Item deterioration: Economic saviour or social suicide?

[Bowser]

I still believe that weapons and tool vendors will have to make items to order instead of having a stock room. Imagine if your army or local police department had to make a gun for each new cop instwad of taking an already made one out of the weapons closet. PErhaps a new storage item could be made that keeps items from rotting. I am more likely to agree with item decay for items i carry every day, all day... but the items I have in storage to hand out to new Clan people should not decay.

[julie2]

I still believe that weapons and tool vendors will have to make items to order instead of having a stock room. Imagine if your army or local police department had to make a gun for each new cop instwad of taking an already made one out of the weapons closet. PErhaps a new storage item could be made that keeps items from rotting. I am more likely to agree with item decay for items i carry every day, all day... but the items I have in storage to hand out to new Clan people should not decay.

I thoroughly agree. The way it's been implemented, decay is hindering theCantian economy. By the way, the new storage item- if we go down that road- would have to portable, so that travelling traders could start selling tools again, without finding their stock deteriorating.

Like I said, iyt's all too fast, anyway. IRL you don't find your tools have started degrading in roundabout the same time it takes to make them- or the time it takes to get to the nearset hardware shop and back, like they do in Cantr. If they did, it would be thoroughly depressing, and we'd rapidly give up on them. I think one major effect of degradation- iunless it's drastically changed- is going to be that people will make do with fewer tools. They'll particularly be avoding making things like crowbars, which only get used now and then. There's going to be a pretty low ceiling on the variety of tools you can possess, before you're spending all your time just maintaining what you've got

And if all that maintainence takes is your own time--well that takes away the time when you're actually participating in the Cantrian economy by producing tradeable goods or consumibng them doesn't it? It has the reverse effect from the (supposedly) intended one.

[julie2]

@ Wulf and Black Canyon:
I'm no expert either, but isn't mass production responsible for this phenomenon that purchasing new is cheaper than repairing.?In less "developed" societies it's the other way round, isn't it?

Never mind the tecnology level, Cantr's a long way from mass-production, as yet.

... I'm suggesting that we ideally should have the choice to purchase a new hammer rather than spend the time or money repairing an old one.

That's certainly the basis of our modern economy. If my hammer breaks it would be prohibitively costly both in terms of time, and also acquiring the necessary tools and expertise, to build a new one myself. In fact, once it starts to degrade I might hang onto it for a while but it's much more efficient for me to buy a new one than to repair the old one.

I'm not sure, however, whether the small scale but techologically varied society that is Cantr (from primitive bows to motor cars!) will ever support or develop anything close to a modern western economic model. I think the "richest" situation will be if the game attracts and keeps a large number of people who roleplay to a high standard, not getting driven away in frustration because they spend all their time trying to maintain a favourite tool, which keeps on degrading when it has hardly been used.

Wulf

[julie2]

I'd like to make an imprtant general observation:

The major in favour of decay seems to be that there are all these stocks of old metal from the time when iron could be pulled dirctly from the ground , and these need getting rid of somehow.

The major in favour of decay seems to be that there are all these stocks of old metal from the time when iron could be pulled dirctly from the ground , and these need getting rid of somehow.

There are other arguments in favour of decay. We should focus on those and leave that one out. We can’t allow that problem to effect the way decay is implemented.

Why? Because that’s a one-off problem, which demands some kind of one-off solution., not a which will permanently alter the g ame mechanics . Decay needs to make sense under the current mechanics. If it’s prtimarily geared towards correcting an old mistake, and that’s allowed to dominate our thinking about it. then it will introduce a permanent imbalance in the game.

If a sensible decay system just happens to fix that problem, all well and good. But let’s not force it. Let’s leave that out of our thinking for now and look at how it effects currrent production, instead.

[wulf]

I'm no expert either, but isn't mass production responsible for this phenomenon that purchasing new is cheaper than repairing.?In less "developed" societies it's the other way round, isn't it?

Never mind the tecnology level, Cantr's a long way from mass-production, as yet.

I think that not only is Cantr a long way from mass-production but also that it will never get there. There just aren't enough people to make it feasible, especially with the length of time it takes to journey from one community to another.

However, I think the economy would be stimulated more if natural resources were not limitless rather than by having a relatively short decay time on Cantrian artifacts - in a similar way to how many communities have generated rules about not hunting animals when the pack size falls below a certain number because wiping out the local food resource would mean they would have to move.

Wulf

[west]

I'd like to make an imprtant general observation:

The major in favour of decay seems to be that there are all these stocks of old metal from the time when iron could be pulled dirctly from the ground , and these need getting rid of somehow.

The major in favour of decay seems to be that there are all these stocks of old metal from the time when iron could be pulled dirctly from the ground , and these need getting rid of somehow.

There are other arguments in favour of decay. We should focus on those and leave that one out. We can’t allow that problem to effect the way decay is implemented.

Why? Because that’s a one-off problem, which demands some kind of one-off solution., not a which will permanently alter the g ame mechanics . Decay needs to make sense under the current mechanics. If it’s prtimarily geared towards correcting an old mistake, and that’s allowed to dominate our thinking about it. then it will introduce a permanent imbalance in the game.

If a sensible decay system just happens to fix that problem, all well and good. But let’s not force it. Let’s leave that out of our thinking for now and look at how it effects currrent production, instead.

Are you suggesting that Staff just go into peoples' storerooms and take their iron and steel? That's not acceptable. I don't know where these massive supplies of iron and steel from the old days are, but those of my characters who have any legacy iron at all don't have much, and are saving it, as is their prerogative, because they got it legitimately by using the game mechanics at the time. If getting iron from the ground in the old days had been a bug that was available for a day, maybe taking it away would be a good idea. But what I think you're suggesting with your "one-off solution" is diminishing those stockpiles, which were obtained through legitimate means using a system that was in place for over half the game length. I don't see how you could justify that.

[julie2]

@West
I’m not suggesting anything in particular. It’s difficult to see a different one-off solution to the one you describe, essentially, but I haven’t thought about it at any great length, so I wouldn’t be too sure there isn’t one. Personally, I don’t see that it’s a big enough problem to justify either measure; but if the programming Department disagree, and if nobody comes up with a third alternative, then I think a permanent compensatory alteration in the game mechanics –just to "restore the balance “ -- is the greater of the two evils. But there are quite a lot of “if”s in there, you’ll notice.

[kinvoya]

However, I think the economy would be stimulated more if natural resources were not limitless

I suggested this also in another thread. Whatever stockpiles of iron may be lying around idle do not stagnate the economy anywhere near as much as limitless food does. I don't see why it really matters if they exist.

Economy is driven by needs (not wants but needs) and Cantrians have almost no needs and that keeps them from really striving.

Needs of the Cantrian:

#1 Food

then way below this

#2 Protection from animal (and sometimes human) attacks

then way, way below this

#3 Whatever their roleplayed personalities might dictate (these are not technically game driven needs but they can be strong enough to be economic driving forces)


#4 Possibly a weapon to hunt with if no plant food is available (see #1)

#5 A social structure (possibly, if #2, #3 & #4 conditions apply)

#6 In extreme cases healing foods or medicine for wounds.

Everything else that a Cantrian might work and strive for is a desire but they could, in fact, survive without them. In most cases, only #1 and #2 will constitute real needs.

Limiting the endless supply of easily obtainable food would not only boost the economy by making food valuable it would encourage trade and create businesses such as restaurants for preparing lightweight, highly nutritious food. Restaurants would need a lot more fuel = trade. Obtaining harvesting tools would actually be worthwhile, etc. Chars would focus a lot more on food than on making an endless supply of weapons they don't need for wars that aren't fought. Lots of chars might actually starve to death, which, while tragic is more realistic in such a hand-to-mouth society.

If even a modest need for balanced meals were to be implimented this would boost the economy even more.

If people in rl could just live comfortably outside and easily pull up all the food they need every day and didn't have children to worry about and weren't driven by the numerous needs they have, would society advance much? I don't think so. Of course, some people would still strive for knowledge and power but most would probably fall into laziness - sitting around chatting with friends and distracting themselves with dramatic love affairs - and I think that's exactly what is happening in Cantr.

[formerly known as hf]

resource depletion - it's something I used to go on about a lot, and, I agree, it's needed to give some places in Cantr a swift kick up the backside...

[Surly]

If people in rl could just live comfortably outside and easily pull up all the food they need every day and didn't have children to worry about and weren't driven by the numerous needs they have, would society advance much? I don't think so. Of course, some people would still strive for knowledge and power but most would probably fall into laziness - sitting around chatting with friends and distracting themselves with dramatic love affairs - and I think that's exactly what is happening in Cantr.

There is absolutely no basis for that statement. The only base goods required by humans are food and water. In many areas shelter might be considered essential as well, but there are places where it is not necessary. "Numerous needs" is a misleading phrase. There is one need: to survive. This manifests in self-preservation as well as reproduction, as personal survival and survival of the species. Anything beyond that is a luxury. Clothes are not essential, nor are most things that many seem to think are basic.

Society advances for many reasons. Even in the situation you describe, society will advance. Maybe not in the way that many of us see as advancing, but advancing nonetheless. Society is shaped by the dominant personalities as much as by anythings else.

Anyway, rant over. I think something that is being overlooked here is that item rot (please don't try to tell me it is deterioration. It is rot, plain and simple) will not affect these apparently huge iron stocks. it will remove any built tools. I really think that this needs to be thought through a lot more before being stuffed into Cantr half-baked. The iron and steel backlogs will disipate through trade eventually... due to the ridiculously difficulty level of obtaining large amounts of iron and steel.

The problem is that nobody really wants to trade. They want to do it all themselves. As such, this is not something that needs a programming fix. This is an economic situation unique to the Cantr world, and all it needs is in-game solutions. Player's attitudes will not change because a bunch of people on the forum try to force changes on them.

Anyway, in conclusion:

LET THE CANTR PLAYERS SORT THIS OUT ON THEIR OWN!

There is a place for use-based deterioration. No problems there. BUt trying to justify item rot by the 'huge backlog' of iron argument? It will sort itself out in game eventually. How do you expect Cantr to develop if you don't let it?

[kinvoya]

There is one need: to survive.

For rl it would have been more acurate if I had said drives. In rl people have drives to obtain sex, protection from the elements with shelters and clothes, protecting children, social interaction, intellectual stimulation, artistic and religious expression, etc. I carried over the use of the word needs to be consistant but, in fact, Cantrians don't have drives (as in, drive = this is something I will do almost anything to get but if I don't I'll probably still survive). If they did then more businesses would flourish. They have only the few survival needs I listed above.

Obtaining food in rl isn't usually that easy. Gathering wild foods involves a lot of effort as oppossed to in Cantr. It shouldn't be so easy in Cantr, either.

The iron and steel backlogs will disipate through trade eventually

If food were harder to come by trade of the backlogs would be more likely.

[Surly]

Right I'm bored... so I'm going to address a few of the points Kinvoya raised... and why they are wrong.

Economy is driven by needs (not wants but needs) and Cantrians have almost no needs and that keeps them from really striving.

Wrong. Plain wrong. In the most primitive societies, survival is the onlt objective... gathering enough food to keep yourself alive (not dissimilar from trying to live off blueberries). There is no trade in these societies, because it is not absolutely necessary to trade in a subsistance economy.

Economy is driven by wants. The want to increase your productivity by procuring things you don't already have, the want to obtain items you don't have access to. The want to improve your lot in life, to improve your quality of living.

Not only is your statement wrong, it is almost totally the reverse of the truth.

It is important to recognise that Cantrians have very similar levels of actual need to humans. Food is needed, although water is not. Shelter or protection from the weather in RL, in Cantr it is protection from the animals. In fact the major difference between Cantr and RL is that there are less needs for the Cantrian only due to not having the need to secure the future of Cantr kind. The need to preserve the future by having children, protecting them as they grow up and providing for them... that is absent from Cantr. And that is precisely why I think the economy is stagnating. Due to the absence of the need to protect and provide for children, what is the point in investing the 47 years required to build a van (as usual that figure does not include the effect of having to travel for resources)? There is not the same bond with random newspawns.

Limiting the endless supply of easily obtainable food would not boost the economy. It would kill it. Consider the fact that someone gathering other resources or manufacturing iron/steel cannot gather food. The impression that there is an endless supply of weapons being made is false. Weapons are much harder to make now... and once the ones currently around rot away, the supply will become limited very quickly.

Whilst having more chars starving to death might be realistic, it takes a lot of the fun from the game if survival is the main aim of everyone. To be honest, that game would suck bigtime, I at least some of my characters to achieve their aims not die posessionless after a pointless life.

Introducing a need for balanced meals would have to be balanced by substantial changes in the base resources around Cantr. Wood would have to be more available... wood is a lot more common in RL than it is is Cantr. There would have to more animals to balance the need for meat and a greater variety of foods in most areas. Very few people should have to travel days to find a variety of foods, if they leive in a fertile area. Far from boosting the economy, it would be yet another ooc way to force trade - something which I violently disagree with

The idea of limiting resources... I am not sure about that. I would prefer to see different types of a certain resource instead, which have different gathering values. So we would see many more granite buildings than marble, because granite should be much easier to gather. I think this is a more positive change than limiting resources, as it doesn't restrict the current system, it adds to it.

It is the players that need to decide to trade... trying to force it on them is a heavily flawed idea. There is a heavy imbalance at the moment between the amount of iron/steel required for things that was never solved after the hematite change. And now, with item rot... life is getting harder and harder for the Cantrian... how can you expect society to advance when it is so damned difficult, and getting harder?

EDIT:

Cantrians don't have drives (as in, drive = this is something I will do almost anything to get but if I don't I'll probably still survive). If they did then more businesses would flourish. They have only the few survival needs I listed above.

That is also wrong... A Cantrian drive is dictated by his player. That is what the whole idea of RP is about. It isn't all talk and emotes... it is the thoughts the character would have, being thought by the player. The player is the character's mind... If your character's have no drives... why are you playing Cantr?

[Black Canyon]

So........about time to introduce babies?

[SekoETC]

It would be terribly complex and difficult to program in needs. Everyone knows from real life that you get cold if you don't have clothes, your feet hurt if you walk on rough terrain if you don't have shoes, and sure it's cool to have more stuff than the guy next door. I think it's pretty lame that there are characters like Nixit who ignore needs that haven't been programmed in. Cantrians are humans, neh? I think maybe instead of "wearing nothing worth mentioning" it should say straight that you are butt naked, maybe state a couple of remarks of how your wang is too small or your testicles are hanging comically on different levels or of different size, or your boobs are too big or too small or too hanging or your belly is too fat or your ass is too big. Would people then have more of a drive to cover themselves?

[The Sociologist]

Economy is driven by wants. The want to increase your productivity by procuring things you don't already have, the want to obtain items you don't have access to. The want to improve your lot in life, to improve your quality of living.

[...] It is the players that need to decide to trade... trying to force it on them is a heavily flawed idea.

[...] That is also wrong... A Cantrian drive is dictated by his player. That is what the whole idea of RP is about. It isn't all talk and emotes... it is the thoughts the character would have, being thought by the player. The player is the character's mind... If your character's have no drives... why are you playing Cantr?

That's all interesting and I tend to agree. We need desire and in Cantr desire must be prompted at the level of the player, but through acting upon the character, so that the player experiences desires as the character would experience them--in other words on behalf of the character. But it goes back to psychology.

All the recent changes--tiredness, skills and deterioration--move away from these subjective conditions of roleplay, away from psychology.

This link was my very first post to the forum, the notorious Conspicuous Consumption thread, but the fact remains that had the game gone in that direction instead, it would have been a lot better off by now:
http://www.cantr.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3287