Cantr II Discussion Forum

Hello villagers wielding pitchforks and torches!

I’m tossing out some thoughts here for the masses to pick apart.

We’re in the midst of a rewrite for the existing jewelry in the game, of the same sort as was done for clothing some time back. During the rewrite it became readily apparent that much of the jewelry cost was very high and somewhat ridiculous in my opinion. We’re looking at slashing the costs of these items across the board for a variety of reasons.

Please keep in mind that the materials assigned are what they are for no particular reason. A number was needed when they were first made, one was assigned, end of story. There’s no history explaining why there are rings which have a greater mass (or would if clothing had mass) than an iron shield, for example

Realism isn’t reason enough for the change, I know, because so many other items aren’t in-line with realistic material/mass costs. Here are some of my thought on why the values do need to be changed however, and not for the sake of change:

- Including labor costs, many individual jewelry items take more than a year to make, even the more basic items, restricting unnecessarily items from the game which only serve an RP purpose

- As the base costs of what should be the more common jewelries is already so high, the addition of newer, luxury type items using mixed materials, is even more cost and time prohibitive

That’s really about it for my reasoning. I expect some grumbling, because existing jewelry will effectively lose some value, but, I promise, you’ll see more jewelry out there, and newer luxury type items which won’t have to take five game years to make to keep them in line with current gather and labor costs.

Constructive comments and feedback welcome.

-Mael
Head Tailor Type Guy

*points and laughs*

In my opinion, it is error.

Introductory economics teaches that economics is defined by scarcity and unlimited human (or in this case, Cantrian) wants. Since the RD has not done much to introduce the concept of scarcity, apart from by distance (and even then alternatives are readily available), it matters little whether luxury goods cost more or less IMO. Nevertheless, taxing those interested in making vain items may be a good disincentive for them not to indulge so willingly. On the other hand, it is but just a game and they deserve every right to indulge.

I guess what I'm getting at is that Cantr should first look more towards the wider scope of fundamental economics rather than tackling the more inane issues. Leave inane issues to the Webzine it's what we do best.

I apologise, but, in my opinion, you are mistaken. I can defend the position. Write to me in PM, we will talk.

nitefyre wrote:I guess what I'm getting at is that Cantr should first look more towards the wider scope of fundamental economics rather than tackling the more inane issues. Leave inane issues to the Webzine it's what we do best.

Clothing changes are done by the tailors. Now I just need to convince Wich that the tairlors need their own forum so I don't have to scroll through tons of clothing threads.

nitefyre wrote:Introductory economics teaches that economics is defined by scarcity and unlimited human (or in this case, Cantrian) wants. Since the RD has not done much to introduce the concept of scarcity, apart from by distance (and even then alternatives are readily available), it matters little whether luxury goods cost more or less IMO.

Exactly what other option is there to increase scarcity aside from placement? Do we want to open the hellstorm of gold and silver refinement, because that sure has been a popular decision with iron and steel over the years.

Seatown Forest and Hematite
MacGregors and Limestone

Tell me that placement isn't enough to affect the economics of a region.


I think a decrease of the current rings and what nots would not be disastrous to the current economics. If we do drop them, we should definitely add some more expensive stuff to replace them.

Ooooh! Look at all the pretty!

I don't think there's an easy answer to it. If there were, I'm sure that route would have been taken. From a purely theoretical standpoint, setting 'limits' or 'caps' on the amount of collected resources is one possible solution. These would be replicating the scarcity of natural resources we see here on earth in these days (outside the US). However, this would have to coincide with technological development in recycling processes, etc.

From a gameplay stand point, I don't think Cantr can be both an in-depth society simulator and roleplaying game to such a profound level. They'll eventually start stepping on each other's shoes. It can only be a sand box for both for so far--that's my dismal conclusion after three years of playing and yelling from both the gameplay standpoint and the simulation standpoint. It can do a little bit of both, but can't seem to excel at both at the same time.

The old compromise between being realistic to the gamer's enjoyment and idealistic to the student's perspective.

If you want to own that (otherwise useless) priceless green thingy with the purple dots, you might as well pay for it. If everyone else is wearing the priceless green thingy with the purple dots as well, why bother?

I'd say they would just need to stand out some more; would bolding their description help?

Jur.

One of my biggest problems for jewelry is the need for a soldering iron to make many of the necklaces. Very few people have access to this kind of tool.

I prefer playing backwoods, simple chars with simple dress and jewelry. It is important to me that they be able to decorate themselves.

Recently I requested turquoise jewelry and someone mentioned that it should need a grinder (which is a polisher, I guess). This is exactly the kind of thing I don't want. Don't make it impossible for a simple girl to string some turquoise for a necklace, please. She will spend a year making a necklace if necessary but don't make it impossible for chars to make what any low tech group of people could and do make for themselves in rl.

Otherwise, thanks for the many new, simple clothing items! Good job there.

kinvoya wrote:One of my biggest problems for jewelry is the need for a soldering iron to make many of the necklaces. Very few people have access to this kind of tool.

I prefer playing backwoods, simple chars with simple dress and jewelry. It is important to me that they be able to decorate themselves.

Recently I requested turquoise jewelry and someone mentioned that it should need a grinder (which is a polisher, I guess). This is exactly the kind of thing I don't want. Don't make it impossible for a simple girl to string some turquoise for a necklace, please. She will spend a year making a necklace if necessary but don't make it impossible for chars to make what any low tech group of people could and do make for themselves in rl.

Otherwise, thanks for the many new, simple clothing items! Good job there.

Thank you! As I play, seeing the amount of primitive clothing people are wearing in many locals is very rewarding. It's by far the biggest impact I've had on the game as a Tailor.

I plan on making the soldering iron required for things which should, well, require it, but also making more primitive jewelry too. Any culture can pound out metals and shape them with a stone (see the current copper necklace, I think), or as you pointed out, thread a bunch of pieces of turquois they've gathered with some sinew and wear it. When you start talking about pieces which include set stones of various types and mixing of metals, that's when you should expect it to get harder (i.e. longer production times and/or specialized tools) which just isn't the way it is yet.

You haven't seen any new jewelry (effectively) yet because I'm forcing myself to rewrite the old first. It's not as fun as making new items, but needs done, and that's my way of forcing myself to do it.

-Mael

There should be at least two tiers to jewelery.

Rathet than changing the requirements wholesale, I suggest a proper re-think of the whole lot.
Keep the complex items - with the soldering iron, the nickel and whatnot - maybe reduce the requirements slightly, in line with Cantr-reality.

But reduce the requirements for simple wooden, bone and other crude jewelery types. Remove leather and iron for the feather items, use hide and bone instead.

For the simple gold and silver items - remove the requirement of nickel. In the real-world, once gold and silver are smelted (which isn't required in Cantr) they are exceptionally maleable - to the extent that gold has never been useful for anything much else but jewelery. But simple items shouldn't need nickel.

The more complex metal jewelery types - with in-laid jewels - should be kept how they are - with nickle required, a soldering iron, and all that lot.

Material requirements should be reduced across the board, in order to keep with Cantrreailty.


What is needed is a readily available, wide avrierty of simple items - the wood, bone and copper varieties - maybe some simple precious-stone and leather/hide pieces. Alongside some specialist, very expensive, items (primarily the jewel-inlaid metal ones)

Maelstrom, did you give HF your notebook? He is reading your plan pretty much verbatim, isn't he?

wichita wrote:Maelstrom, did you give HF your notebook? He is reading your plan pretty much verbatim, isn't he?

He is!

HF, you can pretty much expect what you wrote, in large part.

Yikes, that's even sort of creepy it's so dead on. Did you steal my playbook?



-Mael

Jewelry is what helps to define the uppity clas from the lower class. If it is easier to obtain jewelry then the upper class will not it as much causing the lower class to not work as hard for it and then jewelry goes down the drain and nobody will want it.