One Hour One Life Forums

Glad to hear about the fix! Thanks for the hard work!

I'm actually fairly neutral about swords.

Like @futurebird, I agree that obstacles are important to adding complexity to the game, and I see the validity of Jason's desire to stop the game from becoming a "Garden of Eden" by adding obstacles. I think there's a deep philosophical objective that Jason carries to OHOL (and all of his games), and in my opinion it's elegant in its own unique ways.

-- I do think Jason really likes evoking strong emotions with the game (whether it is the "fluffy" warm feeling or the shock of being massacred without purpose or warning).

So I'm not really complaining about swords from an artistic standpoint.

I'm worried that it will negatively impact the playerbase who hates PvP, attract more PvP-loving "griefers" who find great delight mass-massacres out of fun, trolling, and in general have a negative impact on the playerbase as a whole.

Actually there were two instances in the past few days where I spawned to a mom who was using blatantly nazi/racist language -- e.g. "we don't like n*ggers here" -- and I'll give the benefit of the doubt that they were joking/rp-ing/meme-ing and referring to something in-game, but there's something about this that bothers me deeply, even if it's just inside of  a game.

I'm not black (I'm Chinese-American), but there's something that rubs me the wrong way.

Maybe someone can help me find the words for this?

I don't find it funny. Maybe some people find it super funny to joke/meme about racism, but for some people (including some people in our own playerbase), racism is very real.

There's something inherently disgusting to me about playing a "racism simulator".

Right now in OHOL sometimes I find myself in a town where people are joking: "Kill all the gingers!" (I got spawned in the middle of a raid to a raider mom with blood splattering everywhere)

These kinds of jokes are just distasteful to me.

Of course, this happens rarely, and most of my games right now are still quiet and normal, but it happened twice to me (so I'm sure it's probably happened to a bunch of others).

I like small towns better than big towns.

Big towns mean bigger messes! >.<

I think it's really hard to balance the population of these big and small towns -- all this boom and bust and other things; not totally sure what's the best ways.

I'm in agreement with @futurebird I think

It looks like it's made in R to me.

Really straightforward scatterplot (x,y) with points colored by timestamp.

Great guide!

I would add to beware of temperature shocks. Don’t go from arctic to desert directly if you can avoid it.

Some ways to balance the economies of a few different types of settlements.

River Farming Settlement:
- Easiest place for an Eve to settle in the short term
- Can grow a large diversity of foods
- Long term issues with soil fertility
- No easy sources of fertilizer

Grasslands Nomads:
- Can have lots of sheep; having sheep should be enough to live a basic life
- Sheep eat grass rapidly, so must move and herd the flock constantly
- Cannot build fixed settlement, therefore restricted in ability to advance technology without trade/violence
- Grass respawns over time

Fishing Village:
- Only place to fish; will have lots of boats (boats great for transporting goods up rivers)
- Can not farm
- Not much fresh water, but since players aren't farming the water consumption is less severe
- Not much variety to diet, but life should be sustainable here
- Incentive to trade with farming villages (fertilizer <=> diverse foods)

Mountain Village:
- Abundant sources of ores and metals, focus on mining industry
- Cannot farm here; may be able to hunt for food
- Lots of wildlife - should be renewable (kind of like family rabbit holes)
- ABSOLUTELY DEPENDENT on trade with other groups for food
- Imagine sending your sun with a barge full of ore and telling him to come back with food -- very powerful incentive

-------------

A few things necessary to make this work:
* Need transportation of large quantities of stuff. One large shipment of food should be sufficient to sustain a non-farming village for approximately a generation. Cheapest low-tech way would be with rivers/oceans (but rivers are fixed geographically). Trains would allow the development of routes to more defined places.
* Complete change to sheep mechanics and nerf of compost
* Restriction on places farming could occur, expansion of biomes

RANDOM PROPOSAL THIRTEEN: RIVERS/OCEANS IMPLEMENTATION SCHEME

Rivers/oceans have been proposed multiple times, and here I'll suggest a way it could be implemented.

Since OHOL uses a near-infinite map, it's really not possible to surround the map with water. There are two choices on how to implement oceans:

1) Make large "lakes" and place them on the map and call them "oceans".

2) Make lots of large continents on a near-infinite map.

Either one is probably fine, although having multiple continents might be cool. Wouldn't it be fun to make boats and try to sail out into the ocean? Is the world round? What was it like to be Christopher Columbus sailing off into the unknown?

I'm actually leaning towards the continents idea because it makes a finite map (discussed extensively in the above posts) which is important for creating complex social dynamics, yet the possibility of more land beyond the ocean remains consistent with a near-infinite server size and potential ability to scale with a large player base.

I still heavily favor the lopsided distribution of non-essential resources idea.

The implementation isn't even that hard. All you have to do is randomly generate a bunch of polygons on a sparse map such that individual polygons are fairly large, and there aren't too many polygons everywhere.

Combined with oceans, your people might run around your continent and eventually figure out: "Oh, there's not much oil here" and decide they might need to sail off into the sea.

Beside, off-shore oil rigs are a thing too, right?

In either case, when a resource is abundant, I think it's more reflective of reality when it's ridiculously abundant (yet sparse in other places). Here is an iron mine IRL:

They're enormous and stretch for miles. A single mine in Sweden -- theFalun Mine -- supplied as much as two third's of Europe's copper during the middle ages/renaissance. And this is generally true of most minerals -- Spanish silver from Latin America revolutionized European economy (with crazy inflation), with 60% of the world's silver supply coming from Potosi after the mines opened.

The lopsided distribution of resources like these were a strong motivating factor for the development of long-distance trade.

Now, as for rivers.

I know that Jason doesn't want to make unlimited water because he thinks that's boring -- so for now let's pretend you can't get fresh water from rivers. (Why not? Well... for now, magic).

Rivers can be simulated by generating random squiggles from lakes.

It's easiest to generate them if topography is present, but it's not strictly necessary. Any random line will be fine.

It would be cool if rivers are ~2 tiles thick, and players could not cross them without building bridges.

Even if rivers aren't used for fresh water, they would be valuable for:

- Industrial revolution was initially powered by watermills. Factories /had/ to be build on rivers.

If I'm understanding futurebird correctly, they would like the yum chain to reflect the number of unique foods eaten in the past N foods.

For instance, suppose the game tracked the last 20 foods that a player ate, and the yum multiplier = number of unique foods out of 20.

North south east west

@1%Spacebar Oh haha, I didn't know XD

@futurebird I'm actually not sure how much surplus OHOL ever is going to see. Jason seems pretty set on making starvation a threat at every stage of the game -- which essentially implies that there will likely won't be a large amount of steady surplus (and if there were -- I think Jason would call the game "too easy" and raise the difficulty somehow).

Not that absence of surplus this is a bad thing, of course -- maybe that's just the kind of game Jason wants. However, it explains why OHOL has neolithic/primitive social structures, and I don't really expect that to change very much no matter how advanced the technology tree gets.

EDITORIAL ONE: IMPRESSIONS ON VERSION 222 "COME TOGETHER"

Now that it's been a few days since languages and swords, and things have stabilized a bit, I think I'll drop my impressions after playing a bit.

So far, I like the idea of keeping people closer together -- and making people from different families clearly different from each other. It adds a lit bit more complexity to the game that I think is an overall positive. My main concerns (that many people have spoken about) regarding swords was that they would be used primarily as a griefer too (e.g. let's raid/war mass murder for fun!!!!!!!!!!!) -- rather than as a legitimate selfish tool for material benefit. The cooldown to the swords was a relief, although the "combat system" in OHOL still seems really immature.

I'm still not a huge fan of the "magic" objects in the game -- the property fences and swords that can be only used on outsiders.

And I'll probably keep thinking about alternate ways that the game could be adjusted so that Jason could get the same outcomes without "magical" items.

THERE'S STILL NOT A VERY STRONG INCENTIVE TO WALL YOUR TOWN/VILLAGE:

The main problem right now is that resources just disappear too fast. Even if you tried to build a 100 tile radius wall around your village, the nearby resources deplete so fast that it's kind of like building a wall around worthless land. I mean, who would build a wall around a chunk of the Sahara desert? There's nothing inherently valuable there.

Frankly land itself isn't that valuable in OHOL. People and natural resources (e.g. iron, water) are valuable, but locations are not inherently valuable.

As soon as you build a wall around something "valuable", it gets depleted, so there's really not a strong incentive to claim property ownership claims on land. Furthermore, the wall just ends up being a hassle. You have to travel around the wall to get things you need, so basically most of the time you're blocking yourself more than you're blocking outsiders, so it's kind of like "locking yourself in" in land that's inherently worthless.

STARVATION HAPPENS TOO QUICKLY:

I think(?) Jason's vision for the Swords update was that villages would decide that there's not enough of an essential resource -- food -- for example, and the starving village would be incentivized to pick up swords and raid the neighboring village for food.

Personally, I think the practical issues that prevent this from happening is that starvation just happens way too quickly. All crises happen too quickly. It takes a lot of energy and coordination to put together a raid, and a starving village just doesn't have the practical capacity for that. Most average players don't look very far into the future -- and when a food crisis hits, people panic and run around looking for food anywhere.

Additionally, the most common reason for a food crisis is simply mismanagement (source: me). For example, someone ate the last carrot or never planted any wheat. When this occurs, the first response that most people have is to run into the wild to fix whatever the mismanaged thing was (e.g. find a wild carrot, find some straw to reboot compost cycle). It takes just as much time to search for a stopgap in the wild as it does to smith a bunch of swords, convince everyone to attack the neighboring village all while the hunger meter is flashing and people dropping dead all around........... yeah.... that just doesn't happen.

Besides, even if the hypothetical raiding party is assembled, what do they even take once they've invaded the village? Pies? Iron (...it can't be iron because you need iron for swords... right?)? There's really nothing worthwhile to take, except for oil, but oil rigs aren't even found in villages to begin with (just steal some).

