Cantr II Discussion Forum

Shamelessy lifted from another thread:

Songthrush wrote:Don't settle for kludgy compromises.

Let us lobby and encourage the complete abolishment of item decay!

There is no real item over-proliferation problem. It is only imagined by the same theorists who think "creating jobs" by adding meaningless time-sinks to the game is a good idea. If a crisis of item-oversaturation ever appears, trashcan machines can be created for every town to manually dispose of garbage in exchange for small amounts of raw goods (recycling) to be had by the player out of trashing an item.

I agree with the sentiments behind abolishing item rot, improving or changing the combat system (to make battles easier), resisting changes to roads, resisiting various types of amnesia - and I am not alone if you look at the posts of various forum dwellers.

However the overarching direction this game takes, and it would seem that the resources department is a serious contender for the source in part, is the over importance of tools, resources and processes, which I think comes from the time and effort it takes to conceive and implement them, combined with a vague but ever present and almost contradictory desire to combine the concept of free role play with a society simulator where organisation, trade, government, industrial structures are desired, encouraged, and when they don't happen the game is further manipulated to try and make it difficult for players that won't adopt such structures.

It would seem to me that this dichotomy must be resolved before serious decisions about item rot, roads, combat can be made.

For all the calls against making the game a strategy game the complications and difficulties placed in the way of players by various systems, and proposed changes direct the player towards taking a more and more calculated and strategic approach.

At the same time immense efforts go into refining or introducing new clothing items and instruments and arguments occur about poor Role Playing and what should or should not be role played and how it should be done.

The wiki exists to support the planner/strategist but what resource exists to support the role player.

I am aware that this posts attempts to polarise things and it is entirely possible to play strategically and role play as well bu I do think this remains a significant issue where is the balance.

Why do things like trade, organisation and cooperation have to be promoted in such heavy handed and clumsy ways?

Your very wordy and over collage level writting has some merit and some major flaws. I unfortunately don't have the time or the regard to make more of my post to comment to yours...

Simply this you have a point...

and hope that your post will start a real discussion not only among the player ranks but with in the staff as well as to the real goals that should be set forth and uniformly discussed rather then the tail leading the donkey.

SuperSonicScientist wrote:The wiki exists to support the planner/strategist but what resource exists to support the role player.

No reason there shouldn't be roleplaying advice or case studies of historical events and characters on the wiki - in fact that is closer to the original purpose of the wiki than most of what is on it now.

I'm either too dumb or too tired to read that right now.

Bravo, remarkable idea

Ok, I actually read it. I agree with Mykey. RP can have a lot to do with strategy, at times.

What we have is:

Clumsy attempts at making Cantr have more "emergent" properties, without an understanding of how these should come about

VERSUS

the voices concerned with bad gameplay changes (including of course those affecting roleplaying).

The first camp is always on about "realism", medieval societies, and how things ought to just "appear" in the game, because it is a "society simulator".

The second camp, in which I get to hold a very big banner, is always moaning about our time being close-mindedly wasted with meaningless, poorly thought out attempts to move things into total unbearable, unplayable darkness. which according to somebody's newest theory ought to create more trade, or encourage roleplaying. or make the game more realistic.

We have seen with the vast majority of these theories that their promises just don't come true. But now it's already implemented. So everyone gets on with it. What can you do? It's just like the elections.

The examples are many: item rot, mining resource restrictions ("It's to promote trade, folks!"), and now they want to implement building and vehicle decay. Why? Has anyone stopped to think: "Hold on... what is this really going to do to help the game and the simulation be better?"

And I mean really think - not build big theories about buckets, when all you've got is a little teacup.

What the simulation-people don't seem to realize is that the emergent behaviours and all the complexity they crave to see in the game, will never come about UNLESS the simulation has certain minimal mechanics which will support it. We others want the complexity too, just like you. We just know it can't and won't come from out of nowhere.

These minimal mechanics do not need to have anything to do with medieval societies, with realism, or with "creating jobs". They just need to be as minimal as possible, and still allow gameplay to flourish. That is what should always be kept in mind.

Abolish Item Rot!

Songthrush wrote:The examples are many: item rot, mining resource restrictions ("It's to promote trade, folks!"), and now they want to implement building and vehicle decay. Why? Has anyone stopped to think: "Hold on... what is this really going to do to help the game and the simulation be better?"

Goddess yes someone finally said it... point.


Ok. some people forget that you can't program promote trade...
Those in control of a resource must encourage trade on there own... there are so many ways already built into cantr to do this yet most don't even catch them to busy trying to cheat each other or reinvent the wheel.

Characters and thus players must figure out for themselves how to encourage trade... or no matter what you put into the program will work.

I think, that you commit an error. I can prove it.

You are not right. Let's discuss. Write to me in PM.

Mykey wrote:Why are only so many characters allowed to work on a given project? This was not always the case, and I cannot come up with a reason, as to why it was introduced.... Sorry I thought, this would be an appropriate place to ask.

Only machine based projects have participant caps . Other projects such as Gathering (using tools and hand) , Building vehicles boats and machines, Repairing , lock breaking etc have no cap - as many people as you can can work on them.

I assume the caps on machine based projects represent the number of cantrians you can get working around the machine.

I think, that you commit an error. Let's discuss. Write to me in PM, we will talk.

Mykey wrote:I agree SSS mostly. I just fail to see why strategy and RP have to be polar opposites, I also really hope, what Glasswalker suggest, happens.

On one level stretegy and role play do not need to be polar opposities and cannot be mutually exclusive.

Games exist that are totally mechanistic combat/resource allocation based, but they nearly always allow player communication in which some people will inevitably role play. You can role play while you play chess if it amuses you (and doesn't annoy your opponent )

Similalry A game could be made which would be little more than a chat room where people could freely roleplay virtually anything (with moderators preventing the totally bizarre). In such a game strategy would still emerge with people forming alliances, or trying to acheive reputation and the power to be a moderator!

I assume that cantr seeks to fall somwhere inbetween and is the most middle of the road (in this respect) game I have come accross... although in many ways it is very similary to some of the MUDS I played 15 years ago... (That is quite depressing )

My point is I guess exactly where on the line the game is and who drives it. It would be natural to assume the Prog Dept and resources dept favour mechanism, the PD represent role playing, but that is simplistic, implies conflict that is not particularly evident to the outsider, and ignore people like Seko who evidently has her feet in both camps.

I'd start a poll but I'm not sure it would demonstrate much and the broad nature of peoples approaches requires a more qualatative approach really...

The PD have very little to do with actual role play more that we watch for unfair advantages by players... it is a tiring task... to ask the simple things of people all the time.. please don't be cheating... again and again... and then you have those who are masters at cheating and then we have sorts of head aches chasing down every little peice of evidence that add everything to gether I don't know about the others in the PD staff but I love puzzles and the work is so like puzzles. I love puzzles!!!

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way.

Hardly anyone's doing anything because unless you're established, you really can't. It takes decades to get established in most parts of the game, ESPICIALLY the non-English areas.

Sure, fine. I'll work and travel around a few decades to establish myself. Rome wasn't built in a day.

But hey, now I've got all my hard earned tools rotting at a rate that's much to fast.

Now there's for some reason limited resource gathering.

And now you want to have my car and hall start to rot? A steak knife or at hammer or what have you will last a hundred years as long as you don't abuse them.

It just keeps getting harder and harder for everyone. Cantr is not the game I joined anymore.

Did the Great Deppression stimulate trade?