One Hour One Life Forums

1000% agreed.

I'd also like to add that it's pretty much nonsense to support griefing just for griefing, especially when Jason contradicted himself last month:

This I can respect.
Real stakes. Killing for real reasons.

Supporting griefing for griefing makes no sense even as a game dev.
Everybody knows griefers only do it to upset people for real and break the immersion while doing so.
It's just frustrating and not fun.

This is also why many people dislike the war sword update.
Currently, there is no real incentive to genocide a whole lineage.
Yet people actually do it. And when they do it, you can be sure it's griefing for the sake of griefing.
Which people hate.

Yes, exactly.
Ideally that's how this should work.

Piggybacking on a dumb limitation (not being allowed to use some form of container for babies) is yet another example of a contrived mechanic in this game.
In fact, I'm pretty sure it being contrived is the reason why almost no one appreciates the "dramatic tension" the way Jason describes it.
It's frustrating by nature and fundamentally breaks immersion.

Hence why I said personally.

Personally, I'd rather try and find a wild boar or wolf or bear to kill myself than having to put up with 15 seconds of enforced boredom.
And for what? Because I don't have a playstyle that you "appreciate"? Yeah, good job there, you really did it! You solved the /die problem!

Basically what I've been saying this whole time.
If anything, the fact that so many people get angry about this and seem to think that there's too much is proof that Jason's refusal to compromise on anything makes his playerbase unhappy as a whole.
Want less people giving up in your game? Make it more fun..

I have already proposed a solution to this before.
In fact, it was in yet another one of those thread about people complaining of "too many /dies".
The link, in case you are interested (I don't believe for a second you will read it though).
I'll even quote the relevant part in a desperate attempt to reach you.

Even if it's still just 15 seconds I would personally start running.

You probably underestimate your playerbase here..
I know you're proud of your hud design with regards to yumming but, not to be rude or anything, we're not dogs.
Don't worry, we can take in much more than just "bad " or "good "..
Besides, nobody is really suggesting anything more complex than the current pokemon-go game.

Ironically I'm pretty sure that feeling is completely forgotten by the people who go on literal yum quests.
The kind of people who do this probably memorized tons of recipes and know where to find any food and can get them effortlessly.
In fact, most players know they will likely get it if they go in nearby deserts and then they get it. Pretty underwhelming if you ask me.
In fact, I'm talking from experience. I do yum sometimes. Sometimes I don't even bother eating the cactus fruit. I forget about it.

When do we get to go further than this "late village" stage, though?

Yeah, the radius of the area ban has nothing to do with this problem specifically.

Lineage/area/whatever ban using playtime was a dumb idea in the first place if you ask me..

It's not really.
The game on steam isn't marked as "early access" or anything like it.

The trailer states that the goal of the game was to survive while taking a small part in helping rebuild civilization.
All the trailer states in the regard of "the game changing" is that Jason would "stay one step ahead" of us by adding new content.
Clearly to me this implied that he would add technological content. Stuff that would let us evolve and basically rebuild civilization.

What we get instead is Jason fulfilling only one part of the promise, that he keeps adding new content, but the whole idea of building civilization seems to have been swept completely under the rug.
The content instead depends entirely on Jason's mood and his current thirst for blood and petty, contrived drama.

The irony is I'm pretty certain that the people who often come and defend griefing in this game as some sort of fundamental part of it that makes it better are the vocal minority themselves.
I mean come on, did they ever watch its trailer?

The best part is I never see the same people who keep making this argument when I say the game isn't advertised as such. Jason included.

And don't get me wrong, it's not a completely black and white issue of course.
Conflict in the game should make sense of course.
But as Jason said himself, "griefers only kill for the fun of it, not for real stakes or anything".
Which I can get behind, but then he goes on and makes killing the most contrived thing in any game ever.
Why do we kill now? Because other lineages have the magical power to kill us en masse.
Yeah, talk about real stakes.

