reset cantr

[Black Canyon]

There is nothing to strive for in this game. Nothing. It is a dead, post-apocalyptic world that is in its Dark Ages, with no hope of a Renaissance. There aren't enough players now to compensate for this, and the glut of goods and paucity of meaning make it clear that the player base won't be coming back. So many towns are just depressing graveyards.

Hmm.... I guess it's how you look at it. I suppose some could argue the same about real life when it comes to the paucity of meaning and we can all wring our hands with existential angst. The game is like a big canvas and its really up to the players to create the content. And right now the canvas is this dead, post-apocalyptic world. I'm not sure that's terrible or guarantees inevitable extinction. It depends on what we do with it. That said, I do agree that we could lighten up on some of our "absolutely nots". As I mentioned before, we can do with some shaking up, whether its deterioration of some items or buildings or vehicles, some new features like explosives, some changing things up when it comes to resource availability etc.

[saztronic]

There is nothing to strive for in this game. Nothing. It is a dead, post-apocalyptic world that is in its Dark Ages, with no hope of a Renaissance. There aren't enough players now to compensate for this, and the glut of goods and paucity of meaning make it clear that the player base won't be coming back. So many towns are just depressing graveyards.

Hmm.... I guess it's how you look at it. I suppose some could argue the same about real life when it comes to the paucity of meaning and we can all wring our hands with existential angst.

I laughed out loud when I read this.

OK, I guess there's a technical point in there somewehre... but really, no. Cantr and real life cannot be compared.

Real life is just that -- real. I love my family, my friends, my job (most of the time). I love the open-endedness, the thrill of possibility, the fact that anything can happen, that I can make the reality I want.

Cantr is a game, and it's a part of real life too, but only a minor and really rather unimportant part. I don't love Cantr (gasp). As a game, for me to spend time on it instead of other things I might do in life, it has to provide something... entertainment, a creative outlet, competition, something... Right now, Cantr is just barely interesting enough to keep me playing, and it requires more of me than I get out of it in return.

I would LOVE it if Cantr had open-endedness, the thrill of possibility, the feeling that anything could happen, that I could make any reality I wanted... but it just doesn't. And I'm a fairly creative guy. I have a lot of fun with the roleplay and I think others I RP with do too, but as a GAME, Cantr is not much more than that.

If real life was like Cantr, I would... oy, I don't even want to finish that thought. Existential angst doesn't even begin to cover it.

EDIT:

As I mentioned before, we can do with some shaking up, whether its deterioration of some items or buildings or vehicles, some new features like explosives, some changing things up when it comes to resource availability etc.

As for this part, I agree, that would be great. But as I said before, I don't think it's going to happen, I really don't. The Suggestions board is a graveyard for these kinds of ideas. It's where they go to die.

[Black Canyon]

I appreciate the clarification that cantr is different from real life, but that wasn't my point

You seem to feel that there are some kind of mechanics that would make the cantr world more meaningful and therefore more robust and playable. What would that be? Some are arguing that it would be to rot away everything that sits around so that the characters can start all over again. I don't get the appeal.

So what new mechanics are we talking about? Somehow I don't believe gunpowder is the answer to all of the cantr woes

Because if you are talking about a major overhaul.... then it sounds like you might be talking about an entirely different game.

[saztronic]

I appreciate the clarification that cantr is different from real life, but that wasn't my point

You seem to feel that there are some kind of mechanics that would make the cantr world more meaningful and therefore more robust and playable. What would that be? Some are arguing that it would be to rot away everything that sits around so that the characters can start all over again. I don't get the appeal.

So what new mechanics are we talking about? Somehow I don't believe gunpowder is the answer to all of the cantr woes

Because if you are talking about a major overhaul.... then it sounds like you might be talking about an entirely different game.

This is a great question, and not an easy one, and that's why it's not going to get answered. That's my point.

