Why Cantr failed

General out-of-character discussion among players of Cantr II.

Moderators: Public Relations Department, Players Department

User avatar
sherman
Public Relations Chair/Translator-Finnish (PR)
Posts: 914
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 am
Location: Finland, Helsinki

Re: Why Cantr failed

Postby sherman » Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:22 am

Jos Elkink wrote:
sherman wrote:I think this isn't game's fault, rather it's more about players and what they choose/wish.


Well, I also think it has something to do with the population being much too spread out. If we had much bigger cities, there would be much more fierce competition for leadership.


Possible. Though I also lead couple big towns but people just aren't interested to even take a small part. Though it's also possible that people aren't interested because at the moment being leader doesn't give that much power
Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning.
-Erwin Rommel-
User avatar
Money
Posts: 929
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Why Cantr failed

Postby Money » Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:21 pm

sherman wrote:
Jos Elkink wrote:
sherman wrote:I think this isn't game's fault, rather it's more about players and what they choose/wish.


Well, I also think it has something to do with the population being much too spread out. If we had much bigger cities, there would be much more fierce competition for leadership.


Possible. Though I also lead couple big towns but people just aren't interested to even take a small part. Though it's also possible that people aren't interested because at the moment being leader doesn't give that much power


Being a leader provides you a steady stream of prestige, but little beyond that in most cases. The commitment to staying in a single location and managing administrative matters, that are likely seen as boring by a significant portion of the player base, are further disincentives. If someone only gets a title then it's not a very attractive proposition.

Not to say that is the case for Sherman, I have no idea what incentives were offered, but I do see a number of small locations which offer a title to leaders and little else.
User avatar
Slowness_Incarnate
Posts: 1103
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 11:19 am
Location: Lalaland

Re: Why Cantr failed

Postby Slowness_Incarnate » Sat Apr 21, 2018 4:18 pm

I dislike leading towns. The town leader is just the designated dispenser of goods as people cry "gimme, gimme, gimme!"
User avatar
Money
Posts: 929
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Why Cantr failed

Postby Money » Sat Apr 21, 2018 7:35 pm

Slowness_Incarnate wrote:I dislike leading towns. The town leader is just the designated dispenser of goods as people cry "gimme, gimme, gimme!"


The vast majority of a leader's time is spent on trade, handing out things for newspawns, and chasing down petty criminals. The game mentions being a politician, but the basic leader experience is that of an administrator.

I think one of the keys to attracting people with leadership potential is to offer a unique player experience. Even offering material incentives like vehicles and free stuff isn't that uncommon for roles which don't require as much effort as a leader. However, if you give people a chance to actually play a leader, rather than an administrator, I think there would be players who are interested.
User avatar
Jos Elkink
Founder Emeritus
Posts: 5711
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 1:17 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Contact:

Re: Why Cantr failed

Postby Jos Elkink » Sun Apr 22, 2018 8:16 am

Money wrote:I think one of the keys to attracting people with leadership potential is to offer a unique player experience. Even offering material incentives like vehicles and free stuff isn't that uncommon for roles which don't require as much effort as a leader. However, if you give people a chance to actually play a leader, rather than an administrator, I think there would be players who are interested.


I think that's an interesting point, actually. I don't think one can get away from the fact that a leader is also an administrator, but what would make the role of leader more interesting? And I don't mean just the top leader, but also creates incentives to take part in the running of a big town (like military leader, leader of a satellite town, manager of new arrivals, etc.)?

Of course, in the spirit of Cantr, these should never be pre-defined roles in the game, so we can't program something special for them, but what kind of things in Cantr would help? Does this simply go back to the fact that it is way too easy at the moment to obtain a private building, large vessel, or nice transport?
User avatar
Tiamo
Posts: 1261
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:22 pm

Re: Why Cantr failed

Postby Tiamo » Sun Apr 22, 2018 11:44 am

The main attraction of being a leader irl is having the power to make decisions that affect other people (there are many degrees of 'power'). To make rules.
Irl people are highly dependant on existing government structures, generally following the rules is unavoidable.

Cantr life is different. Most towns are ruled by some standard set of rules, if any. Situations that require a real decision rarely come up. Characters are not really dependant on leaders and rules; they can easily move on if they wish.
Another problem is characters lack the automatic 'will to survive' people irl have. If a player loses interest in playing a character it is an easy choice to abandon the character.

Life outside communities is too easy for characters in Cantr. You can do everything alone, it just takes longer.
If people would be more dependant on each other for some key things, community play would prosper automatically. Like needing 2 characters to perform certain tasks (docking boats to each other and help dragging are the only existing ones i can think of). Like not everybody being able to perform every possible task (you will have to learn doing it, and life is too short to learn everything). Like 2 together can do the work of 4 alone. Like, maybe, machine locks.

What also would help immensely is if players would somehow be 'rewarded' for memorable feats their characters accomplish(ed) within the game. Some kind of character fame points, player influence points, history highlights hall of fame, or whatever. Something players can brag about. This might however be hard to implement without overshadowing the play-from-the-character-viewpoint approach of Cantr (it is a player incentive, not a character incentive).
I think ...
curious

Re: Why Cantr failed

Postby curious » Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:58 pm

I would pretty much agree with a lot of that (above) and it just raises an issue that I have always had with Cantr in general, and regarding leadership. At best, I would imagine that any of us with 'leadership' experience have it from some form of RL managerial role, and sadly, this just isn't leadership. Sure we also have things like 'the news' and literature to help inform us but really, is this the same.

I honestly don't see any 'real' leadership in Cantr... just towns with people labelled as 'in charge' who actually do very little, and even less when it comes to things like a sense of world justice etc... and this is because people become reactive in roles that don't suit them as opposed to proactive... which is the stuff of proper leadership. Yes... i am aware of the odd exception.

As the game has aged, things like leadership have simply become habitual. Leadership is a more difficult thing to research in order to play it well and, let's face it... who's going to bother when they are only ever going to be seen as 'in charge'..? It's not like being a carpenter or weapon manufacturer where Google 'is' your friend.
User avatar
Money
Posts: 929
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Why Cantr failed

Postby Money » Sun Apr 22, 2018 4:56 pm

I included some quotes below that inspired me to ramble about all this. Hope you don't mind me picking out the most relevant pieces!

I think Tiamo is spot on. The thing that makes a leader interesting to play is when you get to make a decision. However, the opportunity to make those decision is really limited, especially in places where the leader is really just an administrator. I would attribute a lot of this to the mono-culture of the game, essentially the meta if we looked at this as a traditional game :P, which encourages a leveling of political play styles. Rock the boat too much? Claim superiority, or dare I say dominance, over others? You will get a significant amount of backlash from existing communities. This is totally understandable, but when every place is lawful-good even chaotic-good or neutral-good places can arouse ire. This, rather then the ease which people can acquire resources, is more of a problem in my eyes.

That is not to say that the dominant play style, a lawful good location run by a benevolent technocrat, eliminates all potential for meaningful decisions. What people need is a little ambition! For example, I really liked the Klojt Festival. It required a lot of organization and planning, but it added quite bit to the culture of the game. Resources were mobilized, personalities clashed, and people made decisions which impacted others! It didn't just require administration, though that was surely essential, it required some vision and true leadership.

I really liked the concept of proactive and reactive leadership that Curious mentioned. I think our conception of acceptable leadership needs to move away from that of reactive administration to, I'm going to shamelessly steal from table top RPGs here, proactive dungeon mastering. Leaders in Cantr can't just make sure the mechanics of their society are running smoothly. They need to actively seek out ways of creating stories that excite the players around them. Maybe take a chance on an individual by thrusting them into a leadership role that they may not have truly "proven" themselves for yet. Everything may fall apart, but putting the pieces back together will be more interesting than simply administering the same old. Implement a bold policy, like an ambitiously large festival, and try get it to work! Maybe no one will attend or you won't have it live up to expectations, but that's more likely to energize the players around you than doling out food and paying for completed projects.

Jos Elkink wrote:[...] I don't think one can get away from the fact that a leader is also an administrator, but what would make the role of leader more interesting? And I don't mean just the top leader, but also creates incentives to take part in the running of a big town (like military leader, leader of a satellite town, manager of new arrivals, etc.)? [...] What kind of things in Cantr would help? Does this simply go back to the fact that it is way too easy at the moment to obtain a private building, large vessel, or nice transport?

Tiamo wrote:The main attraction of being a leader irl is having the power to make decisions that affect other people (there are many degrees of 'power'). To make rules. [...]

Cantr life is different. Most towns are ruled by some standard set of rules, if any. Situations that require a real decision rarely come up. [...]

curious wrote:
[...] At best, I would imagine that any of us with 'leadership' experience have it from some form of RL managerial role, and sadly, this just isn't leadership. Sure we also have things like 'the news' and literature to help inform us but really, is this the same.

I honestly don't see any 'real' leadership in Cantr... just towns with people labelled as 'in charge' who actually do very little, and even less when it comes to things like a sense of world justice etc... and this is because people become reactive in roles that don't suit them as opposed to proactive... which is the stuff of proper leadership. Yes... i am aware of the odd exception.

As the game has aged, things like leadership have simply become habitual. [...] Let's face it... who's going to bother when they are only ever going to be seen as 'in charge'..?
curious

Re: Why Cantr failed

Postby curious » Sun Apr 22, 2018 6:34 pm

^ All of this.
I would add to the 'proactive' bit that being proactive in leadership actually does also involve knowing what is going on... that means information management and sadly... the thing many of us simply do not have these days... taking 'time' to talk to people.
A town that is ticking over is not what is 'going on'... it is merely a desirable and visible outcome for leaders.
User avatar
Chris
Posts: 855
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 1:03 pm

Re: Why Cantr failed

Postby Chris » Sun Apr 22, 2018 7:07 pm

Money wrote:... I'm going to shamelessly steal from table top RPGs here, proactive dungeon mastering. Leaders in Cantr can't just make sure the mechanics of their society are running smoothly. They need to actively seek out ways of creating stories that excite the players around them.

Characters are not dungeon masters. The staff are dungeon masters. They are unwilling to create stories. That goes against the core vision of the game. That's a big reason for the failure of Cantr. It's an RPG without a strong story, only thousands of small and silly stories. Don't get me wrong. I have enjoyed being a part of those small and silly stories, but games that put so much burden on players will fail as soon as players start having (or seeking) other (real-life or other entertainment) demands on their time.
User avatar
cutecuddlydirewolf
Posts: 349
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2014 3:24 am

Re: Why Cantr failed

Postby cutecuddlydirewolf » Sun Apr 22, 2018 8:24 pm

Chris wrote:
Money wrote:... I'm going to shamelessly steal from table top RPGs here, proactive dungeon mastering. Leaders in Cantr can't just make sure the mechanics of their society are running smoothly. They need to actively seek out ways of creating stories that excite the players around them.

Characters are not dungeon masters. The staff are dungeon masters. They are unwilling to create stories. That goes against the core vision of the game. That's a big reason for the failure of Cantr. It's an RPG without a strong story, only thousands of small and silly stories. Don't get me wrong. I have enjoyed being a part of those small and silly stories, but games that put so much burden on players will fail as soon as players start having (or seeking) other (real-life or other entertainment) demands on their time.


The staff are moderators, though. It really isn't their job to create stories- it's up to individual characters. I'd argue that every player is to blame, when they're content to have their characters sit around and be ambitionless.
Image
User avatar
Money
Posts: 929
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Why Cantr failed

Postby Money » Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:34 pm

Posting on my phone is pain. Sorry for the edits and what not.

I personally think of Cantr more as a simulator then an rpg. It's a subtle distinction made in spite of the homepage, but I think it more accurately reflects how the staff interacts with the player base. The staff has never offered to create stories, and all they do is maintain a framework for us to build on. Acting as administrators, rather than dungeon masters, is totally acceptable for them in my opinion. Cantr is more akin to EVE Online than D&D in that respect. I just don't think changing that relationship between the staff and the game is on the table, though I think it would be interesting to explore.

In terms of in-game leaders, I wasn't trying to suggest that they have a formal role in Cantr like DMs do in D&D. It was more of a way to describe the role they should think about playing in their communities. They should concentrate on sparking stories, creating content for their followers, rather than just administering the mechanics of their society.

As for the small and silly stories, to me that is a symptom of the mono-culture which really limits the types of playstyles which are viable. If you want to interact with the wider playerbase, rather than plau as a roving pirate or consign yourself to life as a hermit, then playing within limits acceptable to lawful good is the only long term option for the vast majority of us. You can't have much of a grand narrative when society only allows a very limited list of answers to the important questions. The whole dog pile dynamic, where the "good" guys all jump on those who even slightly conflict with their world view, kills interesting stories before they can begin to develop.

I think part of that is the risk averseness that a lot of players display. People don't like threats to their dominance developing, even if that dominance will not directly face a threat far into the long term. By allowing challenges to develop, even if that does require some suboptimal moves on their part, leaders can create more interesting stories with meaningful conflict. I'm not advocating allowing a location to be pillaged periodically, but snuffing out every ideological difference before it can present even a facimilie of a challenge leads to a bland world indeed.
User avatar
Jos Elkink
Founder Emeritus
Posts: 5711
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 1:17 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Contact:

Re: Why Cantr failed

Postby Jos Elkink » Mon Apr 23, 2018 1:35 pm

Really interesting discussion! I agree with a lot of what Tiamo and Money are saying.

I totally disagree that the staff should somehow create stories. That is a perfectly valid game design and is available in plenty of games, but Cantr is trying to do something different. We can talk about why it might not really be working as intended, and what we can do to change that, but just saying lets drop the core design and make it more like any other game online, that to me is not a solution at all.

So ambition is what I really seem to be missing in the game. Yes, you can as a solo player achieve a lot in a very materialistic sense - as long as you persist long enough you can build whatever you want - but where is then the social or political ambition?

So can I ask, what do you think are really great episodes in the game that did involve leadership and larger group mobilization?

Klojt Festival is a great example. When was the last one of that? The Ladvicitavoi / Naron wars are a good example. I think some conflicts near Kwor (?) were a good example. What are other ones?

And why are they so rare? :-)

Tiamo wrote:If people would be more dependant on each other for some key things, community play would prosper automatically.


I agree and that's an interesting point. Some things should not be possible to make on your own (e.g. a car) and perhaps need a minimum number of participants to progress at all. Would be simple to implement, I guess, and could have major impact on the game.

Especially when combined with more deterioration - as currently anything we change to how fast or easily one can build is irrelevant, because there are too many unused vehicles and buildings in the game.

--> continue discussion here.

Tiamo wrote:What also would help immensely is if players would somehow be 'rewarded' for memorable feats their characters accomplish(ed) within the game. Some kind of character fame points, player influence points, history highlights hall of fame, or whatever.


This is something I had thought about before. I do not want to award points for particular gameplay, but I was thinking about some kind of voting system. Players can vote for characters they encounter in game, on things like "funniest character", "most accomplished character", "best roleplay", etc., and by limiting the number of votes (e.g. one vote per player per month) it would be a real challenge to acquire points. We could then publish top scorer lists.

There are downsides, though, like revealing in-game information that breaches game rules; inability to score highly when living in a smaller town; etc. But there is something to it, maybe.

--> continue discussion here.

I'm splitting this in two new conversations under suggestions. So lets continue to focus here on the general discussion, while if you want to comment on those two ideas, use the suggestions forum.
User avatar
sherman
Public Relations Chair/Translator-Finnish (PR)
Posts: 914
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 am
Location: Finland, Helsinki

Re: Why Cantr failed

Postby sherman » Mon Apr 23, 2018 2:20 pm

I only remember seeing Klojt festival. All else been way before I played. And reason for this is that events like this need lot of effort. Most people just... Don't for one reason or other put the effort needed
Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning.
-Erwin Rommel-
User avatar
SekoETC
Posts: 15523
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 11:07 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Why Cantr failed

Postby SekoETC » Mon Apr 23, 2018 4:20 pm

Somebody said that they would have a full reset if they could. Yet people are forgetting that when Cantr started, in a way things were a lot more simple. Iron could be dug from the ground. There was no steel. Things that are now made of steel were made of iron. There were just sabers, no other weapons. No skills, everybody was equal. No tiredness, so anybody could hit every single person in a town without getting any easier to drag. In the very beginning, there was even no dragging mechanic and people had to trick troublemakers into entering buildings so that they could be locked up. Massacres/inactive sweeps were commonplace. Also vehicles required no fuel. Nothing was made of components.

I recently started analyzing why Cantr broke. It's because each major implementation changed the power balance, requiring yet another fix, which shifted the power balance in some other direction. One of the few changes that had a positive influence was changing iron as a natural resource into hematite, and introducing steel, which required leather for bellows, which caused a demand for salt and gave people another reason to travel. Also I'm pretty sure that there are no locations with both hematite, limestone and coal (at least not on any of the old regions), so every location had to rely on traders or resource runners. Also there were no simple hide clothes, so it was either hide/fur loincloth/bikini and maybe a fur cloak. There was no wool cloth either, and cotton was slower to gather.
Not-so-sad panda

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest