Item deterioration: Economic saviour or social suicide?

[formerly known as hf]

That's asking for a Cantr driven by what are real life (western) ideas of social hierarchy. - Physical image and overt materialism. Cantr is a society simulator but, and this is what makes it, for me, really interesting, is that it's not trying to mirror any real life society - unless the players try to do that. It is fostering what are possible societies, in that given environment.

[joshua johnson]

The problem as I see it is the skewed timeframe. 1.66 Cantrian days are equal to a month in the real world. So any project that takes about that long, such as making a stone hammer...would approximate a month in the real world. Now a stone hammer in the real world might break down after a few years. However, since in the real world it only took a few hours to make, no big deal. But in cantr, since it will take you the equivalent of a month to make another one, well....Humans would not have made it if things took that long to make. Anyway, my point is that the deterioration rate, while it does not have to be accurate, should be at least relevant to the production costs in some way.....perhaps production time multiplied by a factor of 300 or 400 or something, a with the multiple changing to account for the type of item that it is.

That is my opinion.

[The Sociologist]

That's asking for a Cantr driven by what are real life (western) ideas of social hierarchy. - Physical image and overt materialism.

The oldest signs of ochre mining go back about 200,000 years. That's long before we get the first obviously "human" cultures beginning about 40,000 years ago. Ochre, as you doubtless know, is a dye and, since no rock paintings date from such early times, the assumption is that the ochre was used to dye people, ie body painting. The idea that focus on physical image and overt materialism is somehow "western" cannot be supported.

If you've been taught in school or college that they are "western" then you should find a school or college not run by hippies left over from 1968.

And I'm sorry to have to say it, but hierarchy is encoded in us. Serotonin is a hormone and we have genetically encoded mechanisms for its production and suppression. It is entirely likely that similar mechanisms would be encoded in any species that crossed the threshold to tool-use and culture since, without such mechanisms, there would be no drive to do so.

[mortaine]

Not to stray too far from the topic, but what does serotonin have to do with hierarchy?

[formerly known as hf]

what do any hormones have to do with hierarchy?

Social structures are not natural, they are human constructs. Societal structures, cultural forms, are not genetic predispositions. Natural determinism, if it exists at all, has, in the (post)modern world, little or no effect on how societies order themselves.

Conspicuous Consumption culture is certainly western.However, yes Hieracrchical structures are, in most/many cultures, defined by physical attributes of persons and objects associated with persons. What I'm trying to say, is that we run the risk of those physical attributes being read in overtly western ways. In fact, that's almost certainly going to happen, as, almost by definition of being able to play a game on the internet such as Cantr, the players come from westernised backgrounds.

Any simulation of society that Cantr produces is going to be funneled through the knowledges, beliefs, values, experiences, attutudes of the players. Adding physical descriptions that are overtly displayed on screen would be ok. The kind of descriptions you gave as examples though, are deeply value laden. And laden with western values are pre-suppositions.

Then again, any description, through the simple process of being read and consumed, is value laden by the values attributed to it by the reader. It is these values, attributed to it be the charater(player) that should be foremost, not any value-ised terms used to describe people and their possesions

[The Sociologist]

Not to stray too far from the topic, but what does serotonin have to do with hierarchy?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... Suggestion

I hope it will preserve the link and not mess up the page, but anyhow there it is. In a nutshell, hierarchy relates to dominance and dominance has a hormonal basis. Eg the paper called "Tryptophan, serotonin and human social behavior" and numerous others in the list. Evolutionary psychology has shown that much we assume to be "cultural" rests on the pillars provided by our genetic evolution. Perhaps a rather pessimistic world-view, but we have to deal with it, not run away from it.

My point is that such reinforcing mechanisms are part of human society and you can't have a "society simulator" without factoring them in.

And by the way, I'm aware that my descriptions are value-laden, but they are relatively neutral for any society that has such things as crossbows, let alone bicycles. The guy walking around in the crown and long robe who doesn't labor in the fields is the King, right? He could be a Chinese mandarin or a Japanese samurai or a medieval nobleman...it doesn't matter. Dress him in one of those thousand dollar executive suits and it still doesn't matter. And he's hormonally on another planet from the guy living under the subway.

[AngelSpice]

Possibly off topic, but I couldn't let this go unchallenged.


It's hard to judge just from the abstract whether the conclusions you've drawn are correct. It looks like a good trial, being a double-blind crossover placebo controlled trial, but there aren't any statistics in the abstract to say whether the trends they noticed are statistically significant.

However, a possible major design flaw in the study is that it doesn't say that they controlled for depression. Depression will make people irritable. Increasing their serotonin levels will treat their depression and make them less irritable. If they didn't make sure the people in the study weren't depressed, then the study is invalid. All I know, is that I've not seen anything similar in any of the major medical journals.

[The Sociologist]

Possibly off topic, but I couldn't let this go unchallenged.

It's hard to judge just from the abstract whether the conclusions you've drawn are correct. It looks like a good trial, being a double-blind crossover placebo controlled trial, but there aren't any statistics in the abstract to say whether the trends they noticed are statistically significant.

However, a possible major design flaw in the study is that it doesn't say that they controlled for depression. Depression will make people irritable. Increasing their serotonin levels will treat their depression and make them less irritable. If they didn't make sure the people in the study weren't depressed, then the study is invalid. All I know, is that I've not seen anything similar in any of the major medical journals.

But aggression--or irritability as you call it--is just the other side of the dominance coin. The more integrated an animal is, dominance wise, the less "irritable" it is--eg a disciplined Alsatian is more secure and even less dangerous than one that's given overmuch freedom.

Furthermore, this theory is not based on one paper but on thousands. The above Medline index alone finds some 300 which relate dominance to serotonin. I can't believe you haven't seen anything similar before. Here is a note from Jack Palmer, who I've corresponded with in the past--long ago now, in fact:

Eg:

Genetic, ontogenetic, and proximate factors all play a role in determining an individual’s level of serotonergic functioning and concomitant behavioral tendencies. Because higher status is associated with greater fitness, we have evolved motivational tendencies that push us toward achieving higher social rank. An improvement in status and a corresponding elevation in serotonergic activity is experienced as an elevation in mood state. Common terms used to refer to a highly elevated mood state include joy, happiness, and euphoria.

http://www.ulm.edu/~palmer/TheBiochemis ... States.htm

Anyhow, not to get sidetracked by an academic argument, let me just say this: we need to reinforce desire in Cantr, in order to promote economy and trade. If nobody wants anything, then there is no economy.

And, put bluntly, characters should want things because a new silk dress as a sign of high social rank is even better than a dose of Prozac.

[formerly known as hf]

Anyhow, not to get sidetracked by an academic argument

Why not? I deeply disagree with those academic papers, or at least the conclusions that are drawn from them. Genetics and hormones have a lot to do with our day to day emotions, yes, as well as other things, diet especially does. But as for being the main, major or even just important determinant in larger scale human cultures and social structures, that is a conclusion that can not be drawn from those kinds of studies.
Peoples actions are far too complex and subjective to be explained away by genetics and hormones. Genetic or Natural determinism falls to pieces when the variety and transition of social structures, individual behaviour and cultural norms across the world are taken into account. Culture and society shift, vary and change to great degrees thorgh time and over space. No changes in genetic or hormonal make up can vary so much over space, or change so fast over time.

And, put bluntly, characters should want things because a new silk dress as a sign of high social rank is even better than a dose of Prozac.

Characters do want things if the player gives them that drive. But why a silk dress? My argument is that it shouldn't necessarily be the ownership of material things, or physical attributes that Cantrians use as a basis of social rank. Power can be a lot more diffuse and displayed in different ways than ownership and physical physique - but to pedestal those freatures in Cantr, would be to import social and cultural, mostly western, norms into Cantr, rather than allowing Cantrians to decide how to structure their hiearchies.
Rather than enforrcing desire through hard-coding, we should allow Cantr to develop its own definition of what is desirable and foster different aspirational golas, possibly contradicting and divergent from RL accepted norms.

