Cantr II Discussion Forum

But then it adds a challenge to those who are still alive. How you handle that shocking death. How does the community keep going without that rock so to speak. It opens up opportunity. But over all as we know its SUPER SUPER rare anyways. I can only think of handful of times its really happened other then seatown. The world is very safe..it should not be perfectly safe is all I am saying. Anything can happen in Cantr after all. thats the beauty of it all. At least to me. The world is what you make it.

I have never seen wars during my game time. Only killings done by pirates or some other small group. There's no empires left, only town cities that struggle and sometimes have quite some distance to other town. Well, okay there's republics and what ever but mostly on paper. In reality there are just... things on paper and every town is basically independent.

So it's hard for me to see how such thing could bring any good. I have seen how you can see 8 people die on heart attack on a day and how people just sleep or don't work together etc. Current conflict is just made of crap on radio or drama that is just stupid. Not that fun. Actually even reason to think why I play this game again? To see something you already can see from other places?

I'm actually curious how many characters there is that haven't spoken or done in days? There's quite many places with sleepers who have slept years now and you can't really shake them up if they have slept years already

E: You get some more action yes but you might also make player quit all together. Or then this incident just gets already awake people do something and these already awake people get tired and fall sleepers instead. Those already awake people are ones that chase newspawn thieves anyway and then they are gone towns kinda halt cause.. Those already awake ones kept them running. I am town leader and I have tried to share the burden but if people don't want to take part then it's all up to me in the end to run things. You can't do things alone

From anony

This just sounds like you enjoy the goal of planning and making an army that is unbeatable, and you're trying to justify this in Cantr it by saying it's good for the game. Whilst I believe that a lot of players have multiple characters, some of which will be sleepy, resulting in some sleepy areas and some active areas on a map, I don't think that focussing the game more on physical conflict will result in more enjoyment for the majoritea. - - -

You enjoy planning war, have done it before, going into towns and executing perfect tactic, crossbow shooting when you're active. Why do you want a game where, played correctly, your most valued resource is a few litres of Tetley with honey mixed in, and the defenders are either sleeping or don't care for the warfare? Who are you to judge when it's correct for you to interject with an IC reason to kill people who can't protect themselves from your tea?

Having played a leader I recollect keeping buildings checked for their locks, an eye on the docks and micromanaging resource stocks. We had too many trades and not enough blades. That was enough on my plate without trying to diffuse leader-hate and encouraging newspawns with a low fighting trait. You'd add more mechanisms of defence to build up the pretence of safety? And we can't be disappointed when a character's been appointed the goal of being a troll, because their RP isn't disjointed? This is a contradiction to make up for your characters' tea addiction.
Your ideas are gonna get a lot of rage. Players need to write stories on the same page.

Peace~

The problem, as I see it, is that it has become very difficult to find something to be competitive or ambitious about. The game mechanics don't help you very much in this regard anymore. Maybe the Polish players are better at it, but it seems to me, that this kind of behaviour can only be maintained by sheer force of will. That is, people trade, wage war and practise politics just for the sake of it, rather than doing it because it's the logical or most practical answer to the problems of their world.
I guess, this might also be the reason, why we don't see as much cooperation as we would like. If a character's behaviour is more strongly determined by OOC ideas than by local factors, it is highly unlikely that characters at the same place pick up the same ideas and agree on a common goal. Without an external incentive, the forming of interest groups solely relies on players willing to play along with it.

That said, I certainly don't suggest to give up hope. I merely doubt, that the player deficit can be counteracted by advertising alone. Some more-than-cosmetic changes to the game mechanics will likely be necessary, too.

Piscator wrote:...That said, I certainly don't suggest to give up hope. I merely doubt, that the player deficit can be counteracted by advertising alone. Some more-than-cosmetic changes to the game mechanics will likely be necessary, too.

I agree completely.

In my opinion, a predetermined death of old age should be necessary. Old players wouldn't be so attached to their chars that the game stagnates. Let's say a big number, like 150 years. Even 200. But the knowledge that your char will eventually die someday would make old players need to educate the new generations to see their cultures live after they die, to seek for a good successor to lead the town, etc. And overall, to not fear taking a little more risk. I think this will shake things up in a positive way, and having an empty slot from time to time will give old players the chance to experiment with new ideas for char's personalities. I mean, for me the only trouble with Cantr as a social simulator is the absence of pre-determined death. Knowing we'll die unavoidably affects, in a bigger or smaller way, human behaviours and decisions.

Still, I enjoy the game. My favourite part is roleplay, but I enjoy the mechanics that support it. Now the playerbase is reduced, my little contribution is persistance. I can't play fifteen chars like I used to, but I can do my best to create long-term stories and try to involve new players when they spawn a char near mines.

Obviously there's going to be a huge backlash against the idea of pre-determined death by the community since there's quite a few old people kicking around IG... But here's another suggestion - similar:

Instead of pre-determined death, have a pre-determined "old" tipping point. Say around 100 years, your stats and skills start decreasing and at either 150 or 200 years of age, your character's strength and skills are all 'awkward' and permanently stuck on that. That way the old crones and geezers can continue to live, but will be vulnerable to pretty much anything that so much as sniffs their way, and players will be encouraged to start fresh characters that can actually progress.

First, sorry for my bad English. I will express using short sentences. Courtesy of Google Translator:

I think the boredom kills more than pirates some new players.
I also believe that society is governed more by practical reasons that role right now. At the end of the day, this is a social simulator with integrated role, which makes it more interesting.

I think the fact that communities have more or less socially technology does not make them modern. A key factor is population density, which does not advance in part by feedback. This feedback should, in my view, for the following circumstances:

- A new player comes with the dream of creating an interesting character. He may have previously given their ambitions or develop them during the game.

- Almost all communities are primitive societies headquarters. -Bad Translation, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiefdom -

- Alternatives are traveling from one place to another without a stable target.

- The headquarters ( "Chiefdom") mentioned depend on the influence of the leader and interpersonal relationships. The last to arrive plays with great disadvantage. To gain the trust of the group he must obey.

- The new player gets tired of working on projects that he is not interested.

- Heart attack.

What to do? Logically, you're not going to ask a leader who after time he has used to raise a village, renounce its sovereignty. (Yes, personal sovereignty hidden behind this apparent primitive communism). It's not a criticism, it is reality. Legitimate reality.

When humanity flourished in the age of metals, people multiplied and concepts of private property began to emerge. In some cases, they began to differentiate the things that belonged to the leader and the things that belonged to the community.

But that there had to be more people, and this is a game. I doubt that those old people decide to have a heart attack if his life was bored them. They may sleep a lot, I do not know.

This is feedback. As real as life; nobody wants to come off the fruits of their labor. But this has a price.

Some new players (some say that those who really worth) endure a few years of play and thrive. Even they enjoy.

The reality is that it is very hard to gain a little capital to undertake projects (without ostracized). This is a humble opinion too. It is an attempt to analyze what happens, do not criticize.

And if there is no real private capital in the game (not necessarily in the form of money) and a community that will protect and ensure the interests of small owners, trade is somewhat anecdotal (and curiously hated by some leaders, who control the division of labor), and any company or individual initiative becomes, in these circumstances, in something completely non-contextual and impractical.

It's funny how the communities, that being diffuse, are extremely rich, and its members, poor. They do not make vague; they are asleep! Why does everyone sleep? The leader asks. Annotation, not critical. I mention only what I've seen, maybe I'm wrong. But many of those who have suffered heart attacks, surely have realized that they did not work for the common good, they did so for the leader. And this at the end, I understand that some tired.

There have been many debates about this, trade, value ... etc, above. To whom It May Concern:
https://www.tcd.ie/Economics/assets/pdf ... garty.html
Some brave attempt to bring their ambitions with dedication and role. My best regards.

I think this is interesting. The struggle between conservative forces (which accumulate goods and years) and new players trying to compete.

What do you think about all this?

Greetings to all!

Wolfsong wrote:Instead of pre-determined death, have a pre-determined "old" tipping point. Say around 100 years, your stats and skills start decreasing and at either 150 or 200 years of age, your character's strength and skills are all 'awkward' and permanently stuck on that. That way the old crones and geezers can continue to live, but will be vulnerable to pretty much anything that so much as sniffs their way, and players will be encouraged to start fresh characters that can actually progress.

Why do you think young chars are more interesting? Mine are just as boring as my old ones, only with fewer resources to pursue what plans they do come up with.

The reason proposals for predetermined death by old age have been rejected in the past is that they inevitably lead to ooc goals, like: How strong was your char before he died?, How many people did he kill?, How much stuff did he have?, etc.. If the lifespan of a char is instead determined by his own story, and his environment, we don't find those kinds of comparisons.

For me, this is similar to calls for a reset. There is no good reason to suppose that rebuilding the same infrastructure all over again is going to be interesting. We do have problems with incentives in the game, but I don't think these types of proposals address them. We need new types of goals, which are not the same ones as newspawns and new towns.

Right now Cantr needs a dramatic increase in players. One big problem it seems to have is player retention.

New players create young characters. It's not that I think young characters are more interesting than old ones - though that is often the case anyway - but that I think that young characters NEED to be more interesting than old ones, simply to retain new players and grow the playerbase.

Right now, as the above posts discuss, many towns are controlled by old "chiefdoms" - thanks Jota for pointing that out - and new players are forced into the role of "work obediently for x many years before you're trusted to do anything remotely interesting."

That's not fun. Young characters sleep and new players lapse. Old characters (and players) then lament about how newspawns don't stick around and how boring their little town has become.

What is happening to Cantr right now is pretty simple - new accounts aren't being created and retained in enough numbers to replace the old accounts that lapse. New players aren't being drawn into the game, and even old players (as evidenced by the steady, sharp decline) aren't keeping themselves interesting enough to remain entertained in the game.

The thing people don't seem to understand here is that all of these proposed changes aren't supposed to make the game more fun for the old entrenched players who already find it boring. It's supposed to make the game fun for people who have never even played the game before.

In short: saying we don't need newspawns is... hilariously short-sighted, considering all new players are newspawns. If you don't want newspawns, do you not want new players? The population of the game isn't going to magically increase without new blood.

Wolfsong wrote:In short: saying we don't need newspawns is... hilariously short-sighted, considering all new players are newspawns. If you don't want newspawns, do you not want new players? The population of the game isn't going to magically increase without new blood.

New players is a very different thing from newspawns, and you don't get those from killing old chars.

One of the problems is also where we get players from. It seems to me we've had an influx of players particularly in EZ in recent years who are used to a very different type of game, and are bringing some of that into to Cantr in a way that is not working too well.

sanchez wrote:

Wolfsong wrote:In short: saying we don't need newspawns is... hilariously short-sighted, considering all new players are newspawns. If you don't want newspawns, do you not want new players? The population of the game isn't going to magically increase without new blood.

New players is a very different thing from newspawns, and you don't get those from killing old chars.

One of the problems is also where we get players from. It seems to me we've had an influx of players particularly in EZ in recent years who are used to a very different type of game, and are bringing some of that into to Cantr in a way that is not working too well.

That the game is stagnant and they expect something a little more "contemporary" ?

Piscator wrote:the building and crafting aspects of the game are more or less rendered pointless by the ever increasing overabundance of goods and exploring has been made obsolete simply because there's hardly anything left to explore.

Piscator wrote:it has become very difficult to find something to be competitive or ambitious about. The game mechanics don't help you very much in this regard anymore.

Just drawing from two of your posts, would you care to elaborate? What has changed about the game mechanics or the circumstances in which they're used which makes it difficult to be competitive or ambitious? Is it simply the overabundance of resources that makes you feel this way? From my perspective there are more objects to spend resources on, more ways to display the identity of characters and by extension more things to have ambitions about and ways to compete. Want to be the best sword smith? You can actually make better looking swords then other people now. Want to show your culture is more sophisticated? You can actually differentiate your garments and structures from the common rabble. Brand names with meaning beyond a guarantee of good service can develop now! If all you want to do is produce more bland objects and materials at a higher rate than I can see where you're coming from, the tech level hasn't increased much in recent years, but you can invest those resources in so much more now! As for exploring from what I've read on the forums distant locations exist which have never had a person visit, if you value this type of gameplay why not launch ever more distant voyages?

Piscator wrote:That is, people trade, wage war and practise politics just for the sake of it, rather than doing it because it's the logical or most practical answer to the problems of their world.

I've tried to wrap my head around this statement and just can't. Systems of trade exist which allow characters to acquire greater amounts and varieties of resources faster then traveling around and gathering them personally. People are forming political units to maintain law and order, create identities and allow them to accomplish things which simply can't be done alone. As for war I'll give you that one, with the surplus of resources and difficulty in forcing people to stay under disagreeable leadership war really is a fool's minigame in Cantr.

Mind you, when tea was still powerful, there was no stomach capacity so people could drink unlimited amounts of it. Now it could be calculated how many people attackers should be allowed to attack before their stomachs get full. They could vomit but that would cause 50% tiredness, making it a less favorable technique to first fill your stomach with tea, then vomit it all out, only to drink again and spend some of that on countering the tiredness from emptying your stomach.

Also it used to be possible to hide in buildings and make surprise attacks. If you only locked the door when you came out, no one could run inside, but if you returned in before the project tick, you could unlock the door while you were inside and nobody could pick the lock while it was open, but they also couldn't drag you from the outside. Now they can.

So tea and coffee could afford to be more powerful, as long as the risks were calculated based on stomach capacity. How many extra attacks should a stomach full of tea allow? Nobody seems to take into account that if a group of 4 to 8 people wanted to assassinate a town leader, they could still do it under the current system. The difference is that they could only attack two or three people in one day before they were so tired that their attacks would no longer be effective. Even two very lucky people can assassinate a person within seconds. The reason more people won't do this is that the likely retaliation would cost them their lives, so they couldn't enjoy the spoils. Also it's hard to find like-minded allies. Also some town leaders hide in a locked building with a window all the time when they're not unlocking the harbor, and that only takes a second. So tea doesn't support murdering individual people you don't like because it doesn't allow attacking the same person twice, it supports murdering several individuals in the same town. And how often is it the case that several people in a same group deserve to be hit? There are cases like Luscent's Loyals, but we were never able to see more than the one sleeper they left behind. So the chances of tea being used for defense are very slim. It's more likely to be used for offense.

Two interesting aspects about what posted above:

Surpluses and goods: Yes, there are a lot of surpluses in Cantr, but new players can not access them. Either because they are remotely lost, locked, or belong to a leader. Could Cantr Need a Robin Hood? : P
I spoke in my previous post about the consequences that this brings.

About death by old age:: I understand that some players find it hard to see how his character loses attributes as a result of old age and finally die. But if this is to be a serious social simulator, the game should simulate fundamental and decisive in our real life as old age and death circumstances. Denying magic and allow infinite life is not real, like see as an old woman of eighty kills an elephant or a wild leopard with his sword with the agility of a ninja.

Death is, as we all know, part of life. And it should be reflected in the game, like getting older. Otherwise, it would be best disable age (if this makes no sense)

The natural thing would be that the characters grow old and lose physical, but they had their favor: the experience and respect of the community (and respect for young people). I admit I do not know the difficulty that this could have a programming level.

I think, in my humble opinion, we should be serious about these issues if we have a truly attractive game.

Again, sorry for my bad English. I hope that the message is understood.

Thanks for reeding and have fun!