The fundamental problem with war was that lineages or towns didn't have any real cultures of their own.
Everyone everywhere was born the same and knew the same things. Hence no reason to prefer one over the other.
But instead of giving people the ability to create their own culture, Jason chose to restrict them with language barriers and magic killing rules.
Talk about building civilization, you mean destroy it.

Let's not even mention Jason's views on emergence. "We were born on this earth and all its resources, and form all of that naturally came properties, governments and laws".
In complete contrast with magical fences and killing rules.

Guys I think I'm on to something here!

10/10 post tho would read again.
It even made me want to actually try it and fix the obvious offset issue.

Behold.

How about making the next challenge be population growth itself?
Historically, when civilizations "modernized" themselves, populations started growing and cities became denser (very important: denser, so much more concentrated, hinting at storage update hopefully someday finally? right now, cities in such a state are an unbearable mess and for a reason).
People cohabiting with many times more people than before meant that the "communist" set of mind couldn't apply anymore. You wouldn't know who everyone is and what everybody was doing. Meaning some form of organization needed to take place.

We've seen overpopulation happen in OHOL before, back when the mobile app just became popular in china. Some cities would have up to 20 fertile females at a time.
The berries/pie production couldn't keep up (proving the point that "communism" wasn't sustainable anymore).
If you instead gave us the tools to sustain much larger populations, a city could then have a chance at organizing itself possibly into a primitive form of government to be able to simply sustain itself and avoid collapse.

A couple of notes about population growth currently: we don't have the added bonus of new china players anymore it seems and I haven't seen overpopulation in OHOL ever since.
It might be worth considering some changes to allow population to grow more easily.
For example, nerfing the lineage ban so that it uses realtime rather than ingame time.
And yes, people do /die out of those towns and that's because you've been starving your game of new content lately.
After oil, there is nothing to do anymore. Why?
There is also an aspect that you pointed out a while ago: people don't care about their offspring.
That's right. And it is a crucial part of achieving population growth.
If people don't care about their families, then they might simply choose to abandon if the challenge of overpopulation presents itself.
I wish you had thought about this aspect more rather than focusing on the concept of property.

In theory, here's what I think should happen:
Cities in such a state will eventually create a food surplus which would allow people to focus on newer projects such as building structures.
I have seen this happen personally ingame, in one life inside one of those enormous cities (before the fence update) someone came up to me and asked me to help him build his "house".
Ideally, if people weren't bored to death and wouldn't keep suiciding out of those cities, a population growth would happen given that such cities should in theory have more fertile females and that towns are supposed to compete for babies.
If its people prepared and organized the town to accept a larger population, then they have overcome the overpopulation problem.
Next comes the distribution problem.
The reason "communism" is no longer sustainable in this state is that people no longer know everyone.
Given that you have a supply of food, whom do you distribute it to?
Do you give it to everyone, even if they might be a griefer? Even if big cities become "griefer central" as people have pointed out?
Or do you only give food to the people who are productive and are interested in the greater good of your city?
That's the key. If you'd give us the proper tools, the ideal solution should be to plan and secure a big production of food, and then to distribute that production as currency to the productive people, effectively creating a primitive government.
You could feed the house builders, the police, the bakers, the smiths, etc..

Giving us the right tools is crucial for such a thing to happen.
Right now, buildings are a major pain in the ass (which is why, even in big cities, they weren't all that common).
Locks and keys are also a major pain in the ass, which is problematic for securing any form of production.
Note that I'm not talking about fences and that is because in such a scenario, property could naturally emerge from a government.
Big cities themselves are a pain in the ass because of the constant, unending mess.

If you gave us more things to do, people would be more encouraged to stay in the big cities (as is already being pointed out in this thread).
If you had simply continued to deliver content and staying one step ahead of us, maybe this wouldn't be a problem in the first place.
Maybe we can end up building atomic powered robots after all just like in the trailer.

You reap what you sow.

I still don't think using the /die command is comparable to griefing.