One Hour One Life Forums

a multiplayer game of parenting and civilization building

You are not logged in.

#1 Re: Main Forum » Men and Boys Routinely Are Under Recognized for Sporting Ability » 2021-02-09 21:18:33

sigmen4020 wrote:
Spoonwood wrote:
sigmen4020 wrote:

Yeah, let's just completely ignore the very obvious biological differences between men and women that make men achieve better results in sports than women, such as less body fat, more muscle mass, and larger heart and lungs.

We ignore the obvious biological differences between competitors within sexes all the time in sports.  The game of basketball doesn't suddenly have different rules when tall people play with short people.

sigmen4020 wrote:

Guess women should just overcome their very real biological disadvantages in order to be recognized for their sporting ability at all.

Any man that wants to play in a professional basketball league and is of below average height has to overcome such a biological disadvantage.  Given that women have as much biological disadvantage as you think, sure, why not?  Competitive sports are about winning while playing a fair competition.  Integrating sports leagues means more fair competition.

You seriously think that a minor height difference in basketball is even remotely comparable to the multitudes of disadvantages(that I just conveniently listed) women would face against men in physical sports?

Remotely comparable sounds like a low degree of similaity, so yes, *remotely* comparable seems plausible.

sigmen4020 wrote:

Also some physical sports aren't just segregated by sex, such as weight classes in boxing. Isn't it totally unfair to the man who got fourth place as a heavyweight, when he could have easily beaten the champion in the flyweight class?

Boxing is unfair, in the sense of injustice, to all participants as human beings.  It either encourages deliberately inflicting serious physical damage on another or taking such brain damaging abuse.  Unlike other sports where people can have better health as a result of playing the sport, boxing inevitably involves one participant having worse health, and another participant likely has worse health or takes advantage of the worse health of another person.  No knockout makes anyone stronger.

Considering amateur wrestling seems better here.  I don't know how we can compare people's wrestling abilities without them having wrestled.  Perhaps the heavyweight wrestler who finishes in 4th is a better wrestler than the 1st place wrestler in the division below him.  But, what objective standard do we have for determining that?  I don't know of one, unlike running times in track races and times in many other sporting events.  My claim that the male participants are often undervalued relies on objective standards like time in races.

I do think that wrestling having weight classes has value, but perhaps different weight classes in wrestling minimizes the risk of injury, or severity of injury, of participants.  In sports like running and swimming, and perhaps even sports like soccer and handball, the risk of injury for female participants doesn't increase by having integrated leagues.  So, I'm not so sure integrating sex discriminatory leagues is comparable to removing weight classes for wrestling.

#2 Re: Main Forum » Men and Boys Routinely Are Under Recognized for Sporting Ability » 2021-02-09 20:50:40

Cogito wrote:

  To spell it out: under what authority or argument do you seek to stop people spectating all-women sports, through the removal of all-women sports?

I don't expect any such thing.  I haven't called for any such thing.

Cogito wrote:

This was a Spoonwood trap! If you have an extremely small sample from an extremely large population, that sample is statistically insignificant. When I say that the person has achieved more than everyone else who has ever lived it is of course not a literal statement, but an exaggeration.

Statistics involves literal statements.  It doesn't involve exaggerations.

You want to exaggerate?  Then I don't think you want to have an honest discussion here.

Cogito wrote:

Your persistence in quibbling over these patently incorrect interpretations of language and grammar continues to paint you as someone unable to develop their comprehension skills.

You said you were exaggerating.  Exaggeration is taking things out of proportion when engaging in serious speech, since serious speech is exact as it can be, and thus literal.  Thus you were using language incorrectly by any rational standard.

You are free to think of me however you like as are others with respect to my development of my comprehension skills.  But, I am not under any burden to you or others that I can develop those skills.  And I am simply not interested in playing some game to prove to you that I can "understand" you, since that understanding seems vastly contingent on me agreeing with you it seems to me.

Cogito wrote:

  If you don't want to appear that way, then as many here have suggested you should ask yourself "what is the main point this person is trying to make" and then argue against that.

If you want to try to make a point, the burden of communication is on you as the speaker to get your message across.

Cogito wrote:

Did you not read what I wrote? "People who have, as a group, decided to compete with each other."

Not that closely.  It makes less sense the more closely I read what you said.  People don't make decisions *as a group* to compete with each other in at least some instances.  They make decisions as individuals to enter into competitions for say community running events.  Those individuals agree to the rules of the competitions.  They don't all get together and then decide to compete against each other.

Cogito wrote:

School students have less political capital than most sport participants ...

I find this very strange to believe.  School students have an enormous amount of political capital in terms of how things can shake out.  There exist more school students than sports participants.  If a large enough group of school students were to protest a school having a sport or they demanded a particular sport, the school administration would soon have all sorts of interactions with parents.  The political capital in terms of school students is potentially very large.  It's just often not activated, or there exists a fair amount of disagreement, and oftentimes students haven't developed the ability to think for their own selves or take political action.

The administration in school is simply not more powerful than the students and the parents combined from what I've seen of school districts.  A largely unified student body with parents behind them isn't something an administration can ignore now, is it?

Cogito wrote:

How do you respond for all other sports?

For other sports, students decided to try out for sports teams at the individual level and then made the team (same thing happens for cross-country).  The competitors I would say thus make decisions to compete as individuals.  The coaches and athletic directors who decide on leagues and when games will play against I would say do make decisions as a group.

Cogito wrote:

In Scenario A we take the Spoonwood forced mixing of competitors approach.

The nature of sport is such that it doesn't care about any sort of sex differences, only the quality of play of the competitors.  Thus, sports leagues are forced to get segregated by sex and other categories.  It would thus be natural to have all participants in the same category, because the nature of sport is such that everyone is equal with respect to their performance objectively.

Cogito wrote:

Due to the inherent difference in running speed between men and women ...

Um what?  Running speed isn't an inherent different between men and women.  Running speed depends on how fast the body moved, not the sex of the participants.  You clearly lost your sense of physics here Cogito.  It seems predictable since the division of leagues in sports by the same organization on the basis of sex encourages losing a sense of physics.

Cogito wrote:

these 10 competitors are all men, and as expected the top 10 fastest people are given millions of dollars of cash each, and fame that lasts thousands of years, ensuring that the best runners are appropriately compensated for their efforts.

If you or I were setting up sports leagues a priori that were integrated, if we were rational, we wouldn't presuppose who will win or lose.

Thousands of years of fame and millions of dollars?

I really don't think you're taking that thought experiment seriously.

Cogito wrote:

In Scenario B it is every single person again, but in Secnario A none of the women compete because there is no chance they can ever win.  Hence, Scenario B has more competition (1000 people competing) than Scenario A (500 people competing)

So basically women will only compete if their necessarily will exist some female winner or top performer?  Women in sports are that sexist that they will do so only if some member of their sex is assured a chance of a success?

Cogito wrote:

For some sports it can make sense, but the physical differences between men and women (just like between children and adults, and man and machine) necessitates that competition is segregated.

The physical differences between men and women is not a causative factor of the sex segregation of sports.  So, no, it does not necessitate that competition is segregated.

Cogito wrote:

You're cherry picking your evidence, at best.

I'd have to know of examples which contradict my position to cherry pick.

Cogito wrote:

Forcing different levels of skill and ability to compete together will reduce the number of people who participate in your sport, and those people will just go play by themselves without your silly rules.

It is very strange to me to think that everyone playing by literally the same rules as in any way silly.  An organization which sets up an event where everyone plays by the same rules involves treating people equally and also having people's performances evaluated solely on the basis of merit.  Both of those encourage objectivity for anyone thinking about the rules and the competition.  There would be no silly "I ran well... for a girl" or "you ran well... for a woman." for anyone.

#3 Re: Main Forum » Men and Boys Routinely Are Under Recognized for Sporting Ability » 2021-02-09 19:44:32

JonySky wrote:

Obtaining more groups to be able to classify their participants allows more chances of being winners, this allows more competitiveness

If this held as a general rule, then by having the smallest group possible, there would exist maximum competitiveness.  But a track race doesn't have more  competitiveness by having fewer runners.  A track race with 8 runners instead of 2 has more competitiveness than one with 2 runners.  I think the same holds for other sports.  There's more competition in a 5 on 5 basketball game than a 3 on 3 basketball game.

#4 Re: Main Forum » Men and Boys Routinely Are Under Recognized for Sporting Ability » 2021-02-09 19:39:26

DestinyCall wrote:
sigmen4020 wrote:

Also what does this have to do with the game again?

