Race Restirctions Seem Like They are Against Multiplayer Survival

Spoonwood · 2021-11-02 04:27:02

I'm guessing this sort of life has happened before, it just didn't get noticed or talked about.

So, I get born to Amber Cock http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/serve … id=7640470 as female Life Cock (ginger). I left home at around 13. I didn't take a cart or buckets, since I thought I could get them in a dead town I had seen earlier (this detail isn't all that relevant to my point). I had known from a previous life that the previous tan family was 1.3k or 1.7k away. I'm chasing after an Eve to try to get access to latex and palm oil or scavenge from a dead town. I find the waystone and end up going towards that area, since there's someone there. I'm using Hetuw's coordinates, and get there. No one's there. Not a big surprise, since Eves move around. It turns out that the Eve ran to the right past me when I was running right, so I end up in the dead town where the Eve (Eve Salad: http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/serve … d=7640495) was. I also end up going to blacks for sulfur. Eve Salad was a PX user and so was the black person that helped me (sorry... I forgot the PX names).

By the time I get back home I'm like 58. I drop the buckets of sulfured latex and palm oil in the kitchen, and soon die. My immediately family lives to old age, and my genetic score is perfect that life. Grayson Cock lived to 60. Amber Cock lived to 60. I lived to 60. And my other relatives died before I was born, so it seems that in terms of multiplayer survival my play could get regarded as perfect, or excellent, since gene score says that for that life. Now, here's the key part, supposedly *experts* are supposed to do such things for their families. But, with how long things took this time, it looks like I couldn't have left at 40 and gotten the resource stuff back home. I had no children, and if I had children I might not have gotten the specialty resources.

Isn't it strange though if the expert players of a parenting game end up having to do things which make it impossible for them to have kids? And that one's immediate family, perhaps, dies off, because one *succeeds* at doing the first steps in the process of resource acquisition which should have been *for* their immediate family instead of killing off the possibility of having such a family to begin with?

Wouldn't one think that the expert players of a parenting game should be encouraged to engage in parenting, whatever that means, instead of resource acquisition?

LonelyNeptune · 2021-11-02 05:04:22

Males exist.

Spoonwood · 2021-11-02 12:39:45

LonelyNeptune wrote:

Males exist.

Males can't become parents, and thus can't have babies. Make no mistake people do talk about men having a child, as people say things like "we're having a baby" to refer to the man-woman couple. Originally, players were supposed to play out the life they were born into and /die did not exist. The Steam page reads:

jasonrohrer wrote:

Have babies of your own in the form of other players

But, again, males can't have children. Thus, we have a long-standing inconsistency.

Your children being male also can mean that your lineage dies out, since they got born male instead of female. It's supposed to be an inter-generational survival game. But, that's meaningless when you can't have a lineage. And if players join as children, but they can't have children because they are male, there's no inter-generational survival game at some point.

That's another long-standing inconsistency.

The Steam page also says:

jasonrohrer wrote:

Leave a legacy for the next generation as you help to rebuild civilization from scratch.

Male characters don't leave a legacy for the next generation, as they do not have a next generation.

A consistent game would either have male characters have the ability to become fathers or male characters just not exist at all.

Even though male characters can be useful to villages, since they don't fit with other core concepts of leaving a legacy and parenting, male characters could probably accurately get termed a gimmick.

Last edited by Spoonwood (2021-11-02 13:29:54)

LonelyNeptune · 2021-11-03 04:03:11

Thanks for the explanation on human reproduction. As a visitor from outer space, I had absolutely no idea that males do not give birth. But thanks to your generosity and intelligence, I have now been enlightened. Hallelujah!

Unfortunately that is not really a rebuttal to my point that males, being infertile, are best suited to tasks away from the town.

Spoonwood · 2021-11-03 13:21:49

LonelyNeptune wrote:

Unfortunately that is not really a rebuttal to my point that males, being infertile, are best suited to tasks away from the town.

You didn't say that above. You just said that "males exist".

An experienced player whose character is female is more suited to tasks away from town than a new player whose character is male. Also, a player using a zoom mod is more suited to tasks away from town than a player not using a zoom mod.

