One Hour One Life Forums

I see many new players coming, yet average players playing isn't increasing. I think many people may feel overwhelmed at beginning, some may have stopped playing because of that, that's how I felt at my first game. I like the way they did it in mobile version - there are separate tutorials for making fire, farming, cooking and smithing. It would be cool if you added separate rooms in tutorial for these 4 things.

I also think the game is almost unplayable without zoom mod... Well, I would definitely stop playing once zooming is no longer available. I wish zooming was an official thing. I feel like people would be more likely to stay if they could see more, it's much funnier to play this way IMO. And definitely it's unfair for people who have no zoom compared to people with zoom.

I just want more people playing.

Spoonwood wrote:

Dodge wrote:

+1 for less bear caves, feathers from domestic goose and hungry work for all trees including juniper

-1 for the constant dramatic tone (most of the major issues are going to be fixed at some point)

Jason may solve some particular small set of issues, but won't really address core problems.  This game has been on consistent decline in terms of playerbase, and there exist a small handful of good updates since December.  Most of the technology wasn't useful when introduced.  An apoclaypse for no reason, which were never consistent with people playing for their lineage.  Then we had swords.  People coming together and leading to griefer Eves.  People complained, rightfully, about such as not consistent with a game about parenting and civlization *building* (at least raidos were compatible with building, even though they were NOT about parenting in the sense of making better lives for in game children).  The genetic score system had something to it, but not much.

Oh, and Jason had already seen evidence that bringing people together so that towns could easily get found by Eves lead to mass griefing.  Yet, he implemented a system that made such even more likely to happen.  People told, AND SHOWED, him that the problem was griefing.  And he responded by insisting that the problem could be solved by some time constraint, indicating that he didn't get the problem.

The whole rift idea also indicates a problem, since it limits potential growth.  The finite map idea never made a lick of sense, because of that limiting of potential player growth.

The game has continually declined in terms of player count: https://steamcharts.com/app/595690#All (even the green there will change shortly due to the recent dropoff).  And it dropped drastically recently:

http://northcountrynotes.org/latestGraph2.png

And instead of finding such sad, or taking such as a moment needed for self-reflection, Jason just laughed off such a precipitous drop.

On top of that, Jason should have hired help long ago, and I doubt he'll do that at any point in time.

And -1 for a positive attitude.  There is no cause for optimism when you have consistent negative information coming in (see above).  At least not with serious change that caters to players' preferences.  Something that Jason has repeatedly spit in the face of, for example, with his reluctance to implement a choice screen for players, showing that he disrespects player's making their own choices.

Dodge wrote:

Keep in mind that appart from behing passionate it's also his livelihood, you have to pay the bills some way at the end of the day.

Jason wrongfully believes that he's the greatest game designer ever and has only said that he will continue development to the end of 2019.  He just does what he did before.  He just lives off of the proceeds of his last game and makes a new one, anticipating the next one will work out well for him financially.  Doing that may even interest him more, as he certainly doesn't like listening to opinions of his playerbase as he has repeatedly made clear, and making a new game doesn't have a playerbase to listen to.  No, there is no reason to believe that Jason has to fix the game with respect to core issues.

And he's probably not interested in doing such either, because it would mean that he would have to give up on concepts as viable, recognize inconsistencies in the game, listen to the playerbase, respect their preferences, and no doubt hire help.

I find it funny that we didn’t really pass the Iron Age and that all the stuff shown in the official trailer for the game will probably never see the light of day. Didn’t Jason say he’d continue to develop the game until at least 2021? Why couldn’t he live up to that statement?

Dodge wrote:

Yes the current "meta" heavily facilitates griefing, but it's just temporary, the game continuously changes, improves and fixes issues.

Jason's previous game from this report encouraged griefing: https://www.engadget.com/2013/08/14/fre … ieving-to/

The reviewer there even said this:

Beau Hindman wrote:

  The fact that players have no choice in who they are or what they are doing limits the game's impact.

So, no, your belief doesn't have much to support it.

Also, your comment about the game continuously improving is positively contradicted by this update.  Positively contradicted by the rapid decline in the playerbase that happened.  Positively contradicted by that large pattern of red in people playing it on Steam.  And positively contradicted by the ratio of updates which have discouraged people from playing for their lineages to the number of updates which encouraged people to play for their lineages.

Griefers where always in the game, probably from day one.

Obviously you're not going to show griefing in a trailer, do you know a game that does that?

I understand the frustration that comes with griefing and that the current updates are enabling it in an indirect way, but saying that the trailer should change with every update is just ridiculous.

"who knows where we'll end up" means what it means, it's part of the process you cant solve every issue day 1, new issues pop up or become more of a center point and you have to deal with them as they appear.

But all the effect these "walls of angry text" and constant negativity have is to dilute the actual valuable information (what really needs to be fixed), so if you have to go trough all these before you find something interesting, sometimes you tend to ignore it on purpose or not and miss something that might actually help things move forward.

jasonrohrer wrote:

The thing that I still don't fully understand is that, if it really WAS a barren wasteland, why were you all still surviving so handsomely in there?  Average age hadn't fallen that much, etc.  This means that everything is very out of whack in terms of survival pressures.  Seems like you can survive just fine in a barren wasteland (without fire?  Without iron?).

Some junipers were missed, some were replanted and protected, thus fire has never been doomed rift-wide. But it still led to some people running their whole lives around the map in search of some tinder, without finding any. just like it had happened with mapples.

Since only one resource was targeted at a time, the map wasnt exactly "barren", it was deprived of that single resource. Thus survival was possible and easy enough, but tecnological advancement was impossible/extremely difficult.

And now I went back to the same town to check on the trees, only to watch half the village get wiped out by internal griefers with war swords.  Lovely.

Have I mentioned lately how much I hate swords?

I like your idea, but i think it could be better if all start in single rift, after that it could be possible to migrate to another rift by plane. It will make planes and radio usefull. Also solve griefers problem. Could be even more interesting if many people can sit in one plane (just people without items) and landing not on landing strip will lead to a plane crash. Additionally it will lead to separated villages and sites where abandoned ones will be ruins by the time.
P. S. Sorry for my english. It is my second language. Hope you can understand what i tried to tell.