I think this is what happens when Jason takes too long to update the game.   Spoonwood ends up with too much free time on his hands, so he starts applying his phenomenal "logic" to other things. 

The results are, as expected, delightfully nonsensical.

I am explicitly calling for integrated sports leagues.  That means more objectivity, because all participants would get judged by the same standards. More objectivity also requires more sense to things.

It is also far easier to maintain or obtain objectivity and have a good sense of things when there exists one standard for competition than when there exist two standards for competition.

#5 Re: Main Forum » Men and Boys Routinely Are Under Recognized for Sporting Ability » 2021-02-09 19:36:23

sigmen4020 wrote:

Yeah, let's just completely ignore the very obvious biological differences between men and women that make men achieve better results in sports than women, such as less body fat, more muscle mass, and larger heart and lungs.

We ignore the obvious biological differences between competitors within sexes all the time in sports.  The game of basketball doesn't suddenly have different rules when tall people play with short people.

sigmen4020 wrote:

Guess women should just overcome their very real biological disadvantages in order to be recognized for their sporting ability at all.

Any man that wants to play in a professional basketball league and is of below average height has to overcome such a biological disadvantage.  Given that women have as much biological disadvantage as you think, sure, why not?  Competitive sports are about winning while playing a fair competition.  Integrating sports leagues means more fair competition.

sigmen4020 wrote:

All your proposal would do is discourage all women from competing in most sports, with maybe a few exceptions like horse riding which is already uni-sex sport.

No, it would mean more than that.  If the same number of awards got handed out, it would mean a different distribution of awards to people.  It could also mean more targeted coaching on the basis of people's physical characteristics other than their sex... sometimes girls teams have a training regime weaker than boys at the same school in sports like running.  If a smaller number of awards got handed out, it could mean a cost savings for sporting organizations.

sigmen4020 wrote:

I'm guessing the next thing you'll advocate for is the removal of the paralympics, since it's so unfair to male athletes that some para athlete gets to have a medal for a worse performance, right? Para athletes should compete in the regular olympics same as everyone else, right?

I saw someone say that once.  I'm not finding anything linking the Paralympics with The Olympics under one governing organization.  So, I don't see as many problems with having separate leagues here.  I don't see how the paralympics discriminates against it's own participants by The Olympics existing.

The Olympic committee on the other hands out material objects to their participants on grounds other than merit in terms of their performances.  It is very clear that they do not treat all of their participants equally and haven't done so since the beginning of sex differentiated division.  They do not hold all of their participants to the same standards, since they don't have to all compete against each other.  That infantilizes many female participants apparently, since they get rewarded even though having weaker performance.  And it doesn't value some male participants appropriately, since their performance isn't valued as much by competing in the division where they have traditionally allowed men to compete.

As for what this has to do with One Hour One Life, well, One Hour One Life viewed as a competitive game is only one where players can lose.  One dies at the individual level.  All families die.  All towns get washed away.  There exist plenty of female players of this game who play it with an awareness of such facts also from what I can tell.  So, it seems there exists little reason to worry about particular females losing or ending up lower in terms of accolades in real world sporting leagues, because women and girls can handle situations which they will all lose, it would make some sense that they can handle a real world situation where almost all females will lose, or perform more poorly than they thought they would.

#6 Re: Main Forum » Men and Boys Routinely Are Under Recognized for Sporting Ability » 2021-02-09 14:21:27

DestinyCall wrote:

Not to mention that it is silly to argue that "men and boys are under recognized" because they can only win three out of four medals instead of all of them in some Olympic competitions.

That's just stupid.

What's stupid is the sense of reality that ends up lost by failing to recognize humans sporting ability on the basis of their performance.  A 4th place boy at the age of 16 in a high school race with a time of 4:40 in a mile race won't get as much recognition as a girl with a slower time at the same age with the same schools competing.

In Rio Ayanleh Souleiman ran 3:50.29 in a 1500 meter race and was the men's 4th place finisher getting no medal at all.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics … 500_metres

Faith Chepngetich ran 4:08.92 in a 1500 meter race also: https://www.olympic.org/rio-2016/athletics/1500m-women

Yet, Faith gets a medal while Rio does not.  She has the material object, while he does not.

This shows that Ayanleh Souleiman's ability is not recognized proportionately to his overall achievement and the Olympic Committee does not value everyones achievements on the basis of their own merits.

#7 Re: Main Forum » Men and Boys Routinely Are Under Recognized for Sporting Ability » 2021-02-09 13:54:25

Cogito wrote:

Sports and competitions are not participated in simply to achieve recognition. For most people, playing a game of tennis, competing in a track meet, swimming in a race, playing rugby, they do these things because they enjoy doing them. If you went in and said "Right! No more split between women's and men's tennis, it lessens the achievements of men" the women would not miraculously start playing with the men. They would just start their own competition.

It seems to me that you believe that instead of wanting to play in a league on the basis of playing the sport for it's own sake (and other motivations), women want to play in a league on some other basis.

Cogito wrote:

There is a huge audience of people (a lot of them women) who enjoy watching women play AFL against each other, or cricket. Who are you to tell them they shouldn't?

I would be the same person as I am *were* I telling them such a thing.

Cogito wrote:

If your concern is purely that there are men who deserve recognition and don't get it, your solution is not a solution at all. In the first place, to the people who actually care, it's obvious that even competing in an olympics is an enormous achievement and recognition of your skills. To even come last means that you have achieved more than (statistically speaking) everyone else who has ever lived in the world.

"statistically speaking" "everyone else" makes for a contradiction in terms.  The Olympics is also a competition, and everyone in the Olympics is a person in the real world. 

Cogito wrote:

More importantly, you forget that these are competitions between people who have, as a group, decided to compete with each other.

I talked about school competitions also.  Do you think that everyone who participates in school competitions does so voluntarily?

Cogito wrote:

By and large, organised competitions optimise for competition: weight lifters aren't competing against forklifts, children aren't trying to tackle 150kg men, and women sprinters compete in their own race.

Your claim amounts to saying that by having less competition, there exists more competition.  We don't have women and men compete together as a matter of course, but somehow we have the most competition possible.  This makes no sense at all.

Cogito wrote:

  It would not be fun to watch the forklift win every time, watch child after child taken to hospital, nor exclude women from all elite sprint competitions, and it wouldn't be fun for the competitors either.

I was explicitly calling for sports leagues to get integrated.  That's all.  That wouldn't exclude women whatsoever form all elite sprint competitions.  They would just have to earn their position on the same basis that men already do.  And it would encourage them to do so.

I don't know what sporting activity you've done Cogito.  But, when I ran cross country in middle school with one coach.  The boys team and the girls team did the same exact workouts as I recall.  The workouts weren't any more or less enjoyable because of that.  Also, I've watched ulra-running competitions, which as I recall are often mixed sex.  From what I've seen, what you claim is simply not true.

#8 Re: Main Forum » Men and Boys Routinely Are Under Recognized for Sporting Ability » 2021-02-07 12:33:28

JackTreeHorn wrote:

So your solution to unrecognized boys and men i.e. 4th place winners is to dismantle the female league and not recognise female winners and that would somehow give the 4th place winners a medal.

Dismantling can be just a removal of something.  I don't favor just removing women's league.  I favor integrating those leagues into male leagues.

It wouldn't necessarily mean that the 4th place winners got a medal.  But, their place in the bigger scheme of things would come as more easily recognized since they were all in one league.

JackTreeHorn wrote:

How about the 4th place winners just try harder or just say "Hey, I got 4th place. I guess you could say I'm pretty great."
Perhaps give out certificates saying what place they obtained during the competition.

It sounds like you would say this to the men or boys who finished in 4th place.  But would you say this to the women or girls who finished in 4th place?

JackTreeHorn wrote:

The unfairness comes from role that the sex hormones have on body development.

Sex hormones don't create any imbalance in rules or the enforcement of rules.  They don't make it so that women (or men) can't do something on the basis of different opportunities.  Naturally occurring hormonal difference also don't create artifical health problems like steroids.

Thanks for your comment.

#9 Re: Main Forum » Men and Boys Routinely Are Under Recognized for Sporting Ability » 2021-02-07 12:24:20

Cogito wrote:

It's like saying we shouldn't give the under-12 year old rugby team a medal for winning their grand final, because there are teams of adults that are better than them. Or the 4th grade team shouldn't win a medal because the runner up of the 1st grade competition is better than them.

It figures Cogito.  I specifically say things like this:

Spoonwood wrote:

The fourth place finisher in the men's 100 meter dash, 200 meter dash, and many other competitions gets no medal at all.  But, that finisher often has a better time than all of the competitor's in the women's 100 meter dash, 200 meter dash, and other similar competitions.  The Olympic committee thus under recognizes the abilities of many men who have competed in those events, since it doesn't give them similar awards to their performance in those events and performance in those events has an absolute measure.

And instead of thinking about those boys or those who don't get recognition on the basis of performance you come up with some nonsense about how this is comparable to denying medals, showing that you don't care to think about all of the men in these competitions in the first place.  You also, somehow, turn what got written and intended as a positive affirmation for some people into being about a denial for others.  This again shows that you didn't care to think about the original subject (men and boys in these competitions) in the first place.

No.

Sporting committees deliberately create different leagues on the basis of the sex of the participants.  They give out awards on the basis of performance in that league.  As a result we don't have a system based purely on the basis of the performance of the participants.  Thus, often, men or boys who performed better get *less* recognition than women or girls who didn't perform as well.

This state of affairs isn't fair. 

Cogito wrote:

Nobody cares that the 4th fastest man is faster than the fastest woman, in the same way that no one cares that the worst javelin thrower can throw farther than the best shotputter.

No, those ways are not comparable, because the 100 meter dash involves the same distance run no matter who runs it man or woman, boy or girl.  The women's 100 meter dash has, or at least can have, the same rules as the men's 100 meter dash.  There's no reason at all for those competitions to have different rules.

And the more I think about it, it's an abomination of society that sports works this way.  Lack of positive male identity is a serious problem for many men and a very wide societal problem.  What male identity is, isn't exactly easy.  But, at the very least physical ability has been and still is a part of male identity.  When a society basically says that it won't recognize men for what they can and sometimes do, and put those achievements and ability in a proper perspective, it seems clear that such a society dis-values male identity.  And the thing is, it seems that society has dis-valued male identity for a very, very long time.

#10 Main Forum » Men and Boys Routinely Are Under Recognized for Sporting Ability » 2021-02-07 10:11:50

Spoonwood
Replies: 27

The Olympics routinely hands out three medals to people partly on the basis of their sex.  The fourth place finisher in the men's 100 meter dash, 200 meter dash, and many other competitions gets no medal at all.  But, that finisher often has a better time than all of the competitor's in the women's 100 meter dash, 200 meter dash, and other similar competitions.  The Olympic committee thus under recognizes the abilities of many men who have competed in those events, since it doesn't give them similar awards to their performance in those events and performance in those events has an absolute measure.

Similar things happen in many school based competitions.  The 1st place finisher in many cross-country girls races will get an award of some sort, or get some sort of recognition.  That recognition happens in part on the basis of the sex of the participant.  Meanwhile there often exist boys who finished the same course at about the same time with a better time.  Thus, the boy ends up with recognition which isn't proportionate to their performance level.

The way to improve such a situation lies in abolishing or minimizing sex based leagues of sports, at least those that have physical awards or large public notoriety.  Some people might object that it would be unfair for girls to compete with boys, and women to compete with men in sporting activity, because that makes it more likely that females can't win.  But how is an activity unfair if one struggles to win at it?  Also, what is fairness in sporting activity?  Fairness in sporting activity consists in everyone playing by the same rules and the rules getting enforced on all players equally.  Nothing more and nothing less.  Girls competing with boys thus wouldn't result in sports becoming less fair, because no rules would get changed, and at least in principle, the rules would get enforced equally for boys and for girls.

#11 Re: Main Forum » Why does this game feel so frustrating… » 2021-02-07 09:31:28

LilyFox wrote:

Why does that have to be the case, though?

Why would we expect a computer program to be able to know/behave in such a way as if it knows what all sorts of different people like?  Different people have diverse tastes.  Human interest is subtle and changes over time and throughout a given day even for the same person.  Computer programs don't change.  In comparison they are constant and targeted towards certain effects.  Computer programs would also have to have the ability to effectively read human minds.  Why would a simple formal system have the ability to read a human mind which is much more complex, multilayered, and oftentimes messy?

Dodge wrote:

Gamedev wants an unrealistic world 100'000 times the size of earth or some shit like that, because of that he had to add a bunch of weird crappy mechanics to emulate ressources running out.

