a multiplayer game of parenting and civilization building
You are not logged in.
OHOL probably has one of the steepest learning curves I've ever seen in a game.
And it's not exactly hard because the controls are hard -- but rather because the meta is essential to really getting anywhere in the game.
The thing about game design is that it's difficult to choose a difficulty that is satisfactory for all players. There will always be players who feel a certain game is too hard, and others feel it is too easy.
I know that Jason has continually said that he feels like there should always be challenge in the game -- but there's also the key question -- challenge for whom? It's hypothetically possible to continually keep raising the game difficulty so your most advanced experience base constantly feels challenged, but very rapidly casual players are left behind and the game reaches a "virtually impossible" difficulty level for people who have no knowledge of the meta.
From a commercial standpoint, a game that is too hard repels the growth of new players, etc.
The thing about OHOL is that as soon as updates stop coming, the game will quickly evolve to an equilibrium state -- the playerbase will decide "this meta is optimal" -- and very quickly the game becomes repetitive/static because a certain strategy is the only viable way to take a civilization to a certain stage. Regardless of how "difficult" Jason makes the game, meta will eventually arise to establish a new equilibrium point, and then it isn't so difficult anymore once you know the meta.
I wanted to make this thread because I'm wondering if this kind of cycle/pattern is really a good thing for a game.
Is there a way that things could be more balanced?
Last edited by lychee (2019-05-11 12:06:41)
Offline
It's not really difficult, unless you consider memorization difficult. It's mostly just a matter of practice. I personally believe there's a way to make the game more balanced to where there's not one single "optimal", "meta" way to play, but it's really hard. Especially with stuff constantly being added. I feel like all the fine tuning to make it perfectly balanced would be better served at the end when stuff isn't being added anymore.
On the other hand, Jason has stated in the past that he likes that some things are not good. Like that dogs are pretty much worthless, he finds that stuff interesting. I'm sure he was happy to have potatoes continue to be an actual detriment until the end of time, but the community probably complained enough for him to rethink it. I'm fairly certain Jason has no interest in making this game perfectly balanced to where everything is viable, he would probably think that uninteresting.
I think that it's not necessarily a matter of if it's good for the game. As long as the gameplay is fun, I think it can work just fine.
Believe you're right, but don't believe you can't be wrong.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Days peppers/onions/tomatoes left unfixed: 120
Do your part and remind Jason to fix these damn vegetables.
Offline