Why Cantr failed

[Chris]

No one wants to find alternatives.

Fewer and fewer people want to play the game at all. Hence this topic.

[cutecuddlydirewolf]

No one wants to find alternatives.

Fewer and fewer people want to play the game at all. Hence this topic.

I understand that. But that doesn't have much to do with the topic I was referencing. People still play, and people are content to have their characters sit around and do nothing, which only contributes to the stagnating environment.

[Slowness_Incarnate]

Sure, lets get rid of our computers and cellphones and go back to letters

[PaintedbyRoses]

I understand that. But that doesn't have much to do with the topic I was referencing. People still play, and people are content to have their characters sit around and do nothing, which only contributes to the stagnating environment.

I wouldn't say we are content. We are more like the idle rich who don't know what to do except consume stuff and have affairs.

We have little control over the game, itself, and no one who can make changes has the time to make them even if they had any really good ideas about what changes to make.

If I could snap my fingers and make Cantr the way I'd like it to be (and the way I think would be most effective), I would start it over right from the beginning.

~ The islands would all be new and different (the age of exploration would exist again).
~ Everything would have to be made from scratch.
~ Survival would be difficult.
~ Achieving anything would be a real challenge.
~ Characters would band together for good and evil purposes.

Some players would hate it and quit, probably, but maybe other players who enjoy a challenge would join and actually play.

[sherman]

Issue with any big changes is that lot of people would be pissed off. Specially very old players and since Jos has said there will be no restart we are tied to certain situation. And changes are also very slow to do since we are run by volunteers. if Cantr was run by company things were ofc different

And honestly I think part of the issue is just that players are kinda lazy and need babysitting. This is my personal experience so it's of course not the whole truth but it feels like many don't do much themselves and need someone else to think stuff for them. I would probably be one of those who would quit if survival would be more though.. I just don't think it would work.. People don't suddenly learn to co-operate and I bet most would just give up.

[cutecuddlydirewolf]

And honestly I think part of the issue is just that players are kinda lazy and need babysitting. This is my personal experience so it's of course not the whole truth but it feels like many don't do much themselves and need someone else to think stuff for them. I would probably be one of those who would quit if survival would be more though.. I just don't think it would work.. People don't suddenly learn to co-operate and I bet most would just give up.

Absolutely this. I said this previously, but to me, it seems like characters are content to sit around and do a whole lot of nothing. No goals, ambitions.

[sherman]

They do stuff though.. If you just order them It's like most lack any initiative for some reason

[curious]

Not just that, and yes, I agree that a 'laziness' is evident, but this is supposed to me an immersive environment... an environment that is essentially inescapable, warts and all. You shouldn't need to simply 'do stuff' to make a difference in this game but my heart goes out to any player who tries to represent inner turmoil or personal issues. These states are also seem as 'done things' and barely register in the game beyond a flare up... nothing... someone goes to sleep for a week... a flare up... nothing.

This why I have said earlier in this thread that people should really look at their game.

I think it's almost like people have lost interest in the slow-pace of the game... they want everything to happen in their session with little or no attention span. Hey, I'm happy when events move fast, but less happy when people become excluded too. It's a tough one.

I think it would be possible to qualitatively analyse the game play and I would imagine there would be patterns over time but right... a lot of work and I'm not about to step up and volunteer either. But, at the same time and right now... the proponents iof the game failing because of game mechanics should seek some demonstrable cause too.

Either way... we'll simply toss this conversation to and fro, with no resolution, occasionally, one of us will use it as a rant thread for something in-game that is pissing us off.

[Jos Elkink]

I do not have characters in enough locations to have a view on that, but it certainly is true that Cantr is a game that by design is only as interesting as you make it as a player. The game environment will generate some challenges, like basic survival, but the interesting challenges that make the game interesting are all long term and self-made. Like, if you want to set up a larger industry with a more complicated supply chain, it is a real challenge; if you want to set up an army of pirates, it's a challenge; if you want to create a festival where people from a wide range attend to join the celebrations, it's a challenge; if you want to develop a newspaper that contains up-to-date information on a wider region, it will be a real challenge; if you want to build an empire and properly control a wide region, it's difficult. All of those are cool challenges and all are of very different types, but none of those are challenges created by the game itself. The latter are boring indeed.

The game has been designed such that developing such initiatives will be challenging, but it was never meant to be all too interesting without ambition

[HFrance]

In the world of Cantr everyone wants to be king but can not do anything alone, except by circumventing the laws. No one can rely on others to do this together because he know that each character is just one of the heads of a hydra, whose other ten heads he does not know. Anyone who trusts others is a fool, and sooner or later will see his grand plan be overthrown by treason, legal or illegal. Difficult to simulate a society on these bases.

[Jos Elkink]

In the world of Cantr everyone wants to be king but can not do anything alone, except by circumventing the laws. No one can rely on others to do this together because he know that each character is just one of the heads of a hydra, whose other ten heads he does not know. Anyone who trusts others is a fool, and sooner or later will see his grand plan be overthrown by treason, legal or illegal. Difficult to simulate a society on these bases.

In my mind, allowing up to 15 characters per player was always exactly to address this: nobody wants to play only followers, but it is too time consuming to play 15 leaders. So I hoped players would, typically, play about 2 or 3 leaders, and then 10 or so followers, so that we have plenty of boring population and still enough excitement for each player I guess that didn't quite work out like that.

[curious]

In the world of Cantr everyone wants to be king but can not do anything alone, except by circumventing the laws. No one can rely on others to do this together because he know that each character is just one of the heads of a hydra, whose other ten heads he does not know. Anyone who trusts others is a fool, and sooner or later will see his grand plan be overthrown by treason, legal or illegal. Difficult to simulate a society on these bases.

In my mind, allowing up to 15 characters per player was always exactly to address this: nobody wants to play only followers, but it is too time consuming to play 15 leaders. So I hoped players would, typically, play about 2 or 3 leaders, and then 10 or so followers, so that we have plenty of boring population and still enough excitement for each player I guess that didn't quite work out like that.

Not sure... from my prior laying experiences, it is all to easy to 'fall into' a leadership role. Simply having a character long enough can see this happening, almost by default.
I don't have 15 characters but if I had and this happened to even two or three of them, I think your thinking is sound... it might be enough to deal with (your "time consuming"). But... and this is a big and speculative but... why would I then have any desire to contemplate that 'hostile take-over' and the like? I also think that characters who end up leading by default are the most likely to appear in-game as the dreaded 'sleepy boss'.

[sherman]

I play 8 leaders and I can honestly say I didn't want to play any of them. I simply just... got position by being most awake or.. oldest or then I had to be leader cause you can't have town without leadership. I have tried to spread responsibilities but rarely anyone is volunteering so it's basically up to my char to lead. I think this isn't game's fault, rather it's more about players and what they choose/wish.

[curious]

I play 8 leaders and I can honestly say I didn't want to play any of them. I simply just... got position by being most awake or.. oldest or then I had to be leader cause you can't have town without leadership. I have tried to spread responsibilities but rarely anyone is volunteering so it's basically up to my char to lead. I think this isn't game's fault, rather it's more about players and what they choose/wish.

Just dump the keys on someone and shout "You're it..!"

[Jos Elkink]

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.