Gamdev has always had such a world.  The Rift didn't delete any part of that world, it just made much of it inaccessible.

Dodge wrote:

The idea is that he wants to recreate what it was like to build a civilisation from scratch, interact with other groups, conflict of interest, alliances etc.

If he wanted that, then such would require people engaging in mating practices of their own accord *and with other players*.  Civilizations don't exist without such partnerships.  It's no joke that civilizations rely upon families with members of different sexes having different roles, functions, and uses.

Also, Lilyfox didn't write the quote that fug attributed to her.

#12 Re: Main Forum » Another status update » 2021-02-07 08:59:51

DestinyCall wrote:

The point is that the qualifier in Jason's statement explicitly allows for other activities beyond working on his new house project.

My original comment didn't imply anything about the allowability of other activities.

DestinyCall wrote:

Why are you trying to make this look like a thing when it is not a thing?    It is weird.

It is a thing that he posted 8 tweets the day before he posted the original post above.  You are simply wrong to say that there exists anything weird about such facts, because those are facts which come as simple to observe as true.

#13 Re: Main Forum » So /Die Just Seems To Get Worse and Worse » 2021-02-06 18:44:11

LilyFox wrote:

I think the main reasons why players use /die are:

1. They want to be born into a specific family
2. They want to be born as a certain race
3. They don't like the town for some reason (usually because it's too advanced or not advanced enough)
4. They are hoping to get an Eve spawn

As for 1) I think that has at least been partly solved by the reincarnation mechanic. However, now we also have babies who /die because they DON'T want to get reincarnated into the same family and didn't manage to die before turning 60 in their previous life. I think a possible solution for that problem would be to allow players to use /die again at age 59, with no impact on gene score. That way, one can easily choose not to get reborn into the same family without causing much frustration for anyone.

For 2), honestly, just get rid of ethnicity restrictions. They do not have any benefits other than making the game more annoying, frustrating and confusing. They do not cause towns to feel more “diverse”, if anything they cause LESS diversity because there are very few ways to deal with them. And they do not encourage trade because people dumping their stuff into other towns after getting asked for it on hetuw is not “trade”. I really doubt many people would care about their race if not for these restrictions.

For 3) really the only way to encourage a greater variety of towns is to encourage more people to play the game. Right now, with the usual amount of people, there's usually just four towns on bs2 that are often even at the same tech level since as soon as a new town pops up, people go there and dump engines, kero, etc (and I can't even blame them since race restrictions make it so annoying to upgrade the well and no water means death). Plus the game actually DISCOURAGES new players because as soon as there are too many players on a server, everything descends into chaos since many of the mechanics are confusing and rely on the usual “balance” between four towns with a high enough percentage of experienced players traveling between them to ensure everyone has rubber and kero.

Lastly, for 4), I've seen others suggest that there's some sort of checkbox people can fill if they'd like to get an Eve spawn or uncheck if they don't. I really like that idea, preferably with an explanation saying that even keeping that option checked does not necessarily guarantee an Eve run and there's no point in spamming /die in such cases. That said, what would really encourage more Eve spawns is again a larger amount of players on a server.

Thank you for reading my rant.

I think there's good points in what you say here.

#14 Re: Main Forum » Why does this game feel so frustrating… » 2021-02-06 18:38:32

Well players can't start up new experiences on their own.  They can only start up a new family when *the game code* decides that conditions for a new family exist.  So, players end up with the same sort of experiences follows from the game deciding what sorts of experiences come as appropriate.

There were definitely more diverse experiences when you would get born sometimes to a clueless Eve and sometimes to a decent one and sometimes into a town.  Why?  Because some players who didn't like certain experiences or wanted certain types or wanted to experiment with the game knew would start up new families with new story potential.

Also, the spring system made for less diverse experiences, since it's always the same water progression at about the same time.  It used to be that an advanced pump *might* get made *and used* early with shallow wells still around and getting used.  Or it might not, and such a pump only appear after several deep wells got drained.

Additionally, before the temperature overhaul, there existed more diversity in settlement environments.  Sometimes towns were on desert edges.  Sometimes in jungles.  And sometimes in cold grasslands.  There were more Eves, but also there was less clarity about what was best for Eves to do, because having a jungle settlement would mean mosquito bites, a desert settlement likely meant snake deaths, and grasslands had their own challenges, *and* because it might take an excessive amount of time for an Eve to find a desert edge or jungle spot, and thus it could be preferable in some ways to just settle in a grassland or take the chance on having children who were strong.  There also existed more flexibility, since with some jungle or desert settlements, there didn't exist a need to rush technology as the grasslands and prairies have always has basically.