Games... they either have a reset built in, so that the entertainment comes from the endless permutations that a given construct can offer (so many games are like this, chess, go, board games, war games, whatever).... or, they keep adding new features or episodes that make further progress or new achievementes possible (World of Warcraft, D&D -- in which the Dungeon Master is the one creating new scenarios for players to riff off of, or a game company -- Angry Birds, whatever).

Cantr is supposed to be the latter, but it's not. It has run for a damn long time based off of Jos' original vision for it, which was simply to transfer something cool he did in the way of simming with legos as a kid, into an online experience. Like a lot of elegantly simple ideas, it created enough possibility and cool fun that it could coast on that for a while. I would argue that the game benefitted in the early going from a core group of really dedicated programmers too, who kept adding new features and islands and what have you onto the base construct.

But that has really slowed up in recent years... coinciding with a kind of technological glut resulting from object permanence.

I don't have the answer to what needs to change, but my gut feeling is that some fundamental and rather daring changes are needed. But to undertake THAT -- to, as you put it, design a major overhaul -- would require a level of time and effort that I don't think people are able or willing to make. And I'm not criticizing, it's a lot of work and nobody gets paid for their work on this game.

Some thoughts:

- Building and vehicle rot and demolition, or mishap (blown tires, roofs caving in) are essential

- A revamped combat system

- A more realistic skill and skill-building sytem

- Some kind of natural calamaties would be cool. Earthquakes? OK. Personally I'd be more interested in sea monster attacks or hurricanes -- something that would make it possible for ships to sink and be lost. Let's make sea travel a little more of an adventure, shall we?

- Technological progress. Sure, I do like the idea of gunpowder -- so do you I gather -- but it's just an example. As I mentioned in that thread, what about ironclad ships? Raw food that rots quickly unless refrigerated? Power generation and electrification?

These seem to be the ideas that get floated and discussed endlessly and never go anywhere, because they require a grand vision of where the game can go and a step-by-step plan for getting there, which nobody really has time to put together; and because decision-making is somewhat consensus based and there's no way to do these things without pissing off a sizable contingent of players (and if we judge only by the poll on my gunpowder/guns thread, a solid majority is going to resist such changes).

Beyond these changes, there are some others I think it would be fun to put on the table:

- Caves that open up when you dig deep enough. New tools/machines required to explore. Program them basically as big buildings, so moving from one chamber to the next is like moving from room to room in buildings. The "doors" or apertures between may need widening or working on to become passable. Rare or new resources could be placed in caves or able to be gathered only from them.

- Agriculture + assembly lines for food production. This would require scaling back the amount of food that can be gathered by hand, and more investment in organized agriculture + more techniques for food preparation. Could also consider introducing consequences for over-farming, not fertilizing enough, etc... and/or random element to food production, so could be feast or famine harvests.

- Naval combat, and not just cannon. Should be able to ram ships. And if people don't like gunpowder, build catapults and ballistas. And ships should be able to burn (obviously).

- If we're revamping the combat system, and the skill system, then we could introduce object quality. It doesn't make any sense to me that someone who is "awkward" at making tools, can make a brand new pickaxe that works just as well, and rots at the exact same rate, as a pickaxe made by someone who is "expert" at making tools. Currently the ONLY benefit of having an expert-level ability is being able to do something a little bit faster (and I do mean a little bit). Given the pace of Cantr, is it really a penalty for an awkward player to have to spend a couple of extra game hours to manufacture a pickaxe? Just a smidge more patience. And it doesn't really lead to a terribly logical or pronounced system of skill-trading in the game either. Sure, people gravitate toward things they are good at, but it's not like it's the foundation of the game economy or something. What if an awkward tool-maker could only make a pickaxe that would fall apart after two days of use? Suddenly people *have* to seek out expert tool-smiths, if they want items that last, or expert weapon-smiths, or miners, or builders, or whatever, and you have a real economy driven by skill and balance (and unbalance! Fun! What if all the good weaponsmiths form a guild and settle in one town, and you had to go there to get a battleaxe that was worth a damn... it's a skill monopoly, with gameplay implications not dissimilar to what it's been like on Noniwrok for centuries with only one location for hematite, with the key difference that new expert smiths may spawn elsewhere so the guild has to enforce its rules abroad rather than in just one location).

- Customizable objects. There's been some discussion of this with regard to clothes and jewelry -- sure there are problems with implementation but we're just brainstorming here.

- Potions that confer temporary, special abilities. Speed, strength, beauty, protection, expert skill, whatever. And/or, take them away. I know there are kind of apothecary liquids and poisons in the game or in development, but I don't get how they work really right now.

- Speed boosters for vehicles. Souped enginges, fuel additives, nitrous tanks, whatever. Thieves get away faster, town guards have to have equivalent of police cruisers.

Any and all. I'm not saying all of these are good ideas, but it's the kind of set of ideas that needs to be taken seriously and thought through, to break the current stasis and stagnation in the game.

But... like I said, that's not going to happen. Really.

[Swingerzetta]

...
Any and all. I'm not saying all of these are good ideas, but it's the kind of set of ideas that needs to be taken seriously and thought through, to break the current stasis and stagnation in the game.

But... like I said, that's not going to happen. Really.

I like all of these ideas!

[Alladinsane]

On that D&D analogy... cantr of late, with the rampant looters and no real need to work for a fortune when there is already so much material available, reminds me of when during my DM days of a 'Monty Haul" campaign.

All that deters it is people who have huge storerooms full of stuff that they could never possibly use, but they sit greedily upon it because that is their idea of 'winning'... rarely do these dragon hoards exist as a result of genuine effort anymore.

I also have no solution, but the rot idea does spark interest. If we cannot do a complete game reset (many of your have stated reasons against, though the most common seems to be "I would quit" )... then the players themselves may have to spend time repairing all of the tools they don't use. Still, the huge piles of dried dung dont deteriorate. Some things will never have half life. The only way clothing and adorned finery ever disappears from this world is when we don't strip the bodies we bury. I know our programmers work hard though and the majority of new items (food, jewelry, clothing) are more supportive of the rp environment than the simmer. Unless you live on Fu or Rus... (maybe somewhere else I have not been?)... there is not a ton of simming left to do.

[hyrle]

So what new mechanics are we talking about? Somehow I don't believe gunpowder is the answer to all of the cantr woes.

Adding gunpowder and guns would turn Cantr into every other P.O.S. mafia/gangster web-based "RPG" out there. I voted no on gunpowder and I stand by it.

That being said - deterioration and rot WOULD add challenge to the game and make sitting on hoards of stuff that will never get used go the way of the dodo, making players actually have to work for their existance rather than popping open buildings of civilizations long gone. I do indeed support building rot, vehicle rot, and resource rot/gradual disappearance as ideas that would add realistic challenges to the game and allow for things like ruins exploring and making sure people round up and actually use resources. The tricky part would come in trying to decide how much is "too much" when it comes to decay. Too little decay and you have the atrophied state of the game as it currently stands. Too much, and you'll drive everyone away from a game that's too challenging.

[saztronic]

So what new mechanics are we talking about? Somehow I don't believe gunpowder is the answer to all of the cantr woes.

Adding gunpowder and guns would turn Cantr into every other P.O.S. mafia/gangster web-based "RPG" out there. I voted no on gunpowder and I stand by it.

That being said - deterioration and rot WOULD add challenge to the game and make sitting on hoards of stuff that will never get used go the way of the dodo, making players actually have to work for their existance rather than popping open buildings of civilizations long gone. I do indeed support building rot, vehicle rot, and resource rot/gradual disappearance as ideas that would add realistic challenges to the game and allow for things like ruins exploring and making sure people round up and actually use resources. The tricky part would come in trying to decide how much is "too much" when it comes to decay. Too little decay and you have the atrophied state of the game as it currently stands. Too much, and you'll drive everyone away from a game that's too challenging.

I just have a hard time believing that rot alone would have the intended effect. Causing people to lose something they've worked hard to attain, or simply held onto for a long time even without that much effort, is more of a motivation killer it seems to me, than an incentive to work toward something new, positive, exceptional, different.

When the programmers first activated object rot, the rate was incredibly fast (or so it seemed at the time). People, myself included, were bummed at how much time they were having to invest just repairing stuff. So the rate of decay was changed, slowed... again, it wasn't, by itself, a good thing for the game, the way that adding things like motorized vehicles, rigging for ships, radios, etc. was.

That's my perspective. And this is not a plea for gunpowder -- although I still think it's a good idea, I have no problem bowing to the will of the majority on that one. But I would like to see positive suggestions for change, for providing new ambition to game situations. Rot alone is just not the be-all, end-all solution to that problem.

[Tiamo]

Any game is more interesting for players if they have something to look forward to, to strive for.

The purpose of decay and rot of everything within Cantr is to make it ever more difficult for characters to gain extra wealth, because of maintenance cost (and slowly remove the surplus of unused stockpiles, buildings, vehicles, machines and even roads ).
Eventually there will be a point where efficient cooperation within a town is necessary to further develop the town, or even cooperation on a bigger scale (regular trade routes instead of resource runs).
Introducing new complex and expensive items serves the same purpose (upping the saturation point). I suggested a system for in-game-inventing and slowly spreading new items some time ago, with the same idea in mind: make sure there always is some room for progress.

Of course this only is the economy side of the game. The roleplaying and society-building side will need other types of permanent incentives to stay interesting over time.

[hyrle]

Any game is more interesting for players if they have something to look forward to, to strive for.

The purpose of decay and rot of everything within Cantr is to make it ever more difficult for characters to gain extra wealth, because of maintenance cost (and slowly remove the surplus of unused stockpiles, buildings, vehicles, machines and even roads ).
Eventually there will be a point where efficient cooperation within a town is necessary to further develop the town, or even cooperation on a bigger scale (regular trade routes instead of resource runs).
Introducing new complex and expensive items serves the same purpose (upping the saturation point). I suggested a system for in-game-inventing and slowly spreading new items some time ago, with the same idea in mind: make sure there always is some room for progress.

Of course this only is the economy side of the game. The roleplaying and society-building side will need other types of permanent incentives to stay interesting over time.

I agree with all these points. I think the addition of all the new clothings to the game really makes the game a lot more fun for tailors. Similar items would be good for other professions...maybe not things to imbalance the game, but to make cosmetic differences and introduce a sense of uniqueness. People like having striving for things that not a lot of people have. Case in point: Keyrings are being built all over the place. It is because they're a useful idea and people want to have them because no one does. New shinies!

The roleplaying and society-building sides of the game are actually already incentivized...good roleplay leads to a better game experience for both the roleplayer and his/her audience. They really are their own rewards.

[Doug R.]

Eventually there will be a point where efficient cooperation within a town is necessary to further develop the town, or even cooperation on a bigger scale (regular trade routes instead of resource runs).

But you see, I don't have any faith what-so-ever that the players (and yes, it's the players that are the issue here) will actually do this. Players make characters to do what they want them to do, and damn all those that say that they can't. Jos built this game to be a sim, but the players turned it into a RPG because that's what they wanted. Is there anything wrong with this? Absolutely not. If I can't play what/how I want to play, it's not going to be fun for me. This is why the players howl whenever changes are made to the mechanics (like rapid item rot) that try to force them into a new way of thinking/behaving.

Right now, as things are, trying to get a large (or even a few) number of characters to focus on one long-term goal is like herding cats. They need time for their own goals (if they're among the increasingly few that have them), or, more likely, their role-play life (i.e. their lovers/rp hobbies, etc). The fact of the matter is, human cooperation only happens when a group of people -have- to do something, and in Cantr, -having- to do anything simply doesn't exist. I don't -have- to have a car. I don't -have- to have this or that object, or that luxury couch. The fact that there is almost no need means that even if someone -wants- something, finding others to help them with it (if Tiamo's vision is carried out and this is required) will be next to impossible.

And what if some leader tells them to do something? "No, you can't go on your honeymoon, because I need these 50 projects done ASAP." That leader will be less some citizens before the year is out. The only necessity is food, and if you force players to cooperate for something so basic as that, you'll plunge the game back into the stone age and people won't even bother playing (because they'll have to dispense with their role-play to stay alive).

Cooperation requires simmers. Most of the simmers have left. Cantr's player population does not support cooperation, and as such any mechanics that attempt to steer the player population towards that are doomed to fail. You need to change the players before you change the mechanics, and doing that would require a level of wisdom and guile that is far beyond me. I have a hard enough time convincing my 3 year old that doing the things I want her to do is her own idea. That's what would need to be done here, except with a large group of adults with widely disparate opinions and who are also inherently resistant to change.

[saztronic]

^
/ \

This.

This is why these changes aren't going to happen. Which I keep saying, even though I keep coming back here and posting for some reason. It goes back to Swingerzetta's earlier point:

Cantr is treated as a democracy. It might be better if suggestions in the forums came without polls, and those in charge of deciding the game direction would decide, on the behalf of everyone, whether to take inspiration from specific suggestions, or not. This is how things work in business, and politics, too. A leader or boss, often democratically chosen, makes decisions for everyone, even if it's an unpopular decision, because a single vision has more direction and drive than an average of everyone's visions.

Either Cantr is administered by someone; or it's administered by everyone. And if the latter, then it's really administered by no one.

We can talk all we want, but the fact is that cats can't be herded. That's why it exists as a metaphor.

[EchoMan]

The main direction of the game is indeed discussed in GAB, and not everything is decided by polls in the suggestion forums. We do however, value the input of the players, and that is why we do like that forum and its polls. It is a valuable input to the GAB discussions.

[Tiamo]

But you see, I don't have any faith what-so-ever that the players (and yes, it's the players that are the issue here) will actually do this. Players make characters to do what they want them to do, and damn all those that say that they can't. Jos built this game to be a sim, but the players turned it into a RPG because that's what they wanted. Is there anything wrong with this? Absolutely not. If I can't play what/how I want to play, it's not going to be fun for me. This is why the players howl whenever changes are made to the mechanics (like rapid item rot) that try to force them into a new way of thinking/behaving.

It's not a matter of trying to force anyone into any behavior, it's a matter of offering choices: if you just want to roleplay, you can do that, but the environment will be rather primitive; if you want some basic items, go ahead and put in the work to make them; if you want to live in a more civilized environment, that is still possible, but it needs some planning. Et cetera, the more you want, the more effort you have to put into it.
I think players do understand this concept, and will adjust their gameplay to it. They are not three year olds who still have to learn about basic social behavior.

... You need to change the players before you change the mechanics, ...

I strongly disagree with you on this. Players seek a game that suits their wishes, not the other way around. If a game doesn't offer what they want in gaming, players just won't start playing it, or quit soon. Apparently Cantr is more suitable to RPGers than to society builders (indeed, the society building part of Cantr is failing big time).
Besides, trying to change the players is out of the question anyway. You can only try to change the player base.

All this is why i totally agree with Swingerzetta: Cantr should be developed and maintained by (a team of) game designers/developers, with a clear game vision in mind, not by a bunch of active players, with their diverse personal in-game wishes in mind.

[Piscator]

You need to change the players before you change the mechanics

I wonder if it's not exactly the other way round. After all, it's the game mechanics that attract and retain a certain type of player, so changing the mechanics would, in time, also change the player base.
I'm aware though that the "in time" part is the trouble here. Commendations would always lag behind the complaints by a year or so.

Anyway, I don't think that more simming elements would necessarily interfere with the RP. Personally, I found it more and more difficult to keep my RP alive without some external stimulus by the game mechanics. An occasional "quest" like "our town hall looks like it will collapse in another 20-30 years; let's get some marble to repair it" would have helped to keep things interesting for me.