Maximum number of resource gatherers

[Snake_byte]

You'll have to prove me wrong in character.

Your characters need to adapt or they will die. <---That is a fact (as well as the definition for "natural selection) no matter how "bottlenecked" this "atrocity" is.

[Nick]

No offense, but this kind of benighted attempt to bottleneck the gathering of resources shows a lack of foresight and little care for the wishes of the players.

Yes, because the staff secretly plots to make the game worse so no one will play.
If the staff had little care for the players, there wouldn't be a staff. We're volunteers.

[AoM]

I agree with Snake byte, Satai. There are places in Cantr that are already dealing with this new restriction quite well. The methods are already in place to help characters survive. Locations that use these methods are prospering as always. This is a good change, as resources should be limited in some way.

The change rewards proper city management. Now it is critical to have good leaders in place, and have a good division of labor. Otherwise the masses of newspawns doesn't get fed, and starving people are likely to revolt. So if your newspawn is so angry that he's starving, demand a new leader, scrap a hard living, or die. If your a product of a poor society, life can suck unless you actively look for a way to make it better.

Don't rely on solving the problem ooc. If you put as much thought into your characters reactions as you put into your articulate forum complaints, you'd be having a lot more fun right now.

[Songthrush]

And what is it you volunteer to do, make your players miserable?

I understand though that many people have nothing to do with this resource bottleneck, and direct all these pleas mainly at Jos in the programming department.

Thanks for the compliments AoS. You know, I do put more effort into my sixteen characters in Cantr than complaining in the forum. As you may have noticed, I didn't even have a forum account before now. I'm afraid that in Cantr starving crowds with their mighty bare fists are not as likely to revolt as they are to get bored and die/quit the game, which presumably is not what management wants - SnakeBitz notwithstanding.

I have found no in-game way to explain to anyone the effect of the resource restriction so far - it has always been done with "OOC: Yeah, thats some weird thing they changed a couple of days ago, we can't start our projects as usual." Please help me out here and suggest a couple of good RP ways to explain the following in-game message: "ERROR: This location already has the maximum number of resource gatherers."

"Sorry you can't farm for potatos because four people are already doing something else in our city." Please!

The resource bottleneck is a game design fiasco that prompted me to speak out. Without important changes (the slot distribution system being the first critical necessity) it will destroy the Cantr world I know and even love.

In the game, I choose not to associate with the "Darwinists" - people locked inside a rat race of Cantr material achievements bore me to tears - I was always more interested in philosophical and social aspects that can be better explored in this game than in many others.

If my characters, many of whom purposedly don't have much more stuff than a newspawn would, are forced to sit in a building and repair old wooden shields for the SnakeBites of the world instead of roleplaying, all just to have something to eat, do you guys expect I'll maintain any interest in playing with you? Obviously, one man does not matter a whole lot, but think of other roleplayers who might well be in the same boat I am.

If Cantr had an infinite number of easily accessible locations, then even new characters could try to live independently, but that is not the case. It takes a very long time to travel anywhere and many of the islands are densely populated. Which is good- because it is ony in population centres like Siom and Quillanoi that any regular activity takes place, the majority of players being in a state of constant sleep, broken only to pack the stuff they've collected away into their buildings or ships.

There are already messages in the forum with the player reaction to these "trade enhancing" changes -- players uniformly TAKE THEM TO BE GAME BUGS. If your players think your new feature is a bug, that has got to tell you something.

All in all I have two questions:

1. What is a newspawn to do under these new conditions. There is no convenient way of "working for somebody", at least not as convenient and always-available as the resource collection buttons used to be.

2. Does Cantr management care about the social aspects of the game or do they believe "natural selection" will magically create and maintain these for them.

Thanks,
Satai.

[Nick]

Mainly at the guy who makes playing this game possible? He's "mainly" the guy trying to make you "miserable"?
You need to have some respect for the people who make it so you CAN play this game.
If you can't treat Jos with respect then you don't really deserve to be playing Cantr.

[Songthrush]

Then again, someone who doesn't respect the needs and wants of the players doesn't deserve to be on the marketing team of the game.

That's a bit of a rash conclusion isn't it - that someone doesn't deserve to play a game like Cantr because they don't see eye-to-eye with its programming staff or Darwinist ideologists.

[west]

Cantr is a society simulator. The point of it is that people have to interact with society to survive. The whole point of the recent changes is to make it MORE important to join and participate in societies. It's still possible to exist entirely at the margins of society, never interacting at all, but just as in real life, you won't get nearly as far as if you cooperate with people.

You're (presumably) a fairly intelligent lad, and so are most people who play cantr; it won't be long before somebody--maybe even you!-- figures out how to work with this change. I've seen a lot of game changes in my day, many of them extreme, and none of them have succeeded in ruining the game for me. I have 11 characters too, some of them quite young, and I'm not complaining about these changes, mostly because I'm too busy trying to figure out how to deal with them in-game.

I do complain about some changes, and I do confess a certain fondness for the days when everything was freely mineable (including iron and steel) and it was possible to be a "lone wolf". But we've already seen the sorts of problems the earlier game mechanics could turn out, and now it's time to see what happens with the change.

[Snake_byte]

That's a bit of a rash conclusion isn't it - that someone doesn't deserve to play a game like Cantr because they don't see eye-to-eye with its programming staff or Darwinist ideologists.

No you don't deserve to play this game because your disrespecting someone who LETS you play HIS free game.

In the game, I choose not to associate with the "Darwinists"

Good, then your characters will die and we'll be rid of someone who refuses to help but instead would rather complain.

[El_Skwidd]

Harsh.

The guy obviously prefers the social, cultural aspects of the game, which I agree are severely lacking. And he does have a point. The new resource change in no way promotes any of that.

Along those same lines, though... can any programming change promote a deeper appreciation for arts and literature in Cantr? I doubt it. Make books harder to make? Possibly. That also means that fewer people may bother to make books. I think most of the social/cultural lackings stem from the characters, not the staff.

So here's where I say to spawn a bookworm.

But, I've said that before.

As for the new change, I agree with Snake-byte. Sure, it's Darwinist and unfair for some people, but those are the die part of the newly-titled Snake-byte Theory of Cantr Evolution. The adapt half will live to make great legacies of literary collections and artwork... or crush a mountain of hematite.

[Songthrush]

Well SnakeBitz, I am not quite ready to abandon ship yet - though I assure you that when I do, I won't be banging any doors or filling the forums with drama-queen rants.

You will never even notice that I am gone; but there are many others in the game who would, I'm willing to wager. It has been my daily delight to interact with ordinary characters in Cantr, running their ordinary errands, and then instead of doing the same, to subtly affect them over time to think of things beyond that, so that they unwittingly become what we call "roleplayers" and stuff.

[Snake_byte]

Good so you'll start helping. That's what you're saying?
Doing what I asked in the first place?
Those "drama-queen" rants of course referring to your own?

One thing you're right about is that I won't miss you when you enevitably GIVE UP.

[Just A Bill]

I heard someone say that in areas where the leadership is lacking they should revolt and change the leadership. As I understand the dynamics of combat this is all but impossible. My understanding of the combat system is that one well armed and shielded individual would not be threatened by 20 or 30 unarmed ones. It might take the armed one a while, but I suspect he would win.

Since the people in charge are not the ones threatened by this change, I don't see the great trading revolution coming out of this.

This change will also hit the lesser developed areas harder than the more developed ones. While I appreciated Jos's effort to try and keep the game interesting for the developed areas, this change will affect the developed areas less than other areas. Well developed areas will either have harvesters/drills, ect or will have the resources to build them.

[Snake_byte]

Yes but now with new trade routes in place, everything gets spread around even to the lesser developed areas, which will now have a larger role to play as their "slots" are valuable.

[Songthrush]

One thing I really can't help but do is play the game my way, not the SnakeBits way.

[AoM]

I would argue that that is no longer the case, Just a Bill. My money would be on the 20 to 30 unarmed people. Of course, these days it's quite easy to manufacture a hidden weapon like say... a bone bagh nahk. Have 20 irate people do this and hit the really well armed individual and he'll fall.

But a more realistic approach would be for these poor wretches to support a challenger who is well armed as well. Kind of like those American Westerns where the poor townsfolk hire the wandering gunslinger to take out the mean bandit guy who's got the town in his fist.

OR in some governments, it could be as simple as voicing your opinion and calling for a vote of some other town official.

Point is, there are a lot of ways for the exchange of power to occur, and most are not beyond the ability of a smart newspawn to engineer.