One Hour One Life Forums

In general I like the idea. But:

- having a tree (aka one leader per induced subtree) is dangerous. As soon as a griefer becomes leader, he can abuse this power. How to prevent that? As many people here already said, there is just not enough time to build up trust. One griefer could just behave friendly until getting the crown and then exile everyone

- having a hierarchy is nice, because it gives bell towers a new perspective to form a kingdom or empire. But maybe this is a second step. For the moment, we might just need a flat hierarchy; the system could be extended to a hierarchy later.

- as one person with power is always dangerous, I would rather suggest to allow multiple persons to have power. Basically, as much as you like. Every decision has to be done by the majority, so having more leaders makes everything complicated. A town has to decide if they want a single leader, or two, or three and so on.

- furthermore, having multiple leaders do not allow to follow a leader. You have to follow a group or tribe. So there needs to be a system to create new tribes, similar how you name your children (maybe with a list of townnames?). "I name this tribe XYZ". Then people can say "I follow XYZ" or "Im part of XZY". Every leader should be able to announce a heir, who automatically takes over then the leader dies.

- I like the idea of colored speech bubbles. This shows the player when a leader is giving a command. It would be also nice, if leaders have a larger "range" of talking (maybe not global, as suggested in the other thread, but larger than just the screen).

- many people complain about this will end up in unexperienced players bossing other players around. I disagree. It totally depends on how the players want to play the game. There might be towns without a leader at all. Towns, who have a leader just to protect against griefers. And towns, where the leader enforces his power and gives commands.

- actually, I also like the idea of having in-game objects that are necessary to found a tribe. Like somebody mentioned a townhall, or a crown. I'm not exactly sure what it could be, but it would be cool to have some kind of requirement to build a new tribe. That would also prevent that every player is creating his own tribes just for fun.

I already said my opinion about that in the other thread.

I don't see what else. Communication, leadership, foresight. It goes all more or less in the same direction: a single player cannot run a city alone. 

That's basically the same. You could say, the race is just the visualization of the family specialization.
I agree, that it is questionable/controversial to use the race for that. It's somehow opposed to what we learn and teach nowadays, that there are no human races and different skin colors are not much different than different hair colors. Now the game tell us, just black people can work in the dessert. From an ethical viewpoint this is indeed questionable. For the game mechanics it is of course helpful, if there is a visualization for the trait a family has. Maybe race is just the wrong one.

Let's assume each biome has its own kind of clothes mechanics. That would even work nicely with the climate differences: Ice biome has seal clothes. They are even necessary to survive the harsh conditions there. So you could recognize people specialized on the ice biome on their seal clothes instead of their hair color. Similarly, jungle biome has tatoos. Although, they are currently too hard to craft for most new players. But assuming that jungle is always warm enough such that you don't need clothes. Tatoos could protect against moscitos. The dessert biome might require sun protection by hats or scarfs. Dunno if that is more preferable, but recognizing people on their clothes might be less controversial than recognizing them on their skin color.

The dessert, jungle and ice biomes are meant to be too dangerous to crossing them. I think, if we want to have more fun on traveling, we should add more unique elements to the other biomes, instead of making a dessert easy to cross.

I think they aren't plausible in any way. Why should they depend on the mother? Knowledge is not genetics.

Just something I found in another thread:

I totally agree with that. If family specialization should encourage trading, then it would make more sense to let whole recipes depend on a specialization.

There is an easy interpretation for that, which does not involve any kind of post-apocalyptic world: WE, the players, know everything about modern tech. By playing a newborn virtual character in this world, we break through the third wall, because we have all this knowledge and we can take over the knowledge across generations. So the experiment apply to us: Would we be able to rebuild civilization from scratch?

I want to stress that many parts of the game are unrealistic and, therefore, count against the idea of a post-apocalyptic or historical setting. For example, that Eve starts from nowhere. That every women can get children without men are involved. That there is no technology research, nor teaching of technology to the next generations. Of course, you could explain everything by some kind of background story. But such a background story is missing. Which means that either it is just not important, because the game is not story driven, or because everyone is free to make his own background story, or maybe Jason just didn't find time for a background story. Who knows.

I just find it strange when people start assuming from nothing that the game has a post-apocalyptic setting, just to then complain about all logical errors in this setting.

Maybe I should now claim that the game has a religious setting - because the first character is called Eve. Poor stupid players who thought its about post-apocalyptic. You just misunderstand the complete game. Ouch. But we should definitely add churches, prophets, messiahs and a burning bush to the game, because its religious, so these elements have to be contained! Hurry up, Jason!

Is it? I don't see any ruins in the game. Nor any intro explaining that the game plays after some apocalyptic event. It might be one interpretation. Other players might have different interpretations.

The remaining post seems even more nonsense to me. I would say the idea behind tool slots is that you have to learn how to use tools and, thus, cannot master all possible tools. However, the game does not implement any kind of experience system, so it uses tool slots as some game mechanic simplification for it.

Not necessarily, if the gate is more expensive to build. Besides that, some people might just build natural fences for the atmosphere and because they are visually more appealing. You don`t  have to enter them that often anyways.