I just struggle to rationalize a non-griefer reason why swords might be used for something legitimate. As it stands, the only reason why somebody would use swords to attack another village is because they like the fun of killing (=griefing, except permitted by Jason)

THE MINIMAL FAMILY UNIT:

One topic I've been thinking about regarding property is the minimal family unit (MFU).

To me, I define the minimal family unit as the minimum number of people necessary to sustain a property over multiple generations.

Part of OHOL's problem is that the MFU is quite large. If it's just you and your son on a private property you've made -- you can kiss it goodbye because your line is dying out. Even if you have one girl, you can't really feel confident that the property will live on. The mortality rate is so high in this game -- only a fraction of people make it to old age, so there's at least a coin toss that no matter who you give it to, they'll die before handing it off.

In OHOL, a village can barely sustain itself for 48 hours.

A small tiny family branch... realistically doesn't sustain itself for more than 2-3 generations.

But herein lies the issue.

In order to have a private property project, you have to be able to develop a personal connection with your heir (or else they won't maintain it). It takes time to develop a personal relationship with your heir (even if they're interested to begin with), and it's probably only plausible to have that relationship with one person.

However, one person isn't enough to sustain a property line!

+ + +

RANDOM PROPOSAL ELEVEN: MAKE YOUR IMMEDIATE FAMILY STANDOUT ON THE UI:

To help players develop a closer relationship with their immediate family (Mom, Sister, Brother, Daughter, Son, Grandmother) -- these players should be highlighted on the UI. Label them or something.

It's pretty hard to mouseover everyone in the village and figure out who's your mom (or family), and since everyone looks pretty similar, it's easy to forget.

I want to be able to recognize my mom/children at first sight without needing to mouseover people. XD

I think if this occurred, I'd feel subjectively closer to these people (in the larger villages/towns, there's so many people walking around that it gets harder to distinguish between people).

+ + +

RANDOM PROPOSAL TWELVE: CHEAP HUTS

Every stereotypical picture of a village is that they have tons of little residential huts, lean-tos, tents, and teepees right? Food, water, shelter are the triad of survival -- and in real life it's important to prioritize shelter even if it's just a bunch of half-shaved branches. Of course -- in real life, people need places to sleep and and weather sucks (we don't have this in OHOL) -- but would be interesting if we tried to simulate this feature of primitive life better.

Shelter can be improvised out of almost anything IRL, so it should be a lot cheaper in OHOL.

This is a pretty radical proposal that employs this general idea:

1. Remove property fences because they're too "magical". Cheap Huts are intended to fulfill a similar purpose but be a lot more natural.

2. Nerf outdoor fires. They're not that effective for temperature anymore. Indoor fires would be the best way to keep babies warm.

3. Huts would be a 3x3 or 4x4 tile set that can be built really early in the game with very little resources, kind of like how property fences currently are.

4. Add food spoilage. Food spoils fast if outdoors, even if in bowls.

5. All huts have a "hearth" title. Fire will burn for a very long time on a hearth tile if lit with a firebrand.

6. Doors automatically/open close for the owner and immediate relatives (clicking is a hassle and a barrier to having doors in general)

7. Automatic inheritance of the "hut" to your oldest living child when you die. If you have no living relatives, the first person who walks into an unclaimed hut now owns it.

8. By default, only the owner and their immediate blood relatives (no cousins, uncles) can enter a hut.

9. Specific guests can be granted access to the hut by saying: "JOHN DOE CAN ENTER". (Note: make sure guests can't get locked inside; this is a fence exploit)

10. Huts can be destroyed by griefers/raiders with... idk an axe. They're not meant to be indestructible.

11. Huts can be upgraded over time. Perhaps your son might decide to change the walls to something sturdier, or make the hut bigger, add a bed, oven... eventually a television... however the cheapest hut has a fixed tile size (small: 3x3). Maybe can add attached property fence later (similar to current property fence), but that would be an upgrade and not a standalone thing. Hut-only objects would be interesting. Increased storage in huts would be nice.

12. Huts double as a Home Marker.

13. Sleeping on your bed, if you have one, can drastically reduce the rate that you dies. If you get yellow fever, or are injured, run to your bed. You have to stay on the bed and not move, and someone would have to come treat you -- but it would buy valuable time.

14. Add a ranking/scoring method for the most lavish hut and display pictures on the front page of the website as an incentive for improving your personal property and passing it on multiple generations.

15. You can only own one hut at a time.

16. Fertility for women is increased when inside a hut.

+ + +

RANDOM PROPOSAL THIRTEEN: SPOIL THE CHILDREN

When your children are cute and happy, it's natural to feel "warm" on the inside.

Let's make this literal.

When you do something nice for your immediate blood relatives (e.g. give a hat to a child), your temperature meter goes to the perfect middle for a number of seconds (20-30 seconds?). You can add something to the UI that makes it look glow-y and happy. This would be reciprocal so both the gift giver and gift receiver would feel this way.

You can only do this a certain number of times with each person (e.g. 3 times max? or maybe cooldown?), and never with the same object twice.

This would give a functional purpose to random gift items.

This suggestion still needs balancing.

I think it's a networking thing that Jason didn't want it in the main game -- can save on bandwidth if it's clicks instead of wasd.