One Hour One Life Forums

jasonrohrer wrote:

This might seem ripe for abuse, but remember, you can't pick your followers.  They can only pick you.  And they can dump you in a heartbeat if you're bugging them too much.

The first statement is correct.  But the second is not.  How quickly you have forgotten how your own system works.

You want people to care for their offspring.  To care for the children.  But, apparently you're having a rather hard time keeping OHOL offspring in mind here.

I don't think this would be hard to abuse:

A leader could just ding a child who have inherited the inferior position a bunch of times.  The child doesn't have a recourse to get out of the relationship.  But, someone keeps on dinging them.  And next thing you know you have that child murdering the leader.  That might sound alright, since the leader was a bad one to that child, but others in the hiearchy might not feel the same way.  So the grown up child could get easily targeted for death by the followers.

And such a scenario isn't people playing for their lineages.

The pies can't be stored because they are custard.  They are soft and mushy.  You can't put them in a backpack or whatever.

JC, if you are messing with people like that, only your followers hear the noise.

At that point, they'd probably lose faith in YOU, right?

All they have to do is stop following you and the noisy line is snipped.

How did you get these followers in the first place?  You didn't gain them by being a noisy idiot.

Wouldn't it be funny if the president of the US got on national TV and mooned everyone?  That would be the best prank ever!

But that doesn't happen because it takes enormous effort to get yourself in that position, and the position is to valuable to just throw it away for the sake of a gag.

In OHOL, if you are in the position to annoy lots of people with your power, that powerful position was hard-won.

Currently, as I have implemented it, you must be wearing chest clothing for your badge or exile status to be visible.

Hard to pin a badge to bear skin.

And the X could be on bare skin, but then it's like a tattoo or something?  Maybe I will add this if it becomes a big enough problem.  Yeah... I guess I really need to do this now.  So the X on an exiled person shows always, even if they are naked.... okay, hmm...

I was thinking that it could just be the case that nakeds can't be trusted so much, and griefers would run around naked to avoid detection, which would be cool.

But I also want to give this system the best chance of actually working and being valuable to people, so.

And yes, you all are correct:  following the king directly won't make you a Duke if you have no followers yourself.

And I did implement DUBIOUS status (where someone is still following a leader who has been exiled by someone you trust.... they know their leader is exiled, but they haven't jumped ship).

And I did implement downwards redemption, where a higher leader can undo the exiles of a lower leader.  If your higher leader keeps messing you up by doing this, then you can stop following him, right?

But there is currently no notification when you are exiled by someone.  If they are your leader, you will see yourself as exiled (or dubious, if your leader is exiled).  But if they are not your leader, you won't know.  This is fine, I think, because the exile operation is so cheap to perform.  Any idiot can exile you at any time, and you won't really care.  No reason to bother you with that information.  And if you're exiled by the King, you'll figure that out soon enough.

That is why it's so important that higher leaders can redeem you.  If someone in your chain of command exiles you, you won't know who did it.  But if you go to the top and make your case, you can be redeemed.

The other way is to go follow each leader up the chain of command in turn.  Once you get "over the head" of the guy who exiled you, you will stop seeing yourself as exiled.

As well as aesthetic properties, hair could also have racial benefits. For example, gingers grow more facial and body hair to help them cope better in tundra than other races, however this causes them to fare much worse than currently in desert and jungle. Black people on the other hand grow very little body hair to help cope with deserts, but work similarly to the above in tundra biomes.

This could also be extended to gender and the transition to adulthood, with men’s natural resistance in all biomes being much better after reaching 14, allowing their lack of food consumption to make up for the fact that they can’t carry on a lineage.

So, one thing is still not clear to me.  If I'm a lone traveler, and I walk into a town with a pre-established hierarchy that goes all the way up to King, and I choose to follow that King directly, does that make me a Duke?  If so, then I forsee this being a problem - most people are going to want to be as highly ranked as they can in society, which is going to make it harder to keep multiple tiers in an organization and the robustness that comes with it.  Also, when a Duke dies, do all of their immediate followers become Dukes suddenly?  That's not how titles are supposed work.

If this isn't the case already, I would say rank should always depend on the tiers of followers beneath you, and should be independent of the rank of your own leader, who is more like your point of contact in the organization.  If you follow a King, you are just a follower, but you can still recruit followers beneath you and become a lord.  You probably don't want to follow the king then, because if he dies you're no longer part of the organization.  This means that you don't have the strict branching hierarchy of all lords under a baron, all barons under a count, etc, but I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Text Labels:

• Your direct leader is "Your Lord John Smith" or "Your Lady Eve Smith" on mouse-over

• Leaders with sub-leaders beneath them become Barons, Counts, Dukes, Kings, Emperors, High Emperors, and Supreme Emperors, depending on how many tiers are beneath them.

jcwilk wrote:

And different people have different definitions of acceptable behavior... Like IMO i think random killing is fine, roleplay a family killing sociopath. Make the village band against you. Hell is other people. Not that roleplay is a requirement either.

Fouling up buildings and destroying resources is pretty hard to justify though...

I would have probably just shrugged at the first paragraph, if it weren't for that justify sentence.  You think it's fine.  O. K.  But where's the justification?  Just feeling that something is alright isn't a justification.  You need a reason for that something.  I don't see any basis for random killing in terms of expected benefit in terms of parenting and civilization building.  I don't see how them banding against you would enable them to build better.  Yeah, you don't have to agree with parenting and civilization building as meaningful concepts in order to play the game, but those concepts can provide reasons for doing things in the game. 

Seriously, what reason could there be for random killing?  "The killer feels like it" isn't a reason.  It's just an indication of the killer's emotional state.  And the killing doesn't have a pattern either.

jcwilk wrote:

Fouling up buildings and destroying resources is pretty hard to justify though... It's not fun to do, it's not fun to fix, *there's no challenge* [emphasis added] and no (reasonable) defense against it, so it's just shitty.

I said yesterday to some people that destroying adobe walls was the hardest thing I've ever done in OHOL (I built the building where I destroyed those walls... did have a little help, but I was the person with the Eve spawn in that town).  Not the most complex, but the most difficult.  Kind of strange in a way.  The first time I tried it I succeeded.  But, I got a little off in terms of technique, and I failed a bunch of times shortly after that. 

Also, let's say that someone were to try to block off the well in the center of town, with say full adobe walls, with the additional goal of not getting caught.  Do you think there would be no challenge in doing that?

So I just got to witness a town wiped out and the Winter clan destroyed by one greifer killer. What follows is why the game often sucks.

1) The system to kill someone is awkward and clunky. It makes no sense. Sometimes you shoot, sometimes you don't. You always run around toward your target instead of just standing still. Killers use biomes to their advantage in this way. When you try to kill a murder greifer they hide in a biome you can't enter and you drop your weapon trying to even target them, Why? Because STUPID is why.

2) People who make killing all they do know how to better use this stupid awkward system. Average players don't. This gives killers an extreme advantage.

3) It takes tool slots to even use a weapon, which might make other players helpless. More advantage to the killers.

4) With all the confusion, language barriers, not being able to say many letters if you are young, all this plays to the killers advantage.

5) With a boundless world, is cursing even doing anything? People never curse someone unless they see them commit a crime, no matter what is reported. Most people who see the crime either can't curse at the time because they used theirs recently, don't know how, are too young, or just don't bother. A guy can wipe a town and maybe pick up two curses. Big deal! You're more likely to get cursed for picking up someone's rag hat they left in the middle of nowhere without asking.

For the record. I killed this guy. He was named Tim Winter. But the system is such a joke I couldn't do anything before he had already done his damage. Having to search the sea of junk for weapons, eventually having to go to another town to get bow and arrow. Took so long that in the end he's won. They always win, that's why they keep doing this. I imagine all these murder griefers are pre-pubescent fatties who suck hard at Fortnite. They don't play any game where others have a real chance to fight back because they have zero skills. Hey, if you want these losers to ruin your game that's your call Jason. People don't much enjoy being fish in a barrel.