One Hour One Life Forums

a multiplayer game of parenting and civilization building

You are not logged in.

#1 Re: Main Forum » Jason is ruining the game » 2020-09-21 08:20:54

I think he got frustrated of the game not being how he envisionned it to be so he implemented a bunch of stuff to artificially make it a certain way (homeland, race restriction etc) but it ended making the game even worse so now he invested all that time into these mechanics and doesn't want to hear anything about it.

For some reason he still thinks that it's possible to have meaningful trade and non forced interaction between civilisations while still having an infinite map where every biome is only a foot walk away from each other.

If you live in New York you wouldn't walk all the way to the south american jungle to get latex wouldn't you?

Trading roads would be made, villages in between would act as trading outposts, flying by plane would make sense etc you get the idea

But in the game for some reason he keeps wanting to make it this way hence why he has to add all these artificial mechanics to have a small glimpse of actual "trade".

Same reason he added the homeland and iron mechanic, since the world is infinite you have to artificially limit iron in weird ways also same issue as before since every biome is close to each other with no natural barriers watsoever like oceans then having multicultural villages are "bad" since current "trade" wouldn't work, but as you can see it it's like adding bad construction materials on an even worse foundation and keep pilling up on top of it.

So much more of these issues could be solved by simply having an actual world that makes sense but unfortunately he doesn't want to hear about it, probably justifying that it doesn't work because his tested version of a limited map aka the rift didn't work, but obviously if you make a small box and put players in it, it will turn into chaos.

Also he has this way of turning every idea into something completely different and then say "it doesn't work" like for example if you take the example above of having a limited map with biomes far appart and natural barriers, he will say "So you're saying that the issue is that biomes are too close together".

Then he will keep the same infinite map not add any natural barriers and just space out the biomes a bit more because it's much more easier to do and then when inevitably it doesn't create the expected outcome will say that it doesn't work and either scrap the idea or try to patch it up in a weird way.

#2 Re: Main Forum » Quick status update » 2020-08-31 17:23:23

Yeah wathever if you refuse to read what is posted and keep insisting that CaRbOn DiOxIdE = EvErYtHiNg and that climat is something as basic as that, enjoy living in that mindset.

NO MORE ICE IN 50 YEARS!!! +10ºC !!! NORTH AMERICA TURNS INTO A DESERT!!!

With these type of people you can try explaining as much as you want, show data, graphs, reasonnable thinking, everything but it just wont change anything, they stick to one piece of information, unable to see the bigger picture and how there's multiple elements interacting with each other and not just a few ones.

They prefer looking at data made for 12 year olds.

If you want to read something that is not made for infants and disproves your co2 model: https://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/g … 2-2009.pdf

Sans-titre.jpg

But hey NASA says that our Co2 makes the world greener: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/20 … ning-earth

So i'm gonna go burn some good ol' gasoline cya

#3 Re: Main Forum » Quick status update » 2020-08-30 23:23:02

"I'm not reading the rest of the post."

It's typical from these type of people they read the data that suits their narrative and all the rest they simply ignore and discard, absolute braindead.

#4 Re: Main Forum » Quick status update » 2020-08-30 20:11:38

Rookwood wrote:

The climate on earth is not an organism that regulates itself or adapts... It reaches an equilibrium based on atmospheric composition and solar conditions.  Right now the level of CO2 we are releasing is driving the equilibrium point up for global temperatures at a historic rate.

It's like you dont even read the posts or try to understand how climat really works, since you're still talking about co2...

fug wrote:

There are still people replying to Dodge and his troll posts.

Please don't feed the troll boys and girls.

Dont you have a cousin to go fuck or something, hell yeah brother.

#5 Re: Main Forum » Quick status update » 2020-08-30 18:04:58

Are we still talking about co2? Did you not read afreespirit's post

It's almost as if the climate on earth has a way to regulate itself and adapt to change, almost like it's billions of years old, that's crazyyy

#6 Re: Main Forum » Quick status update » 2020-08-30 08:55:39

Destiny i already answered all the questions you're asking in the posts i made, if you dont want to read them it's not my problem.

If you're ingoring what i say, i might aswell do the same.

#7 Re: Main Forum » Quick status update » 2020-08-30 05:28:19

karltown_veteran wrote:

Again, the Spanish flu was around 100 years ago. After that, nothing. Then as it’s been getting warmer we’ve seen Ebola outbreaks, swine flu, coronavirus.