So, it does make sense that the game has less experiences that feel unique, because it's taken things down a path of monotony and inhibiting players ability to have diverse experiences.  The feeling of diversity of experience apparently comes when people have an opportunity to explore multiple avenues of experience.

#15 Re: Main Forum » Another status update » 2021-02-06 18:21:25

Starknight_One wrote:
Spoonwood wrote:
Twisted wrote:

I bet he also pooped. There is no way he went an entire week without pooping, which means HE IS LYING TO US WAKE UP SHEEPLE.

Alright, that's the conclusion you want to draw.

Twisted wrote:

Thank you, Mr. Spoonwood, for uncovering Mr. Rohrer's vile ruse, we are forever in your debt. I can't believe that monster would actually dare poop and then lie to us about it...

"Vile ruse" is a term you've used Twisted not me.  "Lie" is also a term you've used, not me.

Again, 8 tweets got posted a day by Mr. Rohrer before Mr. Rohrer said that he was spending "... all day, each day, doing ..." housework.

The ellipsis is deceptive, Spoonwood. He said he spent "pretty much all day, every day, doing...". The qualifier is important, and leaving it off your quote is disingenuous.

Since he only spent 'pretty much all day', 8 tweets isn't excessive or out of the norm. You're trying to split hairs where there are none to split.

I appreciate you trying to keep my honest.  I do disagree that there are no hairs to split though, as a phrase like "pretty much all day, every day" is rather vague, and when things are vague, there exist hairs to split as what things mean precisely isn't so clear. 

Keep in mind that I reacted to some posts above which have a tone of questioning my first comment in the above.  It doesn't have an ellipsis problem, and I would think that the ellipsis doesn't pose a problem for people finding the full quote.  I would also argue that 8  tweets is out of the norm for Mr. Rohrer, and out of the norm for many people who tweet.

#16 Re: Main Forum » So /Die Just Seems To Get Worse and Worse » 2021-02-06 10:05:35

Dodge wrote:

Why cant i be free to spawn food,water or oil at will? Because it would ruin the game for me and others, you're free to do everything possible in game but what you're talking about is not freedom, it's restricting the situations that players could create when they are faced with life events, why do you feel the need to make the experience of other players limited, repetitive and boring?

The possibility of spawning to food, water, or oil wouldn't prevent anyone from spawning as naked and starving, since there is no limit on the number of players that can spawn as adults or even as 3 year olds. 

Also, no one that I know of has the position that the random birth 'login' should get eliminated.

#17 Re: Main Forum » So /Die Just Seems To Get Worse and Worse » 2021-02-03 13:43:02

Dodge wrote:

But if every life you're just handed exactly what you want then every life is going to end up the same, no challenge to overcome, no creative solutions to figure out.

If one is the sort of person who always picks the same challenges and conditions, alright.

But, many gamers simply don't behave that way.

You can go on Twitch or YouTube and find plenty of gamers who play on different worlds, under different starting conditions, or under different settings for the same game.  There also exist players who describe and play variants.  Really, that plenty of gamers often voluntarily vary their stimuli has gotten documented for years since forums and message boards have existed.

The above claim thus lacks empirical support, and flies in the face of historical facts.

#18 Re: Main Forum » So /Die Just Seems To Get Worse and Worse » 2021-02-02 15:06:30

fug wrote:

This amount of choice would have definitely cut down on the die issue but instead he went with life tokens as other people decided that this removed the random life bit (which would later be removed with the legacy chain which is just old content readded anyways.)

Legacy chain doesn't work well with the current Eve spawning system.  This past morning, we again had 2 families for something like an hour, and the 4th didn't appear for a bit longer I think.  I think it's a combination of players who have high gene score tend to live to 60, then they end up tending to get reborn to their previous family.  Players who don't live to 60 can spawn as Eve if they have high enough gene score.  But, they tend to end up with lower gene score than the last 5 deaths (I'm guessing that tutorial players get counted somehow towards the last 5 deaths... which doesn't make sense to me... but it's only a guess).  The effect ends up that we don't get new Eves, and it seems that a gene score of 50 or 51 sometimes isn't high enough to get an Eve spawn.

fug wrote:

Next chapter of the life token story ...

