Less violence

[Meh]

Limiting violence to once per real time minute for a character would not prevent massacres but I belive it would help while keeping things realistic.

From a character point of view being able to swing your blade three times in a Cantr minute should be enough.

From a player perspective characters working together on the same account or multiple accounts with or without weapon sharing would be a more real time intensive task.

From an RP perspective there would be a bit more time for the angished screams of the victims and pleas to stop (and other colorful words).

From a town defense point of view it gives more time to react, organize drags, hide in buildings, etc.

Better combat systems etc. will also help someday but this I think would be a good first step.

[boomhaeur]

A notification e-mail when your character is attacked might be a good idea too... because of the daily time limit people log in as little as possible.

Maybe a "Your character has been attacked" e-mail to give you a shot of waking up.

[Surly]

I know Cantr aims to be like RL, and in RL it takes years to establish yourself. But please remember this is a game, and that if it is not fun (ie. someone kills all your characters every few months) then no-one will play, which benefits anyone.
That both my Blojt characters were struck down in one turn (they were both at full health), without giving me a chance to respond really sucks.

[Pirog]

I have to agree with thingnumber2.

People will always die meaningless deaths, and that shouldn't change.
But as many others have pointed out it's the unrealistic way that people can slaughter entire towns that must be limited.

I mean, see the Columbine massacre.
Those guys were packed with modern weapons, but still most people were able to flee from them.

[Anders Molin]

Cantr II may be trying to simulate real life, but it *is* *not* real life. If it were, we might all just go along and lead our lives without playing.

Playing a game, whether it is online, a computer game, an rpg or larp (all of which I do) is about being someone other than yourself, with different possibilities and disadvantages. Three months of real time invested in your cantr characters is a long time, and cannot be compared to three months of your own life.

[Meh]

Don't get too attached to any character. Some of the best chracters I've had were spawned after another favorite had died.

[rklenseth]

I agree with Anders. Nicely said.

[David]

I have no excessively violent characters, so I am not trying to defend the acts themselves, however:

I think people are forgetting what Cantr is about, its not a traditional RPG or MMOG: its a sociological-poltico-economic research experiment. It should be treated as such by the players, try not to be so attached to your characters.

The idea is to play out a character until its end, which is dependent upon the sociological forces surrounding your character, not how hard you worked: THIS IS NOT EQ or ULTIMA ONLINE. This is a sociological experiment.

And since this is a 'society sim', these massacres are very true to life. I will only give a few examples:

The warring states period of Japan, the Dark Ages of Europe, the constant strife in Africa, where millions of people die in mortal combat sometimes in one year alone (in Africa). (and this is a perfect example, because there are some areas of Africa where a very small minority massacres 100,000s of thousands of people. This is a result of the break down of rule of law etc... no public infastructre etc... or simply because imperial powers have armed one side to the teeth, while allowing the other side to get slaughtered)

On a scale of primitive to advanced, I would label most societies on Cantr as primitive. These waves of massacres seem to correspond with what happens as world relations mature among unequal partners.

In addition, in the more primitive regions, a small group of raiders can dominate a large peaseantry. et cetra.

I think you get my drift: If you want to play Ultima, play Ultima, this is not a traditional MUD, and is not made for the same purpose as the average MUD.

[creepyguyinblack]

Nice point David, but things do need to be improved. I am suggesting making it so a character can only make ONE attack per game hour, and retaining the limit of once a day striking the same character. This will change the way combat is resolved and make strategy and leadership much more important for organized armies.

[David]

I happen to agree that some balancing is neccesary, a change in attack frequency is one possibility; however, some advocate a complete overhaul in order to make Cantr more like a traditional MUD. I take issue with that.

What you advocate is in the right vein, the quantitative particulars might be tweaked, though. The correct balance can only be found after implementation, probably. Perhaps a test Island (that is on "another world") should be implemented for balance testing.

[Anders Molin]

And since this is a 'society sim', these massacres are very true to life. I will only give a few examples: [Examples snipped]

The examples given are good examples of real-life killings on a grand scale, but for the record: They have little or nothing in common with the situation described in Cantr.

All the RL killings in David's examples happened for a reason (albeit pretty lame ones, in retrospect). The killings in Cantr, as I have understood it, are random acts of mass killings just for the sake of killing.

The wars in 16th century Japan and the massacres in Rwanda had deeper sociopolitical motives than a bunch of people ganging up and saying: "Let's see what happens if we kill off the whole village."

So, while Cantr may be a sociological experiment, it may risk having that experiment ruined by a bunch of immature lab assistants, so to speak.

I would finally like to state that I am not against using violence in Cantr (one of my characters is even actively looking for an army to join), I'm not even against homocidial psychopaths (they are part of society), but I am opposed to the idea that a large group of serious players that want their characters and societies to evolve should just have to endure organized bands of pointless mass killers.

[Nick]

I think that you should have something where you can set to whether you hit back or not when you get hit. If you hit back, they can hit again. At least that part should be implemented. Would be nice for battle.

[David]

I am opposed to the idea that a large group of serious players that want their characters and societies to evolve should just have to endure organized bands of pointless mass killers.

I'm sure Persia, Rome, and Mesopotamia didn't like being swept over by barbarian hordes, but this did happen. I'm sure the farmers of the Russian steppes didn't like being dominated and slaughtered by the mongols. I'm sure they wanted to go along advancing as well. The slaughering of thousands of people with machettes in Africa simply because of who they were is just as good as saying pointless mass killing.

A dominant theme of the early development of societies was in fact ruthless maurauders against the sendentary people. Whatever their motives, this was the case. A great many villages were simply wiped off the map, for capricious reasons other than resources. I do agree that some balancing is needed (attack frequency), but not a complete overhaul.

If the governing structure is too weak, it will fall. I don't see 3 or 4 people killing off all of the Lad people. So apparently, it is a matter of strengthening organizational and military might.

[rklenseth]

I personally think that violence is an essential to have realistic society simulator though I disagree with the current system. It does make it to easy for three people to go into a town and massacre it but as David said, the more organized towns will survive. A place like Ladvicitavoi would have a less likely chance of falling victim to such massacres. Though I do agree with Anders that there has to be some sort of better reason for taking out a whole town. Just killing for the sake of killing is not a very good reason. The Mongols were bloodthirsty though they did what they did for conquest not killing. The barbarian Northern Europeans destroyed Rome because first they felt threatened by Rome and second they wanted the wealth of Rome for themselves. Yes, psychopaths are a reality of civilization but what are the chances that three fully armed psychopaths will meet up, plan a massacre, and go through with it? Not much. A lot of massacres in real life have occurred because of something. People don't join up and go around killing people all the time. They have a reason(s) for killing certain people. And the same should be applied to Cantr. General Sester Gartaf isn't going to go and wip out Blaman just because he can. He would need a reason to do so. Alenz Hills in a way has given him a reason. Back when Ladvicitavoi was under Emperor Alexi Romanov, Romanov ordered an attack on Naron Forest that involved killing everyone there. This was stimulated by the hatred between Naronian and Ladvician which only grew. This was also done for many reasons. Many players didn't like the fact that their characters were killed at the time and since, Lad. has been marked by most players as a place to destroy for more OOC reason than IC. So, I would have to agree that most players get to attached to their characters and when they are killed all they can think of is how they can get revenge on the entity that had them killed. It is hard to explain my style of roleplaying but allow your characters to play themselves. If your character would use violence then have him use violence etc... but also add in different factors. A pacify character in most situations would not use violence, even to safe his own life but what about when his family is threatened with death? A violent character will kill for just a simply misunderstanding but when threatened with death himself, he may cower in the corner. I think the current violence system is plague so that bad roleplayers can easily turn this game into one of hack and slash.

I would also point out that it isn't exaclty fair that 20 unarmed and unprotected people can't take out 1 armed and protected person which also hurts the balance.

The one suggestion that I would like to make that some sort of stamina, endurance, fatigue, etc... should be added where after attacking so much your attacks become useless or even after blocking so many times you become too tired to block anymore allowing for damage over time. Then the one hit against one person per day be taken out. Have random damage, the chance that you might miss, a difference between melee and missile combat, armor. Then skills can be added in with Cantr II 2.0 allowing for a well defined and complicated violence system. And we can build from there.

[Meh]

The Mongols were bloodthirsty though they did what they did for conquest not killing. The barbarian Northern Europeans destroyed Rome because first they felt threatened by Rome and second they wanted the wealth of Rome for themselves.

Spoken as a true authortarian.

So should I take it that Romans were free wheeling flower giving bringers of peace?

No. They were a society that only had the will to survive for one to three generatations. Their further lingering was pure luck and held back development. It is regrettable that their poor example of legal code code not be purged forever for it works no better now than it did then.

As for the Mongols, what was attached to the land was not considered human. A narrow and incorrect view. The reverse bias that says that the UN does not recognize nomadic tribes as a nation. The Laplanders to not have a "language of power" according to the EU. Native Americans should just "blend in" with the rest of the USA.

Large goverments are ineffcient and do not bring security in thier own right.

As for the rest of it I mostly agree but killing for killing sake seems like an OK excuse to me. It just has been overdone. Something does need to be done to balance.

Maybe a kill limit per cantr hour. An organized advancing army shouldn't need to kill more than "x" people per chracter in the army per hour. So a few wild killers working together could only kill "x" number of people per Cantr hour. Maybe even per Cantr day.

A kill limit per day per chracter?