Oh so you just discard what happens 100 years ago because it doesn't make sense to your theory, nice.

karltown_veteran wrote:

If you knew half as much as you thought you did you would realize that animals didn’t decide to grow fur for fun, mammoths appeared because it started to get colder. It got colder very gradually, unlike the way it’s getting cold now. You’re right that animals can’t evolve quickly, which is why the rate at which climate change is going is going to cause extinctions. Thanks for proving my point for me!

You do realise that some of these temperature changes where much quicker than millions of years and much more extreme that what we are seeing right now and you do realize that evolution is a very slow process if you're talking about literally changing the DNA structure, so did the mammoths just lost their fur when it got warmer lol obviously i'm joking they died for other reasons, but you thinking that all the temperature changes from the past where so slow that it allowed species to change their DNA is laughable.


karltown_veteran wrote:

Hopefully you’re aware that there are both natural and manmade climate change

Are you?

karltown_veteran wrote:

Hopefully I don’t have to explain how we are currently heating up the atmosphere,

Yes please do explain, i would love to hear what an expert like you knows about this extremly complex subject

karltown_veteran wrote:

I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you at least know that.

No i dont actually, there is so many variables and elements at play, that i dont, but i also dont pretend to know unlike some.

karltown_veteran wrote:

Also just because one politician exaggerated the rate of the melting doesn’t mean it’s not melting quickly. For someone who doesn’t live in the US you have a bit of a crush on Al Gore

One of the many idiots that doesn't know anything and probably made a lot of money spouting bullshit.

karltown_veteran wrote:

The only monkey farting around here is you dodge smile

Apparently i'm not the only one smile

Destiny

What is co2?

It's literally fuel for plants

What happens when you heat water?

It turns into vapor, and given the right condition will turn into clouds and rain.

What is water?

An essential element for living forms, like plants

Since you're so keen on NASA studies here's one: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/featu … nHydrology

Wait co2 increases but the ammount of co2 sinks are also increasing, could that mean that the ecosystem is constantly adapting and changing to new conditions, wow that's crazy.

"Though researchers have known of this North American carbon sink for the better part of the 20th century, they do not understand precisely what is causing the sink or why the amount of carbon absorbed seems to increase over the years."

"Viable causes for why plants have done so well include a revival of forests from agricultural and urban clear-cutting in the 1800s, greater concentrations of atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning, and warmer global temperatures in the 1900s. But a new study points to another factor vital to plant growth that may be at the root of the matter—more water."

"According to the NASA-funded study that used 100 years of temperature and precipitation-related data, computer model results showed that on average from 1950 to 1993, an 8 percent increase in precipitation combined with higher humidity has led to a 14 percent increase in plant growth in the United States. The data over that period also show increases in cloud cover, minimum surface temperatures, soil moisture, and stream flows, which are all signs of a changing water cycle."

temp-precip-npp-rt.gif

The worse part is you cant even trust these studies anyway, with the ammounts of wrong predictions and idiotic way they choose which data is relevant even "serious" sources like NASA keep getting it wrong.

#8 Re: Main Forum » Quick status update » 2020-08-29 21:14:07

Rookwood wrote:
Dodge wrote:

snip

Well at least you accept that it is complicated.

And you dont smile

#9 Re: Main Forum » Quick status update » 2020-08-29 21:00:02

DestinyCall wrote:

You are fighting with a straw man, Dodge.

You might be right on that one, head filled with straw, that keep posting the same data about co2 without any proof that it can actually cause a significant change in the long run and that know nothing about how complex climat actually is, that keep focusing on one aspect, one piece of the puzzle and refusing to see a bigger picture.

But hey no more ice in 50 years, wait no 100 years, wait actually maybe it doesn't work like that, maybe it slightly more complex, currents change, winds, clouds, temperatures.

I guess if it's hotter then more water from the sea will evaporate, which means more rain, wait what?, no, hmmm, so will the evaporation from the ocean cool down some parts that are hotter, hmmm, or maybe more rain in arrid regions, wait, no, it's the winds that will change course due the temperature differences and bring more heat in some regions that are too cold to grow more vegetation or maybe balance the temperatures from hot and colder regions, no nvm i give up, we'll see we'll see.

#10 Re: Main Forum » Quick status update » 2020-08-29 17:20:31

Yeah tell that to the spanish flu from 1918 that killed an estimated 20 million to 50 million.

I bet you also watched that movie at school from al gore that predicted that there wouldn't be any more ice by now, guess he was wrong...

And if you really think that evolution only takes around 10'000 years you are dead wrong, what do you even mean by that "animals had a chance to evolve" you think they had the time to change their genetic makeup to adapt to higher temperatures in only a few thousand years, lol what a joke.

The reality is that some species survived and others didn't and if you think that we are entirely or in majority responsible for the current temperatures going up that's your choice.

The sahara was at one point a tropical jungle with plenty of water, i guess the monkeys farted too much, caused global warming and turned that jungle into a desert.

#11 Re: Main Forum » Quick status update » 2020-08-27 16:41:15

So you arent going to adress the fact that co2 is only one part and that temperature where higher before although co2 was lower? OK

Anyway i have tons of other example more recent of so called scientist making the same type of claims, if you want to see projected trends vs reality:

24.jpg

A popular one:

31.png

NASA scientists:

30.gif

Yes science changed so much...

#12 Re: Main Forum » Quick status update » 2020-08-27 16:00:45

I hope you realize that co2 is not everything if we are talking about climate, global warming etc, it's one piece of a big puzzle there is so much more to it.

And as proof you mentionned yourself that the current co2 levels are something never seen before since 3 million years but then how is that that temperatures where warmer 130'000 years ago then? If the levels of co2 where lower. There's obviously different factors at play.

That's one of the big issue with all the so called "climate scientists" they simplify something extremly complex and then create mass ammounts of fear mongering media.

Same scientists a couple years ago:

3-2.png

Climate is so complex and has so many different parts to it, that just resuming it to co2 is dumb imo, what do we really know? How does the ecosystem reacts to an excess co2 in the long run?

Do more plants and algaes grow faster to balance the higher ammount of co2? maybe

Another one:

10.png

11.png

#13 Re: Main Forum » Quick status update » 2020-08-27 05:37:21

Rookwood wrote:

fossil-fuels-1.png2000-Year-Temperature-Comparison.png


Thanks for posting these two pictures and as you can see on it at around 1900 on the bottom graph there is a spike in temperature then it even drops down significantly to then go up but on the other one at 1900 the carbon emmissions are still "low" and it goes gradually up.

Where is the drop down ont the other graph? where is the spike?

Here is another graph for comparaison:

ab4f4b6291c87cffc543e7371a3087e7.jpg

To be fair co2 released by manmade activity is cumulative since plants, algaes can only absorb a set quantity and any excess will stay in the atmosphere, but if you want a smaller scale than millions of years:

Paleo-Temp-EPICA-610.png

The last spike we can see at around 130'000 years ago probably corelates to the Eemian :

"The Eemian climate is believed to have been a little warmer than the current Holocene.[8][9] Changes in the Earth's orbital parameters from today (greater obliquity and eccentricity, and perihelion), known as Milankovitch cycles, probably led to greater seasonal temperature variations in the Northern Hemisphere,[citation needed] although global annual mean temperatures were probably similar to those of the Holocene. During summer months, temperatures in the Arctic region were about 2-4 °C higher than today.[10] The warmest peak of the Eemian was around 125,000 years ago, when forests reached as far north as North Cape, Norway (which is now tundra) well above the Arctic Circle at 71°10′21″N 25°47′40″E. Hardwood trees such as hazel and oak grew as far north as Oulu, Finland.

At the peak of the Eemian, the Northern Hemisphere winters were generally warmer and wetter than now, though some areas were actually slightly cooler than today."

As a reminder:

"315,000 years ago: approximate date of appearance of Homo sapiens (Jebel Irhoud, Morocco)."

BlueCramberry64 wrote:

Dodge, to see the effect of global warming is not that hard.

I never denied the effects of global warming

#14 Re: Main Forum » Quick status update » 2020-08-26 22:16:24

Morti wrote:
Dodge wrote:
Morti wrote:

But, if you really, REALLY want me to, just give me an hour to get cleaned up and get some coffee, and I'll continue on.
But only, if you want me too.

Not really no, i could present continuous graphs and data showing that there has been ups and downs in temperatures in the past but i'm pretty sure it wouldn't change anything so yeah.

You can't present anything to defend the stance you're defending because it's not your stance.
It's someone else's.

Did you just read my previous message? Doesn't seem so from what you say.

Anyway yes i can present numerous graphs and data and you can look for them too but you probably wont.

"You can't present anything to defend the stance you're defending because it's not your stance.
It's someone else's."

If i apply your logic you dont have a stance either since you're providing "data" (which is none since you havent provided any evidence that either there wasnt any significant temperatures changes in the past or that human activity is solely causing the planet to burn to a degree never seen before our industrial era and that temperatures will reach extreme heights like ever before all due to our activity)  that you havent made yourself, so by your logic unless you go to antartica or wathever and study for a decade all the different changes over the years etc then it's also someone else's stance and you cant defend it, since you're not a certified expert climatologue historian nobel prize winner.

Dumb logic.

#15 Re: Main Forum » Quick status update » 2020-08-26 21:25:39

Morti wrote:

But, if you really, REALLY want me to, just give me an hour to get cleaned up and get some coffee, and I'll continue on.
But only, if you want me too.

Not really no, i could present continuous graphs and data showing that there has been ups and downs in temperatures in the past but i'm pretty sure it wouldn't change anything so yeah.

#16 Re: Main Forum » Quick status update » 2020-08-26 21:13:47

So i'm not sure what you want to prove to me with that graph but the way i see it it even shows that changes in temperature are slightly less steep and the temperatures more stable than in the past, makes sense since earth was in a less stable state before, erupting volcanoes etc, we couldn't have lived there before it wasn't suitable.

"Note the changein the spacing of the time axis at 800 ka and 140 ka BP." Yes i'm noting the change in spacing how is that relevant to us?

As said before there's no doubt that man made co2 contributes to the current on going upward temperatures, but if we where to put it in numbers it would probably be around 0.1-0.3 degrees celsius honestly it's hard to tell maybe it's more i couldn't find an approximate number since it depends on many factors and something very new, since the industrial revolution compared to the whole earth's history is like it started yesterday.

Yes we will be affected the same way if our modern civilisation existed in the past and experienced one of the other periods of global warming would have been affected as well but as said before our contribution to these temperature changes is a droplet in the ocean.

If you really want to be upset about something it's totally reasonnable to be about the disgusting air quality in some areas of countries like china due to coal or polluted rivers where fishes die by thousands or even mercury in the ocean which is one of the reasons i highly limit my consumption of tuna and the list goes on.

But even these will eventually slowly get reduced at some point when there's no more coal to burn or oil to drill so in a long time but still, so even if i strongly disagree on the whole "we are causing the planet to burn" thing i definitly agree that there needs to be a change but not because of temperature changes but because any kind of polution or excessive destruction of our environment inevitably affects us and our health and this in many more ways than what most people are aware of.

edit: Morti wtf is that giberrish supposed to mean, like i said before just look for "global temperatures over millions of years" and you will see tons of other examples if you dont trust that particular image that i posted, smh

#17 Re: Main Forum » Quick status update » 2020-08-26 08:25:22

There's no doubt that man made Co2 contributes to the upwards temperature change but that contribution is a tiny droplet in a vast ocean, a lot of lesser educated people get manipulated into thinking that we are causing global warming all this for money reasons obviously.

When in fact the current upward trend in global temperature is part of the many ups and downs that existed for millions of years, but they conveniantly show graphs only a couple thousand years old.

Global temperatures will eventually go down again as proven by millions year old global temperature history.

Now if you're talking about air quality, water polution, soil etc that's another story.

But in reality we arent even "producing" co2 we are just releasing storages of it, millions of years ago plants turned co2 in the air into o2 and used that carbon to grow then these plants got trapped under layers and layers of sediment and turned into oil with the help of high pressure and temperatures, then we drilled to get that oil, now we're releasing ancient co2 storage into the air and plants mostly algaes are turning that co2 into o2 then they form layers and eventually in millions of years will turn into oil again.

It's a cycle, same for coal and any other carbon based fuel ressource.

#18 Re: Main Forum » Quick status update » 2020-08-26 05:25:09

Morti wrote:

...

So you provide absolutly no valid data whatsoever to disprove the posted graph and your argument is some random person talking about politics.

Nice...

Also if that's supposed to be a shot at me i'm not even american and i dont give two shits about politics so yeah.

As for the source you can just type "global temperatures over millions of years" and you will see that the graph is accurate smile

#20 Re: Main Forum » Jason, an idea for community engagement. » 2020-08-17 16:51:28

Life advice from you sounds great... maybe in a couple of years i'll enjoy watching people getting slaughtered too

I'm so sowy my words hurt your feewings sad

And dont give me that whole speech sure there's some disagrements and exchange of words sometimes on the forum but compared to other communities in the same field it's one of the less toxic ones, you should see the communities of some other games.

Also totally because of me and not you spamming the forums and then getting banned that you took a break...

I can think of plenty of other reasons why the forum has very little activity.

Morti wrote:

That shooting vid is just saved & shared for historic reasons.

