Steady state is boring but building is pointless since nothing lasts

Dodge · 2018-10-29 19:08:31

As the game is right now every spawn is far away apart, bell towers are aesthetic instead of serving it's intended purpose and building roads to connect different cities is nearly impossible

Building is pointless since in a few days or most of the time a few hours the villages and cities get lost, getting back to it is impossible and we start from scratch away from all that was made before

And after sheep there is no more challenges, but at the same time it's impossible to connect big cities since they are too far appart and everything is lost in a few hours

I understand that this is to avoid spawning all the time in already built villages and big cities, there is no challenges and it gets boring, but is starting all over again the best way to avoid a steady state?

in another thread : https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=4296

jasonrohrer wrote:

There are two conflicting player emotions here:
1. Steady state is boring.
2. What's the point of playing/building stuff if nothing is sustainable and everything we do is doomed?

What if it would be easier to connect towns ( closer spawns and faster way to make roads) but the more advanced the town is, the more dangerous it gets, and what if every major advancement in the techtree that is essential for a survival of a village (or bigger village) would also at the same time bring new dangers and challenges with it

For example it's nearly impossible to have a village or big city without sheeps because they produce dungs for compost but what if rotten meat would bring diseases or sheeps would attract wolves that makes it more challenging for advanced villages to survive, this way eve runs wouldnt be affected by this difficulty as they are challenging on their own

And connecting cities would be easier if they are closer and roads faster to make but the bigger the cities get the more dangerous they become at the same time, so losing a big city or even a group of connected cities would be due to a mistake of the player dealing with the challenging situation and not just because of the built in system

This way it wouldnt be a boring steady state and at the same time everything we make isnt necessarly doomed but it would depend on the capacity of players to deal with the dangers and challenges of bigger cities

What if living in big cities is so challenging that you end up moving in another place on your own free will and not because of the game mechanic that forces you to start over again all the time

Jk Howling wrote:

For example, livestock attracts predators- we all know the classic wolf and sheep problem. It'd be really interesting if sheep attracted wolves towards the town, perhaps after they've been kept for x amount of time. Maybe it can slip/break through fences and carry off lambs or something. We'd have to kill the wolf and repair the fence.
I also like the concept of disease. If food rot is ever introduced, perhaps if you don't dispose of it for a certain amount of time, the nearest players to it in a certain radius can contract illness of some sort. Maybe they can't keep food down [hunger bar reduced perhaps?] and grow a bit slower- and perhaps females can't breast feed or are infertile for the duration of it. Those affected can recover by resting near a fire for a certain amount of time [5 mins?] or applying medicine [instant]. If they go too long without resting or receiving medication, maybe they even die!

Yes exactly that kind of challenges, we would need something to protect us from wolves and diseases so we climb the techtree which would bring new dangers and difficulties

We would cycle trough periods of challenging survival where you have to do the right decisions and actions or the village can die and periods of thriving where we can do other entertaining stuff and advance to the next tech in the techtree that is necessary to the survival of the village and that brings more challenges

We already have that at the moment with the first part of the game but after sheep there is no more challenges and the reason a village dies is because we spawn too far apart and villlage gets lost and not because of mistakes made by the players

Nerfing food is one challenge that is probably neccessary but it only brings us to do more of the same (compost, farming etc) and it doesnt really add something new, unless the advancement for that food production is what brings new challenges

Imo starting all over again should be a punishment for not dealing with the situation appropriatly, a village or city becomes inhabitable because the players werent able to deal with the situation and starting over is the only option

And if there is too many villages connected for too much time and we always spawn in the same places then next apocalypse

Anshin · 2018-10-29 19:42:35

Dodge wrote:

... it's nearly impossible to have a village or big city without sheeps because they produce dungs for compost but what if rotten meat would bring diseases or sheeps would attract wolves that makes it more challenging for advanced villages to survive, this way eve runs wouldnt be affected by this difficulty as they are challenging on their own

+1 Yes to all of that.

I think ultimately we need flight to connect very advanced populations. A form of fast travel where both ends need to have achieved flight. You would need a named air traffic control tower and an airplane (or dirigible?) When you enter an airplane it gives you the names of other air towers on the server that you can fly to.

Apocalypse should be more like the Biblical plagues - natural disasters that affect the whole map for a while.

There should be nukes, but they should also require flight, and therefore can only be aimed at other flight capable cities.
Nukes should have a huge radius, but nothing should wipe out the entire world map like the original apocalypse did.

EDIT: spelling

Last edited by Anshin (2018-10-29 22:44:30)

Aname · 2018-10-29 20:11:13

Just make little cities beside the major settlement so you can connect little villages etc and you spread on the whole map.

UnnoticedShadow · 2018-10-29 20:16:55

I like what you said about closer together towns, but I think that is more in the game design itself, than bad spawn algorithms. Perhaps in these late-game mass faminines you would like to see, it is better for some people to leave the village as to lower the population, and this would also cause a variety of spread out 'Eve' camps to go around, all from one ancestor.

This could result in a Eve camp starting out alone, turning into a big village, than a series of villages, than that series of villages could unite (Or go to war) until the inevitable End Of Society, and once that society kills itself, the cycle repeats. I think being an Eve should be a VERY rare thing, but an honor, and always be VERY far away from civ, until society can grow from that one Eve.

However, everyone would have the same last name, which would be boring. This is where a Last Name mutation system could come into place, where last names may change slightly when passed down by generation, allowing towns with different last names to rise.

Overall, I feel this would be the future of civs, if it were not for the 'steady state' they reach late-game, and the lack of motivation to leave camp. The steady state could be fixed with diseases, etc. While the lack of motivation to spread out could be fixed by making (almost ) everywhere potentially suitable to build a home, so you don't need to find the PERFECT place to settle far away from town, with little chance they will actually communicate.

(However, when a society is supposed to die, there is nothing preventing someone from going away from camp, and building the equivalent to an Eve camp, thus starting the cycle again, but with nearby wastelands. This could be fixed by having later generations have 'allergies' or needing more sanitary food, so such a cycle cannot repeat forever.)

Last edited by UnnoticedShadow (2018-10-29 20:22:13)

Roblor · 2018-10-29 20:42:59

jUST GET MOAR HORSES!!!

I mean you can easily ride from town to town, if you know where they are.

Only problem is the limited view range, makes it really dangerous to venture far away from town.

Anybody else think that the viewrange should be extended on horseback?

GnarSlabdash · 2018-10-29 21:30:17

I've been reading some of this, about how Jason doesn't want interconnected cities, and how they don't last, etc, etc...

Does that mean that the cities eventually are deleted by the server, (meaning it doesnt matter that it was created in the first place), or just that the distance between them is prohibitively large that building roads between them is nearly impossible?

I tend to spend the last years of my life extending any roads from towns (so I can at least contribute something that I thought would last), and after reading all this, I'd like to know if those roads are just being deleted.

Tarr · 2018-10-29 22:15:04

GnarSlabdash wrote:

I've been reading some of this, about how Jason doesn't want interconnected cities, and how they don't last, etc, etc...
Does that mean that the cities eventually are deleted by the server, (meaning it doesnt matter that it was created in the first place), or just that the distance between them is prohibitively large that building roads between them is nearly impossible?
I tend to spend the last years of my life extending any roads from towns (so I can at least contribute something that I thought would last), and after reading all this, I'd like to know if those roads are just being deleted.

If an area isn't seen in about a week the whole area is deleted. Nothing you do or will do sticks around forever. The longest lasting cities might make it two-three weeks but after that they're generally just lost to time. Roads are incredibly useful but I really don't recommend going out of your way to spend hours connecting things that will likely be gone by next week.

The only current threat to a town is the town itself. Bear attack? Someone from town had to lure the bear there in the first place. Famine? That's mismanagement or people focusing on the wrong stuff. At no point in time is the town in any actual danger except from the people within its borders. There should be some sort of outside force pushing a town together that isn't just a bad egg stabbing other people. The only time I have any sort of fun in a village at the moment is on server reset when we have multiple families living in one area. The game feels alive way more alive when you have a bunch of small families working together instead of one giant ass blob of bobs.

With how things go with map culling you have no real reason to work towards unique town structures or buildings because you lose them so quickly. This goes hand in hand with the fact that steady living is boring. Why should I care to build a temple that is gone in a week? If I don't care to build a temple what is there to do in a village? Farm or farm. It's hard to care for a village you have zero investment in, you leave no legacy for your kids unless you do something absolutely ridiculous that you can notice.

