Hierarchies

pein · 2019-12-07 08:19:47

in my history, received one time a crown for working hard
was a decaying city where the new family didn't knew where is the water
was like 120 north
so I got them a few buckets, was not with springs, was with ponds so you had to use all the ponds or upgrade, a deep well was the highest

one old lady gave me a crown for making the first few composts in gen 8-9 since the revival

other than that you get a crown cause you are cute or something or people claim it, or has a blue shirt and thinks she runs shit
or she is the only clothed person and talks bullshit to everyone who is naked

people already are assholes just cause they are older or have some special item

the general kings I have seen are like spending 30 min to make a crown then shit-talk to others for their rest of life, also they are the first to curse based on some bullshit.

nowadays I was ok with crowns since it's a gold way to transport gold on the neck
any sort of system like that would be bad cause inheriting is bad, and we don't have a good skill-based system to decide upon it, at age 3 anyone can do almost anything so can lead a town, and discussing this bullshit takes too much time

some people used to wear crown to taunt others but right now that's dumb cause then they can have first click and you are dead

Gogo · 2019-12-07 10:26:03

Spoonwood wrote:

I don't see any evidence that Alec or any other experienced player would have time to roleplay king.

And beside who else in the village will noticed how much Alec did to community?

Vanilla players should have at least zoom mod to know what's going on.

I don't see how it will work exactly, a leader should be aware what town needs and also there should be a force to execute leaders orders, right? I don't get the point yet, maybe someone can clarify it for me?

Spoonwood · 2019-12-07 10:35:45

Gogo wrote:

And beside who else in the village will noticed how much Alec did to community?

My recollection is that I use to occasionally see stacks of iron or some extra ropes in towns when I was a child, or advanced tools like buckets and carts. But, I had no idea who got them or made them. So I agree that not many people in the village are likely to notice how much a player like Alec did for the community.

Kinrany · 2019-12-07 14:05:11

jasonrohrer wrote:

The interesting thing is that you won't see your own black speech bubble (only people who have you exiled will see it).

Hm, it could be confusing if Alice sees Bob as an exile, but Charlie doesn't.

I guess there's no way around it. But maybe there's a way to make it clear that the EXILE status is also relative.
Maybe it's not a problem: this does happen IRL. Alice and Charlie are friends, Charlie and Bob are friends, but Alice and Bob are in different social groups and hate each other. And it blows up at Charlie's birthday party or something.

Spoonwood wrote:

Teacher-student hierarchies are not artificial either.

Um, what? Most schools are basically prisons for children. Teachers are appointed by schools. A student can't become a teacher even if she knows the subject better.

Spoonwood wrote:

If you seriously think that, you haven't understood a single sentence I've posed in this thread.

That's probably it, sorry.

eajorstad wrote:

Do hierarchies have to be an actual game mechanic??? Why can't they be implemented in a RP sense if people want? It's bad enough we have a forced game mechanic preventing players from obtaining resources.

If players decide not to use this, this mechanic will have absolutely zero effect on the game. It doesn't actually do anything except keep track of your relations with other people.

Players can't implement it themselves because communication in the game is super hard. Its primary value proposition is the ability to trust other people more. If this system was run by people, you'd also have to trust the very people that run the system.
Like a rocket: mass -> fuel -> more mass -> more fuel.
When Queen Alice exiles Bob, all of her followers learn that instantly. Without the system Alice would have to send messengers to tell everyone that Bob is exiled. But she'd have to find the messengers first, or even keep them by her side all the time. And this applies to every leader in the hierarchy.
You'd probably need more messengers than you have people. Certainly you'd have more messengers than actual workers. And this even ignores the issue of trusting the messengers.

Gogo wrote:

I don't see how it will work exactly, a leader should be aware what town needs and also there should be a force to execute leaders orders, right? I don't get the point yet, maybe someone can clarify it for me?

Not all useful work is easy to notice, yes. There's no fairy that will reward best players with titles. Proving your worth would indeed be your own job. By convincing other people, showing off your skills, or killing opposition.

About Alec. Note that Alec's most important skill in this case was noticing that the town needs more milkweed. Collecting milkweed is easier. Alec would create several times more value if there were followers that could be given the job of milkweed collectors by someone with authority.

Last edited by Kinrany (2019-12-07 14:05:59)

eajorstad · 2019-12-07 16:12:28

Kinrany wrote:

If players decide not to use this, this mechanic will have absolutely zero effect on the game. It doesn't actually do anything except keep track of your relations with other people.
Players can't implement it themselves because communication in the game is super hard. Its primary value proposition is the ability to trust other people more. If this system was run by people, you'd also have to trust the very people that run the system.
....
Not all useful work is easy to notice, yes. There's no fairy that will reward best players with titles. Proving your worth would indeed be your own job. By convincing other people, showing off your skills, or killing opposition.
About Alec. Note that Alec's most important skill in this case was noticing that the town needs more milkweed. Collecting milkweed is easier. Alec would create several times more value if there were followers that could be given the job of milkweed collectors by someone with authority.

If this mechanic has zero effect on the game, why TF is it needed to begin with?? Just create a mod or something. Doing this means you can have people exile others just 'cause, which puts a target on them for griefers and/or people who think they legit are bad.

And if the expert players do stuff that tend to go unnoticed, how TF do you expect them to get followers to help them??

DestinyCall · 2019-12-07 16:44:45

It sounds like this system would only work if the right people became leaders. But there doesn't appear to be anything stopping the "wrong" people from becoming leaders. In fact, I'd argue that they are the most likely people to gravitate toward this kind of position in the village. The most experienced and valuable members of the village will be too busy doing real work to bother with titles and leadership roles. They contribute greatly to the village survival, but their contributions frequently go completely unnoticed and unrecognized.

The kind of people who would have the time to develop a following of other players would almost certainly be exactly the kind of player that most hard-working players would be inclined to ignore (or stab, if they get too annoying).

You would need to spend a decent amount of your short life going around and asking other people to follow you or reminding other people to join the hierarchy if they aren't following anyone yet. Time spent gathering supporters and assigning positions would be time that was not spent on anything practical for the village's immediate survival. Likewise, after you have organized the village under a single leader, you then need to spend even more time doing something with the hierarchy you have created. Assigning jobs or responsibilities. Checking up on people to see that everyone is alive and working on their assignments. Identifying and exiling possible griefers. Killing threats to your leadership. Assessing potential successors to pass on your mantle of authority, etc.

And ultimately, the system only has meaning if I can trust the people in power. If people are exiled without proper reasoning or if jobs are assigned inappropriately, then it would not make sense to follow the system. I'd be better off just doing my own thing and letting the social organizers waste their time on role-play and royal titles while I make more compost and haul buckets of water.

In the wise words of Dennis the Peasant ... "you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"

Kinrany · 2019-12-07 16:58:32

DestinyCall, wouldn't you say the same about the real world? Most people hate politicians, while great teachers are underpaid!

Yet we somehow have billions of people on this planet.

My not very confident guess is that even a clueless leader does better than anarchy as long as she listens to experts and makes >50% good decisions.

miskas · 2019-12-07 17:48:39

I have been a Real KING Without wearing a Crown, here is my feedback.

During the noob apocalypse, I was doing nomad runs. What was this?
I was leaving the cities and I was leading a small group of offsprings around, to survive under my commands.
Commands as: Run, follow, Eat, hunt, gather X, feed, stay, give me X, built/craft X.

In my most successful run, I had a sister with me. I didn't have any tag or crown but I was managing a group of more than 10 people in the end and we were building our own camp to this point.
At the end of my rule, I had 3 skilled and 2 new players that were asking and obeying me to organize their actions.
By being born to a nomad group and seeing that your mother and others obeying a certain Person you are more inclined to do as well.

I acquired my leadership through, leading, effectiveness and via group mentality ( if others follow him I will follow him).
I could Hold this authority cause it was easily visible to the group that I HAD this authority.

THIS system might be able to present exactly that, which one is the most respectful and eligible player to follow and cooperate with.
IRL titles of Respect are very important for group organization and might become very important in-game.
Because as my example showed, when this Respect is apparent among the group, the group gives to certain players the authority.

JASON plz add an access transfer command for in-group members as MY PEOPLE USE THIS

Think as if food storage has a fence-gate and someone gets exiled, now exile and being part of a group is a big thing right?

