No fathers, no adoptions

JonySky · 2020-09-16 16:34:52

These days I am playing about 2 games a day.
my goal is to create as much wine as possible (you may have seen me in some city making wine ... that was me)

It is an extremely difficult task and getting 2 full bottles of wine is an odyssey.

During these lives I have seen things that have bothered me about the development of the game, I explain:

In one of my lives I was a man and I saved the life of a little boy who was not from my family, he helped me make wine and we communicated with paper and pencil ... this is a very important aspect of the game that Jason does not want touch and I find it very frustrating

Because there are no fathers, or adoptions ???

this is a great demonstration of the deficiency of the current mechanics in OHOL !!!!

It is a game where families are very important (everything revolves around families) but we prefer to have a delivery truck rather than a father or an adoption mechanic ... why ???

Another thing that has bothered me a lot is that when I am a woman and I travel to another city I cannot have children ... this is another frustrating and pointless aspect

I would like to have children in that city, learn the language progressively so that my children end up learning the language in a native way (the natural)... currently you cannot learn languages, nor have children outside your magical borders ...

It is absurd to block foreign births when OHOL players are continuously moving through all the cities on the map, when I visit a new city I always see rubber or fish ... why can't we be born in another city?

for all this and for several more problems that I have come to see I am going to start a civilized protest
What I am going to do is that when I am born a woman I am ALWAYS going to leave my hometown so as not to have babies, I don't want to participate in poor mechanics.

Apparently Jason only changes things when they explode (see Bobo's genocides), because I'm going to force the babies to have one less mother on the map

I invite all of us to do the same to draw attention to this problem

Last edited by JonySky (2020-09-16 16:37:10)

bpskotch · 2020-09-16 16:43:11

The whole fatherhood aspect of things has been discussed countless times...between the forums, discord, and in-game. It's simply not feasible for the style of game OHOL is, and Jason has already made it pretty clear in the past its not gonna happen. Don't get me wrong, I share your sentiment, but its just not gonna work for this game.

As for not having babies in other cities, this was something Jason added not that long ago, the homelands update. The point was, before this, almost EVERYONE would clump up in one big megacity, resources became widely available, and honestly the game got too easy. There was no way to try and implement trade when everything was already shared by everyone in one place. Again, this isn't to say that trade is well implemented in the game as it stands (which it certainly isn't, and Jason has a lot of work ahead if he's to make it work), but that was the intent behind the update.

DestinyCall · 2020-09-16 18:32:37

Homelands was a way to force the biome restrictions into relevancy without regard for the impact on motherhood, migration and homesteading. It killed the ability to create satellite villages or revive abandoned towns. And it also destroyed multi-family bell towns. It didn't really create "trade" in any real sense. It just forces distance between families so it takes us more time and effort to share the resources we need to survive. That was the goal, I guess, so homelands was "successful" at achieving its objective, even if I don't care for the result.

I still hate the way racial specializations were implemented in OHOL. It is a rubbish mechanic that feels bad and works poorly. The most frustrating thing about it is that biome specialization COULD have been implemented in a way that encouraged different villages to develop in visually and mechanically different ways, depending on their unique environmental advantages/disadvantages. We could have had nomadic desert horse tribes and arctic fishing villages, tropical jungle huts and specialized crops depending on the local environment. But we didn't get that. We just got rubber and oil production linked to skin color and a bunch of biome-locked content nobody ever sees, like tattoos and ice cream.

I think the current biome restrictions should be ripped out and replaced with something better, rather than continuing to build off such a poor foundation. It was a lazy attempt to force trade that didn't pan out properly and makes the game feel smaller and more limited.

Spoonwood · 2020-09-16 21:08:14

bpskotch wrote:

The whole fatherhood aspect of things has been discussed countless times...between the forums, discord, and in-game.

That signals such as a longstanding problem.

bpskotch wrote:

It's simply not feasible for the style of game OHOL is, and Jason has already made it pretty clear in the past its not gonna happen.

It would be feasible if player population were high enough, or if bots got put into the game by basic design, instead of only player created bots. Note that bots already get birthed in the game sometimes. 2 parent reproduction wouldn't work in a context like 2HOL, because player population isn't high enough, and they don't have bots that the game delivers by default.

From talking to the game designer of Survive Together, fathers come as planned for Survive Together, though the game designer also wants to do things like children of lizards, and has lots of other ideas in mind, I'm sure, also.

Cogito · 2020-09-17 01:41:07

I like the idea of the ephemereal wine maker.

