One Hour One Life Forums

a multiplayer game of parenting and civilization building

You are not logged in.

#1 Re: Main Forum » The plan moving forward » 2021-10-06 19:30:59

Go away Spoonwood, we just heard good news, this game will still be developed. Jason may give up after reading your bs again xD

#2 Re: Main Forum » How did the combat become so shit » 2021-09-30 09:19:32

Spoonwood wrote:

as all they had done was make a bunch of sounds that had stupidly distracted other players, unlike how in the old days someone innocent would have gotten killed by such a jerk.

In the old days many people were wearing red cross aprons to heal good people and kill bad people. It was fun. Current system is so boring. Whole game is boring, no wonder it's dying so fast.

#3 Re: Main Forum » Sprinklers and Plows » 2021-08-13 20:45:39

I forgot that sprinkler pumps need kerosene. Probably not worth making anything smaller than 10 sprinkler pipes (didn't do the math). Ooof
Yeah, it just can't work.

#4 Re: Main Forum » Sprinklers and Plows » 2021-08-13 20:35:37

DestinyCall wrote:

Optimal sprinkler set-up does not match the 3x3 farm square meta, so you have to completely reorganize all the farm plots OR build a separate sprinkler-based farm somewhere else that will be competing with the main farm..

It would be way easier to upgrade farms if people did 5x2 farms for most crops and maybe 5x3 for berries or something. For example on image below it would be easy to remove 5 middle berry bushes and put sprinkler pipes there. Just move sprinkler pump there whenever bushes need to be watered. Idk


OIGpbqu.jpg

#5 Re: Main Forum » Sprinklers and Plows » 2021-08-13 20:27:25

Surely worth planting milkweed with sprinklers, since it's very expensive otherwise.
I can imagine a whole farm made of sprinklers. Yeah, making one big line is the most water efficient, but it looks ugly and isn't practical. 5 sprinkler pipes for every crop type could be enough (maybe a bit more for berry farm), it would reduce farming cost a lot anyways and farm could look nice this way too if well designed. Yeah, it would require tons of sprinkler pipes, but sprinkler pumps and plows can be moved, so no need to make one for every crop type.

Kind of weird that it has never been done. People always do one big line for some reason

#6 Re: Main Forum » Suggestion: Low Pop limit should be raised to 50 » 2021-06-19 19:40:41

DestinyCall wrote:

Our average player count is hovering around 30 right now and it doesn't work very well to have this stuff switching on and off repeatedly.   And I can only imagine what new players must think when they live one life as a Ginger that can pick bananas and then live a new life as Black person who can't even touch seals with zero in-game explanation.

Suggested solution:
Once things switch off when player count hit 30, condition to switch things on should be hitting 40 player count.
And vice versa - When things are on, to turn them off player count should hit 30 again (from 40)

Hopefully I'm clear, kind of bad english tongue

The disadvantage would be that looking at the reflector you wouldn't know if things are on or off if player count is between 30 and 40, but that would solve the problem with stuff switching on and off repeatedly.

#7 Re: Main Forum » Die On Mushrooms Born Perma High? » 2021-05-22 00:29:19

Spoonwood wrote:

The game is public domain.  Thus, if there's any sort of consistency with those terms, what is and is not a bug comes as a matter up for the public to decide.

Alright then, since we can decide what is bug and what isn't in this game, I'm deciding that race restrictions is a bug.

#8 Re: Main Forum » Die On Mushrooms Born Perma High? » 2021-05-22 00:22:49

Spoonwood wrote:

Thus, to speak as if there exists "one unique developer" isn't consistent.

My english isn't that great, sorry. I meant any developer that is making any software and not Jason specifically

#9 Re: Main Forum » Die On Mushrooms Born Perma High? » 2021-05-22 00:21:48

I think it could be unintended before it became intended.

I mean, fixing it is probably a one-liner

shroomEffect = false; //When born or at death

Can't be that lazy, to not fix one-liner bug, I guess tongue

#10 Re: Main Forum » Die On Mushrooms Born Perma High? » 2021-05-21 21:50:25

It's just a thing.

But yeah, no matter how broken something is, as long as the developer says it's intended it's not a bug.

#11 Re: Main Forum » Not enough oil » 2021-05-21 21:09:39

Palacio wrote:

But for older families the oil supply simply gets exhausted and there seems to be no way to recover from that.

You could move with your family to a new spot, closer to tarry spots

#12 Re: Main Forum » Men and Boys Routinely Are Under Recognized for Sporting Ability » 2021-02-10 00:33:30

Spoonwood wrote:
Cogito wrote:

  To spell it out: under what authority or argument do you seek to stop people spectating all-women sports, through the removal of all-women sports?

I don't expect any such thing.  I haven't called for any such thing.

Cogito wrote:

This was a Spoonwood trap! If you have an extremely small sample from an extremely large population, that sample is statistically insignificant. When I say that the person has achieved more than everyone else who has ever lived it is of course not a literal statement, but an exaggeration.

Statistics involves literal statements.  It doesn't involve exaggerations.

You want to exaggerate?  Then I don't think you want to have an honest discussion here.

Cogito wrote:

Your persistence in quibbling over these patently incorrect interpretations of language and grammar continues to paint you as someone unable to develop their comprehension skills.

You said you were exaggerating.  Exaggeration is taking things out of proportion when engaging in serious speech, since serious speech is exact as it can be, and thus literal.  Thus you were using language incorrectly by any rational standard.

You are free to think of me however you like as are others with respect to my development of my comprehension skills.  But, I am not under any burden to you or others that I can develop those skills.  And I am simply not interested in playing some game to prove to you that I can "understand" you, since that understanding seems vastly contingent on me agreeing with you it seems to me.

Cogito wrote:

  If you don't want to appear that way, then as many here have suggested you should ask yourself "what is the main point this person is trying to make" and then argue against that.

If you want to try to make a point, the burden of communication is on you as the speaker to get your message across.

Cogito wrote:

Did you not read what I wrote? "People who have, as a group, decided to compete with each other."

Not that closely.  It makes less sense the more closely I read what you said.  People don't make decisions *as a group* to compete with each other in at least some instances.  They make decisions as individuals to enter into competitions for say community running events.  Those individuals agree to the rules of the competitions.  They don't all get together and then decide to compete against each other.

Cogito wrote:

School students have less political capital than most sport participants ...

I find this very strange to believe.  School students have an enormous amount of political capital in terms of how things can shake out.  There exist more school students than sports participants.  If a large enough group of school students were to protest a school having a sport or they demanded a particular sport, the school administration would soon have all sorts of interactions with parents.  The political capital in terms of school students is potentially very large.  It's just often not activated, or there exists a fair amount of disagreement, and oftentimes students haven't developed the ability to think for their own selves or take political action.

The administration in school is simply not more powerful than the students and the parents combined from what I've seen of school districts.  A largely unified student body with parents behind them isn't something an administration can ignore now, is it?

Cogito wrote:

How do you respond for all other sports?

For other sports, students decided to try out for sports teams at the individual level and then made the team (same thing happens for cross-country).  The competitors I would say thus make decisions to compete as individuals.  The coaches and athletic directors who decide on leagues and when games will play against I would say do make decisions as a group.

Cogito wrote:

In Scenario A we take the Spoonwood forced mixing of competitors approach.

The nature of sport is such that it doesn't care about any sort of sex differences, only the quality of play of the competitors.  Thus, sports leagues are forced to get segregated by sex and other categories.  It would thus be natural to have all participants in the same category, because the nature of sport is such that everyone is equal with respect to their performance objectively.

Cogito wrote:

Due to the inherent difference in running speed between men and women ...

Um what?  Running speed isn't an inherent different between men and women.  Running speed depends on how fast the body moved, not the sex of the participants.  You clearly lost your sense of physics here Cogito.  It seems predictable since the division of leagues in sports by the same organization on the basis of sex encourages losing a sense of physics.

Cogito wrote:

these 10 competitors are all men, and as expected the top 10 fastest people are given millions of dollars of cash each, and fame that lasts thousands of years, ensuring that the best runners are appropriately compensated for their efforts.

If you or I were setting up sports leagues a priori that were integrated, if we were rational, we wouldn't presuppose who will win or lose.

Thousands of years of fame and millions of dollars?

I really don't think you're taking that thought experiment seriously.

Cogito wrote:

In Scenario B it is every single person again, but in Secnario A none of the women compete because there is no chance they can ever win.  Hence, Scenario B has more competition (1000 people competing) than Scenario A (500 people competing)

So basically women will only compete if their necessarily will exist some female winner or top performer?  Women in sports are that sexist that they will do so only if some member of their sex is assured a chance of a success?

Cogito wrote:

For some sports it can make sense, but the physical differences between men and women (just like between children and adults, and man and machine) necessitates that competition is segregated.

The physical differences between men and women is not a causative factor of the sex segregation of sports.  So, no, it does not necessitate that competition is segregated.

Cogito wrote:

You're cherry picking your evidence, at best.

I'd have to know of examples which contradict my position to cherry pick.

Cogito wrote:

Forcing different levels of skill and ability to compete together will reduce the number of people who participate in your sport, and those people will just go play by themselves without your silly rules.

It is very strange to me to think that everyone playing by literally the same rules as in any way silly.  An organization which sets up an event where everyone plays by the same rules involves treating people equally and also having people's performances evaluated solely on the basis of merit.  Both of those encourage objectivity for anyone thinking about the rules and the competition.  There would be no silly "I ran well... for a girl" or "you ran well... for a woman." for anyone.

Ops, double post, sorry.

#13 Re: Main Forum » Men and Boys Routinely Are Under Recognized for Sporting Ability » 2021-02-10 00:32:27

Spoonwood wrote:
Cogito wrote:

  To spell it out: under what authority or argument do you seek to stop people spectating all-women sports, through the removal of all-women sports?

I don't expect any such thing.  I haven't called for any such thing.

Cogito wrote:

This was a Spoonwood trap! If you have an extremely small sample from an extremely large population, that sample is statistically insignificant. When I say that the person has achieved more than everyone else who has ever lived it is of course not a literal statement, but an exaggeration.

Statistics involves literal statements.  It doesn't involve exaggerations.

You want to exaggerate?  Then I don't think you want to have an honest discussion here.

Cogito wrote:

Your persistence in quibbling over these patently incorrect interpretations of language and grammar continues to paint you as someone unable to develop their comprehension skills.

You said you were exaggerating.  Exaggeration is taking things out of proportion when engaging in serious speech, since serious speech is exact as it can be, and thus literal.  Thus you were using language incorrectly by any rational standard.

You are free to think of me however you like as are others with respect to my development of my comprehension skills.  But, I am not under any burden to you or others that I can develop those skills.  And I am simply not interested in playing some game to prove to you that I can "understand" you, since that understanding seems vastly contingent on me agreeing with you it seems to me.

Cogito wrote:

  If you don't want to appear that way, then as many here have suggested you should ask yourself "what is the main point this person is trying to make" and then argue against that.

If you want to try to make a point, the burden of communication is on you as the speaker to get your message across.

Cogito wrote:

Did you not read what I wrote? "People who have, as a group, decided to compete with each other."

Not that closely.  It makes less sense the more closely I read what you said.  People don't make decisions *as a group* to compete with each other in at least some instances.  They make decisions as individuals to enter into competitions for say community running events.  Those individuals agree to the rules of the competitions.  They don't all get together and then decide to compete against each other.

Cogito wrote:

School students have less political capital than most sport participants ...

I find this very strange to believe.  School students have an enormous amount of political capital in terms of how things can shake out.  There exist more school students than sports participants.  If a large enough group of school students were to protest a school having a sport or they demanded a particular sport, the school administration would soon have all sorts of interactions with parents.  The political capital in terms of school students is potentially very large.  It's just often not activated, or there exists a fair amount of disagreement, and oftentimes students haven't developed the ability to think for their own selves or take political action.

The administration in school is simply not more powerful than the students and the parents combined from what I've seen of school districts.  A largely unified student body with parents behind them isn't something an administration can ignore now, is it?

Cogito wrote:

How do you respond for all other sports?

For other sports, students decided to try out for sports teams at the individual level and then made the team (same thing happens for cross-country).  The competitors I would say thus make decisions to compete as individuals.  The coaches and athletic directors who decide on leagues and when games will play against I would say do make decisions as a group.

Cogito wrote:

In Scenario A we take the Spoonwood forced mixing of competitors approach.

The nature of sport is such that it doesn't care about any sort of sex differences, only the quality of play of the competitors.  Thus, sports leagues are forced to get segregated by sex and other categories.  It would thus be natural to have all participants in the same category, because the nature of sport is such that everyone is equal with respect to their performance objectively.

Cogito wrote:

Due to the inherent difference in running speed between men and women ...

Um what?  Running speed isn't an inherent different between men and women.  Running speed depends on how fast the body moved, not the sex of the participants.  You clearly lost your sense of physics here Cogito.  It seems predictable since the division of leagues in sports by the same organization on the basis of sex encourages losing a sense of physics.

Cogito wrote:

these 10 competitors are all men, and as expected the top 10 fastest people are given millions of dollars of cash each, and fame that lasts thousands of years, ensuring that the best runners are appropriately compensated for their efforts.

If you or I were setting up sports leagues a priori that were integrated, if we were rational, we wouldn't presuppose who will win or lose.

Thousands of years of fame and millions of dollars?

I really don't think you're taking that thought experiment seriously.

Cogito wrote:

In Scenario B it is every single person again, but in Secnario A none of the women compete because there is no chance they can ever win.  Hence, Scenario B has more competition (1000 people competing) than Scenario A (500 people competing)

So basically women will only compete if their necessarily will exist some female winner or top performer?  Women in sports are that sexist that they will do so only if some member of their sex is assured a chance of a success?

Cogito wrote:

For some sports it can make sense, but the physical differences between men and women (just like between children and adults, and man and machine) necessitates that competition is segregated.

The physical differences between men and women is not a causative factor of the sex segregation of sports.  So, no, it does not necessitate that competition is segregated.

Cogito wrote:

You're cherry picking your evidence, at best.

I'd have to know of examples which contradict my position to cherry pick.

Cogito wrote:

Forcing different levels of skill and ability to compete together will reduce the number of people who participate in your sport, and those people will just go play by themselves without your silly rules.

It is very strange to me to think that everyone playing by literally the same rules as in any way silly.  An organization which sets up an event where everyone plays by the same rules involves treating people equally and also having people's performances evaluated solely on the basis of merit.  Both of those encourage objectivity for anyone thinking about the rules and the competition.  There would be no silly "I ran well... for a girl" or "you ran well... for a woman." for anyone.

I quoted it because it looks fun. Didn't read it tho.

#14 Re: Main Forum » Is the game abandoned? » 2021-01-22 02:19:08

Jason stopped developing this game because of Spoonwood.

#15 Re: Main Forum » Pig farm - Adopt a boar » 2021-01-09 13:44:41

2020-06-03_12_00_52.png

I did these in the past. The thing is, people always kill the boars. It's very unlikely that a boar could survive a few hours in a town.
I don't bother anymore.

#16 Re: Main Forum » 150 player madness fun » 2020-12-28 15:11:33

It's crazy how unplayable this game is for new players. I wish we had the same tutorial as in mobile version of this game. They have perfect tutorial.

#17 Re: Main Forum » Hunger results in less "one hour one life experiences" » 2020-12-26 11:17:32

fug wrote:

Just remove the game from the game. Problem solved forever and ever.

If one removes the game then one can't experience one hour one life experience.

Unless one plays another game for one hour... Wait, what?

#18 Re: Main Forum » Water Strategy » 2020-12-22 23:59:22

That would be abusing an exploit of the game. I'm not gonna do this.

#19 Re: Main Forum » Gas powered stoves and forges » 2020-12-11 20:49:10

This game needs something that will keep players entertained. No offense, but I don't think that more items will make playerbase grow up.

I mean, new items could be cool, but it's not what this game needs.

#20 Re: Main Forum » Idea - Drinking Kerosene » 2020-12-08 23:16:26

Fun fact - there are 9 241 059 calories in a litre of diesel.

#21 Re: Main Forum » Why Everything Runs Out is Boring » 2020-12-05 15:46:40

NoTruePunk wrote:

It does take an enormous amount of tires though, 10 rubber dough buckets worth. If your family is moving and you have a massive stockpile of kero it may be OK just to get the cisterns filled quickly, but it's really a waste.

Yeah, after all I think preparing 10 buckets of rubber dough before moving would be better idea than skipping deep well and newcomen pump.

Spoonwood wrote:

I think it's easy for many, if not almost all, players to miss babies popping out while driving a truck.  If you're going to try something like that, I highly recommend that one stay outside of one's home band.

Yeah, that make sense.

#22 Re: Main Forum » private server issue » 2020-12-05 02:14:54

Yes. You didn't close the server with ctrl + c,  you need to do this otherwise it won't start next time you run it.
You can delete broken files, they will be created again after you run the server, or unpack whole server again.

#23 Re: Main Forum » Why Everything Runs Out is Boring » 2020-12-03 23:20:54

Spoonwood wrote:

Have you played this week or watched streams?  Also, you lose out on an estimated 33 buckets of water by skipping a deep well.  I don't see any reason to lose that much water which doesn't require kerosene or rubber.

I haven't played this week, I'll play this game again after the update.
Yeah, it's a bad feeling to lose 33 buckets of water from deep well, but there is plenty of new resources and water around in the new place.
Moving to a new place and surviving there is probably the hardest thing in this game, because of how little value foods give in later generations - that's why you would want to make the process as much easier as possible. Having super easy access to water (diesel pump) makes it easier and may save your family. Unless you have tons of tires prepared for newcomen pump, skipping deep well is a good choice in my opinion.

#24 Re: Main Forum » Rabbit or Cloth Clothes? » 2020-12-03 23:06:39

In Eve camps wolf hats and mouflon hides are the easiest and fastest to get - one person can easily get whole family dressed with them. Some rabbits for loincloths and rabbit shoes. - That's the best beginning I think.

Later on I would always pick cloth clothes, because they look prettier. Having a little less insulation makes no difference (or very little) for yummers.

Tho I don't like when people feed sheep just to get wool and make clothes out of it. Feed lambs (from dimestic mouflons), always.

#25 Re: Main Forum » Why Everything Runs Out is Boring » 2020-12-03 20:46:45

Spoonwood wrote:

How will the family get more iron if they move?

I think you forgot about diesel mining.


Spoonwood wrote:

You want to move a family when food values are so low?

Yeah, take tons of food with you with trucks. Take many hoe heads so people can make farms fast. Take engines and kerosene, so you can skip deep well and newcomen well, but you will have constant easy access to water. Take many plates and bowls, so people can start cooking right away.
Yeah, it wouldn't be that hard with a good preparation. The mistake people do is that they want to move when they are out of kero and water, and that is way too late.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB