Cantr Is Dying. What Then Shall We Do?

[Talapus]

While such towns and cultures might be neat, the way you propose their creation gos against the underlying philosophy of Cantr. It would undermine the structure of what makes Cantr such a great game. So, while I would love to see such cultures develop in game, I cannot condone the way you wish to make it happen.

[Chris]

Maybe it could be handled like languages. Let people who want to experiment with less common ideologies/cultures sign up for English Badlands or Polish Badlands. (The languages with this option would have to have a lot of people already to be able to support this subdivision.) Give them a tiny island to spawn. Let them slug it out or try to persuade each other as to which form of fascism, religion, tulip-loving, or whatever is going to dominate. Make the island reasonably close to another island of the same language, so there are opportunities for interaction between the unconventional characters of the Badlands and the conventional characters.

[DylPickle]

I think all we really need to do is add a line to the capital rule or above the new character page, saying "To promote cultural diversities in game, we encourage basing a character's morals, beliefs, and personality to somewhat fit the society that character is born in to."

Or something to that extent. *shrug*

[SekoETC]

Good point DylPickle. I was thinking about this topic overnight and even though it might be cool to have societies start out on the same foot, we need to bear in mind that as long as there are other communities around, ones with different morals will eventually clash. Quirky societies couldn't really enforce themselves without the steel to back it up, and if you start from scratch (save for abandoned buildings of a previous society) the surrounding societies will crush you like a bug if they think that your culture might one day rise to be a threat to theirs. So in order to survive, a society would have to pretend that it doesn't force anyone to be its member and that would already rule out the most aggressive societies.

[Sicofonte]

The Mongols came out of nowhere to dominate the world in a thirty year time span, and contrary to common opinion, had a lot to do with shaping modern civilization

And Alexander the Great. And some others.
But no all small civilizations did that, only some few ones.
If you allow OOC organization, I bet that all the language groups will have more than one conqueror civilitations going on.
Unique achievements are unique achievements.
And thirty year of conquering but some previous centuries of shapping their culture to allow it.
30 years would be in cantr 2 years.
I have been playing a year and a half and the Spanish region have a big Federation, with more than 30 characters involved, that a year before was inexistent. If it was a belligerent comunity instead of a constructive one, you could bet that we would be sailing the seas to conquer some far lands (many of them already know in game where to find English, Polish, Swedish and Turkish islands).

That's the game: It takes years to do anything unique, if you can ever do it at all; and most towns have only a couple of active players.

I do think that being required long time periods for achieving big things is GOOD for having the players stuck to the game.
Often, when you achieve your goals in certain activity, you get bored and quit that activity.

Give me variety. Give me options.

You, bring that variety to the game.
I know of a (small) city where cantrian sacrifices for the gods are good. And it happened in game, just due to good roleplaying of someone and others affiliatting to it.
I know of violent civilizations, and peacefull ones. Some tiranies, some oligarchies, some empires, one federation, I guess that some small republics...
The barons were similar to the mongols or the vikings in some traits.

because most everyone brings some form of Western neoliberal values to it

Could you avoid that through OOC organization but not via in game roleplaying?
I don't know why.

[Doug R.]

I see the disciples of orthodoxy are sharpening their pitchforks.

So when this preconceived society (quickly) becomes strong enough and (easily) conquers its neighbors that were not preconcieved but instead grew up over hundreds of years with luck and back-breaking work, we are to consider this fair?

Three points. 1) No such proposed society need have as its object world (or even regional) domination, 2) Staff review and oversight can prevent this, if desired, and 3) Even something like that was approved, so what? The Mongols came out of nowhere to dominate the world in a thirty year time span, and contrary to common opinion, had a lot to do with shaping modern civilization -- introducing fungible currency, civil bureaucracy, etc. And most players will tell you that at least some of their best playing experiences resulted from world-shaking events, not from the day they first smelted iron.

1) No, but it's a very viable option

2) Why give the staff unncesessary work? They're already overworked.

3) Online gamers have a very over-developed sense of fairness. If people threatened to quit en-mass if children are developed, or if tool rot wasn't fixed, what do you think will happen if a CRB approved by the PD ruined just a single player's fun? I shudder to consider the consequences.

Oh, and don't forget that if we allow organized and oversought "cheating," people who will rightfully then see their own characters and towns as disadvantaged will cheat off the books. This will just encourage cheating on an unheard of scale, reshaping the nature of the game forever.

[saztronic]

I see the disciples of orthodoxy are sharpening their pitchforks.

So when this preconceived society (quickly) becomes strong enough and (easily) conquers its neighbors that were not preconcieved but instead grew up over hundreds of years with luck and back-breaking work, we are to consider this fair?

Three points. 1) No such proposed society need have as its object world (or even regional) domination, 2) Staff review and oversight can prevent this, if desired, and 3) Even something like that was approved, so what? The Mongols came out of nowhere to dominate the world in a thirty year time span, and contrary to common opinion, had a lot to do with shaping modern civilization -- introducing fungible currency, civil bureaucracy, etc. And most players will tell you that at least some of their best playing experiences resulted from world-shaking events, not from the day they first smelted iron.

1) No, but it's a very viable option

2) Why give the staff unncesessary work? They're already overworked.

3) Online gamers have a very over-developed sense of fairness. If people threatened to quit en-mass if children are developed, or if tool rot wasn't fixed, what do you think will happen if a CRB approved by the PD ruined just a single player's fun? I shudder to consider the consequences.

Oh, and don't forget that if we allow organized and oversought "cheating," people who will rightfully then see their own characters and towns as disadvantaged will cheat off the books. This will just encourage cheating on an unheard of scale, reshaping the nature of the game forever.

1) Not, simply put, if the GAC decides it shouldn't be.

2) Compared to what staff are already doing, this is a walk in the park.

3) Maybe, maybe not. Would it be worse than the current, slow but steady drain of players away from the game?

As for encouraging cheating on an uneard of scale, "reshaping the nature of the game forever:" First, I really think you're overestimating both the size and potential impact of this. By a large margin. If the CRB is highly limited, restricted to pre-spawn discussion for tiny groups who agree NOT to cooperate WHATSOEVER after entering the scenario they propose in-game, then I just don't see it turning the game upside-down or ruining people's game experience.

But second and most importantly, the game needs to be reshaped -- carefully, cautiously, and reasonably, but reshaped nonetheless. This is already, hands-down, the best game I ever played on the Internet. When I stop to think about what a small group of people have been able to accomplish with their tireless and often completely selfless work on this game -- and how great it has turned out -- I honestly can't believe it. The only reason we're all on here having this conversation is because we think the whole thing is f***ing brilliant.

And that's why it's so heartbreaking to observe the shrinking of the player base. We think it's great. Why isn't it drawing more players? Why are those who have played so long leaving it? I think in part, at least, it's the all-too-finite social possibilities -- the inability to create truly new, interesting, different places for people to operate.

But anyway. I'm done advocating for it, since this has already accomplished everything it can -- that is to say, generating a little discussion and hopefully making a few points. Unless somebody who really matters takes it up and runs with it, it dies right here no matter how much more we talk about it.

So I'm back over to the Game Forum, meek and quiet. No more talk of change, hey, ho, up with the status quo!

[frenchfisher]

I believe this thread started off a post of mine...

Here, you see, we come to one of the biggest problems with Cantr. Even if some players wanted a society like [a tulip-loving society, a men-are-slaves-of-the-women society], it would be impossible. Because, they would either have to:
1) Blunder into each other, and somehow or other recognize that the other character is a person of like-minded intent.
2) Tell each other exactly where their characters are, or try to organize IC things OOC... and thus be guilty of a Capital Rule violation.

Both mean that the societies you have come up with (which sounds like way fun ) are impossible, because we have no idea whether the people in the general area would be up for such a thing, nor would we have anyway of coordinating efforts OOC. The spawning system we have makes this even more difficult... even if, somehow, a group of individuals dedicated to a weird/cool idea were to collect themselves, it would be literally impossible to make sure that all the newspawns in that town would be okay with playing along with that bizarre variant.

Oops, I've just made myself 100 times more disenchanted with Cantr by virtue of making that post but oh well

I've never considered myself an avid player of Cantr. I think my oldest player was 26 when I deleted my first account, and on my second the oldest is a couple of years younger. I've never even come close to maxing out my minutes (I think the most I've used in one day is 100-ish).

I think one of the biggest reasons that that's true is the monotonous nature of society in Cantr. Whether empty-headed do-gooders, pirates (which I have not seen), scoundrels (my naïve OOC trust in humans keeps me from seeing these ), or Booga Booga Innocent, Trusting, Dependable but Ruthless Cavemen (I must admit even I have one of these), all Cantrians operate on the following assumptions/edicts:

1) Both genders are equal.
2) No one shall be treated differently because of what they're wearing.
3) The base price of all goods shall be in proportion to how long it takes to harvest these goods.
4) Keep the population of animals above a certain arbitrary point.
5) No penalty is worth the punishment of death, besides being a silent newspawn.
6) Do not show favoritism towards any one society.
7) All ages are equally wise.

Call it what you may, my experiences have indicated this. Yes, my experiences with the MacGregors, Stone Knights, and TBR have been limited. And, yes, there are some exceptions to the rule; I've seen a few societies give their ruler some sort of fancy jewelry as a sign of their prominence (and note that I just wait clothing, not weapons- yes, I've seen some societies where wearing a certain weapon is only for the elite), I've seen some goods been priced more than others for transportation costs, and I've even seen some societies decide to eradicate some dangerous animals. But I haven't seen anywhere where the equality of the sexes is challenged (an idea that's only existed pseudo-widely in our own for, what, 50 years?), where naked people are looked at any differently from people wearing a bunch of clothes (oooh, another idea that would never take off: a nudist colony!), where docile animals are overhunted without realization of the consequences, where the death penalty is freely applied, where monarchists consider republics to be anarchies and where communists consider "tribal states" to be antiquated relics, where newspawns are shunned and old people are venerated to the point of godliness (or vice-versa!). The fact is, Cantrian society as a whole isn't that interesting. Wise, intelligent, prudent, maybe, but it's not terribly different from what we see in the real world, just more idealized.

Anyway, I think two points have been made here that need to be challenged:

Dyl, though "adapting to the society you spawn in" is a nice concept, and would be good if we had more diverse societies, right now that's a big cause of our discontent... since most societies are the same, it creates a rather self-perpetuating mess.

Doug, we're not proposing that players are able to violate every single provision of the Capital Rule. We're not saying multis of each player should be able to give information to each other psychically, nor are we saying that players interested in making a weird society should be able to, say, tell each other the exact way to get to some important resource OOCly. I do not believe this one small possible change (though my initial post was more of a rant than a suggestion for change, but whatever) will cause the end of the game as we know it (society as we know it, perhaps, but possibly for the better). To say so is fallacious. Consider, for instance, that for all you know, "cheating on an unheard of scale" is happening right now, this very instant, via PM, AIM, YIM, ICQ, IRC, e-mail, txt, cell phone, landline, collect call, and walkie-talkie. You have no way of knowing for sure that it is not occurring (though there are, of course, ways of knowing for sure that it is occurring ). One of the things I like best about Cantr is that, for the most part, you (the admin department peopley things) rely on personal integrity on the players' part to ensure that we are making the game fair and good, both in making sure that we are doing our own part and monitoring the behavior of others. So why not trust us to do this responsibly, when you entrust us with so much already?

By the way, I think Chris's idea deserves a second look. Give us our own, special little island, away from the others (or close if you're feeling vicious ). And let's test this out... test this quaint little idea. We won't know if we don't try, right?

(I've just now seen saztronic's new post. Don't lose heart, comrade!)

[Missy]

nudist colony!),

Queen Elizabeth one of my characters proposed a nudist colony. She died in a fight with a group of people over a machine that was built on her land.



I disagree with this: "Dyl, though "adapting to the society you spawn in" is a nice concept, and would be good if we had more diverse societies, right now that's a big cause of our discontent... since most societies are the same,"


How many of you bitching that there's nothing different in the societies are people who TRULY go out and try to come up with something different?


I don't believe that it can't be done. I do not believe it for a second. I think none of you know how to try hard enough to make it happen. It's been done before and it can STILL be done.

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say Cantr has attracted a different kind of player that expects things to be handed to them on a golden platter. We've attracted a group of people that play games where wars are started by the click of a button. It's not done that way in Cantr. Get used to it. We don't have a special forum where special groups IC can go and map out plans about how to attack another group. If it were that way? This would be just another one of those games. Stop trying to make it into one. If you want one of those games where everything comes easy then go play one of t hem. Leave the only game on the internet that isn't like that, to it's own style. PLEASE.

[Doug R.]

2) Compared to what staff are already doing, this is a walk in the park.

Spoken out of ignorance. Having been on the PD, and having been assigned cases where I needed to monitor the activities of a few specific characters on a constant basis, I can say with certainty that monitoring an entire community on a constant basis would be a monumental and ultimately futile task.

Anyway, Cantr is special and unique in that OOC collusion is not allowed under any circumstances, and the players take it on faith that everyone plays by the rules. Anything that would serve to shake that faith will destroy the uniqueness of the game. Faith was shaken during the TBR war. I don't know if you were around then, but the OOC fallout was extreme, and I think I can say that to this day there is lingering resentment among some players, and this was do to perceived cheating; nothing was ever proven.

Nothing mentioned in this thread can't be done IC with some ingenuity. Customs began because someone sometime had to start them, so why do characters have to come into the game with their players having pre-discussed the culture? Cantr does have limitations, but saying things have to be done OOC to establish non-traditional culture, I think, is lazy.

To suggest that players are quitting because of a lack of social variability is both unprovable and ignorant to the fact that no game, however addictive, will ever be able to hold a person's attention indefinately.

[saztronic]

How many of you bitching that there's nothing different in the societies are people who TRULY go out and try to come up with something different?

I don't believe that it can't be done. I do not believe it for a second. I think none of you know how to try hard enough to make it happen. It's been done before and it can STILL be done.

It can be done. With hours, days, and weeks of unrelenting attention, activity, and persistence, it can be done. Unfortunately for Cantr, I already have a life. I don't need a second one that's more tedious and less rewarding, but requires almost as much effort.

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say Cantr has attracted a different kind of player that expects things to be handed to them on a golden platter.

This is a gross mischaracterization of what we are discussing here. What gets handed to you on a golden platter under this scenario? A completely empty town with a couple of compatriots? I'd like to return my golden platter, please.

The idea is to both maintain and yet enliven the spirit of Cantr. Because while Cantr attracts a different kind of player (which is great), it doesn't attract many of them. And its retention rate is also poor overall. Which makes it far less fun even for those that do buy into it one hundred percent and stick around for the long-term.

Anyway, I can't improve on frenchfisher's post above -- that's the whole thing in a nutshell. Cantr attracts players who enjoy a different style of play, but it repels players who crave more than the "same old, same old" society that's served up in every town and village. And when they realize just how much work and effort it would take to do anything different, and how great the chances of their failing are despite their willingness to put in the effort, that big gold "X" starts to look more and more attractive.

[Missy]

Learning how to manipulate and convince other characters to join your cause is PART of this game and it's also part of SOCIETY. When you role-play them, it's THEM that has to do the work to convince people of a cause. And that depends on you and how well ~you~ can role-play a convincing character. In any real society we don't have a group of puppeteers getting together and talking about how a group on earth will or won't be successful and then the puppeteers telling us what to do to make it successful. What time to be somewhere because someone in our clan is being attacked and we need to save him. Hell no!



Saztronic, it has plenty to do with it. If it's been done before it can be done again. I've seen it done. I've done it. Entirely without OOC cooperation. It's always taken a LONG time to do the things. (Granted it's beginning to take even longer and longer with some silly changes that are unneccessary.) But you're further proving my point. You want to be allowed to cheat so you can just "get something done successfuly" and that's bullshit. If you can't take the time to work at what you want..........

Nevermind. I'm wasting my energy. This game's dying and it's only going to continue doing that.
Whatever. Yay. Lets have a free-for-all.

[Doug R.]

When the sociologist went on a tirade about how Empires were no longer possible in Cantr, I made a public bet that in one real year I could create one. Deleting my first account (for domestic reasons) was the only thing that stopped me, but I was more than 2/3 of the way there in well under the stated time-frame (I had 4 towns and one satellite resource gathering location under my control, and was about to implement an ingenious plan to bring a massive influx of characters to my location).


I would be tempted to make a similar bet here, but I unfortunately only have one character, and they are in no position currently to begin such an experiment. I guess it'll have to be up to someone else out there to make a point to prove you wrong.

If you consider that it was my addiction to Cantr that caused the circumstances that led to my first deletion (and limiting myself to one character on the second), it is arguable that Cantr's overwhelming success is actually what is driving the "involved" players away, not lack of variety.

[saztronic]

In any real society we don't have a group of puppeteers getting together and talking about how a group on earth will or won't be successful and then the puppeteers telling us what to do to make it successful.

This accurately describes 99.9% of societies throughout history, actually. Do you pay attention to current events?

When the sociologist went on a tirade about how Empires were no longer possible in Cantr, I made a public bet that in one real year I could create one. Deleting my first account was the only thing that stopped me, but I was more than 2/3 of the way there in well under the stated time-frame (I had 4 towns and one satellite resource gathering location under my control, and was about to implement an ingenious plan to bring a massive influx of characters to my location).

I would be tempted to make a similar bet here

Here's my challenge, for anyone in a position to take it up: create a Cantrian society where slavery is a reality. Where people can be bought and sold like property, and masters can do whatever they like with that property without fear of repercussion or reprisal. Both masters and slaves must roleplay their lot in life sincerely and appropriately to their situation.

I don't care how long you take or how hard you work, this will never happen. People will object to the injustice of it, they will reject it, they will overthrow it -- and not because of IG knowledge, but because of their OOC preconceptions. That's its own kind of tyrrany, and it's one that cannot be overthrown with the game as currently designed.

[Doug R.]

A very good challenge, indeed.

However,

People will object to the injustice of it, they will reject it, they will overthrow it -- and not because of IG knowledge, but because of their OOC preconceptions. That's its own kind of tyrrany, and it's one that cannot be overthrown with the game as currently designed.

If what you said is true, even your OOC collusion method won't work, as anyone spawned into the society from outside the original group of players will not conform to the system. If the characters of the players are truely independent of that initial OOC collusion, then when outsiders start screaming about "justice" and "inalienable rights," even the original characters should stop and give pause.