Maximum number of resource gatherers

General out-of-character discussion among players of Cantr II.

Moderators: Public Relations Department, Players Department

julie2
Posts: 338
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 9:10 pm

Postby julie2 » Sun Aug 28, 2005 11:26 am

Snake_byte wrote:How does it NOT promote trade?

Now a location with food or whatever can't just keep it to themselves because there are other things you need like hematite which will need trade routes to aquire now since you can't just go there and simply gather it anymore.

A location with food can now feed up to maybe 4 other lacations that have none on a steady amount always rolling in with the people they trade with for other things such as limestone, hematite, coal, healing foods...

Trade routes now need to be organized for survival.
If these aren't made quickly then a lot of charries will die of starvation beacause everyone is disorganized and refuses to help work with this.


Actually, this already happens, Snakebyte. How do think the mountain communities have survived thus far? Largely by trade, in my experience.

What this change does is screw over much of the organisation which already exists. Some locations with food will now have to keep it to themselves because it's harder to gather a surplus for trade. If they can manage to gather that surplus still, then they might find that their existing trading partners no longer have surplus of limestone or whatever to trade on, because of their gathering limits.

Build more machines? Ummm... that takes a long time and much metal (which will now be hader to make, due to difficulty getting the basic resources) . And even then there are many important resources (rice, limestone, stone and wood, to name a few) for which no machine is available).

More social organision? That's only a partial solution. Not all the inherent problems with this can be solved by organisation. Also , you forget that some of the social organisation in existence stems from private businesses and other organisations which function indeprendently of local government. Now local governments have been forced to keep tight control of resource-gahering, many of those organisations will quite simply be left with no place to go. They could only spring up and flourish in those easy-going communities where local Government didn't attempt to control everything There's no question of them leasing or claiming ownership of a few gathering slots (as would happeb IRL) because that simply wouldn't be practical to implement (How do you know who's gathering-slot the latest meddlesome newspawn has taken over? Well whomever it belongs to, he'll probably have fallen asleep again and missed his chance to nab it by the time the newspawn has been dragged away, so it hardly matters. The way the game mechanics work, you can't have anything except a free-for-all in practice- unless it's a ruthlessly guarded monopoly on everything within a six-day radius. How realistic is that?)
Augery
Posts: 104
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 11:19 am
Location: Hamilton, New Zealand
Contact:

Postby Augery » Sun Aug 28, 2005 12:06 pm

Its quite simple to give businesses or individuals the ownership of resource gathering slots, just say person A gets so many slots, B gets so many and anyone who isn't allowed to gather resources and tries to gets thrown in jail, then the project is no longer active and everyone just carries on their way.
julie2
Posts: 338
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 9:10 pm

Postby julie2 » Sun Aug 28, 2005 12:49 pm

Augery wrote:Its quite simple to give businesses or individuals the ownership of resource gathering slots, just say person A gets so many slots, B gets so many and anyone who isn't allowed to gather resources and tries to gets thrown in jail, then the project is no longer active and everyone just carries on their way.

It's simple to reach an agreement to that effect. Do really have to personally attempt to put it into practice, before you can envisage the difficulties? You have an imagination presumably. You're familiar with the usual Cantrian limitations presumably? Many things in Cantr are very much easier said than done, and that's one of them. It will be much like the problem of trying to get two, and only two, people working on on a Harvesting project It isn't easy. One of those people will probably be asleep. If you hang about too long, then some random newspawn will probably get on, taking somebody's place. If you drag the newspawn off (because the sleepy one suddenly woke up and grumbled that he couldn't get on) then, by the time you've woken and organised that, the sleepy one has fallen asleep again until tomorrow (or worse, next week, because their player is about to go on holiday) and so he still can't join right now. If you own one Harvester and somebody else owns the other, then there are even more fun and games. One of the other guy's workers is all -too-likely to join the wrong project. If he had he foresight to ask three workers to join, figuring that one might well be too sleepy, then his workers might wind up in the right place as well as in the wrong place, so you cant' even swop places. (You probablty can't realistically anyway, due to inequalites such as different-sized projects at different stages of completion) Now, if you divvy up eight gathering slots, and if you want those slots used efficiently (as surely you do, if the limits are tight) then you can multiply those kind of problems by eight (or more like 8 factorial come to think, which is even worse) . You can also add on futher complications due to the fact that there's no way of telling which gathering slot belongs to whom Either you'll have half-a-dozen contingency plans and the organisers/owners will run themselves ragged, trying to implement those plans, or else more half the available slots will be vacant (or else misappropriated) most of the time That's just how it is. You can't demand the same level of organisation and co-operation in Cantr as we have IRL. You're tryng to squeeze blood out of a stone if you do. If you make it so that survival depends on achieving that kind of level of organisation, , then the effect will be that a lot of characters simply won't survive. Not because they're unwilling to cope with difficulties , but largely because their players can't log in often enogh to make that solution workable

Multiple ownershipof gathering-slots within a town simply doesn't stand any chance at all of working in practice - not unless the available land can be clearly divided into clearly labelled plots
User avatar
wichita
Administrator Emeritus
Posts: 4427
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 6:46 pm
Location: Suomessa!

Postby wichita » Sun Aug 28, 2005 3:47 pm

I like Seko's solution of changing it from number of gatherers to number of active projects, because this truly reflects what Jos was driving at. There can only be so much land, so many fields, but multiple people can still work in the same field.

And Jos, while I understand why you don't want to subdivide it into resource groups, it actually would better simulate a land space issue. Allow so many spots for fields, so many slots for quarries/mines, so many slots for forestry, etc. and it will reflect better the land distribution of a location I would think.

There is a workaround to gathering, and that is machinery. I will say it again though I know a lot of you will torch the comment. Build harvesters, build stone quarries, build hematite drills. "But they cost too much" you will say. True, it will take some work to build it. That is called investment. It may take a few people to get it done, be it a company or a government,but then you will have a way to boost production and free up slots for smaller independent operations. Then you will have loads of material.

And I will say again, I have seen organization in action. I have seen trade work. The reason a lot of you have not is because too many people do not know how to do it properly. Wlaking into a town and saying "I have a load of stuff to trade is anyone interested." Is not an optimal trade strategy in some areas. It is often necessary in game to decide what you need, find where you can get it, find out what they need to give it to you, and go from there.


And I am still pissed that it is hard for characters to become farmers because nobody will BUY food. Why does everybody have to farm their own food all the time? Tell you what. Show up naked in New York City and tell me how many grams of carrots you can pull out of the ground. That is what you are lloking at being a newspawn in a larger Cantr city.

If you land in the plains with two other naked guys, you should expect to be able to start a garden. If you land in the city, you may have to find some other job in exchange for food.

And for those of you who say it will kill trade, I will say once again that I have survived in the conditions that you say it will be impossible to survive in. IT WILL WORK IF YOU GIVE IT A CHANCE. Take a deep breath and try to relax. This will work eventually. We have survived a lot as players, we have overcome and we are stronger for it.
"Y-O-U! It's just two extra letters! Come on, people! This is the internet, not a barn!" --Kid President
User avatar
PRUT
Posts: 826
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:48 pm
Location: Poland

Postby PRUT » Sun Aug 28, 2005 6:33 pm

Dear Jos and other GAC Members

I support the idea of limits and land scarcity but in correct way. You've written that you want to have arguments, here I want to give You some.
As me and KeVes written, we suggest limits per resources not gatherers.
Here are the advantages:

• reality

Maximum number of gathered resources will be as natural as it is in real. If we have a field or mine - it wouldn't be bigger or smaller dependingly of number of gatherers! If You are good in farming and You have a harvester, it wouln't change the the size of the field, would it? (in current system: size of the field depends of number of working people, and machines they are using :shock: )
We suggest constant amount of resources which depend on land's wealth


• diversity

Imagine, we have 7 slots of gathering resources in the city and most important are for example rise and hematite. Which goverment or other kind of organistaion would allow someone to gather flowers? No one! Gatherers limits will cease gathering "useless" resources, stop art or hobbies or crazies :( - things which are important in every society. We will have soon just strict industrial economies.
What's more, imagine that we have carrots and wheat in the same location. Every wise organisation will allow just farming carrots (wheat processing takes much longer and isn't as efficient as carrots) Fields of wheat (as well as other useless resources) will never grow in current system of limits.
In system proposed by us, every resource has its own limit, so everytime we can gather everything and what's it more important for economic organisation: in case of carrots and wheat - organisations would farm carots and wheat simultaneously, making diversification in economy, fulfilling food demand both with carrots and bread :!:

In my opinion diversification stimulate trade better than scarcity
Last edited by PRUT on Sun Aug 28, 2005 8:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
SekoETC
Posts: 15525
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 11:07 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Postby SekoETC » Sun Aug 28, 2005 6:47 pm

Yes, I was wondering how in Quillanoi with 8 resource slots they were still allowing that poor girl to gather flowers...
Not-so-sad panda
User avatar
PRUT
Posts: 826
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:48 pm
Location: Poland

Postby PRUT » Sun Aug 28, 2005 6:47 pm

If we are talking about organisation - there is no difference between limits based of gatherer's number or land's wealth.

In both types of limits, societes have to manage their resources, but the second system is more fair for everyone - and let goverments to decide more wisely, beause potencial wealth of the region will be well known to everyone. In curent system, resources wealth changes dependingly of people - no land - which is mistake in economic point of view.

Jos, I know that Cantr is a game about societes. I want this game to be also about economies - because economy is one of the main part of society. I want to have clear and correct rules of economy.
Well, ok, you can create some strange unnatural rules, You may even implement magic, but would it be still Cantr?

I repeat. Me and Keves suggest land scarcity based on resources limits not gatherers. We added many general arguments (for example look above). If you disagree with them, please give us some contrarguments, we are open for discussion.
Last edited by PRUT on Sun Aug 28, 2005 9:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Yo_Yo
Posts: 725
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 2:32 am
Location: Hiding in the bush

Postby Yo_Yo » Sun Aug 28, 2005 6:52 pm

Just do what I tend to do with my charracters, make friends :)

Once you make friends, do minor work crap to get what you want. BTW, it does help if they are rich :0
Vicki Vale: You're insane!
Joker: I thought I was a Pisces!
Snake_byte
Posts: 2134
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 7:12 am
Location: Quebec, Canada

Postby Snake_byte » Sun Aug 28, 2005 7:01 pm

SekoETC wrote:To my knowledge they are not bound to a certain resource but the amount of resource gatherers is the combined amount of all the people working on resource collection, be that farming, mining, fishing or so on. I think it should be divided a bit, and hey, how about counting only the number of active projects, instead of the workers?


Snake_byte wrote:Maybe instead of making the numbers random make them dependant on how many resources the areas have at the moment. (Please don't confuse this with making it per resource as I'm suggesting somthing different)

Ex: if the area has a total number of 6 resouces and it was 2 people for each resouce then that is a total of 12 people being able to gather/farm ect...
These twelve will be able to be put all on one resource if the leaders/more dominant/whatever wants, OR 2 each but not restricted to the 2 each.


I'd like to see a combination of these two. As in where I say "people" substitute Sekos idea of "projects".
Image
My old banner ;)
User avatar
kinvoya
Posts: 1396
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: The Wide, Wide World of Web

Postby kinvoya » Sun Aug 28, 2005 7:29 pm

Every town is different. They have populations with different personalities, different religions, different governments, different lot of things. I know that each community will find it's own unique solution to this challenge. I am continually amazed by the resourceful and creative ways that the chars (players) find to deal with game mechanic problems and the magical world of CSP (Cantr Special Physics). This change may or may not promote trade. I don't really give a fig about trade but I'm excited to see how everyone will find solutions to this newest Cantr dilemma.

I don't say it often enough (well never, really), Go Jos, wit yo bad self!!!!

:wink: :lol:
<a><img></a>
AngelSpice
Posts: 475
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 5:28 am

Postby AngelSpice » Sun Aug 28, 2005 8:35 pm

wichita wrote: build stone quarries


When is timber being introduced? It's needed for the large log(s?) for the quarries. And if it's only going to be introduced on new islands, then forget any stone quarries on established islands anytime in the near future. However, if it's put in the forests on established islands, then they have one more thing with which to trade for food.
User avatar
wichita
Administrator Emeritus
Posts: 4427
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 6:46 pm
Location: Suomessa!

Postby wichita » Sun Aug 28, 2005 9:03 pm

AngelSpice wrote:
wichita wrote: build stone quarries


When is timber being introduced? It's needed for the large log(s?) for the quarries. And if it's only going to be introduced on new islands, then forget any stone quarries on established islands anytime in the near future. However, if it's put in the forests on established islands, then they have one more thing with which to trade for food.


Crap.
"Y-O-U! It's just two extra letters! Come on, people! This is the internet, not a barn!" --Kid President
User avatar
El_Skwidd
Posts: 628
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 10:07 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Postby El_Skwidd » Sun Aug 28, 2005 9:41 pm

I agree that the resource limits should be based on the individual resources and not the overall number of people that can gather resources. PRUTs post makes a lot of sense.

The way it is now, the size of the carrot field changes depending on how many people are using on it.

If a set number of carrot gathering slots are implemented, then the field remains the same size and the people can go in and out of it as they please. Or as the slot permits, rather.

It would also keep at least one slot open for 'useless' resources like daisies and other flowers, items used specifically for clothing, and other cool stuff that isn't iron-related.
Cdls wrote:Explaining Cantr to a newb would be like explaining sex to a virgin.


Let the world hear these words once more:
Save us, oh Lord, from the wrath of the Norsemen!
User avatar
formerly known as hf
Posts: 4120
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 2:58 pm
Location: UK

Postby formerly known as hf » Sun Aug 28, 2005 10:44 pm

I really wish there could be a rethink to limiting per resource type

I know Jos has said it wouldn't lead to quite the organistation and control is looking for - but I'm sure it would.
I say, keep the same limits as currently exist, but distribute them amongst resource types. (like MANY people have said...) It just doesn't make sense that ten people mining limestone stop anyone from picking carrots. If there were five slots for limestone and five for carrots, someone would still have to control who can collect limestone, and it's probably make control more likely, as there'd be fewer spaces for the rare resources.

As for private businesses being stifled by previously un-needed town governance now talking control - who's to say that a private company couldn't take-over the governing of a town?
Whoever you vote for.

The government wins.
User avatar
creepyguyinblack
Posts: 680
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 9:05 pm
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

Postby creepyguyinblack » Sun Aug 28, 2005 11:04 pm

Well the way that I see it, the current implementation of gathering limits is to represent that the land in a specific area can be utilized for anything that is native there, and the focus on a specific resource can be focused, ie: digging more carrot patches up to find rocks, or replanting fields and so on. It'd be interesting if there was also someway to have actual limits of the grams of a particular resource in a location, that gradually recovers, but could potentially be tapped out by overzealous use. But it'd have to be a pretty damn big number so towns don't get wiped out, though I guess most modern cities don't really produce anything naturally inside their areas anymore.
“We are beginning to see intimations of this in the implantation of computer devices into the human body.”

Ray Kurzweil quotes

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest