Regarding car change

Lava · 2020-05-20 22:40:03

Realistically someone isn’t going to be running the car for ten minutes straight. can you make it a way to turn the car off preserving the time of the kerosene. Then hitting it with your hand to start the timer until the kerosene runs out of its ten minutes?

Crumpaloo · 2020-05-21 00:00:45

Cars are too underwhelming for cause to create them, mainly due to the fact that it carries only 4 large items while the horse drawn tire cart carries 9.

Why go through all the effort of making a engine and getting the rubber for the tires just to go faster in a object that can only carry as much as a regular cart?

tocal · 2020-05-21 03:18:07

We need to be able to make a freight truck from a simple car... something that can hold > horse cart capacity. Also, being able to hold 2 people would be nice.

fug · 2020-05-21 03:39:51

tocal wrote:

We need to be able to make a freight truck from a simple car... something that can hold > horse cart capacity. Also, being able to hold 2 people would be nice.

Can't hold two people due to code issues, but yes the fact a rubber horse cart can hold eight engines sort of defeats the realism of "there needs to be room for the engine in the car!"

Faster and longer isn't really worth the kerosene cost in my honest opinion. I'd rather be slower and hold more than to be faster and hold less.

JonySky · 2020-05-21 05:56:46

the fact that the code does not support shared vehicles for multiple players (in a family multiplayer game), shows that the game engine is sloppy

Just as it does not support the seas and oceans, navigation, well implemented pvp, baby backpacks ...

Last edited by JonySky (2020-05-21 05:57:28)

Blue tinker · 2020-05-21 06:46:57

JonySky wrote:

the fact that the code does not support shared vehicles for multiple players (in a family multiplayer game), shows that the game engine is sloppy
Just as it does not support the seas and oceans, navigation, well implemented pvp, baby backpacks ...

Well, some of the ideas above are only subjectively good. While I agree that baby backpacks would be great, seas and oceans would be an infinite amount of saltwater. If there were sweet lakes or something like that, then noone would be building wells again as the water economy would be completely broken. Oceans would also make travel a lot harder, while it already is unconvenient to find other towns.

We already have a pretty decent navigation system with maps and roads. It's not much but it's useful and - most importantly - intuitive to use.

But yes, the cars are pretty much useless and should be seriously buffed. I think the fuel waste is a huge chunk of the problem, as the author of this thread said.

DestinyCall · 2020-05-21 06:58:59

Blue tinker wrote:

Well, some of the ideas above are only subjectively good. While I agree that baby backpacks would be great, seas and oceans would be an infinite amount of saltwater. If there were sweet lakes or something like that, then noone would be building wells again as the water economy would be completely broken. Oceans would also make travel a lot harder, while it already is unconvenient to find other towns.

We have oceans, rivers, and lakes where I live, yet water is still a precious thing. In a true survival situation, finding a body of water is very useful, but it doesn't solve all your problems. The water economy in this game is pretty terrible - unrealistic, unintuitive, and too interdependent with other vital resources. It could use a major overhaul.

Of course, all of that is moot, because we will never get rivers, lakes, or oceans.

JonySky · 2020-05-21 07:27:15

Blue tinker wrote:

JonySky wrote:
the fact that the code does not support shared vehicles for multiple players (in a family multiplayer game), shows that the game engine is sloppy
Just as it does not support the seas and oceans, navigation, well implemented pvp, baby backpacks ...
Well, some of the ideas above are only subjectively good. While I agree that baby backpacks would be great, seas and oceans would be an infinite amount of saltwater. If there were sweet lakes or something like that, then noone would be building wells again as the water economy would be completely broken. Oceans would also make travel a lot harder, while it already is unconvenient to find other towns.
We already have a pretty decent navigation system with maps and roads. It's not much but it's useful and - most importantly - intuitive to use.
But yes, the cars are pretty much useless and should be seriously buffed. I think the fuel waste is a huge chunk of the problem, as the author of this thread said.

This that you tell me is just one of the biggest problems of OHOL: the game has been improvised ... it is just an experiment, not a game.

I explain to you:

The developer never had clear objectives for this game

It started selling as "a multiplayer game of parenting and civilization building" with a trailer showing the beginning of a civilization, but currently we have a game where the main objective of the game is food and water (and everything revolves around this , there's no more)

the game could be called "master Chef, the game" and it would be more accurate

The game has not created new needs, nor new challenges ... OHOL has stagnated in the water.

Adding a lake or a desalination station would completely break the game ... this is a mistake, a bad design

So the game will never evolve more than this ...

Have you ever wondered why we don't have irrigation systems?
we have pipes, we have water wells and motors ... but we don't have automatic irrigation ... why?
therefore, because it would break the "main game", it would break OHOL's main tasks: food and water

When the core of a game is broken ... everything else doesn't matter

the saddest thing is that even if the developer saw this problem and tried to fix it ... he couldn't
Because as DestinyCall says, because we will never get rivers, lakes, or oceans.

the game engine does not allow it

About navigation, to tell you that placing automatic magic stones on the map to indicate where the families are is a botched solution

It was done for one reason only ... because the players complained that it was impossible to find the families to get rubber and the families died when they ran out of water (again we have water as the basis of the game)

Here the exploration is not encouraged, nor the interactive maps that are discovered when crossing the map, the figure of the explorer does not exist.
In civilization creation games there is always an explorer ... but OHOL is not a civilization creation game ...

With these magic stones that inform you of where the next family is, why do you need roads? the roads are just an extra

Cars don't have a place right now at OHOL, I never understood why they were implemented, maybe it's just the statement that OHOL is not a game with clear objectives and it's just an experiment

Last edited by JonySky (2020-05-21 07:52:43)

pein · 2020-05-21 08:02:32

you want to move fast to gather or explore
both activities would be an uncertain distance
you could technically gather with a car, but you spend most of the time loading it so you would waste the time anyway
10 minutes vs 2 minutes doesn't matter, when people live at x minutes, both times the excess time is lost after they arrive
stopping the engine would be better, either a time based or a distance-based usage

the other problem is the removable engines can be destroyed easily, same as wells, both are horrible and useless changes.

i can understand why you would use an already made engine on a well, but still, if I want a car, it should be a car for eternity, make your own engine for the well, that one has no reason to be removed, like why the heck would you want iron without water? and if you want both then make 2nd engine and don't destroy an hour of work for your stupid laziness

my other idea was to link cars to connected roads. they could move on roads forever but couldn't go off, that would give a reason for roads and cars wouldn't be lost

to be fair, cars need a kerosene tank too, so when you stop you can go back so that is also a bad design not having a built-in tank for more juice
just based on number of wheels, cars would need 16 items slots.

and probably a key to turn them on/off and prevent others to steal them, like horses, which is apparently not a problem that idiots follow you and steal them
Jason thinks that visiting other towns you will spend 5 minutes to build a fence to keep your horse there and make that on a distance so others won't see it all the time and walk back and forth on foot.
The whole point o horses is saving time, not that you spend slots to make one then the first idiot 13 years old runs away with it. Horses are also loyal to their owner, this idiotic action of people who run after you swap or steal your horse and leave you in middle of nowhere is the dumbest action imaginable and annoys me to no end. Oh you can eat on horse cause unrealistic, oh you cant hold the rope because unrealistic.

Oh you can be an expert of eating a banana cause you are born with more melatonin. Oh you cant step inside a different colour tile so you can trade. Maaan the dumb shit we get for no logical reasons.

tocal · 2020-05-21 16:32:56

fug wrote:

tocal wrote:
We need to be able to make a freight truck from a simple car... something that can hold > horse cart capacity. Also, being able to hold 2 people would be nice.
Can't hold two people due to code issues, but yes the fact a rubber horse cart can hold eight engines sort of defeats the realism of "there needs to be room for the engine in the car!"
Faster and longer isn't really worth the kerosene cost in my honest opinion. I'd rather be slower and hold more than to be faster and hold less.

I 100% don't buy the 'code issues' excuse. Mothers can hold babies up until adulthood. multi-person cars could be implemented on the code side as the car holds the driver who holds the passenger. It would work intuitively too... Where if the driver "jumped out of the car's carms" then the passenger would be forced out too. It would be funny if the driver popped out holding the passenger until the passenger jumped out of the driver's arms.

Also, no code issue is impossible.

I'd also rather the ability to hold more over speed. Maybe forced only to roads, or very fast on roads, very slow off of them.

antking:]# · 2020-05-21 16:43:12

tocal wrote:

fug wrote:
tocal wrote:
We need to be able to make a freight truck from a simple car... something that can hold > horse cart capacity. Also, being able to hold 2 people would be nice.
Can't hold two people due to code issues, but yes the fact a rubber horse cart can hold eight engines sort of defeats the realism of "there needs to be room for the engine in the car!"
Faster and longer isn't really worth the kerosene cost in my honest opinion. I'd rather be slower and hold more than to be faster and hold less.
I 100% don't buy the 'code issues' excuse. Mothers can hold babies up until adulthood. multi-person cars could be implemented on the code side as the car holds the driver who holds the passenger. It would work intuitively too... Where if the driver "jumped out of the car's carms" then the passenger would be forced out too. It would be funny if the driver popped out holding the passenger until the passenger jumped out of the driver's arms.
Also, no code issue is impossible.
I'd also rather the ability to hold more over speed. Maybe forced only to roads, or very fast on roads, very slow off of them.

I well the thing is when you are riding a horses, cart, or car you are actually just holding a object, that is placed to look like you're riding it and since only one person can hold an object at any given time, we only can have single passenger car as that is how the engine works, and while code can be shifted and changed the engine can not, as that is what everything is based off of, and if we changed the engine, everything would need to be overhauled changed, and Jason would need to learn how to work with the engine all over again.

tocal · 2020-05-21 17:03:24

antking:]# wrote:

tocal wrote:
fug wrote:
Can't hold two people due to code issues, but yes the fact a rubber horse cart can hold eight engines sort of defeats the realism of "there needs to be room for the engine in the car!"
Faster and longer isn't really worth the kerosene cost in my honest opinion. I'd rather be slower and hold more than to be faster and hold less.
I 100% don't buy the 'code issues' excuse. Mothers can hold babies up until adulthood. multi-person cars could be implemented on the code side as the car holds the driver who holds the passenger. It would work intuitively too... Where if the driver "jumped out of the car's carms" then the passenger would be forced out too. It would be funny if the driver popped out holding the passenger until the passenger jumped out of the driver's arms.
Also, no code issue is impossible.
I'd also rather the ability to hold more over speed. Maybe forced only to roads, or very fast on roads, very slow off of them.
I well the thing is when you are riding a horses, cart, or car you are actually just holding a object, that is placed to look like you're riding it and since only one person can hold an object at any given time, we only can have single passenger car as that is how the engine works, and while code can be shifted and changed the engine can not, as that is what everything is based off of, and if we changed the engine, everything would need to be overhauled changed, and Jason would need to learn how to work with the engine all over again.

This is what I'm talking about. A multi-person car doesn't have to be implemented as a person holding an object. Given the existing features, a solution can be simply teased out.

1. A person can wear a backpack, pants, and apron, each with their own capacity. Lets implement a new type of clothing called a 'freight truck' that has a capacity of 12 large items.
2. Wearing a Truck makes you very fast!
3. A passenger in the truck would be implemented as the driver holding the passenger while wearing the truck. The driver could drop the passenger at any time. The passenger can jump out of the truck at any time. A driver must 'pick up' a passenger... let them into their car. A driver must not be holding the passenger to disrobe the truck clothing.
4. Right clicking on a on/off symbol whie in a running truck with no passenger changes the truck to turn the vehicle off. It can't move. You are now "holding" the truck, not wearing it. Just like other clothing. You are immobile when holding the truck like this. You can't pick up passengers like this.
5. Right clicking on a ground tile now places the truck on the ground, swapping it in your hand with any item on the ground. You can now move.
6. To turn on the truck, first right click the truck to 'hold' it. The truck is now off and you are immobile. Click on something else now (for clothing you click on your body or foot... we could have the person click on a key symbol, on button, steering wheel, whatever) to wear the truck and turn it on. You are now using fuel, can pick people up, and are moving fast.
7. I suggest you can only load a truck while it's not on. Would make things simpler.
8. I suggest you can not hold items while wearing a running truck except for a passenger.

I don't see why this couldn't be simply implemented based on parallels with the way existing items already work.

Last edited by tocal (2020-05-21 17:06:14)

One Hour One Life Forums

#1 2020-05-20 22:40:03

Regarding car change

#2 2020-05-21 00:00:45

Re: Regarding car change

#3 2020-05-21 03:18:07

Re: Regarding car change

#4 2020-05-21 03:39:51

Re: Regarding car change

#5 2020-05-21 05:56:46

Re: Regarding car change

#6 2020-05-21 06:46:57

Re: Regarding car change

#7 2020-05-21 06:58:59

Re: Regarding car change

#8 2020-05-21 07:27:15

Re: Regarding car change

#9 2020-05-21 08:02:32

Re: Regarding car change

#10 2020-05-21 16:32:56

Re: Regarding car change

#11 2020-05-21 16:43:12

Re: Regarding car change

#12 2020-05-21 17:03:24

Re: Regarding car change

Board footer