One Hour One Life Forums

Oh boy, my FAVORITE thing to do, debating Spoonwood -_-

I really want to spend as little time on this as possible, so I'll try to be brief as possible.

I never once claimed anything was a guarantee, only a possibility. I swear, you seem to be one of the worst people when it comes to ignoring important details and putting words in people's mouth's. I also don't expect this game to rocket off and be the next big hit, but I believe it is quite possible. I believe the game does have potential, even in the direction Jason takes it. I believe it could also be very profitable (if a lot more shallow) in the direction you want to take it. Disagreeing is fine, that's just my belief.

And while I don't think steam numbers are the end all be all, I don't claim that they should be entirely ignored. If you consider the data grim, I would agree that it would appear so. But like I said in an earlier response, many games have been known to make a resurgence. It's not entirely uncommon. So until the day Jason drops this game and moves on to something else, I wont count out that possibility.

That's great for Rimworld. I haven't the slightest idea about this game. In fact, I've never even heard of it. But if it's doing very well following the ideals you are fond of, then that's just neat-o. But that's not the only way to make a game a success. First off, I never said that full and unlimited control is inherently bad, just that it CAN (gonna pull a Spoonwood here lol) lead to an unfocused mess. Anyway, I'm already growing weary of this whole thing, so I'll leave it at that.

Lastly, anything can "harm" a player. Anything you do could cause grief for another player. If the last fertile female of a village is about to grow old, and their last kid comes along (as a girl), and that girl intentionally suicides to play as an eve, everyone in that village (assuming everyone cared about the village) now feels grief. That player in question just wanted to play their way, you can argue there's nothing wrong with that. But the fact of the matter is that they have ruined the villagers' experience. The village will now die because of the selfish actions of one player. NOW LET ME PUT THIS IN CAPS, BECAUSE IT'S ALMOST GUARANTEED, WITH YOU, THAT YOU ARE GOING TO MISS THIS. I'M NOT SAYING THIS IS A BAD THING TO DO. But how is that any different from a someone running along with a sword and killing a family? Someone was just playing the game they wanted to play. The result was the same. Sure you can argue (and I'm sure you will) that they are different because one had murder, or some other trivial reason; but that's not the point.

Anyway, this has gone on way longer than was productive...which basically would've been the same point that I typed my very first word, but eh. Regardless, I will end it here.

"Have a nice day."

That's similar to the argument I had against this change, but I guess it was something Jason found interesting. I think I saw somewhere that he said trees would grow up through the stone walls. Would be interesting if the tree actually grew inside of the wall. It wouldn't have any practical purpose, but I think it'd look cool.

Ahhh, so that's what the other guy was referring to. I thought was asking to be able to turn a slot box back into a box. Yep, this might be a problem.

Yeah, I also feel like this should probably be pinned (or stickied).

Fair enough and pretty valid. I appreciate the clarification. I think the community, as a whole, should take this post to heart.

Yep, saw it.....honestly not sure how to feel about it. I don't like it, but it does solve my biggest problem with baskets. I guess I'll take what I can get *shrug*

HOLY MOTHER OF JASON! He's actually done it, the mad lad. Baskets don't decay anymore (just posted on dev changes).

...wow....not the change I would've wanted, but it does solve my biggest problem with baskets....not sure how to feel tbh lol.

Also @Jasonrohrer

Growing milkweed is a giant pain in the ass and feels very unrewarding in it's current state. It just feels bad. Which might seem minor, but it makes a big difference.

Hmmm, fair point. I suppose that was the original intention. Okay, it's still keeping with the purpose.

Annoys me personally, but that's fine.

I haven't forgotten that new players will come in. I was just arguing that the trade off of having specific storage over universal wasn't worth it. A new player would have to learn regardless of what it was. But now I see the value of specific storage from my discussion with Dodge.

However, the whole "its totally FINE to allow anything to say go on a dining table, or anything to go into a closet." thing really undermines this. I feel like, at that point, why have it in the first place? If they all function the same, then it'd basically just be different skins for the chest. I do believe that if specific storage options were implemented, they should be limited to what is supposed to go in them.

Wouldn't that defeat part of the purpose of having things reset? Why have any of it stay? I suppose this means that if you build your village with stone walls and it gets "reset", the eve who stumble across it has a free city outline. It'd be even easier to build on it since your store of big rocks got replenished. Although you'd lose out on resources because stone walls were in the way.

I just don't see why anything should be immune from the reset. That's the whole point of the reset.