Cantr II Discussion Forum

Does this improve your swordsmanship in later life when you actually get a steel sword?

TheTheorist wrote:Does this improve your swordsmanship in later life when you actually get a steel sword?

Do we have proof that there is such a skill as "swordsmanship" and that it improves over time? I've seen no evidence of such. Anyone?

I have characters who are better with a composite recurve bow then a sabre. So I'd assume there is and I believe Jos said that skills improve if you practice them.

Swymir wrote:I have characters who are better with a composite recurve bow then a sabre. So I'd assume there is and I believe Jos said that skills improve if you practice them.

Has anyone got evidence of their skills improving with practise? So far, I've not seen it.

My characters that have poor skills both with a longbow and bone spear also punch an animal for 1% or 2% damage (bottom end). Whereas my characters which get 40% with a composite recurve punch for 4% (top end), and my inbetween character, who gets in the 30s with a crossbow, punches for 3%, exactly as I would have expected. There doesn't seem to be much differentiation in weapon skills there.

I also have characters who have hit a lion just about every single day since the changes went in, and have shown no improvement whatsoever.

This farce of a "skills system" is so thoroughly hidden from anything resembling rational analysis that I've pretty much given up on it. I've decided to cull any character that can't punch for at least 3%--preferably 4% damage.

Anyone care to suggest differently?

Well for one thing that is poor roleplaying and probably a capital rule breach as well since you are using ooc knowledge that you know you can hit harder. In reaility a person would except that they aren't a fighter and try something else. How do you know your character isn't extremely good at farming for potatoes or something. I'm not entirely sure on how the skills system works and I don't really want to know. Don't pay attention to it and that will make it interesting. I'm sure there has been some sort of balance installed so that if you are a poor fighter you are probably good at something else. Either that or perhaps there is a way to train to become a good fighter. (you have to figure in tiredness) I don't really know.

Swymir wrote:Well for one thing that is poor roleplaying and probably a capital rule breach as well since you are using ooc knowledge that you know you can hit harder.

Poor roleplaying? How dare you. It was Jos who elsewhere posted that his "skills" system was some kind of darwinian experiment and that inferior characters in the badlands would "die off". But an artificial life game is not a roleplay game. In alife you create numerous little blobs and test them over cycles of many generations. You have minimal to no investment in an individual blob. Your investment lies in families and even species of blobs.

Well, my Zaro Aster character studied in the Mac Gregor library, tried to found a new community, wrote a poem, distributed history notes, copied Taowyn's poems... all manner of things. It is Jos who reduced such an already-formed character to an "inferior blob".

In what does his life consist? Farm tomatoes, get tired, hit lions with almost no result, get hurt by lions, eat all tomatoes, repeat loop. To make matters worse, the combat skills of the little community he tried to build seem equally bad across the board. So according to Jos, they will eventually all die off. Watching this happen slowly and inevitably over R.L. months is what I must do for recreation?

I have now determined that there is no point continuing. Had he died in combat, that would have been different. His community might have remembered him, left a tombstone note. But not like this.

I am now really, really angry.

Swymir wrote:How do you know your character isn't extremely good at farming for potatoes or something.

Because with the tiredness system factored in, it would probably take me months I.R.L. to find out by copying down data and pottering around with a calculator--maybe even spreadsheets--and nobody else in the game would be able to find out or could care less, so it is not a marketable skill. And compared to combat skills, such skills seem to be irrelevant.

Swymir wrote:I'm not entirely sure on how the skills system works...

You got that right.

Swymir wrote:...and I don't really want to know. Don't pay attention to it and that will make it interesting.

That is a really bizarre argument. Repeat it to yourself several times and see if it makes sense.

Swymir wrote:I'm sure there has been some sort of balance installed so that if you are a poor fighter you are probably good at something else. Either that or perhaps there is a way to train to become a good fighter. (you have to figure in tiredness) I don't really know.

Well, if you don't really know, why do you keep trying to answer my question? I was hoping that someone who does know would answer. That is usually the point of asking a question.

If Zaro continues to hit lions with a bow, will his skill in hurting lions and, above all, defending against lions, improve? That's all I'm asking. It would at least permit the Lamarckian rate of evolution appropriate to a roleplay game. Does anyone know the answer?

Please?

Don't give up - says someone who managed to heal over 60% mostly with tomatoes gathered by himself.

[quote=The Sociologist]Poor roleplaying? How dare you. It was Jos who elsewhere posted that his "skills" system was some kind of darwinian experiment and that inferior characters in the badlands would "die off".

I'd have to say that it is poor roleplaying unless I misunderstood what you were saying and what you meant was that your characters died off in the natural course of their lifes (within reason) due to the fact that they can't fight well (like the instance you said, although someone may try to make a run for civilization), but if you are hitting one animal and then thinking "shit, I only hit it for 2%, I'll just make this one a note thief so that the people kill it" Then yes I would have to call that poor roleplaying. I was not attacking you as a player. I know for a fact that you roleplay well. I was simply stating that the concept is what was bad. I try to play out every character that spawns even if it is in the same place as another of my characters I just move it one town over and start there.

[Quote=The Sociologist]
Because with the tiredness system factored in, it would probably take me months I.R.L. to find out by copying down data and pottering around with a calculator--maybe even spreadsheets--and nobody else in the game would be able to find out or could care less, so it is not a marketable skill. And compared to combat skills, such skills seem to be irrelevant.