[Jur Schagen]

Without treading into the "needs and wants" discussion, some remarks for this thread.

1) Deter was NOT added to root out ancient iron supplies. It doesn't even affect them.

2) tool vendors face the same problem as everyone else... that is, to keep their posessions in shape. They may, for now, be at a disadvantage because they have relatively more tools... but that will be straightened out as more categories of objects will start to deter *ducks for cover against player protests* And it depends on their clients if they'll be able to sell used tools, or if they should repair them before sale. Most large tool stores, however, are either on the bodies of powerfull people, or behind the locked doors of these same people; they have used them as they needed them until now, but they'll need to maintain them from now on.

3) Protests about balance between building and maintaining: yes, there's work to do for the RD to balance this... to some extent, the values as they are right now are pretty random, first-time ones. But I'm confident that they have their finger on the pulse, and that these values will be adjusted over time.

4) Deter was implemented primarily to do something about the fact that there previously was NOT A SINGLE WAY that any item could ever get destroyed... the only way to remove an item from the game effectively was to load it onto a ship, sail off to some remote piece of sea, stop, and starve the char aboard. In all other circumstances, evverything ever built remained in game. Now, think about this again... EVERYTHING EVER BUILT REMAINED IN GAME!!! The long-term implications of this would be immense. If there were, on average, two sabres for every char, the sabre would be a useless item to anyone except a newspawn; everyone else would carry one which would be exactly the same as if everyone would be unarmed. We may not LIKE it, but the items NEED to get destroyed somehow... otherwise the only way for chars to stand out above the rest would be for the RD to implement the "sabre-plus", doing more damage, and effectively reducing the sabre to an obsolete weapon... and that would only work untill there were two "sabre-plusses" for every char. I'm using the sabre as an example here, but the same argument works for all other items, including silk dresses. It may seem as if the dark ages have come because the levels of production drop (caused by other changes as well, like the hematite change)... then again, remember that this works for everyone, and that you have a chance to stand out if your char is more effective in production then those around you, they won't have (in the long run) their ancient stores to rely upon, so you get a reward for that... and don't we all want that?

Jur.

[The Sociologist]

Genetic or Natural determinism falls to pieces when the variety and transition of social structures, individual behaviour and cultural norms across the world are taken into account. Culture and society shift, vary and change to great degrees thorgh time and over space. No changes in genetic or hormonal make up can vary so much over space, or change so fast over time.

That's a "straw man" argument since nobody in evolutionary psychology is saying that cultural contents are genetically determined. Merely that we are encoded with certain tendencies to form them in the first place.

In any case, in Cantr hierarchy is already to a degree determined in-game, but in a rather boring way. When you walk into a new town, then the man or woman in his/her fifties (ie heading the list) and carrying a crossbow, crowbar and iron shield, is immediately presumed to be the local "boss".

I'm simply saying that if you are the "boss", then there should be mechanisms which prompt you also to eat right, dress right, and otherwise live right--just as all bosses in history would have done, irrespective of particular cultural contents.

Rather than enforrcing desire through hard-coding, we should allow Cantr to develop its own definition of what is desirable and foster different aspirational golas, possibly contradicting and divergent from RL accepted norms.

Definition of what is desirable? Well, at the moment, that's almost always just the same old crossbow and iron shield. Perhaps precisely because that part is hardcoded. I was simply asking for a wider range of life choices to be rewarded with feedback mechanisms in-game, that is to say hardcoding which says "this is the visible outcome of how you are living your life".

[formerly known as hf]

I'm simply saying that if you are the "boss", then there should be mechanisms which prompt you also to eat right, dress right, and otherwise live right--just as all bosses in history would have done, irrespective of particular cultural contents.

But that already happens, to a degree (except the 'eat right - raw potatoes - not wuite...) A 'boss' who does things and orders things resented by the Cantr characters won't survive long unless they have the power to hold onto it (much like RL)

I was simply asking for a wider range of life choices to be rewarded with feedback mechanisms in-game, that is to say hardcoding which says "this is the visible outcome of how you are living your life".

In which case, I might have misunderstood you. If you mean a variable character description that varies on, say, what a character eats, how much they fight/hunt, what kind of work they do/don't do - I'd agree, that'd be an interesting addition.

[Peanut]

*topic is drifting away*

Ankers away!

So i like this new rot and repair system

[Bowser]

I steer clear from topics where every post is as long as a chapter.

I agree that if nothing deteriorates, than soon the world will be full of hammers, two hammers in every stone pot!

I also don't like MY things to deteriorate.

I am selfish and unreasonable and keep your decay off my cars.

[Surly]

First off, I would like to thank Jur for participating in this thread... it's always reassuring to know the programmers are hearing my opinions, even if they then disregard them...

Anyway, I'd just like to respond to what Jur said.

1) Deter was NOT added to root out ancient iron supplies. It doesn't even affect them.

I know that it doesn't affect them. But the argument about rotting the backlogs of iron... doesn't hold for exactly that reason. What I said was a direct reply to that argument.

2) tool vendors face the same problem as everyone else... that is, to keep their posessions in shape. They may, for now, be at a disadvantage because they have relatively more tools... but that will be straightened out as more categories of objects will start to deter *ducks for cover against player protests* And it depends on their clients if they'll be able to sell used tools, or if they should repair them before sale. Most large tool stores, however, are either on the bodies of powerfull people, or behind the locked doors of these same people; they have used them as they needed them until now, but they'll need to maintain them from now on.

I think this is a huge problem unless... do items continue to deteriorate once you have begun to repair them? If not, I see no problem. You can effectively "store" an item in a project, simulating the same effect as wrapping them in oilcloth or such. It would still deteriorate alot of the unused items, but active characters could preserve what they had (with a lot of work...)

3) Protests about balance between building and maintaining: yes, there's work to do for the RD to balance this... to some extent, the values as they are right now are pretty random, first-time ones. But I'm confident that they have their finger on the pulse, and that these values will be adjusted over time.

I agree. But that's a RD issue, isn't it. So no point whining to you...

4) Deter was implemented primarily to do something about the fact that there previously was NOT A SINGLE WAY that any item could ever get destroyed... the only way to remove an item from the game effectively was to load it onto a ship, sail off to some remote piece of sea, stop, and starve the char aboard. In all other circumstances, evverything ever built remained in game. Now, think about this again... EVERYTHING EVER BUILT REMAINED IN GAME!!! The long-term implications of this would be immense. If there were, on average, two sabres for every char, the sabre would be a useless item to anyone except a newspawn; everyone else would carry one which would be exactly the same as if everyone would be unarmed. We may not LIKE it, but the items NEED to get destroyed somehow... otherwise the only way for chars to stand out above the rest would be for the RD to implement the "sabre-plus", doing more damage, and effectively reducing the sabre to an obsolete weapon... and that would only work untill there were two "sabre-plusses" for every char. I'm using the sabre as an example here, but the same argument works for all other items, including silk dresses. It may seem as if the dark ages have come because the levels of production drop (caused by other changes as well, like the hematite change)... then again, remember that this works for everyone, and that you have a chance to stand out if your char is more effective in production then those around you, they won't have (in the long run) their ancient stores to rely upon, so you get a reward for that... and don't we all want that?

First, if clothing is going to deteriorate... make it easier to make in the first place, or very easy to repair. Since clothing has no use except RP, I don't think characters should be penalised for it. Second, I would guess there are already more stone hammers than people. Yet people still make them... because they are not readily available. Just becuase there are all these hammers does not mean everyone has one. That was part of what I argued, due to hoarding this isn't such an issue.

Anyway, that's all from me for now...