Killing characters - please help!

[MikeH]

That's not even a part of what I'm saying. I'm saying the violence rate needs to go up in Cantr.

Excuse me Oh sure lets kill more chars and ruin the game for even more people.

I'm with you. I think a lot of people disagree about the violence rate needing to go up, and I think that Ryaga's RL view of violence is just as colored by personal experiences as others are. Real life ISN'T as violent as Ryaga insists it is, and there ARE punishments and consequences for violent acts, even if it's not always jail -- there are other kinds of consequences, as in, the neighborhoods where crime is out of control are crappy, have lower values, more diseases, shorter life spans, less education, more peripheral violence that rebounds back on your or your family, etc, etc, etc.

Cantr has NONE of these consequences or punishments regarding violent acts, so cranking up the violence level in Cantr without also including the personal and social costs of that violence level would make Cantr even more UNLIKE real life, not more like it. IMHO.

[MikeH]

There is. In cantr steal some carrots and they lock you away and forget about you. In neighborhood where violence is prevalent irl they don't really put much effort into finding those responsible. And even if they did the only evidence are bruises, or for manslaughter bullets from a stolen gun etc. So I'd say there's a pretty decent crime and punishment representation.

I don't know where you live, but where I live there are not 1 in 20 that become a thief or murderer.

A newspawn stealing carrots is one thing, a murderer appearing in a van is another. Very hard to do anything about in Cantr.

So are rl murders. It's the way it is. You adapt and work together to survive. That's what society is about. Also I know for a fact that you can't live somwhere where 1 in 20 people hasn't commited some type of punishable offence. Evading taxes is a form of thievery too and alot of people do that. Hell more than 1 in 20 people are in possesion of narcotics in their lifetime. On the top of that marijuana is pretty harmless and then look at all the violence and shit that happens over that kind of thing. So let's say 50% of all people have posessed some type of illegal drug (a fairly low estimate I'd say) they've just, even if indirectly, caused some sort of violence in most cases.

"Punishable offense" could mean something as simple as jay-walking. That's a far cry from violent acts like fighting or murdering, which was the initial discussion. I don't think the rate of tax evasion or jay-walking has any relevance here. Getting back to the original point, I'd say it's absolutely fair to suggest that most people do not live in a place where 1 in 20 become a thief or murderer, in the standard definition of "thief" and "murderer".

And in Cantr it sometimes seems like far more than 1 in 20 become thieves or murderers!

[Ryaga]

Intentional Injury (violence, war, etc.) makes up 3% of the death rate world wide.
This statistic comes from middle and upper income countries, and is the mean over a long set of data.

That means that almost 1 in 33 people die of violent crime. There's at least one person responsible for the killing. Usually in cases like gangs/wars more. So I'd say 1/20 is a pretty fair mark of those who are thieves or murderers or assist them at least during one point in their lives.

And in Cantr it sometimes seems like far more than 1 in 20 become thieves or murderers!

Not at all it seems the number is far less. I'd say that 1 in 50 characters become a thief or murderer. The problem is violence in Cantr is too centralized around killing. But since someone is still functional in Cantr when you beat them near to death with a club killings are handed out like candy. Also the problem also lies in that a criminal must spawn with UBER stats to make it away with stolen carrots.

[Arenti]

So? I don't get your point as this game is not supposed to be like how it really is in real life. I think there is more than enough violence already in Cantr. Too much actually.

[Ryaga]

So? I don't get your point as this game is not supposed to be like how it really is in real life. I think there is more than enough violence already in Cantr. Too much actually.

Echoman said to start playing the society simulator and I was just saying that Cantr is no where near society. If (just actually did the math) ~1/40 people die of violence then there are even more that are victims of serious violence but not killed. I bet if we went back and looked at statistics for violent deaths in the 1400s we'd see a sharp increase because of the lack of proper medicine and such.

[Arenti]

So? I don't get your point as this game is not supposed to be like how it really is in real life. I think there is more than enough violence already in Cantr. Too much actually.

Echoman said to start playing the society simulator and I was just saying that Cantr is no where near society. If (just actually did the math) ~1/40 people die of violence then there are even more that are victims of serious violence but not killed. I bet if we went back and looked at statistics for violent deaths in the 1400s we'd see a sharp increase because of the lack of proper medicine and such.

Does society simulator means it needs to be like in real life? No that doesn't mean it right?

[SumBum]

The problem with the whole violence issue is that playing only nice, caring personalities gets boring at times. Plenty of people enjoy playing that way, but I'd bet the majority of players have at least one char who is a criminal at some level. Also, let's face it - most of Cantr's societies are not that civilized or however you want to call it. Capital punishment is prevalent even for small crimes.

Out of 12 chars: I have 3 with definite violent tendencies, several who would become violent without hesitation in certain situations, and 2 who have stolen and will steal again. Only 3 of my chars would flat out refuse to physically attack someone (although I can think of one situation where 1 of those 3 would reluctantly fight back).

[MikeH]

Intentional Injury (violence, war, etc.) makes up 3% of the death rate world wide.
This statistic comes from middle and upper income countries, and is the mean over a long set of data.

That means that almost 1 in 33 people die of violent crime. There's at least one person responsible for the killing. Usually in cases like gangs/wars more. So I'd say 1/20 is a pretty fair mark of those who are thieves or murderers or assist them at least during one point in their lives.

And in Cantr it sometimes seems like far more than 1 in 20 become thieves or murderers!

Not at all it seems the number is far less. I'd say that 1 in 50 characters become a thief or murderer. The problem is violence in Cantr is too centralized around killing. But since someone is still functional in Cantr when you beat them near to death with a club killings are handed out like candy. Also the problem also lies in that a criminal must spawn with UBER stats to make it away with stolen carrots.

If we're including war, I think that would trend your figures downward -- a small number of people making multiple killings. Gang violence same thing, really -- almost certainly multiple kills per person in several cases. I'd say 1/20 is probably off the mark, then, and 1/40 or even lower is probably closer. Heck, one smart bomb flown by a robot plane can kill dozens. That skews your figures pretty dramatically right there.

And the US figures are much lower than worldwide, less than 1% of all deaths from intentional assault. I imagine Europe would be similar or even lower.

And even so, my other points still stands firm as well -- without simulating the multiple negative consequences of violence in-game as well, increasing the level of violence without consequence would just make the in-game experience more UNrealistic, not less.

[Ryaga]

But then we take into account the men who control, and maintain those machines. Same with the men flying planes that drop bombs. In an army when one person dies by a soldiers hands and others helped they in my mind killed the person as well. It's like loading a weapon for a murderer and handing it to them, and claiming you had nothing to do with it. There are probably 5-10 people behind that robot air drone thingy.

Also 2.85% seems the mean of worldwide death rates. US rates don't matter. Society isn't just developed countries.

[MikeH]

But then we take into account the men who control, and maintain those machines. Same with the men flying planes that drop bombs. In an army when one person dies by a soldiers hands and others helped they in my mind killed the person as well. It's like loading a weapon for a murderer and handing it to them, and claiming you had nothing to do with it.

Also 2.85% seems the mean of worldwide death rates. US rates don't matter. Society isn't just developed countries.

But taking those other people (the controllers, maintainers, builders, etc) into account isn't really comparable in game mechanics, and I'm not certain it makes sense in your larger point anyways, since those individuals aren't directly performing violent acts.

If I do accept your point, though, and try to adapt that to in-game -- if we take into account every person who has ever made a shield or weapon or made a tool that helped make a weapon as "helping commit a violent act" , then that INCREASES the in-game violence rate dramatically (40%, 50%, higher?) and so your point would be moot, I think.

And why shouldn't I take into account US rates? Who says what society we're emulating in Cantr? Many primitive agrarian societies had (and have) fairly low violence rates as well. I don't think comparing statistics that include Somalia, Iraq, Zimbabwe, and Afghanistan, just for a few examples, makes sense in-game.

It seems to me even under your expanded definitions, we already have plenty of opportunities for violence in Cantr and don't need more. Especially since we don't also include primary and secondary consequences to violence that are also part of the real world.

[Rebma]

You guys are so off topic my head hurts.

[Mafia Salad]

I missed reading some of the middle area of the thread, so forgive me if I am repeating some stuff.

I'm sure it sucks to high heaven to loose a character to violence. I haven't had that happen to me yet, but I have seen it plenty. I think in game violence adds to the game. Particularly increased tension because of the possibility of violence. The K-island during the Blackrock war was one of the best game experiences I have ever had, keeping me up to almost 3 ever night logging in and off trying not to go over my 200 mins. My DoUrden character was one of the few I really wish I hadn't lost, because Brinks was such a unique and fun place to play when DoUrden were real SOB's. The Barons, who would come out of nowhere and kill off whole towns, made that whole game more interesting.

It's the out of the blue, where did that come from deaths that suck, but in the end I think even the possibility of that makes the game better myself.

[Ryaga]

But then we take into account the men who control, and maintain those machines. Same with the men flying planes that drop bombs. In an army when one person dies by a soldiers hands and others helped they in my mind killed the person as well. It's like loading a weapon for a murderer and handing it to them, and claiming you had nothing to do with it.

Also 2.85% seems the mean of worldwide death rates. US rates don't matter. Society isn't just developed countries.

But taking those other people (the controllers, maintainers, builders, etc) into account isn't really comparable in game mechanics, and I'm not certain it makes sense in your larger point anyways, since those individuals aren't directly performing violent acts.

If I do accept your point, though, and try to adapt that to in-game -- if we take into account every person who has ever made a shield or weapon or made a tool that helped make a weapon as "helping commit a violent act" , then that INCREASES the in-game violence rate dramatically (40%, 50%, higher?) and so your point would be moot, I think.

And why shouldn't I take into account US rates? Who says what society we're emulating in Cantr? Many primitive agrarian societies had (and have) fairly low violence rates as well. I don't think comparing statistics that include Somalia, Iraq, Zimbabwe, and Afghanistan, just for a few examples, makes sense in-game.

It seems to me even under your expanded definitions, we already have plenty of opportunities for violence in Cantr and don't need more. Especially since we don't also include primary and secondary consequences to violence that are also part of the real world.

Making spears and shields to protect from wild sheep attacks is different than maintaining a machine made to kill people. Because you sure as hell don't drop bombs on antelope.