Mechanic:
My people USE this gives Access to your subordinates
My Duke, Kind, etc use this, gives Access to your current duke king, etc

we transfer Access, not ownership!

if a king exiles a duke. this Duke and all his subordinates lose access.
A Duke exiles a king, the king will lose access to gates owned by this Duke and duke's followers.
A Duke leaving would mean that he and his followers would lose access.

Last edited by miskas (2019-12-07 20:03:32)

Spoonwood · 2019-12-07 18:34:22

Kinrany wrote:

Alec would create several times more value if there were followers that could be given the job of milkweed collectors by someone with authority.

Just tell the children who ask 'job?' to get rope. You don't need this system for that. Also, if Alec's most important skill lay in getting the milkweed, well, if he hadn't used many ropes for buckets, someone could have come along and made all those ropes into reed skirts in principle. And that would not have been as good as the multiple buckets he made, which resulted in a stanchion kit, and the milking of a lot of milk. So, no, it wasn't just about him recognizing the need for milkweed.

Last edited by Spoonwood (2019-12-07 18:35:09)

Spoonwood · 2019-12-07 18:44:36

DestinyCall wrote:

In the wise words of Dennis the Peasant ... "you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"

Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses. Not from some farcical, aquatic ceremony!

Kinrany · 2019-12-07 18:53:00

miskas wrote:

Mechanic:
My people USE this gives Access to your subordinates
My Duke, Kind, etc own this, gives Access to your current duke king, etc
we transfer Access, not ownership!
if a king exiles a duke. this Duke and all his subordinates lose access.
A Duke exiles a king , the king will lose access to gates owned by this Duke.
A Duke leaving would mean that he and his followers would lose access.

Borrowed vs owned power! :0

Time to plug Samo Burja's excellent posts. That's where half this thread came from. I really like How to use Bureaucracies.

jcwilk · 2019-12-07 19:52:10

miskas wrote:

I have been a Real KING Without wearing a Crown, here is my feedback.
During the noob apocalypse, I was doing nomad runs. What was this?
I was leaving the cities and I was leading a small group of offsprings around, to survive under my commands.
Commands as: Run, follow, Eat, hunt, gather X, feed, stay, give me X, built/craft X.
In my most successful run, I had a sister with me. I didn't have any tag or crown but I was managing a group of more than 10 people in the end and we were building our own camp to this point.
At the end of my rule, I had 3 skilled and 2 new players that were asking and obeying me to organize their actions.
By being born to a nomad group and seeing that your mother and others obeying a certain Person you are more inclined to do as well.
I acquired my leadership through, leading, effectiveness and via group mentality ( if others follow him I will follow him).
I could Hold this authority cause it was easily visible to the group that I HAD this authority.
THIS system might be able to present exactly that, which one is the most respectful and eligible player to follow and cooperate with.
IRL titles of Respect are very important for group organization and might become very important in-game.
Because as my example showed, when this Respect is apparent among the group, the group gives to certain players the authority.
JASON plz add an access transfer command for in-group members as MY PEOPLE USE THIS
Think as if food storage has a fence-gate and someone gets exiled, now exile and being part of a group is a big thing right?

Mechanic:
My people USE this gives Access to your subordinates
My Duke, Kind, etc own this, gives Access to your current duke king, etc
we transfer Access, not ownership!
if a king exiles a duke. this Duke and all his subordinates lose access.
A Duke exiles a king, the king will lose access to gates owned by this Duke and duke's followers.
A Duke leaving would mean that he and his followers would lose access.

Making this system work for property fence access in some way sounds like an amazing idea, getting exiled would be very impactful indeed

Spoonwood · 2019-12-07 21:01:47

miskas wrote:

During the noob apocalypse, I was doing nomad runs. What was this?
I was leaving the cities and I was leading a small group of offsprings around, to survive under my commands.
Commands as: Run, follow, Eat, hunt, gather X, feed, stay, give me X, built/craft X.
In my most successful run, I had a sister with me. I didn't have any tag or crown but I was managing a group of more than 10 people in the end and we were building our own camp to this point.
At the end of my rule, I had 3 skilled and 2 new players that were asking and obeying me to organize their actions.
By being born to a nomad group and seeing that your mother and others obeying a certain Person you are more inclined to do as well.
I acquired my leadership through, leading, effectiveness and via group mentality ( if others follow him I will follow him).
I could Hold this authority cause it was easily visible to the group that I HAD this authority.

It doesn't sound like you exiled family members or considering killing family members, nor had motivation to do so. Or if you did, it was rather exceptional and only done because it was absolute necessary, not because of some silly nonsense. Leadership like this I don't object to. The exiling part though is a problem. And would be with the maturity level of all too many players.

Remember, you've played the game for a while and understand its social dynamics.

Also, you were the experienced player leading. With a less experienced player trying to lead more experienced players, things would not be the same. Remember, Jason talked about such rank getting inherited.

miskas wrote:

if a king exiles a duke.

If a king or queen exiles a fertile female, the village can easily be doomed because of that exiling. Griefers already often succeed by killing fertile females in towns. Exiling would just make it all more likely that the fertile females would get killed, because the proposed system would encourage people to view their murders as just.

DestinyCall · 2019-12-07 21:04:08

Kinrany wrote:

DestinyCall, wouldn't you say the same about the real world? Most people hate politicians, while great teachers are underpaid!
Yet we somehow have billions of people on this planet.
My not very confident guess is that even a clueless leader does better than anarchy as long as she listens to experts and makes >50% good decisions.

In theory, organization is better than chaos. But in actual practice, bureaucracy tends to be terribly inefficient and time-consuming ... and super-boring. If you know what needs to be done and how to do it, it is usually much faster to do the job yourself, rather than explaining the job to a subordinate and hoping he is capable. And if you are able to identify problems and fix them yourself, you do not need a supervisor looking over your shoulder and judging your work efficiency. Being part of an organization with a chain of command would just slow you down, since you would need to find your boss to ask for jobs or keep track of your followers and try to give them jobs that are necessary, interesting, and able to be completed by each follower.

Miskas' example shows how this kind of an organizational structure could be setup in OHOL. But it also highlights the challenges. Not all players are equally capable or willing to help - as the leader, you need to know who is new, who has zoom mod, and who willing to take direction. Some people will just want to do their own thing. Some people will have very limited game knowledge. Some people will already have their own ideas or goals from previous lives or strong preferences for or against certain jobs.

Miksas used his time as each child's mother to identify capabilities and assign a name so they could be tracked categorized more easily later in life. Then leveraged authority as "mother" to assign jobs and build trust. It worked quite well to establish order and provide structure to the family unit. But how do you apply that kind of organization at a village level in a way that will last longer than a single generation? Without a strong, informed leader recognized by everyone in the village, the system will collapse pretty much immediately.

Also, most PLAYERS who want to be a "king" in a game would not be qualified to lead. Instead of seeking to organize workflow and expedite production by encouraging people to do necessary work in a timely fashion ... most "kings" don't lead people anywhere. They just fight over the crown, boss people around, and demand special treatment. They want the benefits of leadership without the responsibilities.

And quite frankly, if someone came up to me and told me to go farm wheat by order of the queen, I would laugh so hard I'd fall out of my chair. I have no queen, thank you very much. I'm a happy communist. Workers unite!

Toxolotl · 2019-12-07 21:57:32

miskas wrote:

Mechanic:
My people USE this gives Access to your subordinates
My Duke, Kind, etc use this, gives Access to your current duke king, etc
we transfer Access, not ownership!
if a king exiles a duke. this Duke and all his subordinates lose access.
A Duke exiles a king, the king will lose access to gates owned by this Duke and duke's followers.
A Duke leaving would mean that he and his followers would lose access.

Isnt this kind of mechanic going to promote hoarding? Especially since noob kings and emperors will likely think everything belongs to them, even the people.

I struggle to see how this system would benefit the experience of the game. It sounds a lot like promoting fascist roleplaying to me.

Our current system seems to be the most effective given almost every town behaves the same way. How would any government system compete with the current system or even define the town beyond having annoying little tyrants from time to time? I have a feeling people will play the way they always have unless a system comes a long that is more efficient.

Role players will love this but the players who truly keep a civ alive likely wont touch it. I can see some entitled king walking up to a veteran demanding they follow them. The vet keeps working and ignores them, gets exiled, and chased out of the town.

A few moments later "King we need an engine we are out of water"

King: "i dont know engine" *munches berries*

A few moments later "king we need a shovel to dig deep well in the north"

King: "i dont know how to make" *munches berries*

Commoner: "lol noob king"

Duke: "yea lol"

King "commoner is exiled" "duke is exiled" *commands his followers to kill them*

The commoner and duke flee the town. Run into the vet who is making an eve settlement on a western well site. They work together as equal partners in their new society. Free of oppression and ignorance.

Last edited by Toxolotl (2019-12-07 22:06:16)

Spoonwood · 2019-12-07 22:35:01

Toxolotl wrote:

Isnt this kind of mechanic going to promote hoarding? Especially since noob kings and emperors will likely think everything belongs to them, even the people.
I struggle to see how this system would benefit the experience of the game. It sounds a lot like promoting fascist roleplaying to me.
Our current system seems to be the most effective given almost every town behaves the same way. How would any government system compete with the current system or even define the town beyond having annoying little tyrants from time to time? I have a feeling people will play the way they always have unless a system comes a long that is more efficient.
Role players will love this but the players who truly keep a civ alive likely wont touch it. I can see some entitled king walking up to a veteran demanding they follow them. The vet keeps working and ignores them, gets exiled, and chased out of the town.
A few moments later "King we need an engine we are out of water"
King: "i dont know engine" *munches berries*
A few moments later "king we need a shovel to dig deep well in the north"
King: "i dont know how to make" *munches berries*
Commoner: "lol noob king"
Duke: "yea lol"
King "commoner is exiled" "duke is exiled" *commands his followers to kill them*
The commoner and duke flee the town. Run into the vet who is making an eve settlement on a western well site. They work together as equal partners in their new society. Free of oppression and ignorance.

It feels a little over-optimistic that the vet stays around. The vet might get shot, or run into a tree boar (not all vets use zoom). Vet might also voluntarily try to die early in that situation, as it might feel like a really poor way to play.

But yeah, something like that seems likely enough for sure. And over time likely things will happen soon enough.

Kinrany · 2019-12-07 22:41:16

Spoonwood wrote:

Remember, Jason talked about such rank getting inherited.

Where, exactly?

DestinyCall, you're not expected to follow your boss's orders just because they're your boss. You can do whatever you want, the game won't force you. But your boss didn't get her authority from some watery tart. Your boss is your boss because you didn't choose to be free or to have someone else as your boss. There must have been a good reason for you to choose her, it's not just ridiculous arbitrary expectations, not just roleplay.

Right now being a king is the game is mostly roleplay. Your power is that of a delusional person who believes himself to be the empreror and is humored by other people. People will bow to you and greet you with a long title, but you can't raise the tax.

But suppose being a king actually gave you power. It wouldn't be just a matter of roleplay anymore. Everyone would want to be the king, not only people who want vanity points. Not everyone would actively try to become the king, but it would be way more competitive. Being interested in the role and slightly talkative wouldn't be enough anymore.

Jason, you could also write the raw number of followers next to the title. I think this is more useful than the depth of the tree.

Spoonwood · 2019-12-07 22:55:09

Kinrany wrote:

Where, exactly?

In post #9 Jason says:

jasonrohrer wrote:

In terms of bootstrapping, or people forgetting to use this feature, these relationships could be inherited. If your mother follows Bob, you follow him too by default. You can switch your leader later, by following someone else.

Kinrany wrote:

DestinyCall, you're not expected to follow your boss's orders just because they're your boss.

Bosses can unilaterally exile people under your proposal as I understand it. There is no board of directors which makes the boss accountable. So, the boss can exile anyone for any reason (no matter how silly or groundless) at any time. Once a player would have a boss, s/he would have to follow their boss, just because that person is their boss or face exile. And since exiles deserve death, that implies that not following their boss would be tantamount to death for some follower. Even though, sure, some experienced players may work the system well and it could have good advantages in the right hands, such a system would get abused. And it's simply not possible to only put such a system in the hands of the right players, so to speak. It would end up in malicious hands and have negative consequences, like griefers exploiting it to kill off lineages.

Kinrany wrote:

But suppose being a king actually gave you power.

You're talking about absolute power. In the words of Lord Acton "absolute power corrupts absolutely". And it's even worse in a game where you have enough people who just don't care all that much about acting poorly to other players.

Kinrany wrote:

Everyone would want to be the king, not only people who want vanity points. Not everyone would actively try to become the king, but it would be way more competitive.

Sounds like more 'battles', in as much as that term can get said to apply accurately, to become royalty would exist. That wouldn't be people playing for the sake of their offspring, but for their own vanity or 'glory' if you prefer. And more battles for royalty means more dead girls or more dead fertile females. So, it would mean more people playing against their lineages, or a greater inclination for people not knowing what in the game is good to do to believe that such murderous contests would be in the spirit of the game.

NiGB0 · 2019-12-07 22:55:22

The idea of a true monarchy in this game is really bad.

The best option is a meritocracy system or "Elective Monarchy were the only elector is the leader" where eve choose her heir, then her heir choose the best player in the town to be her heir, etc. So, a lot of people will want to be the new heir, but to be that they will work and will do good actions for the town and family.

If a person want to make a new town or colonize an abandoned one, can ask to the leader/king/emperor of the family to be a "conqueror" or something like that, so he will have the same bonuses of the leader of the family, but he must accept orders from the leader.

If the leader of the family is a tyrant a player who is 55 or older can say "Our leader has to be overthrown", then everyone can say "I agree". To say "I agree" you must be 14 years old or older.
If the person who says "Our leader has to be overthrown" is far from his relatives, a box will be displayed on his relatives screen saying "A person is saying that the leader has to be overthrown", then his relatives can choose to say "I agree" or to keep playing with a tyrant like their leader.
If half of the family +1 member agrees the leader will be overthrown and his heir will be the new leader.

If the leader dies without choosing a heir, his closest relative will be the new leader.

The bonuses of the leader of the family will be: -He can be killed only if he is overthrown.
-If the leader is a woman will have fertility bonus, if the leader is a man
his sisters or closest female relatives will have fertility bonus, if she/he is
overthrown the fertility bonus will dissapear.
-He can mark bad players.
-Saying "! text" a box with his text will be displayed on the screen of all
his relatives.
All bonuses dissapear after being overthrown.

This system will work very well because only good players will be the leaders of the family.
Eve will choose her best child/grandchild/greatgrandchild, then her heir will choose another good player, then this will happen again and again and again until the lineage end.

Kinrany · 2019-12-07 23:19:42

Spoonwood wrote:

In post #9 Jason says:

Right. So you're not inheriting followers. You're inheriting leaders. Bob didn't get a follower because his uncle died or something. He got a second follower because he already had a follower.

Spoonwood wrote:

Bosses can unilaterally exile people under your proposal as I understand it.

Yes, but this doesn't kill them instantly. If the king really hates you personally for some reason - yeah, you're dead. But if they're just an ass and keep exiling people for no reason, they'll get overthrown.

If your boss is an ass, but not the king, you can go to your boss's boss and be their follower instead.

Spoonwood wrote:

And it's simply not possible to only put such a system in the hands of the right players, so to speak.

I agree. I don't think a perfect system of governance is at all possible.
But I expect real tyranny to be rare and also more fun than starvation.

Spoonwood wrote:

Sounds like more 'battles', in as much as that term can get said to apply accurately, to become royalty would exist.

I think actual battles will be rare. A battle means that both sides think they can win. A violent king would surely try to crush the rebels in advance. In which case the rebels won't show themselves until the king is dead.

DiscardedSlinky · 2019-12-07 23:20:29

God these ideas are terrible.

What if the leader is an idiot? They have no idea what they're doing? You being the only person against them is going to result in you being murdered. People are fucking stupid as fuck, and they'll follow people just cause they asked them to. Also what if they threaten you? Follow me or I stab you? Just yuck.

This is such simple stuff dude. I can't handle it anymore.

jcwilk · 2019-12-08 00:29:20

DiscardedSlinky wrote:

God these ideas are terrible.
What if the leader is an idiot? They have no idea what they're doing? You being the only person against them is going to result in you being murdered. People are fucking stupid as fuck, and they'll follow people just cause they asked them to. Also what if they threaten you? Follow me or I stab you? Just yuck.
This is such simple stuff dude. I can't handle it anymore.

