One Hour One Life Forums

https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=8164

Yeah, probably.   The name tracking system doesn't play well with contianers.

Watering can would be so awesome.

Make yourself a gold crown and you could be the King of Boxing.   The King!

Regarding realism, is it actually that realistic to murder someone because talking wastes too much time?   That's not a utopian ideal.   That's just expecting normal civilized behavior instead of power-gaming.

If someone takes my stapler at work, I don't beat them to death with a toner cartridge ... even if that is the only way to be completely sure it won't happen again.    I find a less violent solution.

Congrats!

I disagree.   But it is kind of a moot point, since nothing is likely to change or get fixed around here.

Surely he is just working on that new kitchen.   Could take years.   You know how it is with house projects.

Nobody was using planes to steal, because basically no one had planes.   Also, how would that even work?  Planes have almost no storage space.   

People did use planes to go to the tutorial zone for a while.   That was entertaining.   As far as I know, it is still possible.

It was quite a while ago, so the details are fuzzy, but there were a couple ways to grief using landing strips.   They are cheap to make and expensive to remove, so you could just go around turning all the roads into ugly landing strips to annoy people and waste some iron.   Or you go out in the middle of nowhere, build a box using stone walls and put a landing strip in there to catch any airplane pilots that happen to fly your way in an inescapable death trap.  Make four traps in each direction to stop all air travel in and out of a town you don't like.

Did people do this?   Yes.

Was it a big enough problem to justify rapidly decaying lading strips?   Nope.

Should airplanes have been fixed or removed as dead content years ago?  Of course!

But if all the dead content was removed, we would have maybe 100 useful objects in the whole game, instead of the 10,000 that Jason promised.

Personally, I've never liked how airplanes work in OHOL.  It is not very user-friendly or intuitive at all.  And the cost to benefit ratio is hugely against ever using planes for any practical purpose.    I don't see a way to really "fix" airplanes without completely reworking them from the ground up.   But that doesn't seem like a good use of the dev's time unless there is also a good reason for working planes to be in the game in the first place.   

Ironically, if planes worked better, they would trivialize race restrictions by allowing easy travel between distant villages.   That would be nice.    But as they are right now, it doesn't work to use planes like this ever.

You know, as I think about it, there is an easy solution to this issue.   Planes are not vehicles.   So they shouldn't be treated like vehicles.   Planes are teleporters.   Instead of making a plane, you should build an airport with the plane as the final piece of the airport.   From a completed airport, you can then "fly" to any other completed airport by paying a tank of kero to gas up the plane.    This does not use up the plane.    Fifteen minutes after your departure, the empty airport refreshes to an airport with a plane that needs fuel.   It can be reused indefinitely once constructed, so long as you have fuel. 

If you try to fly out of an airport with no other completed airports around, you don't go anywhere.   Airport selection is still a problem, but I guess nearest completed airport would work as a starting point.   I'd rather have more control, but I don't know how the current system works enough to suggest a better alternative.   I would not have airports decay at all.

This would make airports important features in late game towns and eliminate the issue of planes getting lost or stolen.

For sending a message they won't soon forget ...

https://onetech.info/1624-Bow-and-Arrow … oolArchery

Think about it.

And just to clarify, before you can "misunderstand" what Laggy is trying to say above, there is a difference between saying "Men are stronger than women" and  "On average, men have more upper body strength compared to women".   One of those statements is a over-generalization that reduces all men and all women down to two uniform opposing groups, while the other is much more specific and acknowledges that variation in ability exists within each group.   The second statement can be proven or disproven by a population study.  The first statement is simply not accurate or scientific.   And also offensively sexist.

Women can be stronger than men.   Men can be stronger than women.  Women can be weaker than men.  Men can be weaker than women.     People can be stronger or weaker than each other, regardless of gender.

Earlier in the thread you said:

This is the core of the issue which I've been trying to point out to you from the start and why people are describing your posts as bigoted and sexist.   

Don't be lazy.      If you want to talk about population statistics, then you should talk about statistics.   I would be happy to discuss real world differences between people, including differences related to biological sex.    But if you want to make general statements that reduce half the human population down to "strong" or "not strong", you are over-generalizing and I will call you out on your bullshit.    There are almost 4 BILLION women on this planet.  To say that women are a diverse group is a gross understatement.  They are not all strong.   They are not all weak.  They are not ALL anything.  They are both and they are neither.    They are human and they are all different. They come in all shapes and sizes and they have as much potential and ability as any other person.  As much as we are different from each other, our differences are small compared to our similarities.  When we reduce people down to a set of pre-baked expectations based on the groups they belong to, it makes them less than what they are and less than what they could be as an individual.   We aren't doing ourselves any favors by supporting that kind of thinking in ourselves or allowing that kind of intellectual laziness in others. 

You are usually a lot more precise in your word-use, Spoonwood.    If you mean that some men are stronger than some women, you should say that.  I can agree with that statement.   If you mean that MOST men are stronger than MOST women, you should say that.   I don't agree as strongly, but at least we have something to debate.    If you mean that, on average, men are better than women in some physical activities, you can go ahead and say that too.   And we can look at some studies to see if they were designed well and exactly how big of a difference we're actually looking at.   I like looking at statistical data as much as the next woman.  It's fun and we might both learn some stuff about the world and other people. 

But when you make a broad statement like "men are strong" or "men are stronger than women", it implies that the characteristic of "strong" is descriptive of the category of "men".   Whether this was your intention or not, you are implying that men are defined by their strength and to be be male means to be strong.   That also suggests the opposite - that if you are not strong, you are not a man.   Or that if you are not a man, you are not strong.     These implications may not have been intended by you when you said it, but they are implied by your word choice.   And they are at the heart of why stereotypes can be dangerous and lead to unconscious bias toward entire groups of people.    Even when a stereotype is based on a statistical truth, there is a human tendency to over-generalize and apply what is true about the group as a whole to each member within that group.    This cognitive bias is what creates prejudicial behaviors - choosing to hire a male applicant for a job that requires high physical strength over an equally qualified female applicant.   Asking a woman to care for a child, rather than asking a man to do the same task, based on their gender, rather than their individual skills at child care and nurturing.    Reducing people down to man or woman, rather than considering them as whole people.