I will endeavour to making as much glass as possible to aid in your task. Each life I will focus on collecting materials for glass (paper, glasswort, and limestone), or crafting glass bottles (and a funnel if needed).

Fatherhood may become something in the future, but only when Jason begins working on general gameplay mechanics again (as opposed to bugfixing and adding items). There are other balance and 'fleshing out' aspects of the game that I think will take priority, but I'm sure he will have the idea of fatherhood in his mind when working on related things. So I doubt we will get a standalone 'Fatherhood' update out of the blue, but instead it'll be something we get when he is looking at homelands, or family specialisation, or language, etc.

bpskotch · 2020-09-17 05:00:06

Spoonwood wrote:

It would be feasible if player population were high enough, or if bots got put into the game by basic design, instead of only player created bots. Note that bots already get birthed in the game sometimes. 2 parent reproduction wouldn't work in a context like 2HOL, because player population isn't high enough, and they don't have bots that the game delivers by default.
From talking to the game designer of Survive Together, fathers come as planned for Survive Together, though the game designer also wants to do things like children of lizards, and has lots of other ideas in mind, I'm sure, also.

Player population isn't the only foreseeable issue with fatherhood implementation, though.

One would be, what would signify a "joining" of a male and female? One option would be marriage, even at a basic command level, however I would think that if we're getting sentimental enough to want a father figure, we're also gonna be sentimental about who we marry in-game. Due to the (generally) high difficulty and need to keep things moving, especially in an eve camp, there is typically not enough time to to establish enough of a conversation to even contemplate any such thing. Even in a more established town, having only 60 minutes, one would tend to work on projects to the furthest extent they can before their time is up, and find that 60 minutes quickly spent before realizing they never had kids because they never got around to it.

Another approach, would just be flat out 'doing it', but despite the cartoony dongs and coochies I don't really find much appeal to that personally, and I feel many people would feel the same way. It would kind of pivot the focal point in a different direction, I would think.

This also leaves the additional problem of incest. Mind you, I will not deny that since families self-propagate within themselves, it could be said with a degree of certainty that it already does, in fact exist on a subtle level, however any sort of joining would completely bring this to the front and center, leaving the only "right" thing to do, being finding other families and mating with them. And then that goes into the race/abilites of the kids, etc etc...it becomes a long deep complicated rabbit hole.

Also, did I mention this also requires going to the other families? Back to the same problem we have with racial specialization, in a sense.

Edit: Thinking about my last statement, I am going to presume the solution to this would be ditching homelands and allowing multi-family towns again. Welp, there goes the prospect of trade again.

Think the bottom line is while it seems simple to say fatherhood implementation is a good idea (and honestly, I'm not necessarily disagreeing), implementation would be an extremely complicated task that could fundamentally change the game in many ways.

Edit 2: Bots would take a lot of the life out of the game, since as it stands now, we always know there is another person on the other side of each ingame avatar.

Last edited by bpskotch (2020-09-17 05:06:17)

Morti · 2020-09-17 12:32:39

bpskotch wrote:

There was no way to try and implement trade when everything was already shared by everyone in one place. Again, this isn't to say that trade is well implemented in the game as it stands (which it certainly isn't, and Jason has a lot of work ahead if he's to make it work), but that was the intent behind the update.

Why do we need trade in this scenario?
If we can do without men being necessary for reproduction, why couldn't we do without other aspects of our past being necessary?
Do we need to implement slavery as well?

bpskotch · 2020-09-17 13:25:56

Morti wrote:

Why do we need trade in this scenario?
If we can do without men being necessary for reproduction, why couldn't we do without other aspects of our past being necessary?
Do we need to implement slavery as well?

First of all, I never said anything about slavery. Considering most of the modern world exists having trade but not slavery, why did you feel the need to add this? Please don't take my words out of context.

Second, I am only pushing the need for trade based on Jason's determination on having trade be part of this game. It would be best to take up this issue directly with him, rather than me.

Spoonwood · 2020-09-17 13:30:47

bpskotch wrote:

One would be, what would signify a "joining" of a male and female?

Players could use phrases like "I marry you" or "I mate with you".

bpskotch wrote:

Due to the (generally) high difficulty and need to keep things moving, especially in an eve camp, there is typically not enough time to to establish enough of a conversation to even contemplate any such thing.

The amount of wild food can get increased by changing it so that "tall" objects spawn above "short" objects, or the pip drain rate could get changed, or food could give more pips. The difficulty of the game is not fixed whatsoever, as changes like the temperature overhaul, and the recent food changes demonstrate.

bpskotch wrote:

This also leaves the additional problem of incest.

Fathers could just stop being in a family when they reproduce or marry.

Also, it isn't like the characters have real genetics. Your in-game "mother" has no relation to you whatsoever, other than by the game saying so.

Additionally, consider the scenario that people would be in the real world if people were actually rebuilding civilization from scratch. Do you actually believe that if we were in such a scenario, that incest could reasonably always get avoided? The possibility of fatherhood, and even "incest", would add some sense of realism to the game.

Furthermore, people don't condemn characters in the Judeo-Christian Bible because of incest. Lot's daughters get their father drunk to have children... and the book still gets regarded as holy. And have you ever been to a place on reddit like dirtypenpals or the video site Pornhub? If "incest" were that much of a psychological problem to people, "incest" pornography/text fantasy would be extremely rare and difficult to find, and people would turn off watching Xev Bellringer, because of the taboos she breaks. It turns out, it doesn't work that way.

Oh, and the game has had plenty of murder in it already. Usually, or at least often enough, murder is the bigger crime or moral failing of people. It doesn't turn people off as much as some apparently believe that "incest" would. While fatherhood *would* appeal to many people, as has gotten acknowledged above.

Plus with something like marriage, or a reproduction mechanic, in a social game, that leads to the possibility of cheating. And then before you know it, people are throwing chairs, because of infidelity, while the audience shouts "Jerry! Jerry!", because of all the drama.

bpskotch wrote:

Also, did I mention this also requires going to the other families?

No, that wouldn't be necessary.

bpskotch wrote:

Thinking about my last statement, I am going to presume the solution to this would be ditching homelands and allowing multi-family towns again. Welp, there goes the prospect of trade again.

So what? Trade would be a hassle, as the whole zone restriction, and also tool restrictions demonstrate. Neither of those lead to anything interesting for players, so there's no good reason at all to believe that trade would. And trade is a boring in concept and would be boring in game. Contrary to what trade goes with psychologically, people don't play games to realize their dependence/inter-dependence in the world, or to feel more dependent on others in the world. People play games to feel empowered.

bpskotch wrote:

... implementation would be an extremely complicated task that could fundamentally change the game in many ways.

Big deal. Game has changed fundamentally before.

bpskotch wrote:

Bots would take a lot of the life out of the game, since as it stands now, we always know there is another person on the other side of each ingame avatar.

No, you do NOT always know that, since bots are permitted, and likely have played in the past with you or someone else in this thread. Also, characters don't die when the human player leaves, and I've known of plenty of times where people have fed female characters who were "potatoes", not moving or doing anything other than getting fed. The game was NOT ruined for the people feeding those female characters. So, that bots would ruin the game is not well grounded.

Also, given that the player count for this game continues to decline, which looks likely to happen, you may well wish you were playing with more bots.

Morti · 2020-09-17 13:51:03

bpskotch wrote:

Jason's determination on having trade be part of this game.

I'm not talking about Jason, I'm not addressing Jason, you brought up trade in this forum post. I want to address you.

bpskotch wrote:

The whole fatherhood aspect of things has been discussed countless times...between the forums, discord, and in-game. It's simply not feasible for the style of game OHOL is, and Jason has already made it pretty clear in the past its not gonna happen. Don't get me wrong, I share your sentiment, but its just not gonna work for this game.

This is what upsets me the most, you saying things like "It's just not going to work in this game."

bpskotch wrote:

As for not having babies in other cities, this was something Jason added not that long ago, the homelands update. The point was, before this, almost EVERYONE would clump up in one big megacity, resources became widely available, and honestly the game got too easy. There was no way to try and implement trade when everything was already shared by everyone in one place. Again, this isn't to say that trade is well implemented in the game as it stands (which it certainly isn't, and Jason has a lot of work ahead if he's to make it work), but that was the intent behind the update.

I really wish you, and many others, would take your own personal responsibility for what gets added to the game and stop blaming Jason for changes you and others don't like.

Including myself.

Jason is making this game for us, based on us and how we engage with him. We are just as responsible at this stage for what is in the game, if not more so, than he is. He is reacting to many of us, we are just reacting to one of him.

Be responsible for the part of us you are.

bpskotch · 2020-09-17 14:18:19

Spoonwood wrote:

The amount of wild food can get increased by changing it so that "tall" objects spawn above "short" objects, or the pip drain rate could get changed, or food could give more pips. The difficulty of the game is not fixed whatsoever, as changes like the temperature overhaul, and the recent food changes demonstrate.

Keep in mind when I speak of the game, I mostly speak for as it stands right now, vs. what could potentially change in the future.

Spoonwood wrote:

Fathers could just stop being in a family when they reproduce or marry.

Could you elaborate on this a bit more?

Spoonwood wrote:

Also, it isn't like the characters have real genetics. Your in-game "mother" has no relation to you whatsoever, other than by the game saying so.

Of course not, again we are not going by our real life identities, but the ones we take when we play this game. Contextually, your avatar could be safely presumed to have genetics.

Spoonwood wrote:

Additionally, consider the scenario that people would be in the real world if people were actually rebuilding civilization from scratch. Do you actually believe that if we were in such a scenario, that incest could reasonably always get avoided? The possibility of fatherhood, and even "incest", would add some sense of realism to the game.

I will not deny that in this scenario your words hold some merit.

Spoonwood wrote:

Furthermore, people don't condemn characters in the Judeo-Christian Bible because of incest. Lot's daughters get their father drunk to have children... and the book still gets regarded as holy. And have you ever been to a place on reddit like dirtypenpals or the video site Pornhub? If "incest" were that much of a psychological problem to people, "incest" pornography/text fantasy would be extremely rare and difficult to find, and people would turn off watching Xev Bellringer, because of the taboos she breaks. It turns out, it doesn't work that way.

Keep in mind much of the Bible is telling a story of how things happened, not necessarily condoning them. Infact, most of these types of instances are there to portray the sins of man, and what not to do. If you search in the book of Leviticus, you will find that several instances of incest are condemned, some in multiple places.

I have not visited those parts of the web and to be fair, I have no intent to do so. I think its safe to say that people visiting those sites most likely do not represent the majority of people. Either way, I only brought up the incest part of things because there have been discussion on it in this forum prior, so I felt it worth mentioning.

Spoonwood wrote:

Oh, and the game has had plenty of murder in it already. Usually, or at least often enough, murder is the bigger crime or moral failing of people. It doesn't turn people off as much as some apparently believe that "incest" would. While fatherhood *would* appeal to many people, as has gotten acknowledged above.

While its easy to think so, biblically speaking, all sins are treated as equal. Either way, I'm not here to get into a huge religious debate.

Plus with something like marriage, or a reproduction mechanic, in a social game, that leads to the possibility of cheating. And then before you know it, people are throwing chairs, because of infidelity, while the audience shouts "Jerry! Jerry!", because of all the drama.

Not gonna lie, your Jerry Springer reference gave me a good chuckle.

Spoonwood wrote:

bpskotch wrote:
Also, did I mention this also requires going to the other families?
No, that wouldn't be necessary.

Only in the context of avoiding incest. I should have clarified more precisely.

Spoonwood wrote:

bpskotch wrote:
Thinking about my last statement, I am going to presume the solution to this would be ditching homelands and allowing multi-family towns again. Welp, there goes the prospect of trade again.
So what? Trade would be a hassle, as the whole zone restriction, and also tool restrictions demonstrate. Neither of those lead to anything interesting for players, so there's no good reason at all to believe that trade would. And trade is a boring in concept and would be boring in game. Contrary to what trade goes with psychologically, people don't play games to realize their dependence/inter-dependence in the world, or to feel more dependent on others in the world. People play games to feel empowered.

Like I said to Morti, I'm only giving trade weight because of how much Jason wants to have it as part of the game. I don't disagree with your final statement here, however.

Spoonwood wrote:

bpskotch wrote:
Bots would take a lot of the life out of the game, since as it stands now, we always know there is another person on the other side of each ingame avatar.
No, you do NOT always know that, since bots are permitted, and likely have played in the past with you or someone else in this thread. Also, characters don't die when the human player leaves, and I've known of plenty of times where people have fed female characters who were "potatoes", not moving or doing anything other than getting fed. The game was NOT ruined for the people feeding those female characters. So, that bots would ruin the game is not well grounded.

To be fair, if there were actual bots playing this game up until this point, I never knew that was actually a thing in this game. Interesting that people would feel the need to run a bot in this game lol.

Anyways, as far as the 'potato' aspect, I don't feel this is an accurate representation of what a bot is. A bot is generally seen as a computer program controlling something that would normally be human-controlled, to perform various tasks. I think its pretty easy to say that this is not the same as a player who simply goes AFK, or has disconnected, since at that point they perform no tasks.

Also, I never said "ruin", I said "take the life out of". There is a difference in meaning here. "Ruin" implies the almost absolute destruction of a game, "take the life out of" implies the game is still intact, but is simply less interesting.

Spoonwood wrote:

Also, given that the player count for this game continues to decline, which looks likely to happen, you may well wish you were playing with more bots.

No, most definitely not. OHOL is at its core a social game, if I was surrounded by a bunch of bot players I would rather go to low pop and play solo at that point. Or play a single player game, which is designed to be played alone.

bpskotch · 2020-09-17 14:30:59

Morti wrote:

bpskotch wrote:
Jason's determination on having trade be part of this game.

I'm not talking about Jason, I'm not addressing Jason, you brought up trade in this forum post. I want to address you.

That's fine and dandy, but what I think doesn't really bear much relevance on where the game continues to go. This is why I state trade as I do, because it's what Jason wants to do. You will find I'd rather go with the flow and see what can be done to work with the direction he has in mind for the game. If you want to know what I think personally? I like the idea of trade. But that is still separate from Jason's vision for the game.

Morti wrote:

bpskotch wrote:
The whole fatherhood aspect of things has been discussed countless times...between the forums, discord, and in-game. It's simply not feasible for the style of game OHOL is, and Jason has already made it pretty clear in the past its not gonna happen. Don't get me wrong, I share your sentiment, but its just not gonna work for this game.
This is what upsets me the most, you saying things like "It's just not going to work in this game."

Incorrect, I said "not feasible for the style of game OHOL is". This implies that in its current state, implementation is not very likely, but I am not saying the game couldn't change in the future to a style that does support a fatherhood model. Again, you're being presumptive about the meaning behind my words, I don't think we disagree as much as you're implying we do.

Morti wrote:

bpskotch wrote:
As for not having babies in other cities, this was something Jason added not that long ago, the homelands update. The point was, before this, almost EVERYONE would clump up in one big megacity, resources became widely available, and honestly the game got too easy. There was no way to try and implement trade when everything was already shared by everyone in one place. Again, this isn't to say that trade is well implemented in the game as it stands (which it certainly isn't, and Jason has a lot of work ahead if he's to make it work), but that was the intent behind the update.
I really wish you, and many others, would take your own personal responsibility for what gets added to the game and stop blaming Jason for changes you and others don't like.
Including myself.
Jason is making this game for us, based on us and how we engage with him. We are just as responsible at this stage for what is in the game, if not more so, than he is. He is reacting to many of us, we are just reacting to one of him.
Be responsible for the part of us you are.

I'm not blaming Jason for anything. Jason himself said some similar things when these updates were released, and he made pretty clear that his intention was not what was happening at that time. All I'm doing is stating "this is what happened, and here is why".

If anything, what I'm saying now should only echo what has been said in the past. Jason made it clear fatherhood was not going to happen in his own words.

wondible · 2020-09-17 15:27:21

bpskotch wrote:

One would be, what would signify a "joining" of a male and female?

One of the issues raised in the past is that "marriage" varies by culture. This isn't necessarily an issue - this is Jason's game; he picks the foods and item he chooses to represent, the US names, and only officially supports English. It *could* be the version of marriage he uses himself. However I think a better system would be to have several "vows"; a marriage ceremony would literally be an exchange of vows, and people could pick the ones they like. Such as:

I vow to take your name.
I vow to share parentage of children.
I vow to tell you my location at all times.

or for adoption "I vow to call you father/son/daughter"

Another approach, would just be flat out 'doing it'

The real issue with representing this (even just the shared parentage above) is that once it is possible, you have to consider what happens if someone tries to make it non-consensual (rape, speaking plainly). This might not be welcome by many players, especially if they are playing games to escape a real world trauma. It could also be bad press for the game.

This is what always comes up as the sticking point. Any proposal for male-female game mechanics needs to consider this and convince Jason that it won't be a problem.

Spoonwood · 2020-09-17 15:28:36

bpskotch wrote:

Fathers could just stop being in a family when they reproduce or marry.
Could you elaborate on this a bit more?

The male character just no longer is 'son of Eve Sarah' or stop being an 'uncle'. They end up in their own category.

bpskotch wrote:

I have not visited those parts of the web and to be fair, I have no intent to do so. I think its safe to say that people visiting those sites most likely do not represent the majority of people.

The use of pornography by people is rather common. The first site that came up in a web search said this: "64% of young people, ages 13–24, actively seek out pornography weekly or more often." https://fightthenewdrug.org/10-porn-sta … your-mind/ Also... "Porn sites receive more regular traffic than Netflix, Amazon, & Twitter combined each month." and "At least 30% of all data transferred across the internet is estimated to be porn-related."

So, I find your claim here somewhat dubious.

bpskotch wrote:

OHOL is at its core a social game ...

The same game exists on 15 public servers, and even if it didn't, private servers would still be a possibility for anyone (the code is out there, for free and always has been). There's not necessarily anyone else around. Jason has said it before also that the game is designed to be completely playable in single-player mode, since he talked about supporting solo play here: https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=4848.

So, most definitely, NO. The game is not *at its core* a social game.

Spoonwood · 2020-09-17 15:36:30

Also, I don't recall many, if any, proposals for fatherhood involving lack of choice on the player's part. So, "incest" would be optional and not forced. So why would "incest" be a problem for a player, when they could not partake in such?

It makes little sense. The cry of "but incest" is a cop-out from taking the idea of fatherhood in game seriously.

JonySky · 2020-09-17 15:41:35

Peace and love, I don't like to see a bad mood in this community
We are not here to fight each other, we are here to play and talk about OHOL ...

I explain what I meant by "parents" and "adoptions"

Adoptions:
Taking care of an abandoned baby and getting a good relationship is great!
But it bothers me a lot not being able to see your family tree on the web
It bothers me a lot not to know if she has had children
It bothers me to not know if she has died of old age or if a wild animal has killed her ... or if her "biological" mother has murdered her
I think the mechanics of adoptions should be implemented to promote these stories, so that the family has more strength in the game
The simple (sloppy) way would be to implement a command (I adopt you ... name of the child) and the child should write another command of (I am adopted by ... name of the father or mother who adopts)
logically the family tree should place that child with her new father or mother

Parents:
I know that it is difficult to implement a father in ohol without going through incest, sex, pregnancy, rape, marriage, etc ...
but I was not talking about this exactly, let me explain:
and if we implement baby bottles? this allows to feed the babies
a crazy idea is that of the invitro reproduction
Or how the game has become 40% absurd magic because we do not implement some magic totems so that a man can have a child? (This would solve the towns that die for lack of women)
What if children need the help of a parent to perform specific tasks?
Currently the man in OHOL is totally separated from the lives of babies and children, this should change

bpskotch wrote:

Edit 2: Bots would take a lot of the life out of the game, since as it stands now, we always know there is another person on the other side of each ingame avatar.

I would not like the game to have bots, I think that as soon as I detect a bot I will stop playing immediately

Morti wrote:

Jason is making this game for us, based on us and how we engage with him. We are just as responsible at this stage for what is in the game, if not more so, than he is. He is reacting to many of us, we are just reacting to one of him.
Be responsible for the part of us you are.

Morti, Jason is making the game for his clients ... but I am not responsible for the content of the game or its poor mechanics.
In this forum many mechanics have been notified that do not work, and even that have racist connotations and are still in the game ... I am not responsible for racist, nonsense, sloppy and boring mechanics

Last edited by JonySky (2020-09-17 15:53:59)

Spoonwood · 2020-09-17 15:48:22

wondible wrote:

The real issue with representing this (even just the shared parentage above) is that once it is possible, you have to consider what happens if someone tries to make it non-consensual (rape, speaking plainly). This might not be welcome by many players, especially if they are playing games to escape a real world trauma. It could also be bad press for the game.

It might also be one way that people try to cope with such a trauma (this is not and should not be seen as a recommendation).

The game already has murder and players that focus on murder. Rape isn't worse than murder. And we're talking about just attempted in-game rape, not completed in-game rape, right? So, I don't see how players *attempting* rape in game would be worse press for the game than anything else that it could have because of it.

Additionally, some people have rape fantasies. It's actually well-known that there's an entire section of many bookstores commonly portraying rape scenes in the form of romance novels (read almost entirely by women), and the most popular novel of all time Gone With the Wind has a rape scene in it. Press from a game that has attempted rape, thus could easily be positive in terms of people's interest. The game has already had people trying to have sex in it (as I recall from watching WBSteve's videos), and thus that it has had attempted rape might already have held true.

But if marriage and reproduction required words, what would the attempted rape consist of? Some words and possibly standing over someone else? It doesn't sound threatening in the same way that a fist or weapon can be threatening.

wondible wrote:

This is what always comes up as the sticking point.

It's what come up, yes. Whether or not he could do such though, with how it require restructring of family trees, is another matter. It wouldn't surprise me if Jason has tried to hide his inability/limitation here.

Spoonwood · 2020-09-17 15:49:40

JonySky wrote:

Adoptions:
Taking care of an abandoned baby and getting a good relationship is great!
But it bothers me a lot not being able to see your family tree on the web
It bothers me a lot not to know if she has had children
It bothers me to not know if she has died of old age or if a wild animal has killed her ... or if her "biological" mother has murdered her
I think the mechanics of adoptions should be implemented to promote these stories, so that the family has more strength in the game
The simple (sloppy) way would be to implement a command (I adopt you ... name of the child) and the child should write another command of (I am adopted by ... name of the father or mother who adopts)
logically the family tree should place that child with her new father or mother

I'm emphasizing this so it doesn't get lost in the discussion of fatherhood.

bpskotch · 2020-09-17 16:00:13

wondible wrote:

bpskotch wrote:
One would be, what would signify a "joining" of a male and female?
One of the issues raised in the past is that "marriage" varies by culture. This isn't necessarily an issue - this is Jason's game; he picks the foods and item he chooses to represent, the US names, and only officially supports English. It *could* be the version of marriage he uses himself. However I think a better system would be to have several "vows"; a marriage ceremony would literally be an exchange of vows, and people could pick the ones they like. Such as:
I vow to take your name.
I vow to share parentage of children.
I vow to tell you my location at all times.
or for adoption "I vow to call you father/son/daughter"
Another approach, would just be flat out 'doing it'
The real issue with representing this (even just the shared parentage above) is that once it is possible, you have to consider what happens if someone tries to make it non-consensual (rape, speaking plainly). This might not be welcome by many players, especially if they are playing games to escape a real world trauma. It could also be bad press for the game.
This is what always comes up as the sticking point. Any proposal for male-female game mechanics needs to consider this and convince Jason that it won't be a problem.

Yeah I always figured if it was ever implemented, it would have to be a relatively simple system. Since pro-creation is necessary for family continuation, it would have to be quick and easy to do so that even new players could adapt rather easily.

Mhm, to be fair I don't like the second option either, and agree with those types of issues coming up for sure. Plus, maybe it's just me personally, but I'm just not comfy with the actual action of sex being in the game. But this could just be me, personally, but I would tend to think there are likeminded people out there.

Spoonwood wrote:

The male character just no longer is 'son of Eve Sarah' or stop being an 'uncle'. They end up in their own category.

I actually see some logic in that idea of fathers simply automatically disconnecting with the family upon fatherhood, it would be a simple solution that wouldn't be hard to implement. It may not make sense from a realistic standpoint, but again its a game so its not meant to be reality, simply mimic it in some ways perhaps.

As for the incest discussion, this will just keep devolving into morals and religiously based claims so I think I'm going to drop that part of the conversation here. Point taken.

Spoonwood wrote:

The same game exists on 15 public servers, and even if it didn't, private servers would still be a possibility for anyone (the code is out there, for free and always has been). There's not necessarily anyone else around. Jason has said it before also that the game is designed to be completely playable in single-player mode, since he talked about supporting solo play here: https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=4848.
So, most definitely, NO. The game is not *at its core* a social game.

If the game isn't a social game at its core, why does the game by default put everyone on the same server? Why do a majority of players play this way? Just because a game is able to be played single player as you pointed out, doesn't mean its not meant to be a social game. It simply means the option to play alone is there. The intent of course is to cater to a larger audience of players, or players like me who enjoy playing both ways for a change of pace.

Even the flavor text Jason has on the main page about the game implies the game is about family and interactions with others. There's no mention of playing by yourself to build up on your own.

JonySky · 2020-09-17 16:01:38

DestinyCall wrote:

Homelands was a way to force the biome restrictions into relevancy without regard for the impact on motherhood, migration and homesteading. It killed the ability to create satellite villages or revive abandoned towns. And it also destroyed multi-family bell towns. It didn't really create "trade" in any real sense. It just forces distance between families so it takes us more time and effort to share the resources we need to survive. That was the goal, I guess, so homelands was "successful" at achieving its objective, even if I don't care for the result.
I still hate the way racial specializations were implemented in OHOL. It is a rubbish mechanic that feels bad and works poorly. The most frustrating thing about it is that biome specialization COULD have been implemented in a way that encouraged different villages to develop in visually and mechanically different ways, depending on their unique environmental advantages/disadvantages. We could have had nomadic desert horse tribes and arctic fishing villages, tropical jungle huts and specialized crops depending on the local environment. But we didn't get that. We just got rubber and oil production linked to skin color and a bunch of biome-locked content nobody ever sees, like tattoos and ice cream.
I think the current biome restrictions should be ripped out and replaced with something better, rather than continuing to build off such a poor foundation. It was a lazy attempt to force trade that didn't pan out properly and makes the game feel smaller and more limited.

I totally agree with you!

Cogito wrote:

I like the idea of the ephemereal wine maker.
I will endeavour to making as much glass as possible to aid in your task. Each life I will focus on collecting materials for glass (paper, glasswort, and limestone), or crafting glass bottles (and a funnel if needed).

get ready for a good wine party!

Last edited by JonySky (2020-09-17 16:19:14)

bpskotch · 2020-09-17 16:07:11

JonySky wrote:

Peace and love, I don't like to see a bad mood in this community
We are not here to fight each other, we are here to play and talk about OHOL ...

100% agree with you. I like to think I'm staying civil in this discussion. I hope everyone can do the same. Finger-pointing and crafting daggers out of words are part of what drove me away from this community in the first place.

JonySky · 2020-09-17 16:38:55

Spoonwood wrote:

JonySky wrote:
Adoptions:
Taking care of an abandoned baby and getting a good relationship is great!
But it bothers me a lot not being able to see your family tree on the web
It bothers me a lot not to know if she has had children
It bothers me to not know if she has died of old age or if a wild animal has killed her ... or if her "biological" mother has murdered her
I think the mechanics of adoptions should be implemented to promote these stories, so that the family has more strength in the game
The simple (sloppy) way would be to implement a command (I adopt you ... name of the child) and the child should write another command of (I am adopted by ... name of the father or mother who adopts)
logically the family tree should place that child with her new father or mother
I'm emphasizing this so it doesn't get lost in the discussion of fatherhood.

Thanks Spoonwood

I should add that language could also play a very important role in these types of relationships.
For example: A child adopted by a foreign parent can learn the language faster (in a single life) and pass on their linguistic knowledge to their children.

Last edited by JonySky (2020-09-17 16:39:28)

Spoonwood · 2020-09-17 17:51:56

bpskotch wrote:

If the game isn't a social game at its core, why does the game by default put everyone on the same server?

That's the default. It's not an in-built feature of the game and never was.

bpskotch wrote:

Why do a majority of players play this way?

Majority doesn't imply anything about the core also. Intention doesn't determine it's core either. "From its core" means from it's foundations. And the foundations of the game as they work consists in that it may be a social game, but also might not be a social game.

Spoonwood · 2020-09-17 17:53:11

And you're welcome, JonySky.

fug · 2020-09-18 05:28:19

There are no dads because of implied incest. How hard would it to just make it just roleplay fluff? "I am your dad" Damn suddenly the family dynamic can come full circle and male players can feel more connected to children vs having a bunch of meaningless nieces and nephews. If you want to add humor to it just make everyone the step dad title if people keep changing who your dad is. Seems pretty funny to think of a village with one woman, a child, and 4 or so step dads.

The family tree can even determine a father from a mother.

One Hour One Life Forums

#1 2020-09-16 16:34:52

No fathers, no adoptions

#2 2020-09-16 16:43:11

Re: No fathers, no adoptions

#3 2020-09-16 18:32:37

Re: No fathers, no adoptions

#4 2020-09-16 21:08:14

Re: No fathers, no adoptions

#5 2020-09-17 01:41:07

Re: No fathers, no adoptions

#6 2020-09-17 05:00:06

Re: No fathers, no adoptions

#7 2020-09-17 12:32:39

Re: No fathers, no adoptions

#8 2020-09-17 13:25:56

Re: No fathers, no adoptions

#9 2020-09-17 13:30:47

Re: No fathers, no adoptions

#10 2020-09-17 13:51:03

Re: No fathers, no adoptions

#11 2020-09-17 14:18:19

Re: No fathers, no adoptions

#12 2020-09-17 14:30:59

Re: No fathers, no adoptions

#13 2020-09-17 15:27:21

Re: No fathers, no adoptions

#14 2020-09-17 15:28:36

Re: No fathers, no adoptions

#15 2020-09-17 15:36:30

Re: No fathers, no adoptions

#16 2020-09-17 15:41:35

Re: No fathers, no adoptions

#17 2020-09-17 15:48:22

Re: No fathers, no adoptions

#18 2020-09-17 15:49:40

Re: No fathers, no adoptions

#19 2020-09-17 16:00:13

Re: No fathers, no adoptions

#20 2020-09-17 16:01:38

Re: No fathers, no adoptions

#21 2020-09-17 16:07:11

Re: No fathers, no adoptions

#22 2020-09-17 16:38:55

Re: No fathers, no adoptions

#23 2020-09-17 17:51:56

Re: No fathers, no adoptions

#24 2020-09-17 17:53:11

Re: No fathers, no adoptions

#25 2020-09-18 05:28:19

Re: No fathers, no adoptions

Board footer