I mean, what you're describing sounds a lot like how political systems work in real life xD

DestinyCall · 2019-12-08 00:42:39

Kinrany wrote:

Right now being a king is the game is mostly roleplay. Your power is that of a delusional person who believes himself to be the empreror and is humored by other people. People will bow to you and greet you with a long title, but you can't raise the tax.
But suppose being a king actually gave you power. It wouldn't be just a matter of roleplay anymore. Everyone would want to be the king, not only people who want vanity points. Not everyone would actively try to become the king, but it would be way more competitive. Being interested in the role and slightly talkative wouldn't be enough anymore.

So I guess I'm confused.

Is your title symbolic or is it something more?

If it is a purely symbolic title, I don't see how it grants you any real power in the game or how it differs from simply claiming the title of "king" as role-play.

If being king is determined by popular vote, I could get a lot of people to "vote" for me by doing essentially nothing. In the same way that you can walk around a village and encourage people to curse someone that you hate, you could go around collecting votes. Just because I walk around asking people to follow me and making sure they know my name, does not make me qualified to lead. And if leaders are inherited, I might not even need to talk to everyone. If I focus on getting the female vote, some people would be born as my followers.

If the title of king grants you or your follows some kind of in-game boon, then I can start to understand why being part of a hierarchy might be meaningful, beyond what is already possible when you wear a gold crown in OHOL. But I don't see that you have explained what real powers come from being a king or being part of a kingdom, if any.

Why would an experienced player want to be a king or become the subject of a king? What benefit does it actually provide, beyond royalty role-play?

Kinrany · 2019-12-08 01:19:55

DestinyCall wrote:

Is your title symbolic or is it something more?

It's purely symbolic. It's a way for the leader to communicate to his followers that he disapproves of the exiled player.

The code-less alternative is to tell each follower individually, and that takes a lot of time.

The exact meaning of this "disapproval" is up to the players who use this system. The most obvious meaning is that the exiled player is a griefer.

Btw, thanks for the questions. I think I understand it better now myself!

Last edited by Kinrany (2019-12-08 01:21:43)

jcwilk · 2019-12-08 01:39:47

I think having more coded mechanisms for communicating ideas like this is great imo... It's important to remember that because time is so sped up there would presumably be many, many more interactions in the analogous full length life so things like keeping everyone in sync about direction and values and such would be happening many times every second. A second is basically a bit less than a week so imagine trying to communicate as many things as need to be communicated across the span of a month in 5 seconds or so... It's just not possible, so it makes sense to have the game facilitate some of that data syncing between humans to bring it slightly closer to how in sync humans would be at normal speed

One Hour One Life Forums

#51 2019-12-07 08:19:47

Re: Hierarchies

#52 2019-12-07 10:26:03

Re: Hierarchies

#53 2019-12-07 10:35:45

Re: Hierarchies

#54 2019-12-07 14:05:11

Re: Hierarchies

#55 2019-12-07 16:12:28

Re: Hierarchies

#56 2019-12-07 16:44:45

Re: Hierarchies

#57 2019-12-07 16:58:32

Re: Hierarchies

#58 2019-12-07 17:48:39

Re: Hierarchies

#59 2019-12-07 18:34:22

Re: Hierarchies

#60 2019-12-07 18:44:36

Re: Hierarchies

#61 2019-12-07 18:53:00

Re: Hierarchies

#62 2019-12-07 19:52:10

Re: Hierarchies

#63 2019-12-07 21:01:47

Re: Hierarchies

#64 2019-12-07 21:04:08

Re: Hierarchies

#65 2019-12-07 21:57:32

Re: Hierarchies

#66 2019-12-07 22:35:01

Re: Hierarchies

#67 2019-12-07 22:41:16

Re: Hierarchies

#68 2019-12-07 22:55:09

Re: Hierarchies

#69 2019-12-07 22:55:22

Re: Hierarchies

#70 2019-12-07 23:19:42

Re: Hierarchies

#71 2019-12-07 23:20:29

Re: Hierarchies

#72 2019-12-08 00:29:20

Re: Hierarchies

#73 2019-12-08 00:42:39

Re: Hierarchies

#74 2019-12-08 01:19:55

Re: Hierarchies

#75 2019-12-08 01:39:47

Re: Hierarchies

Board footer