That is not what you should try to do. That is stupid. Instead of trying to figure out the system just play. And how can you say that farming is not a marketable skill when you just complained that your later character was dieing because he couldn't hit well and was starving.

and finally...

[quote=The Socialigist]
Anyone care to suggest differently?

That was the question I was answering. You asked if I suggested differently to what you were doing and I said that I think it's poor roleplaying. You immediatly got defensive for no reason and then began to attack me. You must remember to keep your composure in an arguement as it is what allows you to think. It is my experience that if you practice you get better. I don't think it is my imagination that this is true although I can only see it happening with a few of my characters who used to hit for 17% and now hit for 18-19% (full energy). I have also noted a bit of a random deviation in hit percentages when I've hitten harder at a higher tiredness rating (although this happens rarely, usually I just hit for the same amount)

I think I have a couple of good farmers, as they seem to consistently yield on the plus end of the +/- 20% variation. I didn't document it or run calculations...that would too much like my real job instead of the welcome break from reality that Cantr is now. But just by eyeballing the results I have determined that those few characters would probably be pretty good farmers and started to play them in that role.

I believe I also have a few chars who are better at resting than others. They seem to do the same amount of work, yet are less tired overall. Maybe they have figured out how to take frequent catnaps?

I haven't tested combat yet, because frankly I'm not terribly interested in the fighting aspect of Cantr. Otherwise I would be playing any of the shoot-em up clones that criminally are placed in the roleplaying genre, or D&D for that matter. Not that I'm condemning that in Cantr - it can be fun to watch - I just don't think the game is set up for good fighting roleplay so I can't really get into it here.

Industrialist, Darwin didn't call for the death of species with skills less fit for survival... and evolution in Cantr doesn't really work according to Darwin's concept but Lamarck's, if you understand what I mean.

It would be a CR breach if anybody killed off his character just because he thinks that that character doesn't have good skills. That is just as bad as killing a character because he didn't spawn where you wanted him to.

Sociologist, I appreciate your insights as to how technical aspects of the game work. Many of them I would never be able to figure out for myself and they really help me understand my chars better with the changes and skills and everything happening.

That said, however, I do think you are missing the point of the skills aspect. Even though I haven't figured out the skills of most of my chars, I can see that some of them are better at certain things than others are. If a char for whom you had high hopes is pretty much skill-less, well, that's the way of the world (in rl and, now, in Cantr). Some people have great ambition but can't really do anything very well. Some people have fabulous talent or intellect but never live in a place where they can be employed. Lots and lots of people have lived on the hostile frontiers and been killed off despite their best efforts.

I find the skills part of the game to be challenging and realistic, so far. It sounds like you are tying to force what you want onto your chars instead of learning and playing who they are. A lot of older chars are caught in the pinch of having established personalities that don't fit with their new skills. Nothing to do about that exept to adapt as smoothly as possible. A mid-life change of occupation or purpose may be required.

Another problem is that, since our chars are spawned at 20 they don't have that period of childhood to figure out what their natural abilities are. I think it's fun that we have to find their skill(s) but in the meantime our chars have to survive with, sometimes, none of the support they would have in a real social system.

Anyway, I think you should play out your disappointing chars until their "natural" deaths occur. It is part of your commitment to the nature of the game to have every char you spawn struggle to live as best they can and for as long as they can even if it's a life that you, as the player, find frustrating or not worthwhile.

I've pretty much recovered from the tiredness trauma and now the only thing I find to be way too unrealistic and to be severly hampering the society simulator part of the game is the lack of natural healing. I hope this is adjusted soon.

Am I missing something here? Industrialist has not posted in this thread, as far as I can see.

umm.... never mind..

Sorry, I got my -ists confused and it takes so long to get the pages to load I couldn't fix it right away.

I have to say I am 100% against the idea of 'skills' (as it has been said) at this point. I have always been under the impression that the character should be totally the result of the players actions - that the player decides what the character should do, and what they will do.

The idea of altering the effectiveness of certain skills for different characters sounds good in principle, but it radically alters the fundamental basis of the game. The roles that characters play would no longer be dictated by the society in which they live - they would be dictated by the statistics that the game gives them.

I don't have a problem with this as such... rather with the way that players have no idea how they work. Players have to build up personalities for their characters for them to be interesting and valuable parts of a society (even if that personality is the complete absence of one). This is not consistent with the masked attributes idea, as it is difficult to spend time developing a personality only to find out that you cannot back it up (of course, knowing you cannot back it up and role-playing it that way is another matter) is the kind of thing that makes me abandon characters.

In my opinion, skills should either be displayed to the player in some way, or should be abandoned entirely. I think my main point is that the game should be fun - and shouldn't be a constant struggle between players and the game system.

Now, is that relevant or am I missing the point?

The Surly Cantrian wrote:In my opinion, skills should either be displayed to the player in some way, or should be abandoned entirely. I think my main point is that the game should be fun - and shouldn't be a constant struggle between players and the game system.

I agree, right now it is hard enough,( expecially with the server problem) and the loss of so many players.....If there are going to be skill levels per character, then the player needs to know....But I think the 'choice' of your charries skill should be left up to the player..when I create a charrie, I have an image in mind, if the game is going to dictate parts of my charries abilities, then it makes me change the charrie....so whats the point of giving it any personality?