Cantr II Discussion Forum

See the discussion in the various gathering limit threads. In general:

Keves is suggesting that the gathering limit is the absolute max of production. That means that using tools when over that max, the non-tooled citizens get less.

I say that this is about efficiency of existing land use. So yes, total output of the land can be increased by using tools.

Note that implementing the first will take longer to implement as well.

Jur.

i agree (with jur). if you want to encourage specialization and trade, you have to reward efficiency from skill and tools by allowing them to increase production without any negative effects. otherwise the professionsal farmers/gatherers won't be able to do any better a job than anyone else.

This question is wrong asked.

There is no land scarcity which are not affecting others!!!

Imagine field of corn...

1) there is a farmer with no tool - he will gather few corns per day
2) there is a farmer who has a tool - he will gather more corn than the first one
3) there is another farmer who are usin special machine - he will gather the most

Now imagine that this field has begining and end and only 21000 corns growing...

All of those three farmers will gather corns in the same time, can the first one gather 7000 (1/3) of them ? Or maybe second?

NO! The most of production will be taken by the third one.

This is LAND SCARCITY

If You don't like it, don't implement it at all!!!
I voted A

I voted <b>b</b>, for bold.

Oh, my god. If the point is just to make Cantr harder to play, here are some other suggestions: Why not make people play as blobs composed of five players, so there are no individual identities? Or how about making all projects generic, so that you never know how much or what you are going to get? How about when you finish a resource-gathering project, the results are waiting for you two towns over, but you don't know which one? And if you don't find it within a year, it decomposes?

My point is that these various limit proposals reduce one's ability to plan, and every damn thing is going to take immeasurably longer. When you go to town for hematite, you will have to find one of the authorized hematite dealers when they are awake, make a deal, and exchange the merchandise. Each of those steps could take literal days: on Monday you could say "Hello, who deals in hematite," and on Tuesday see that someone told you, "Harry does, but he's been asleep for a while," and so on into next week. While this is as social as all-get-out and a VAST improvement over just coming in and quietly gathering the stuff, it also means that you have an unplannable amount of time getting hematite.

I agree with Melbi. Her suggestion is much better.

Hell, why do we not just scrap farming altogether? How about, you only have to eat a pepercorn every day, and if you don't, you die. Each town gets three pepercorns daily. They just appear on the ground, and first to grab them has them. Then people could fight each other for them, and then all the death and fighting it would be fullscale civil disorder. Then the governments would have something to do forever!

What do you think? No?

IF we are using in the top of our limits then one using a tool will take away from the ones who do not. But when not, everyone gathers as much as they can.

PRUT wrote:This question is wrong asked.

There is no land scarcity which are not affecting others!!!

Imagine field of corn...

I do imagine a cornfield; a piece of land prepared by a farmer to yield corn. A farmer without tools does not prepare as large a piece of land as a famer with tools, because without tools he will not be able to harvest a larger piece of land.

The idea that the corn that grows near a settlement is a fixed size field and is not because the fertility and substance of the land is right for corn to be grown is a strange misconception. If it were fixed, a farmer with tools will harvest faster and collect more corn. I no farmer would harvest corn, there would be a stinking rotting field which quality would be suffering badly next harvest.

T-shirt made the point I was about to make

Crop yields have a lot to do with how the fields are worked on - a field that is worked on with tools will prodcue more than one which isn't.

So - using tools should increase your production - as you've prepared the fields better -without adversely affecting others with no tools.

My thoughts exactly

And mine.

Say, what's New Zealand like?

I vote for melbi and schme's suggestions. I think they would make the game the most fun. I love that schme came up with peppercorns! What the heck are they, anyway?

Also, when you undock, your boat should suddenly appear in a totally different area of the world! This would lead to improved trade relations, IMO.

west wrote:And mine.

Say, what's New Zealand like?

It's the coolest set of islands in the whole world!




I'm glad you like the idea, Kinvoya. I think it's pretty wonderfull myself.

As for peppercorns, I'm not entirely sure what they are either. I think you make spice with them, but I don't really know. But all the same, if it weren't peppercorns, the entire system would have to be scraped.

The peppercorns are vital.

The black wrinkly grains that pepper comes in (if you use a pepper mill) are peppercorns.

It's crazy to implement it so that anyone's production effects anybodyelse's, tools or no tools. If too many people started gathering a limited resource IRL, one of two things would happen-
A) the surpluss people be asked to leave the project., or
B) everybody would go home early and get on with something else.
What wouldn't happen is C:
C)they all work just as hard for just as long and get less.

Response times in Canter are too slow to permit either of those two solutions, so the software must be set so that problem is not allowed to arise, or iellse it's neither realistic nor fair.

I agree anyway, that our gathering implements must surely reflect amore sophisticated levelof farming technology all-round (No other parts of the process are explicitly coded in, but we have to assume that they happen)
The implication is that the yield is higher, when you use these machines, not just that it's harvested faster.

Anyway , however it's done, I don't see any ratuionale for applying the same logic to non-remewable resources like coal. You hit on the limit with coal when the seam runs out,. not before. Then you don't get any more coal from that place , not ever You don't run against a regular , temporary lceilinng, then siit around waiting for the coal reserves to be replenished. Gathering limits shouldn't apply to that at all. The guy with the pickaxe isn't getting in the wayof the guy without one, just hastening the day when the coal runs out.

Anyway , I agree with whover-it-was who said that Cantr is a young world with loads of space, and it makes no sense that they're running into these sort of limitations already.They shold not have been implemented yet at all.l

It's alsio absurdlty unrealistic that all the farmers in a region of 50-100 kilometers in radius at a rough guess, and looking at the average distance betwwen towns should all be crammed into one tiny, indivisible, piece of and . Some systenm for land division/ ownership should have been implemented long before this was Unless the Prog Dept fix that glaring roblem. the whole limits thing will only put all land into the hands of business monopolies or dictatorrships, as I've argued elsewhere. There;'s no other way to manage that kind fo set-up with any semblance of efficiency. I want there to be room in -game for the small independant farmer, patches of "common land", settlers, hobos. you name it. I want all rtghe social and political diversity that'spossible IRL. Why not? What's so unrealistic about that?

Before resource limitations came in, it was possible to act as if we all had our very own patch of land, if that's how we wanted to play it. It wasn't ideal (your crop kept landing on someone else's patch, for example)but it was feasible, at a stretch. Now it isn't. feasible.

I really want this limit idea to be dropped altogerther for now, until this land division problem is resolved, and a desirable maximum population density is agreed upon. That's my proposal. therwiose , here's another terminally bored player , I expect.