"historic reasons" btw

#21 Re: Main Forum » Jason, an idea for community engagement. » 2020-08-17 16:28:17

"Though I would much rather we met in person so we could open up to each other, perhaps bring each other to tears sharing stories and comforting each other afterwards with how we find resolve considering the worst we have imagined, whether, for life, the universe, or just ourselves."

Yeah be sure to bring more videos of shootings i'm sure he would love to see them.

"thanks to people like you inflating the severity of every heart felt reaction"

Yes exactly it must be that who wouldn't want to meet in person someone who enjoys watching videos of mass murder and then brags about it in an edgy way on a public forum.

Morti wrote:

P.S. I love baiting out people like Dodge. smile

"just a bait" btw

i totally believe you...

#22 Re: Main Forum » Jason, an idea for community engagement. » 2020-08-17 15:26:45

*some idiot posting evidence on purpose and knowingly of dowloading video of shooting in new zealand on a public forum*

*same idiot wondering why dev of that forum doesn't want to interact more with the community*

Funny that you didn't mention the name of one ohol streamer in particular that is the real reason for that post, since you want him to interact with that specific person.

Cant blame him honestly at this point i would be scared at the idea of that said person showing at my door or in the middle of the night while i'm sleeping, creepy stuff... stalker type shit...

#23 Re: Main Forum » Notice about account details shared publicly (account pools, twitter) » 2020-08-17 10:30:50

If only there was a law of common sense, "internet lawyers" would tone it down. But usually these type of people lack of it anyway...

It's pretty obvious that the goal is to avoid any random person to be able to play on the servers for free, in these situations friends and families are usually accepted the same way you would lend a physical copy of a game to a friend or let a family member play the game.

Now if you upload that same game and make it available to anyone to dowload and play for free then you cross the line obviously

"So if your DB is compromised and all the keys are leaked than what you can ban everyone?....."

Yes exactly he's going to ban everyone that sounds totally like a reasonnable solution to that issue...

#24 Re: Main Forum » Why do animals live forever? » 2020-08-07 07:50:43

Too complicated and not worth it, a time sink basically that would take months of updates to get right and wouldn't be interesting.

You would travel around and all the animals you see are basically doomed even worse if you want to make it realistic which would mean all the sheeps, mouflons, bisons etc you see would be dead in 20 minutes.

Would be a major pain in the ass, you bring a mouflon and breed some sheeps but then you dont get new lambs for 20 minutes and all your animal pen dies on top of that someone travelled around the village which would mean all the mouflons around are already dead.

So then you have to implement some other complicated mechanic for wildlife reproduction which wouldn't work since the entities on map only load when you see them so you would need some other complicated coding and all that for nothing interesting really.

It could be interesting if the map wasn't infinite and you had a real ecosystem, the more you cut trees and build on biomes the less wildlife can reproduce since they have less of their natural habitat then if you destroy too much of it or kill too many wild animals, wildlife could potentially go extinct and you would eventually run out of some foods or couldn't have access to some ressources.

But with the current game not worth it.

#25 Re: Main Forum » Notice about account details shared publicly (account pools, twitter) » 2020-08-02 18:29:27

DiscardedSlinky wrote:
Dodge wrote:
Lava wrote:

The myth that slinky is the one that made whatever leave is simply a myth. It wasn’t her fault, and both parties in the situation have resolved it between them so please don’t start unecessary drama that you have practically no involvement in.

I never said that but since you mention it, if you are aware of an on going situation and dont do anything to stop it then you are as much responsible, not doing anything is also doing something, you choose to not take action and turn a blind eye on what is going on especially if you are the person that introduced them.

Anyway it's a shame for the mod users that get punished for the stupidity of some people.

You're right dodge I didn't stop the initial instigation. I am to blame for that. I didn't know how far it was going to go obviously, but I should've told my boyfriend to stop immediately before they both started fighting and he took it too far. I appreciate that you are informed about what happened and aren't just flat out blaming me for attacking him, which I never did.


Just to add to it, I didn't introduce them. Whatever was in a private discord with me and my boyfriend for almost a year. Whatever even used stuff I talked about in there to attack my boyfriend (which I don't blame him for, my boyfriend started it) so they knew each other beforehand.


It's a really unfortunate situation and I wish I could make it right, but I'm in the same situation as everyone else and can't talk to him.

You are owning to it and i respect that, we all learn from our mistakes, yes it's unfortunate hopefully the situation will get better is some way.

P.S. I never suggested "the rift" if Jason said he was going to restrict the map to a tiny box surrounded by some ugly barrier i would have obviously said it was a terrible idea which i probably did but obviously got ignored, please stop spreading that misinformation thanks smile .

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB