurebird wrote:

Also not everyone is klanish even in real life. I don't think "feed my kid or some other" *is* and obvious question at all.

Future.... do you have kids of your own?

I can recognize mine by smell alone, and each of my three kids smells different. And gosh, I must admit that other people's children smell awful to me...

Fortunately, I've only experienced one of my children almost getting killed one time in my life, but it's something that I will never forget. I'm reminded of The House of Sand and Fog and Ben Kingsly.... "I want only my son. I want only my son."

https://youtu.be/9sS-JmL40QQ?t=32

Dodge · 2019-04-02 16:22:34

jasonrohrer wrote:

What if, instead of being a soul, the player was a chromosome?

I like the idea of chromosomes and genetics but wouldn't that lead to race wars?

Having a gameplay mechanic that gives an incentive to kill other races so more people spawn in yours seems wrong, also having villages with the same character models would be boring.

What if, instead of being a chromosome, the players were collective and individual souls/spirits?

In a game where death has no meaning why not make a life after death?

Or rather having your lives lived have an impact on your future ones

What if you were a spirit in relationship to other individual and collective ones

First few lives you start blank with no relationship to any tribe, has you take actions (time lived in tribe, feeding children etc)

Your relationship to this tribe changes, depending on the relationship you have you can either spawn more frequently in the family or not being able to spawn there at all.

Your spirits relationship to this tribe is saved after death until the tribe dies then it's lost forever.

You have a spirit but each tribe also has a collective one, a common spirit that connects each member of the tribe together (affects birth rate of each female of the tribe) some actions either decrease or increase that spirit/morale (murders, death of young ones (not babies), conflict or positive actions (baking pies, making stew, making food in general, yule tree, dying old, prosperity of village etc)

Actions of each players in the tribe affect the whole tribe (someone does something good/bad it affects morale of whole tribe)

Players from your tribe getting murdered lowers morale/spirit (wars between tribes, revenges etc)

This would make the death of a lineage/tribe/family a lot more meaningful since you become attached to it and have a reason to care for it instead of RP'ing it.

But lineage ban lift has to switch to server running time and not play time or being at war with a village becomes detrimental to your future lives.

One Hour One Life Forums

#51 2019-04-02 10:00:11

Re: Why there are no wars

#52 2019-04-02 10:56:01

Re: Why there are no wars

#53 2019-04-02 10:59:42

Re: Why there are no wars

#54 2019-04-02 11:25:04

Re: Why there are no wars

#55 2019-04-02 11:28:24

Re: Why there are no wars

#56 2019-04-02 11:50:29

Re: Why there are no wars

#57 2019-04-02 12:33:32

Re: Why there are no wars

#58 2019-04-02 12:35:35

Re: Why there are no wars

#59 2019-04-02 13:42:01

Re: Why there are no wars

#60 2019-04-02 14:46:25

Re: Why there are no wars

#61 2019-04-02 14:47:51

Re: Why there are no wars

#62 2019-04-02 15:04:50

Re: Why there are no wars

#63 2019-04-02 15:11:14

Re: Why there are no wars

#64 2019-04-02 15:12:19

Re: Why there are no wars

#65 2019-04-02 15:26:36

Re: Why there are no wars

#66 2019-04-02 15:43:03

Re: Why there are no wars

#67 2019-04-02 15:49:33

Re: Why there are no wars

#68 2019-04-02 15:51:46

Re: Why there are no wars

#69 2019-04-02 15:56:50

Re: Why there are no wars

#70 2019-04-02 16:03:37

Re: Why there are no wars

#71 2019-04-02 16:10:33

Re: Why there are no wars

#72 2019-04-02 16:11:58

Re: Why there are no wars

#73 2019-04-02 16:12:22

Re: Why there are no wars

#74 2019-04-02 16:13:59

Re: Why there are no wars

#75 2019-04-02 16:22:34

Re: Why there are no wars

Board footer