I saw a streamer run out of lives back during the first time the game got put up for a discount price.  There's little telling how often that has happened since life tokens got introduced.

Dodge wrote:

A menu screen that let's you choose everything in your life would be really sad...

One of the great part of this game is that you never know what your life is going to be like, or at least it's what eventually it tries to create.

There are other solutions but this is not the one.

It's currently sad and has been sad that the game doesn't have choice with respect to players initial conditions.  One's life in this game doesn't try to create anything, and it's one of the worst parts of the game that one can't make plans with respect to how to do things all that much.  In real life, there exists substantially more ability to plan things than in OHOL, and the lack of an initial selection screen emphasizes that.

There don't exist other solutions, as people's nature and desires have to get worked with.

#19 Re: Main Forum » question » 2021-02-01 16:29:11

QuirkySmirkyIan wrote:
DiscardedSlinky wrote:

Yes you can play with the AWBZ mod. It still supports Mac users and allows them to play. Join the discord for help with setting it up

Yes there is a mod Awbz mod that does that but it means you have to play with a zoom mod which isn't bad its just a restriction.

This isn't a good use of the term 'zoom mod'.

Remember, Awbz mod *allows* one to have a further out view.  But, players can still play with a zoomed in view entirely while using the Awbz mod.  One can play an entire life or three completely zoomed in view while using the Awbz mod.  Same for the Hetuw mod.  Thus, the Awbz mod isn't restrictive here.

#20 Re: Main Forum » Another status update » 2021-02-01 16:26:29

Twisted wrote:

I bet he also pooped. There is no way he went an entire week without pooping, which means HE IS LYING TO US WAKE UP SHEEPLE.

Alright, that's the conclusion you want to draw.

Twisted wrote:

Thank you, Mr. Spoonwood, for uncovering Mr. Rohrer's vile ruse, we are forever in your debt. I can't believe that monster would actually dare poop and then lie to us about it...

"Vile ruse" is a term you've used Twisted not me.  "Lie" is also a term you've used, not me.

Again, 8 tweets got posted a day by Mr. Rohrer before Mr. Rohrer said that he was spending "... all day, each day, doing ..." housework.

#21 Re: Main Forum » Another status update » 2021-01-30 01:48:49

DestinyCall wrote:
Spoonwood wrote:
jasonrohrer wrote:

  This past week, I pretty much spent all day, each day, doing that.

The original post happened on January 23rd, 2021.

On January 22nd, 2021, Mr. Rohrer posted 8 tweets.

You mean he spent some time on social media when he claimed to be working non-stop on his move?

That monster! 

....

Remember when someone mentioned that absurd complaints undermine your credibility? 

This is one of those situations.

I stated facts.  You drew the conclusion that you thought appropriate.  I don't see a thing absurd in what I said, and if you think there's anything absurd there, then you really should check reality, since 8 tweets did get posted by Mr. Rohrer one day after he posted the above.

#22 Re: Main Forum » Another status update » 2021-01-29 18:55:32

jasonrohrer wrote:

  This past week, I pretty much spent all day, each day, doing that.

The original post happened on January 23rd, 2021.

On January 22nd, 2021, Mr. Rohrer posted 8 tweets.

#23 Re: Main Forum » Aren't you little too used to living in chaotic city? +video included » 2021-01-28 11:55:06

Wisteria: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsAJT8H5Lbg&t=46s  Lots of signs for stations.  I helped make it, but I wasn't the person with the Eve spawn there.  It's long gone now (we didn't maintain it).

#24 Re: Main Forum » Aren't you little too used to living in chaotic city? +video included » 2021-01-28 11:51:46

*faints*  It's the person who did those analyses back after the temperature overhaul, almost two years ago!  Nice to see you around yaira.  Now, I'll read your post.

#25 Re: Main Forum » So /Die Just Seems To Get Worse and Worse » 2021-01-28 11:50:19

Laggy wrote:
Spoonwood wrote:
Laggy wrote:

Solution = 2 minute /die timer?

What are you talking about?

After using /die you have to wait 2 minutes to respawn. Pretty sure everyone got that but you.

People (as a group) likely end up playing less with something like that.  At least, that's a clear risk.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB