Cantr II Discussion Forum

Posted: **Tue Apr 11, 2017 5:55 pm**

Snickie's idea is much better than the originally proposed. This doesn't affect me since I'm not playing anymore but it seems counterproductive to introduce a change that is going to upset the majority of players.

Posted: **Wed Apr 12, 2017 1:22 am**

Thank you moonflame, Snickie, and everyone for your helpful considerations and comments.

I have been for many years a strong proponent of long-range radio communication. One character in particular has used it to organize a large-area organization and meetings, helped make sure as many towns as possible have radios, and my other characters have used it for many other reasons. I've never been eager to remove radio use or to limit it, and it is a disappointment to me. Yet, I agreed to this change. I've also learned that traveling in person is more effective anyway.

Yes, we intentionally didn't have a general audience vote on the matter or discuss it first (though we did discuss it with a limited number of players/staff). We know that there will be (and is) disappointment. We don't expect praise or necessarily agreement for limiting something. The reasons are mainly to prevent CRBs, and we don't release information about such cases.

Pilot wrote:Radios have not been serving well the dynamics of a slow paced game, they have shifted focus away from local environments, and they have placed unnecessary pressures on players attempting to keep apart the interests of multiple characters in the same region. For these and other reasons ...

To answer Millhouse's question, you can ignore "other reasons". It's a saying, more than anything, implying that we've thought about the implications. The real reason is to decrease the information flow among characters of the same player and also characters of RL friends. It simplifies keeping information separate among characters, at least within the game. Otherwise, people can intentionally "accidentally" share information. There's also been confusion among sincere players about what is appropriate in terms of sharing and receiving information over the radio.

That said, we can move on to the other motivations for such a change, which are to turn focus locally (like turning your phone off :wink:

), to encourage travel, and to slow the travel of information to a pace appropriate for Cantr. It's also a change of pace. It was a change when radios were first added as well. We'll see how it goes.

Trade
I definitely like being able to communicate trade over radio instead of having to travel and then learn the hard way what you should have brought or what they don't have, but that doesn't make this unreasonable to coordinate. It also may encourage better relations and in-person communication among nearby towns, as well as making the traveling trader who's aware of trading needs a highly desired profession. It also encourages actually keeping track of what different towns trade.

Combat
We're against quick or large-scale massacres, and that is one of the reasons (included in the CRB reason) for the change to radios. You can also expect changes in the near future to further limit murders in a way more appropriate for a slow-paced game.

I think that having things like power generators and fuel for radios is a good idea (although this could make things difficult for towns that have no fuel at all), though that requires a lot more discussion and implementation time. But, implementing a more complex way to have a long-range radio sounds like a good idea to me, if use of it is somehow limited to where it wouldn't bring back the problems we're avoiding (CRBs, focus on radio for information). Then players could go to a specific town on one side of the island that has such a thing to communicate with another town (perhaps with a specific receiver) on the other side, for example. The change is purposely removing any instant way to communicate over a long distance, however.

Let's see how we fair in this updated version of Cantr.

Posted: **Wed Apr 12, 2017 5:06 am**

When you don't trust every single one of the players of your game enough to let them use a coded game mechanic...

Posted: **Wed Apr 12, 2017 6:09 am**

Wolfsong wrote:When you don't trust every single one of the players of your game enough to let them use a coded game mechanic...

I think the problem is that too many have broken the rules already

Posted: **Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:59 am**

When one wants to break the rules there is always a way for it and it is all about the intentions; if not then one can talk to Cantrian friends all day and do nothing bad.
What you do sounds like "we will do it no matter what you say, because we decided it's right and you can't know all the reasons". Yes, a fair play is important of course and none can deny it. At the other hand it is a game with players more than few and it's already difficult to find new players with a spark, pushing them is risky. Recently people don't trust Cantr Staff so much, this will take the issues further since it is more than a dynamic change. I sincerely hope it won't lead anything catastrophic.

Posted: **Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:07 pm**

For me radios play important role in cantor as binder of so spread community. Without it life will be a bit more burden for small towns. Send ship to buy goods he'll knows where. But in other hand it striped life from direct contact. Why to ever move from town when you have radio network that reaches other side of world (I know it's not but If I think world as polish zone then yes everyone is or can be easily connected). If change will be aligned with carrier pigeons then I think It can ba good. We won't loose all long range communication but in other hand it won't feel so global anymore. More about local communities as they will have advantage.
I miss a bit in cantr this small community spirit. There will be insentive for some collectivness. Not each city would need to send trades but maybe develop trade hubs.

It will also make life of trolls a bit more difficult.

Posted: **Thu Apr 13, 2017 11:32 pm**

Quite frankly I find this deeply disturbing as a player. I appreciate the attempts to lift the veil, but all of it reeks of appeasement and spin. I have lost faith in the ability of players, who aren't part of staff, to have a meaningful impact on this game. Will this impact my dedication to the game? No, I'll play for a long time to come. However, my connection to the community is gone. Why bother engaging with it beyond the confines of the green world? I'll have as much influence just reading the updates on my login screen as I do now.

Joshuamonkey wrote:Yes, we intentionally didn't have a general audience vote on the matter or discuss it first (though we did discuss it with a limited number of players/staff). We know that there will be (and is) disappointment. We don't expect praise or necessarily agreement for limiting something. The reasons are mainly to prevent CRBs, and we don't release information about such cases.

This encapsulates what the parts of this whole process which I'm both okay/happy with and which chased me away. Note this isn't an attack on Joshuamonkey. This was a long process for such a big change and I doubt it can be attributed to one moment let alone one person. I just found this post the most well written and explanatory.

On the one hand I'm pleased to see major change. It feels like the endless people pleasing and slow descent that the current status quo entails is ending. We're in for change and I'm happy for it. I hadn't ever thought of the major CR issues that radio communication makes possible and it's an interesting perspective. I'm also happy staff will have less on their plate and players will have one less thing to scratch their heads over. I can get behind all of this even if it seems drastic.

What disturbs me is the conciously opaque decision making process, lack of communication, and poor delivery of the final product. The staff were doing exactly what I had hoped by making big changes in order to improve the game, compromising, and not shying away from hard choices. However all of this was done behind closed doors and presented as fait accompli to the playerbase. The negative backlash was anticipated, the delicacy of the situation understood, and the entire conversation was cut off at the knees. On an even darker note I would draw attention to "limited numbers of players/staff". If most, if not all, staff were not included in this decision it speaks poorly of consensus building by the decision-makers of this game. If certain "in" players were consulted, but who weren't staff members, then I consider that appalling.

[quote="Joshuamonkey]You can also expect changes in the near future to further limit murders in a way more appropriate for a slow-paced game.[/quote]

If this is a real indication of further major changes, and I hope it is, then learn from these mistakes. Open the lines of communication with the player base, either for consultation or to let us know the lay of the land. Either climb down down from the mountain or admit Cantr is played by overgrown children and we need an adult in the room.

Posted: **Thu Apr 13, 2017 11:33 pm**

Money wrote:Quite frankly I find this deeply disturbing as a player. I appreciate the attempts to lift the veil, but all of it reeks of appeasement and spin. I have lost faith in the ability of players, who aren't part of staff, to have a meaningful impact on this game. Will this impact my dedication to the game? No, I'll play for a long time to come. However, my connection to the community is gone. Why bother engaging with it beyond the confines of the green world? I'll have as much influence just reading the updates on my login screen as I do now.

Joshuamonkey wrote:Yes, we intentionally didn't have a general audience vote on the matter or discuss it first (though we did discuss it with a limited number of players/staff). We know that there will be (and is) disappointment. We don't expect praise or necessarily agreement for limiting something. The reasons are mainly to prevent CRBs, and we don't release information about such cases.

This encapsulates what the parts of this whole process which I'm both okay/happy with and which chased me away. Note this isn't an attack on Joshuamonkey. This was a long process for such a big change and I doubt it can be attributed to one moment let alone one person. I just found this post the most well written and explanatory.

On the one hand I'm pleased to see major change. It feels like the endless people pleasing and slow descent that the current status quo entails is ending. We're in for change and I'm happy for it. I hadn't ever thought of the major CR issues that radio communication makes possible and it's an interesting perspective. I'm also happy staff will have less on their plate and players will have one less thing to scratch their heads over. I can get behind all of this even if it seems drastic.

What disturbs me is the conciously opaque decision making process, lack of communication, and poor delivery of the final product. The staff were doing exactly what I had hoped by making big changes in order to improve the game, compromising, and not shying away from hard choices. However all of this was done behind closed doors and presented as fait accompli to the playerbase. The negative backlash was anticipated, the delicacy of the situation understood, and the entire conversation was cut off at the knees. On an even darker note I would draw attention to "limited numbers of players/staff". If most, if not all, staff were not included in this decision it speaks poorly of consensus building by the decision-makers of this game. If certain "in" players were consulted, but who weren't staff members, then I consider that appalling.

Joshuamonkey wrote:You can also expect changes in the near future to further limit murders in a way more appropriate for a slow-paced game.

If this is a real indication of further major changes, and I hope it is, then learn from these mistakes. Open the lines of communication with the player base, either for consultation or to let us know the lay of the land. Either climb down down from the mountain or admit Cantr is played by overgrown children and we need an adult in the room.

Posted: **Thu Apr 13, 2017 11:33 pm**

Quite frankly I find this deeply disturbing as a player. I appreciate the attempts to lift the veil, but all of it reeks of appeasement and spin. I have lost faith in the ability of players, who aren't part of staff, to have a meaningful impact on this game. Will this impact my dedication to the game? No, I'll play for a long time to come. However, my connection to the community is gone. Why bother engaging with it beyond the confines of the green world? I'll have as much influence just reading the updates on my login screen as I do now.

Joshuamonkey wrote:Yes, we intentionally didn't have a general audience vote on the matter or discuss it first (though we did discuss it with a limited number of players/staff). We know that there will be (and is) disappointment. We don't expect praise or necessarily agreement for limiting something. The reasons are mainly to prevent CRBs, and we don't release information about such cases.

This encapsulates what the parts of this whole process which I'm both okay/happy with and which chased me away. Note this isn't an attack on Joshuamonkey. This was a long process for such a big change and I doubt it can be attributed to one moment let alone one person. I just found this post the most well written and explanatory.

On the one hand I'm pleased to see major change. It feels like the endless people pleasing and slow descent that the current status quo entails is ending. We're in for change and I'm happy for it. I hadn't ever thought of the major CR issues that radio communication makes possible and it's an interesting perspective. I'm also happy staff will have less on their plate and players will have one less thing to scratch their heads over. I can get behind all of this even if it seems drastic.

What disturbs me is the conciously opaque decision making process, lack of communication, and poor delivery of the final product. The staff were doing exactly what I had hoped by making big changes in order to improve the game, compromising, and not shying away from hard choices. However all of this was done behind closed doors and presented as fait accompli to the playerbase. The negative backlash was anticipated, the delicacy of the situation understood, and the entire conversation was cut off at the knees. On an even darker note I would draw attention to "limited numbers of players/staff". If most, if not all, staff were not included in this decision it speaks poorly of consensus building by the decision-makers of this game. If certain "in" players were consulted, but who weren't staff members, then I consider that appalling.

Joshuamonkey wrote:You can also expect changes in the near future to further limit murders in a way more appropriate for a slow-paced game.

If this is a real indication of further major changes, and I hope it is, then learn from these mistakes. Open the lines of communication with the player base, either for consultation or to let us know the lay of the land. Either climb down down from the mountain or admit Cantr is played by overgrown children and we need an adult in the room.

Posted: **Fri Apr 14, 2017 12:08 am**

JM refers to the thread from 3 years ago. There are no "in" players. That's were it was discussed with said players before being moved. By some staff I believe he refers to relevant staff who would be impacted, eg progD, maybe some RD, and PD. I wasn't aware of it but my role is honorary more than anything, just there so I can perform marketing functions.

Loved your constructive criticism by the way. Thanks for the fair and balanced views. I can personally guarantee they'll be taken onboard next time, wherever possible. Definitely valuable insight and well worded.

Glad to hear you are optimistic about the change as well!

Posted: **Fri Apr 14, 2017 12:12 am**

Limited numbers of players / staff

Nepotism is alive and well in cantr.

Posted: **Fri Apr 14, 2017 12:19 am**

Rmak wrote:Limited numbers of players / staff

Nepotism is alive and well in cantr.

I think you skipped reading my post to jump to that conclusion. I covered exactly that:

JM refers to the thread from 3 years ago. There are no "in" players.

Posted: **Fri Apr 14, 2017 9:30 am**

This is a major change which people can be agree or disagree. It saddens me to see mostly usual forum members explained their ideas. It has been published in game page and days passed after that. Does it mean people don't mind anything or they think telling an opinion is useless? One day current GAB can change too ; they may decide to remove some good benefits or bring enjoyable changes and probably some people will be silent again. Maybe I am taking things too serious, but I think communication is important.

Posted: **Sat Apr 15, 2017 9:19 pm**

1. You should implement the other things meant to fill the gap first.

2. You should give players at minimum a month to prepare.

This is just as crappily started as the "kill all characters over 50 regardless of race" that happened in FTO.

Posted: **Sat Apr 15, 2017 9:20 pm**

Cantr II Discussion Forum

Radio NErfing!!

Re: Radio NErfing!!

Re: Radio NErfing!!

Re: Radio NErfing!!

Re: Radio NErfing!!

Re: Radio NErfing!!

Re: Radio NErfing!!

Re: Radio NErfing!!

Re: Radio NErfing!!

Re: Radio NErfing!!

Re: Radio NErfing!!

Re: Radio NErfing!!

Re: Radio NErfing!!

Re: Radio NErfing!!

Re: Radio NErfing!!

Re: Radio NErfing!!