Game changes - discussion about implemented changes.

[PaintedbyRoses]

I can only say that the changes which have been made over time have resulted in a game which is now fundamentally boring for most players. Maybe crazy, illogical things used to happen in the past but wasn't there also a sense of excitement and adventure which is now missing?

I would compare it to traveling. Perhaps a couple or two friends decide to travel the world for six months.

Old Cantr:
One couple doesn't have much money. They hitch rides, accept invitations from strangers, take temp jobs, etc. They never know what each day will bring. Maybe there is danger in the things they do. There is a chance that they could be hurt or even killed. Their trip is an adventure.

New Cantr:
Another couple has plenty of money. They rent cars. The stay in nice hotels. They go on guided tours. They stay on the typical tourist paths. There is almost no danger for them. Their trip is nice but a little boring and it isn't an adventure or even that much fun.

Maybe we can't turn back time. Maybe Cantr has run it's course. If we are going to try to change things, though, it won't be by making things safer and more boring.

[Wolfsong]

Counterpoint: "old" Cantr was never dangerous because of its mechanics. It was dangerous because there were a lot of characters, and life was cheap. The world was full of bandits, serial killers, pirates, mercenaries, rival armies, legitimate empires and kingdoms and clans that would invade and murder other towns just to make a point. It was an unfair, unbalanced world.

Mechanics won't bring that danger and adventure back. Players will. New players. This is why new player retention, getting them immediately involved in a living world, advertising blitzes targeted at appropriate social groups - that's so much more important to Cantr's success. And, I suppose, not banning those new players when they threaten old, established players with violence.

[Joshuamonkey]

Sorry to not respond to everything but as I read it made me think, rot could be paused while traveling or for short stays in town (though that second one sounds complex to implement), though a bit counterintuitive. But Cantr rot is mostly about static piles, so it could make sense, if it doesn't encourage too much travel.

[Wolfsong]

I actually like KVZ's solution. Create containers that further slow, or even stop rot - but have the trade off there be that they either require lots of maintenance to repair, and need to be repaired fairly often, or require something to power them - like propane or petrol. So you could have a container that protects one resource at the cost of another, driving up the value of petrol and propane.

But then I believe that building rot, container rot, even statue rot - that should all exist if pile rot is implemented across the board, but obviously at rates appropriate to the object type (stone, wood, mud, etc.) It would make the rest of these rot changes feel less hacky and more natural, and be an additional resource sink for repair projects. If you want to store resources across 50 buildings to limit resource rot amounts, then you'll need to maintain those buildings. If you want to prevent all your gold from slowly rotting away, then you'll need to maintain or power the containers that allow that.

It's better to have invested cost rather than just pure decay.

Also, one thing I didn't mention earlier, but probably bears pointing out - petrol in gas tanks rotting away while vehicles are travelling, in addition to also being used while travelling, could result in some wonky outcomes.

[Tiamo]

I hate this kind of scheming and conniving and trying to circumvent the positive intentions of game changes. Only wealthy, older characters have the wherewithal to even think about this kind of BS while the average player is left floundering aimlessly and at the mercy of the powerful no matter where they go.

This is why characters should have limits to how long they can live so the wealth and power has at least a chance of being redistributed.

I agree on limited character lifespans, but this is another topic.

[Tiamo]

Maybe rot could start only after some waiting period following 'creation' or 'last handling' of the resources. This might be difficult to program, however.

Stopping/avoiding the rot for limited amounts of resources would also be nice, but it shoud not be for free or at a one-time cost. I like the idea of refrigerators (using fuel) and regular maintenance (using 'upkeep' time) for durability improvement.

[Snowdrop]

Maybe rot could start only after some waiting period following 'creation' or 'last handling' of the resources. This might be difficult to program, however.

This, I could probably support.


The main issue that I have with the idea of all resources rotting, no matter where it is, is that there's two types of mentality in Cantr regarding resources. There are those who do like to keep centuries worth of resources stored up in massive piles inside huge buildings, seemingly with no intention of ever using them and going ballistic at anyone that should dare to attempt to redistribute them In those cases, yeah, sure - bring on that rot! Let them lose it if they don't want to use it! I mean, for the young travelling/adventuring type, it'll be a shame to lose that awestruck feeling when stumbling upon such a stash, but if it forces the owners to loosen up, then great!

However, in the towns where I have characters in charge of stores, they tend to be happy to share stuff with the citizens, as long as the citizens are wakeful and/or helpful. They want to have the resource stores utilised and they want to be able to provide whatever is needed, when it is needed. They don't want an active and very helpful citizen to have to wait years, or even decades, hoping that a trader will happen by with the required non-local resource in time...or to lose that active and very helpful citizen to the world beyond because they've gone off looking for something that's so, so, so far away - because it seems that all too often, they don't come back! (Whether it's due to simply exploring further/a change of plans or that they've died/been killed, the town rarely ever gets to find out IC).

When the increased tiredness on dragging was implemented, I (and I'm sure many others) have then only found it a real struggle to move people for good reasons such as them being weak and vulnerable to animal attacks and therefore not able to work outside long before getting mauled. Or simply in cases of travelling, where someone gets a little sleepy (because of real life suddenly throwing the player a curve ball) and their companions then either having to wait around for ages or making a harsh call to leave them behind because they can't move them back into the vehicle!
Whereas, any characters with bad intentions (yes, pirates/bandits/any group wanting to inflict their brand of so called 'conflict' upon peaceful, under-populated towns) are basically not affected by the changes, because they've formed a group with others that not only have those same bad intentions, but have a similar waking (playing) cycle and are therefore able to still swoop in and attack instantly, or near-instantly! And with the radios so much less effective, there's very little the 'good guys' can really do.

Although I can understand that these proposed rot changes mean those with the worst cases of resource retention will be affected more heavily, it's the fact that, yet again, the ones who are least in need of the restrictions, are going to be punished more overall (because the resource retentive folks don't actually use their stores, they're not actually going to be losing anything, are they?). Planning ahead for events, or travelling, for example, is going to become a headache. Or the small towns that need to go on a lengthy resource run to restock the one or two resources they often use but don't have locally are going to be punished for bringing back that fresh stock because no-one wants to travel several days away for only a couple days worth of something. Perhaps if processed resources were left without rot, as well as what Tiamo suggested (to allow the time for travelling back with resources and then they can start being worked on straight away) then it wouldn't be so bad.

[Chris]

So what is the ultimate goal of these rot and resource slot changes? For example, increasing the player base could be one ultimate goal. I understand that the intermediate goals are to encourage travel and trade. Are these intermediate goals and ultimate goals being tracked with relevant metrics in order to gauge whether the changes are a success or a failure? Suppose that trade and travel increase, yet the player base continues to decline? Suppose that travel increases, but characters are more likely to be solitary (and thus not trade)?

If travel is encouraged, why does it take so long? When a newb walks down a road and finds that she won't arrive at the next town for days and can't do anything else, won't she conclude that travel is discouraged by the game designers?

If you want to encourage current activity over hoarding the fruits of past activity, then rot should be complemented with much higher gathering rates and unlimited gathering slots.

[Money]

Hesitant to bring this up as this kind of conversation is what brought me back to the forums, but doesn't much of this depend on the actual rot rate?

If someone can lose their 40 kilo pile of limestone in a 4 cantr year period, that is clearly going to be an issue for all sorts of players (including the 1%s PaintedbyRoses has mentioned). If 40 kilos of limestone takes a 100 cantr years to break down, it really will only impact abandoned/ignored stockpiles.

Only mentioning this because it seems like detailed discussion about potential anti-rot storage systems is bubbling up, and I just don't think we can go that far at this point. If the rot rate is low enough than simply gathering more resources will be a more economically efficient solution than building an anti-rot storage system, not even taking into account the staff time needed to create and implement such a system.

[PaintedbyRoses]

I hate this kind of scheming and conniving and trying to circumvent the positive intentions of game changes. Only wealthy, older characters have the wherewithal to even think about this kind of BS while the average player is left floundering aimlessly and at the mercy of the powerful no matter where they go.

This is why characters should have limits to how long they can live so the wealth and power has at least a chance of being redistributed.

I agree on limited character lifespans, but this is another topic.

Actually, it is the same subject. Death is rot rate for characters which is more vital to the game than rot rate for resources.

[Gregas]

I don't like the idea about rot of the all materials, if it don't have any exceptions. If the character isn't rich, and have 2 kg of the wood, and 1,5 kg of the iron in his storage, rot of the materials for him is very painful. I think must to be lowest limit of the quantity, from wich begins rot process. For example, till 2 kg roting value is 0. I think fuelled containers or refridgerators are good idea, lets give the big demand for the oil products!

[webrv]

if you want more people in the game, consider facebook integration for one always have bored people hopping through the games there looking for some 'new' entertainment (most games are clones of each other), and will eventually stumble upon this and join, which in turn tells their friends that your "friend is playing cantr" = more people.

Now rot, yes. lets do it, it will be realistic. cars and such runs forever and never break down. This will allow some to have engine problems and such, forcing them back into adventure mode in having to now hike to find engine parts, interacting and trading with other people. Bringing new businesses and such, each town will probably start up a vehicle repair shop, stocking car parts.. and this is just one thing, sparking a whole lot of other growth.

if rot dont get implemented, please instead add demolish buttons on everything, buildings, statues etc. for we have towns still having obscene signposts or statues honoring people that havent been around since the year 1000 nobody knows them.
Some towns would like to revamp some buildings, demolish the old, make new, but cant, buildings never rot away and collapse. The tiniest mud/grasshud is immortal to years of rain and wind and other elements.

If there's rot, these old unused small huts can finally collapse.

[Wolfsong]

Re: Facebook integration

Cantr staff removed Google AdWords for costing too much. I doubt they would be willing to pay even more money for Facebook integration, and I doubt it would be as useful.

[Rocket Frog]

if you want more people in the game, consider facebook integration for one always have bored people hopping through the games there looking for some 'new' entertainment (most games are clones of each other), and will eventually stumble upon this and join, which in turn tells their friends that your "friend is playing cantr" = more people.

Now rot, yes. lets do it, it will be realistic. cars and such runs forever and never break down. This will allow some to have engine problems and such, forcing them back into adventure mode in having to now hike to find engine parts, interacting and trading with other people. Bringing new businesses and such, each town will probably start up a vehicle repair shop, stocking car parts.. and this is just one thing, sparking a whole lot of other growth.

if rot dont get implemented, please instead add demolish buttons on everything, buildings, statues etc. for we have towns still having obscene signposts or statues honoring people that havent been around since the year 1000 nobody knows them.
Some towns would like to revamp some buildings, demolish the old, make new, but cant, buildings never rot away and collapse. The tiniest mud/grasshud is immortal to years of rain and wind and other elements.

If there's rot, these old unused small huts can finally collapse.

Totally agree with everything except the Facebook thingy, for the reasons explained in the post above this one.

[webrv]

if you want more people in the game, consider facebook integration for one always have bored people hopping through the games there looking for some 'new' entertainment (most games are clones of each other), and will eventually stumble upon this and join, which in turn tells their friends that your "friend is playing cantr" = more people.

Now rot, yes. lets do it, it will be realistic. cars and such runs forever and never break down. This will allow some to have engine problems and such, forcing them back into adventure mode in having to now hike to find engine parts, interacting and trading with other people. Bringing new businesses and such, each town will probably start up a vehicle repair shop, stocking car parts.. and this is just one thing, sparking a whole lot of other growth.

if rot dont get implemented, please instead add demolish buttons on everything, buildings, statues etc. for we have towns still having obscene signposts or statues honoring people that havent been around since the year 1000 nobody knows them.
Some towns would like to revamp some buildings, demolish the old, make new, but cant, buildings never rot away and collapse. The tiniest mud/grasshud is immortal to years of rain and wind and other elements.

If there's rot, these old unused small huts can finally collapse.

Totally agree with everything except the Facebook thingy, for the reasons explained in the post above this one.

Folks, kindly please read between the lines. I did not mean facebook specifically, only meant a platform that sees lots more social traffic than the current advertising platforms like the toplists which I myself haven't even visited in quite some time and where developers of some games often manipulate their players to vote on those things by offering ingame reward of some sort, making the overall system unfair, leaving cantr at the bottom.

yes, I know I mentioned the word Facebook, I'm sorry, but that was on my mind last night as I was returning from work after having to deal with lots of angry customer queries at an ISP (internet service provider) where customers were having trouble accessing facebook/instagram features, and naturally felt is their ISP's problem, even if it was not.. https://www.theverge.com/interface/2019 ... nsequences

I really did not mean to advocate Fbook, I myself never wanted to join it, only did because family and friends kept sending invites to everyone on their address books, courtesy of fbook software, who gets those contacts.. and to make everyone stop nagging.

Thank you kindly for reminding me why I don't really bother with forums like these because whatever one posts end up branching off into other topics of argument or debate, such as facebook now, where folks can't really stay on the topic at hand.