LonelyNeptune · 2021-11-03 22:33:41

Yeah, I thought that the argument would have been extremely obvious but I guess you're one of those people who needs things spelled out on your forehead.

You're both an experienced player and I assume someone with Zoom mod, so live your female lives in town and use your male lives to gather specialty resources. No babies are lost, and you still get the good stuff. This isn't rocket science.

You've become obsessed with the idea that experienced players should be engaged in parenting in literally all of their lives, on the basis that the marketing mentions "parenting"? It's so hilariously incoherent.

Spoonwood · 2021-11-03 22:53:10

LonelyNeptune wrote:

You're both an experienced player and I assume someone with Zoom mod, so live your female lives in town and use your male lives to gather specialty resources. No babies are lost, and you still get the good stuff.

The life I wrote above, was the last life I played for that day. I've also only played one life some days or might only play one life in the future. I might only have that female life and not have any future male lives.

LonelyNeptune wrote:

You've become obsessed with the idea that experienced players should be engaged in parenting in literally all of their lives, on the basis that the marketing mentions "parenting"?

You're either forgetful, deliberately lying, or didn't quite understand something you implied you had previously read. On October 31st you responded to a life I played as Pooja Swan, which I described here: http://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewto … 81#p107381 If you couldn't tell from reading, I was planning on not having any children that life, and thought it well justified until my late thirties to help get an oil rig up. Gingers had no oil, so I got them stuff, and had thought that better than having any chlidren at all until somewhere through my 30s.

But that said, if more experienced players were parenting more instead of becoming infertile by running away out of their homezone during fertile periods *and* the more experienced players fed their children also (which seems implied by the word "parenting"), and helped them, and they had enough resources to support those players also, I do think that the game would be better overall. Parenting other players does more for them than being distant from them at the very least.

Laggy · 2021-11-04 13:05:23

Cock family survived long after this thread was written.

I don't even get what your asking.

A pro player would have.

1: Gotten a horses by being black
2: Filled said horse with buckets and sulfur
3: Become brown, and filled said buckets with latex and palm oil
4: Profit

Your not pro spoonwood.... I've seen you play

Spoonwood · 2021-11-04 14:57:01

Laggy wrote:

I don't even get what your asking.

I'd like "Min active players for specialty biomes" to get increased to 3,000,000,000 or better that part and related parts of the code to get removed entirely. There was an over 3.5k spread only a day or two after the last arc reset between families. That's probably a one-way trip, and even if not, there's enough reason to believe that a player can't make a two-way trip and have a child.

Walking between towns is boring. I've tolerated it before to go to Eve camps, but again, that's tolerating boredom. It's even more boring and dis-pleasureable if you have to chase down an Eve to get specialty resources, and it makes no sense for an Eve to get advanced objects thrown at them. Low-tech people getting a truck or loom clothes, because they have access to rubber trees or as has also happened, there's no exchange because of the language barrier or because of the players involved. No, no thanks. The system is stupid and has been stupid for a very long time.

I do think it's appropriate that people can only have children inside of their band. It's never so far to specilaty resources that one can't get such done and have children so far as I can tell. Really, though the original homelands was better with respect to fertility, since no children ever got born so far away from town that they ended up with low pip foods for very long.

Laggy wrote:

A pro player would have.
1: Gotten a horses by being black
2: Filled said horse with buckets and sulfur
3: Become brown, and filled said buckets with latex and palm oil
4: Profit

I have no interest in disputing you as to whether I'm pro or not Laggy.

But note that I was born Ginger that life. Using /die as a race selector not "pro play". Genetic score makes that very clear, since it's always a penalty for using /die, and I could also dig up quotes from Jason that the intent of the design of the game isn't such that players get encouraged to use /die, I think, even before genetic score existed. It's only there, because of how people are, not because superior play ever involves using /die.

No pro player would have done as you suggested.

Last edited by Spoonwood (2021-11-04 15:37:32)

Spoonwood · 2021-11-04 16:18:20

Also, if a player goes and gets latex and palm oil their self and then comes back to town, there's almost surely some sort of personal interaction with others when one gets back to town. The amount of personal interaction when going to another town getting supplies, and then coming home is lower than when getting such supplies by oneself, since travel time is greater and the issue that the people you encounter have no clue as to what sulfur, latex, and palm oil even are or how they function, when getting them for your town. And you can't exactly show them either, unlike how if one got those by oneself, one could show people in your own village how they work.

Spoonwood · 2021-11-04 19:55:53

Also, Laggy, and you might not realize this, but if you have a high enough gene score, mid to high 40s or in the 50s, you can do hungry work *without* needing to yum on foods at the end of a life. If your gene score is low, though, you won't have 14 pips, and thus will need to yum in order to do hungry work if doing so in your 50s. Using /die to get to a desired race and then deliberately dying mid-life as you suggested in another life, is no way to keep your gene score up for ease of hungry work.

But that said, if the game has encouraged the use of /die via its racial object access system, then we have an issue, since such encouragement is anti-survival.

Last edited by Spoonwood (2021-11-04 19:56:10)

Laggy · 2021-11-04 20:11:13

Just because you think the game NEEDS to be played a certain way doesn't make it the only way.

Genetic score doesn't make you a better player.

Leaders are useless 80% of the time.

Besides the asinine job of being leader how does genetic score make you a good player?

You feed afk people, wasting time and resources?

You run away become homesick so not to have kids?

Lets not talk about hunger work either...

I can kill a mine before I turn 30...

So using spoon logic I am over 10% more pro then you Spoonwood.

Ya my gentic score is just that high.

Now can we keep our replies under 2,000 words?

Last edited by Laggy (2021-11-04 20:18:15)

Spoonwood · 2021-11-04 20:31:03

Laggy wrote:

Just because you think the game NEEDS to be played a certain way doesn't make it the only way.
Genetic score doesn't make you a better player.

My argument here was that using /die and deliberately dying isn't consistent with being a pro player, since /die is always a genetic score penalty.

Laggy wrote:

So using spoon logic I am over 10% more pro then you Spoonwood.

No. If you use /die, you are not a more pro player than people who do not use /die.

Laggy · 2021-11-05 16:46:15

Well... the game says I'm atleast 10-15% a better player then you based off genetic score.

Doug you must be autistic.... You can can't seem to accept anyone opinions but your own.

Bet you have problems reading people emotions also?

Last edited by Laggy (2021-11-05 16:46:33)

Spoonwood · 2021-11-05 17:38:13

Laggy wrote:

Well... the game says I'm atleast 10-15% a better player then you based off genetic score.

If you use /die to become one race, die early in another life, and then use /die again to become another race, genetic score implies that you are not pro level, since you're used /die several times and died early. Your assertion doesn't address that at all.

Laggy · 2021-11-05 21:19:46

Your wrong......

Ohh so wrong.....

Just like your idea that fractions don't exist in ohol.

I'm also done trying to persuade you that your OPINION isn't the only one!

I'll have more results teaching rabid grizzly bear algebra, then you accepting your not the supreme rule maker and other peoples opinions are valid.

Last edited by Laggy (2021-11-05 21:42:02)

WumboJumbo · 2021-11-06 00:22:15

Laggy wrote:

Well... the game says I'm atleast 10-15% a better player then you based off genetic score.
Doug you must be autistic.... You can can't seem to accept anyone opinions but your own.
Bet you have problems reading people emotions also?

Did you get that idea after reading LonelyNeptune's post that said the same thing?

LonelyNeptune · 2021-11-06 00:27:02

Ew, a triple post.

Laggy · 2021-11-06 04:29:38

WumboJumbo wrote:

Laggy wrote:
Well... the game says I'm atleast 10-15% a better player then you based off genetic score.
Doug you must be autistic.... You can can't seem to accept anyone opinions but your own.
Bet you have problems reading people emotions also?
Did you get that idea after reading LonelyNeptune's post that said the same thing?

I come to that conclusion when someone can't agree with anything....

The sky is down...

Fire is cold....

Because I say it's so...

Eve Troll · 2021-11-06 10:16:49

Hello hello, its been a while

After a long hiatus that is likely to continue i have decided to step into the rotting cesspool that is this game and its community.

Those of you being rude to spoon and trying to change him. Its cute, but its never going to happen. If you dont like what hes saying, ignore it. That said dont presume you're in the majority when you bash spoon and say no one cares what he says. There are many who read these forms just to see the antics spoon gets up to.

LonelyNeptune · 2021-11-06 14:04:15

Nice try, Spoon.

Spoonwood · 2021-11-06 14:53:38

LonelyNeptune wrote:

Nice try, Spoon.

Nice try what? The last comment was by Eve Troll, not by me.

Eve Troll · 2021-11-06 15:42:14

Im an old vet and been here forever, you can ask any of the old vets

Laggy · 2021-11-06 17:02:40

Eve Troll wrote:

There are many who read these forms just to see the antics spoon gets up to.

What a sad existence that must be.

Laggy · 2021-11-06 17:08:54

Spoonwood wrote:

I'd like "Min active players for specialty biomes" to get increased to 3,000,000,000 or better that part and related parts of the code to get removed entirely. There was an over 3.5k spread only a day or two after the last arc reset between families. That's probably a one-way trip, and even if not, there's enough reason to believe that a player can't make a two-way trip and have a child.

Well if they remove homesickness we would just have every family in the same town.

One curse sends you straight to donkey town.

Guess this would make Jason more money.

One Hour One Life Forums

#1 2021-11-02 04:27:02

Race Restirctions Seem Like They are Against Multiplayer Survival

#2 2021-11-02 05:04:22

Re: Race Restirctions Seem Like They are Against Multiplayer Survival

#3 2021-11-02 12:39:45

Re: Race Restirctions Seem Like They are Against Multiplayer Survival

#4 2021-11-03 04:03:11

Re: Race Restirctions Seem Like They are Against Multiplayer Survival

#5 2021-11-03 13:21:49

Re: Race Restirctions Seem Like They are Against Multiplayer Survival

#6 2021-11-03 22:33:41

Re: Race Restirctions Seem Like They are Against Multiplayer Survival

#7 2021-11-03 22:53:10

Re: Race Restirctions Seem Like They are Against Multiplayer Survival

#8 2021-11-04 13:05:23

Re: Race Restirctions Seem Like They are Against Multiplayer Survival

#9 2021-11-04 14:57:01

Re: Race Restirctions Seem Like They are Against Multiplayer Survival

#10 2021-11-04 16:18:20

Re: Race Restirctions Seem Like They are Against Multiplayer Survival

#11 2021-11-04 19:55:53

Re: Race Restirctions Seem Like They are Against Multiplayer Survival

#12 2021-11-04 20:11:13

Re: Race Restirctions Seem Like They are Against Multiplayer Survival

#13 2021-11-04 20:31:03

Re: Race Restirctions Seem Like They are Against Multiplayer Survival

#14 2021-11-05 16:46:15

Re: Race Restirctions Seem Like They are Against Multiplayer Survival

#15 2021-11-05 17:38:13

Re: Race Restirctions Seem Like They are Against Multiplayer Survival

#16 2021-11-05 21:19:46

Re: Race Restirctions Seem Like They are Against Multiplayer Survival

#17 2021-11-06 00:22:15

Re: Race Restirctions Seem Like They are Against Multiplayer Survival

#18 2021-11-06 00:27:02

Re: Race Restirctions Seem Like They are Against Multiplayer Survival

#19 2021-11-06 04:29:38

Re: Race Restirctions Seem Like They are Against Multiplayer Survival

#20 2021-11-06 10:16:49

Re: Race Restirctions Seem Like They are Against Multiplayer Survival

#21 2021-11-06 14:04:15

Re: Race Restirctions Seem Like They are Against Multiplayer Survival

#22 2021-11-06 14:53:38

Re: Race Restirctions Seem Like They are Against Multiplayer Survival

#23 2021-11-06 15:42:14

Re: Race Restirctions Seem Like They are Against Multiplayer Survival

#24 2021-11-06 17:02:40

Re: Race Restirctions Seem Like They are Against Multiplayer Survival

#25 2021-11-06 17:08:54

Re: Race Restirctions Seem Like They are Against Multiplayer Survival

Board footer