Cantr II Discussion Forum

I've seen characters in a town who've been off on year-long gathering trips, have returned to carry recurve bows and shields and may soon be required to drive around on vehicles, and yet they still "seem weak".

*throws toys out of cot*

How long is this supposed to go on for, or is it yet another bug? I had <i>assumed</i> it meant they couldn't yet hit other people, but the older ones clearly can. Does it have any meaning, or is it just another way of making newcomers to the game feel miserable?

And at the current die-off/replacement rate, how soon before all the KDF Rangers "seem weak"? heh.

I too, would like to know how to improve the "weak" status. I have a charrie that has dug and dug for stone, the charrie is not tired but still appears weak, How can digging stone for so long....still leave the charrie weak. is there a gym or something I haven't discovered yet?

Oh, I think I forgot this one ... the 'weakness' setting is, I think, based on legacy code and has no effect whatsoever on gameplay ... It's the old 'strength' setting which is not changed anymore nor has any effect ... If I'm not mistaken.

I've heard that characters can carry more weight as they get older/stronger. Is this wrong?

I thought if your character was weak or strong had something to do with how weak or strong he is.

There seem to be a lot of difference in strength between characters. With the same (iron) shield and weapon one of my characters can absorb (and do) twice as much damage as another character with the same shield and weapon.
This means the character is invurnable to animal attacks (of the animals i have met so far) while the other character gets eaten very quickly.

And i still dont know and probably never will if i can change this 'strength'
so far i havent noticed any improvement of skills and such.

The Sociologist wrote:And at the current die-off/replacement rate, how soon before all the KDF Rangers "seem weak"? heh.

The KDS Rangers?

Well, John's still strong to the bone.

OT:
Anyways, something about the mechanics, has the not being able to hit/talk people in vehicles/from vehicles been fixed yet?

Edit: Agar, I noticed, thus I've changed the course of the topic.

Jos Elkink wrote:Oh, I think I forgot this one ... the 'weakness' setting is, I think, based on legacy code and has no effect whatsoever on gameplay ... It's the old 'strength' setting which is not changed anymore nor has any effect ... If I'm not mistaken.

Did everyone just skip that post?

Legacy code. It's there because it used to mean something but now doesn't.

However, it DOES have an effect on the player perception of their own characters. When the whole weak/strong descriptions can be removed in a manner that causes as few bugs as possible, it should be.

The Sociologist wrote:I had <i>assumed</i> it meant they couldn't yet hit other people, but the older ones clearly can. Does it have any meaning, or is it just another way of making newcomers to the game feel miserable?

You are weak and I am strong!

Perhaps you should eat spinach instead of potatos. All those carbs will slow you down.

wietse wrote:There seem to be a lot of difference in strength between characters. With the same (iron) shield and weapon one of my characters can absorb (and do) twice as much damage as another character with the same shield and weapon.
This means the character is invurnable to animal attacks (of the animals i have met so far) while the other character gets eaten very quickly.

Could this lead to a Cantr "evolution". Natural Selection will soon only leave those who can survivie against animals.

Swymir wrote:Could this lead to a Cantr "evolution". Natural Selection will soon only leave those who can survivie against animals.

Natural Selection will soon only leave... animals

Yes, there should be some form of natural selection now in the game, as indeed only the stronger ones survive, and newspawns get genes from existing chars ...

I will work on the animals issue, but that's a big programming project, much more work than for example implementing the furniture. My mind is already working on it, though ... (To give a hint: the idea is to 'individualise' animals, so they will also start to attack each other (which will hugely benefit those overpopulated animal areas) and hopefully they'll also need food - but that will probably be a much later addition.)

Jos Elkink wrote:Yes, there should be some form of natural selection now in the game, as indeed only the stronger ones survive, and newspawns get genes from existing chars ...

I will work on the animals issue, but that's a big programming project, much more work than for example implementing the furniture. My mind is already working on it, though ... (To give a hint: the idea is to 'individualise' animals, so they will also start to attack each other (which will hugely benefit those overpopulated animal areas) and hopefully they'll also need food - but that will probably be a much later addition.)

It'd be great if that happens BEFORE all my wanderers in distant lands die due to the same pack of animals attacking them every turn when they can only attack that pack 1x per day.

What if to influence these natural selection genes characters be allowed to ummm emm well u can just imagine what i am gonna say. and after ermm this procces it adds one new char to b allowed to play. that way cantr population can only grow at cantrian breeding rates. im suggesting once every three real months. whatever that is in game time. should equal a full 9 month period in cantr. This would also only allow the newspawns using a spawn point from a family say in allenz hills that newspwn point will spawn a new character into alleze hills. therefor if one town has allot of hanky panky going on that town will have a larger population and no longer random gen points. This may seem very confussing so break my entire paragrph here down into bits of about 2 sentences and think it over. This would allow couples to show there feelings and also make the game more realistic.

That's what I was going to say. You must have ESPN or someting.

Cherize wrote:That's what I was going to say. You must have ESPN or someting.

I think you mean ESP.