When Jason removed the ability to come back to your previous work he removed the ability to care for a place. The only place I can think of that I've had any sort of connection as of recent is something like Goose Town and that's only because having a human zoo was incredibly unique.

TrustyWay · 2018-10-29 22:39:07

That is what I have been telling since always, the game is now... sorry but boring.

The playerbase almost died, I remember when we laughed on discord and were super worried when there werenles than 100 people. Now 23 is the last number I have seen few days ago, I guess it's low pop, but still, it's boring.

The game was the most enjoyable before, sad but true.

Booklat1 · 2018-10-29 23:05:23

Aname wrote:

Just make little cities beside the major settlement so you can connect little villages etc and you spread on the whole map.

there' no need for that. people expand because of resources, not bcause they wanna eat the exact same thing in a not so different grassland. map needs to get more comple before this is needed.

Potjeh · 2018-10-30 00:55:12

IMO building isn't pointless because it's all eventually lost, it's pointless because it doesn't confer any real benefits. Roads are the closest to useful, but even with them what's the need to go out of a self-sustaining city? At most you need to bring in a cart of iron every couple of generations, and the time saved on that with road is hardly worth the time spent building the road.

VioletLily · 2018-10-30 01:22:32

Potjeh wrote:

IMO building isn't pointless because it's all eventually lost, it's pointless because it doesn't confer any real benefits. Roads are the closest to useful, but even with them what's the need to go out of a self-sustaining city? At most you need to bring in a cart of iron every couple of generations, and the time saved on that with road is hardly worth the time spent building the road.

I agree completely.

I've never seen the point in buildings. They don't really seem to do much other than to make things look pretty and block paths. I have never once built a wall in my four months of playing this game. They seem more like Rp content to me... Which I would gladly take part in if I had time to make something nice and knew it wouldn't just disappear on me. It just doesn't seem like a worthwhile thing to do in this game imho.

Roads are more useful when leading to lasting sources like more water or rabbits. Not only do they provide faster travel, but show others where these resources are. I personally also like having a highway in town to save time, but I know others don't. I don't build roads often tbh.

Last edited by VioletLily (2018-10-30 01:24:19)

Dodge · 2018-10-30 07:42:32

VioletLily wrote:

Potjeh wrote:
IMO building isn't pointless because it's all eventually lost, it's pointless because it doesn't confer any real benefits. Roads are the closest to useful, but even with them what's the need to go out of a self-sustaining city? At most you need to bring in a cart of iron every couple of generations, and the time saved on that with road is hardly worth the time spent building the road.
I agree completely.
I've never seen the point in buildings. They don't really seem to do much other than to make things look pretty and block paths. I have never once built a wall in my four months of playing this game. They seem more like Rp content to me... Which I would gladly take part in if I had time to make something nice and knew it wouldn't just disappear on me. It just doesn't seem like a worthwhile thing to do in this game imho.
Roads are more useful when leading to lasting sources like more water or rabbits. Not only do they provide faster travel, but show others where these resources are. I personally also like having a highway in town to save time, but I know others don't. I don't build roads often tbh.

Well with the iron nerf and if it would be faster to build roads it would solve the issue of usefulnes and time spent building on roads

Yes buildings are mostly Rp they give an identity to a city they can also be useful to keep stuff not related to the use of the building outside the working place or making farms more clear and efficient by putting wooden floors between the different crops

But it doesn't matter since atm every village is lost in a few hours

Dodge · 2018-10-30 07:56:58

We could even come to the point that ressources are so scarce and hard to find that there would be walled villages to protect these ressources and wars or/and trade between the different cities

That would give building a whole new incentive and would be much more interesting and challenging imo than just starting over again all the time

JonySky · 2018-10-30 10:17:26

I do not consider that the game when a society stabilizes becomes boring, there are multiple options (create a parallel city, ride a horse, teach other players, build buildings like nurseries, wardrobes, etc ...)
but if it is true that the stability of food generates comfort in some players ... I think a good way to solve this is with natural disasters .... some time ago I wrote about this in another post: https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=4078

Dodge · 2018-10-30 13:45:02

JonySky wrote:

I do not consider that the game when a society stabilizes becomes boring, there are multiple options (create a parallel city, ride a horse, teach other players, build buildings like nurseries, wardrobes, etc ...)
but if it is true that the stability of food generates comfort in some players ... I think a good way to solve this is with natural disasters .... some time ago I wrote about this in another post: https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=4078

Yes but what's the point of building if everything gets lost not because of the players mistakes but because the game mechanic spawn works this way?

Wouldnt it be better if the spawns were random in a delimited large area?, this way days latter you could find that old construction or road or wathever that you made a couple of days ago, ressources would still run out, so staying at the same place would become harder and harder and moving out would be the only option at one point

And if things get too easy then we get another apocalypse followed by nerf and different game mechanic

We could even have an apocalypse every 2-3 months or wathever just to wipe the map

But starting over again all the time just because of the current game mechanic gives no incentive to build long lasting stuff, why would i care to build something since it wont benefit anybody and will be lost in a couple of hours

Last edited by Dodge (2018-10-30 14:34:29)

Vexenie · 2018-10-30 17:59:11

Anshin wrote:

Dodge wrote:
... it's nearly impossible to have a village or big city without sheeps because they produce dungs for compost but what if rotten meat would bring diseases or sheeps would attract wolves that makes it more challenging for advanced villages to survive, this way eve runs wouldnt be affected by this difficulty as they are challenging on their own
+1 Yes to all of that.
I think ultimately we need flight to connect very advanced populations. A form of fast travel where both ends need to have achieved flight. You would need a named air traffic control tower and an airplane (or dirigible?) When you enter an airplane it gives you the names of other air towers on the server that you can fly to.
Apocalypse should be more like the Biblical plagues - natural disasters that affect the whole map for a while.
There should be nukes, but they should also require flight, and therefore can only be aimed at other flight capable cities.
Nukes should have a huge radius, but nothing should wipe out the entire world map like the original apocalypse did.
EDIT: spelling

Biblical part:
Really!? By that you mean disasters from the bible!?
C'mon! Did you forget Noah's ark? Same as apocalypse, but more wet

WalrusesConquer · 2018-10-30 19:24:52

I think it would be cool if we could immigrate to new places in a wagon or something. Since iron will be rarer now villages will eventually start to have problems.
Packing everything up and going seems like one way to do so. Gives some challenge to the town (food management, sticking together ect)
I think it would be better to hitch wagons onto bison instead of horses so you go faster than walking but not so fast WOAH A SNEK!

MultiLife · 2018-10-31 13:48:30

I wonder what was the point of the game again. Is it to play together to survive or is it play together to socialize?
Like is this game about surviving as a species or is this game about making brief cooperation/relationships with others?
If this game is about parenthood, there should be less grind and more communication in a social aspect and more interactions between players.
If this game is about survival, there should be more challenges and risks and stages.
If this game is about building, there should be more impact in building things and it should last.

Now Jason did say that if you want to play a building game, play Minecraft. He seems to be drawn to drama and stories from what I gather, so parenthood and social aspect is probably a big one. Funnily enough the game restricts communication and punishes you for stopping to talk (hunger) and limits your speech A LOT. If this game was about socializing though, why don't we just chat here?
Parenthood in the game is basically now about filling in knowledge gaps to ensure your kids could survive. After that it's just a teamwork with little communication; work work work death. Lots of quiet grinding for a social game.

Dodge · 2018-10-31 14:22:12

MultiLife wrote:

He seems to be drawn to drama and stories from what I gather, so parenthood and social aspect is probably a big one.

That's what i dont understand if villages were closer and connected there would be so much more stories and drama between the different villages and families but right now we are restricted to the same family in the same village

I think he doesnt want connected cities because he thinks it will become a "steady state is boring" but this could be solved with adding challenging,dangers and survival content and also connecting cities, building and having drama in big cities is far from boring, also there would still be eve spawns so there would be a mix of big cities, eve spawns and small villages

But right now the eve spawn mechanic forces us to have lives either in eve spawn or small/medium villages and big connected cities is impossible to achieve and even if we achieve it, it only lasts at best a few days

If someone prefers living lives in eve runs and small vilages that's fine but at least we could have the possibility to live in bigger cities and not forced to live in small/medium villages

I personnaly prefer a mix of eve runs, small/medium villages and big connected cities, but atm it seems like living in big cities is not an option and that's too bad for a game about civilization building

Stormyzabeast · 2018-10-31 14:36:48

Dodge wrote:

As the game is right now every spawn is far away apart, bell towers are aesthetic instead of serving it's intended purpose and building roads to connect different cities is nearly impossible
Building is pointless since in a few days or most of the time a few hours the villages and cities get lost, getting back to it is impossible and we start from scratch away from all that was made before
And after sheep there is no more challenges, but at the same time it's impossible to connect big cities since they are too far appart and everything is lost in a few hours
I understand that this is to avoid spawning all the time in already built villages and big cities, there is no challenges and it gets boring, but is starting all over again the best way to avoid a steady state?
in another thread : https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=4296
jasonrohrer wrote:

There are two conflicting player emotions here:
1. Steady state is boring.
2. What's the point of playing/building stuff if nothing is sustainable and everything we do is doomed?
What if it would be easier to connect towns ( closer spawns and faster way to make roads) but the more advanced the town is, the more dangerous it gets, and what if every major advancement in the techtree that is essential for a survival of a village (or bigger village) would also at the same time bring new dangers and challenges with it
For example it's nearly impossible to have a village or big city without sheeps because they produce dungs for compost but what if rotten meat would bring diseases or sheeps would attract wolves that makes it more challenging for advanced villages to survive, this way eve runs wouldnt be affected by this difficulty as they are challenging on their own
And connecting cities would be easier if they are closer and roads faster to make but the bigger the cities get the more dangerous they become at the same time, so losing a big city or even a group of connected cities would be due to a mistake of the player dealing with the challenging situation and not just because of the built in system
This way it wouldnt be a boring steady state and at the same time everything we make isnt necessarly doomed but it would depend on the capacity of players to deal with the dangers and challenges of bigger cities
What if living in big cities is so challenging that you end up moving in another place on your own free will and not because of the game mechanic that forces you to start over again all the time
Jk Howling wrote:

For example, livestock attracts predators- we all know the classic wolf and sheep problem. It'd be really interesting if sheep attracted wolves towards the town, perhaps after they've been kept for x amount of time. Maybe it can slip/break through fences and carry off lambs or something. We'd have to kill the wolf and repair the fence.
I also like the concept of disease. If food rot is ever introduced, perhaps if you don't dispose of it for a certain amount of time, the nearest players to it in a certain radius can contract illness of some sort. Maybe they can't keep food down [hunger bar reduced perhaps?] and grow a bit slower- and perhaps females can't breast feed or are infertile for the duration of it. Those affected can recover by resting near a fire for a certain amount of time [5 mins?] or applying medicine [instant]. If they go too long without resting or receiving medication, maybe they even die!
Yes exactly that kind of challenges, we would need something to protect us from wolves and diseases so we climb the techtree which would bring new dangers and difficulties
We would cycle trough periods of challenging survival where you have to do the right decisions and actions or the village can die and periods of thriving where we can do other entertaining stuff and advance to the next tech in the techtree that is necessary to the survival of the village and that brings more challenges
We already have that at the moment with the first part of the game but after sheep there is no more challenges and the reason a village dies is because we spawn too far apart and villlage gets lost and not because of mistakes made by the players
Nerfing food is one challenge that is probably neccessary but it only brings us to do more of the same (compost, farming etc) and it doesnt really add something new, unless the advancement for that food production is what brings new challenges
Imo starting all over again should be a punishment for not dealing with the situation appropriatly, a village or city becomes inhabitable because the players werent able to deal with the situation and starting over is the only option
And if there is too many villages connected for too much time and we always spawn in the same places then next apocalypse

To me the whole game seems pointless now ?

Anshin · 2018-10-31 14:54:58

MultiLife wrote:

I wonder what was the point of the game again.

Ya, the legacy aspect of the game is quite missing. Especially with the constant giving and taking away. Forcing everyone to be nomads is a failure state. We could always run naked from bush to bush, but now towns are forced to abandon their meager plots because iron is nigh impossible to find and the water runs dry. It is boring because the reality is there is no way to truly survive, just many ways to suffer and draw out the death. The people all look the same, it's been EIGHT weeks since the "friends and strangers" update which introduced TWO people sprites. They're still missing their sex/race counterparts. It's sloppy and shows how little care there is about the players or the feel of the game. I am embarrassed for the ginger boys and black girls who play this game and there is insultingly no bother to include them in the game. There have been so many great ideas posted about genetics which would make it easier from an adding content perspective to at least have people look different easily. I'm so BORED OF THE SAME PEOPLE IN THE SAME TOWNS IN THE SAME PLACES. There is no variety to where a town can settle because we're stuck getting water from duck ponds that only show up in one place. We freeze anywhere without desert. We can barely see ten feet ahead of us. Surprise you got killed by something you never saw coming. Your work was for nothing. In fact whatever you were carrying is lost because you can't even drag it back to town while you die. Trying is a burden. The legacy is a lie... and so the game is boring.

Stormyzabeast · 2018-11-02 07:06:30

Anshin wrote:

MultiLife wrote:
I wonder what was the point of the game again.
Ya, the legacy aspect of the game is quite missing. Especially with the constant giving and taking away. Forcing everyone to be nomads is a failure state. We could always run naked from bush to bush, but now towns are forced to abandon their meager plots because iron is nigh impossible to find and the water runs dry. It is boring because the reality is there is no way to truly survive, just many ways to suffer and draw out the death. The people all look the same, it's been EIGHT weeks since the "friends and strangers" update which introduced TWO people sprites. They're still missing their sex/race counterparts. It's sloppy and shows how little care there is about the players or the feel of the game. I am embarrassed for the ginger boys and black girls who play this game and there is insultingly no bother to include them in the game. There have been so many great ideas posted about genetics which would make it easier from an adding content perspective to at least have people look different easily. I'm so BORED OF THE SAME PEOPLE IN THE SAME TOWNS IN THE SAME PLACES. There is no variety to where a town can settle because we're stuck getting water from duck ponds that only show up in one place. We freeze anywhere without desert. We can barely see ten feet ahead of us. Surprise you got killed by something you never saw coming. Your work was for nothing. In fact whatever you were carrying is lost because you can't even drag it back to town while you die. Trying is a burden. The legacy is a lie... and so the game is boring.

There are red headed and black characters now though

One Hour One Life Forums

#1 2018-10-29 19:08:31

Steady state is boring but building is pointless since nothing lasts

#2 2018-10-29 19:42:35

Re: Steady state is boring but building is pointless since nothing lasts

#3 2018-10-29 20:11:13

Re: Steady state is boring but building is pointless since nothing lasts

#4 2018-10-29 20:16:55

Re: Steady state is boring but building is pointless since nothing lasts

#5 2018-10-29 20:42:59

Re: Steady state is boring but building is pointless since nothing lasts

#6 2018-10-29 21:30:17

Re: Steady state is boring but building is pointless since nothing lasts

#7 2018-10-29 22:15:04

Re: Steady state is boring but building is pointless since nothing lasts

#8 2018-10-29 22:39:07

Re: Steady state is boring but building is pointless since nothing lasts

#9 2018-10-29 23:05:23

Re: Steady state is boring but building is pointless since nothing lasts

#10 2018-10-30 00:55:12

Re: Steady state is boring but building is pointless since nothing lasts

#11 2018-10-30 01:22:32

Re: Steady state is boring but building is pointless since nothing lasts

#12 2018-10-30 07:42:32

Re: Steady state is boring but building is pointless since nothing lasts

#13 2018-10-30 07:56:58

Re: Steady state is boring but building is pointless since nothing lasts

#14 2018-10-30 10:17:26

Re: Steady state is boring but building is pointless since nothing lasts

#15 2018-10-30 13:45:02

Re: Steady state is boring but building is pointless since nothing lasts

#16 2018-10-30 17:59:11

Re: Steady state is boring but building is pointless since nothing lasts

#17 2018-10-30 19:24:52

Re: Steady state is boring but building is pointless since nothing lasts

#18 2018-10-31 13:48:30

Re: Steady state is boring but building is pointless since nothing lasts

#19 2018-10-31 14:22:12

Re: Steady state is boring but building is pointless since nothing lasts

#20 2018-10-31 14:36:48

Re: Steady state is boring but building is pointless since nothing lasts

#21 2018-10-31 14:54:58

Re: Steady state is boring but building is pointless since nothing lasts

#22 2018-11-02 07:06:30

Re: Steady state is boring but building is pointless since nothing lasts

Board footer