Cantr II Discussion Forum

Cantr is a work in progress, and has gone through many major changes. Some were met with universal approval; others were less liked. Players have occasionally threatened to quit because of changes, and, while I personally don't know of any cases, some may have actually done so.

This poll is not meant to set policy - I don't seriously expect any of these changes to be rolled back. But I want to look back and see what people think, in hindsight, of changes that have been with us long enough for us to get perspective on them.

Some of the dates may be off, and the list is far from complete - that's what replies to this post are for.

EDIT: And, yes, the choices are out of sequence. Oops.

I don't like all the changes, admittedly, and it may well be that some may put off new players, but overall I'm happy.

I have onlt been playing about nine months, and I found the chages in food consumption annyoing, epsecially when I had planned journeys etc based on the amount of food I was tkaing, but hey... things change... you adapt.

Even if I don't like individual changes, they then represnt a challenge. If I just wanted straight roleplaying I would do it in a chatroom or forum or something... game mechanics are what makes it a game..

I voted for the skill and gathering limit. But what I really dislike is the gathering limit. Although I do see the point in that... But it annoys me sometimes.

I don't like item deterioration..at least not as it stands.

People are always complaining
I've chosen option 1. Game is developing in good direction.

Bet you were all waiting for me to come in and give my opinion

Cantr over the past few years has been subject to many changes, but to just tell yourself "change is good" blinds you to the facts. The hematite change, whilst good in principle, is flawed. Skills and deterioration, both things I disagreed with, were brought in in a fashion where I feel they constrict the game rather than improve it, and I feel alot of what I said before their implementation was justified.

In my opinion, over the 3 years I have played the game has progressed; but also has become constricting and less conducive to roleplay, which I believe is reflected in the game becoming less fun to play.

I would like to emphasise that this is not entirely the fault of the staff running the game, but they must take a large amount of the blame. I feel that too much is done individually, despite all the airy claims I get when I complain to staff, and that the Cantr "melting-pot" it created has veins of gold, yes. But incasing those veins of gold is a huge amount of waste... which distracts from the gold but also, quite rightly, draws criticism.

The Surly Cantrian wrote:Bet you were all waiting for me to come in and give my opinion

It's not as if we had a choice

I hate the skills, as they stand, although I've come to see that they could possibly be an interesting addition, but they are deeply flawed as it is. They're fairly illogical (crap tool maker, prodigious weapon maker) and don't have all that much effect on what people do anyway, as well as still hinting of grinding-appeal. I would like to see much more deeply location-based differences, as well as much greater differences between the worst and highest skill levels. This would mean that people might actually migrate because of their skills, and be sought-after in far-off places for those skills. At the moment, it's all such a melting pot with such little difference, that it's a very very backrgound issue for most characters.

Item deterioration, resource limits and food changes have all been adevrtised as the desire to push for more in-game organisation between characters. This is a desire I deeply agree with, Cantrians have become increasingly individualistic in recent times.

The only problem is, is that as they stand, I don't think they foster an exciting mode of organisation, or even much organisation at all.

Item deterioriation supposedly means that no one rich person can do much by themsleves, they'd spend forever repairing things, and need to illicit the help of others. This hasn't happened. We still see councillors, senators, commanders, lords and ladies and the like repairing their own gear. From my own experience, I can tell you that it's a fruitless task trying to organise a repair system for a group of people, or a location. It requires players being prepared to have a character do meanial tasks for very little payment. No one, except very new players/characters, want to do that. Thus, the turn-over for such positions is very fast.

Resource limits I welcome, wholeheartedly. Whilst not perfect, they go some way to addressing what I've asked for long before, resource depletion. Albeit for a different reason. Yet again, however, I don't think this has fostered much organisation. Rich places just built harvesters, and still don't need to trade for food. The only organisation I see is the harvesters providing 'free food for all', and people being dragged away if the try to pick their own food. This happens in a number of places.
The result? Rich places (those with coal/hematite/limestone) don't need to organise trade, as they harvest their food, and become even more prosperous, because everyone flocks there for free food. This doesn't foster inter-location organisation at all, it just further polarises the inequalities that existed.
What needs to be changed is resoucre 'slots' limited by resource type, or an actual, defintie, resource limit, i.e: there's only a million kilos of coal that exists at this location. Both would foster much more protective attitudes to those resources, and would result in more tension, forcing much more co-operation, or conflict, both of which require more organisation.

Eating rate changes has done nothing, except piss off some sailors. If food is free, you just take a bit, and keep taking more. The ratio of gathering to eating rates hasn't changed, so it's not as if carrot-picking is more of a waste of time. It's only travellers who need to worry about it. All that has done is create a small group of people who survive on salted or smoked meat/fish instead of carrots. I want people to cook more, but this hasn't had the desired effect.

I have said my postion a lot of times. We have had some very interesting and exciting ideas and changes in Cantr. They have just been implemented really piss-poorly as far as I'm concerned. Agreed, no one could have said that the changes wouldn't have had the desired affect, and the desire for the changes - fostering more organisation - is to be commended, but now that it's very clear that the deisred changes have not happened, it;s long-gone being high-time to adapt them.

All that the changes in skills/resource limits/item deterioration/food rates have produced are some very minor idiosyncracies in how people play Cantr, and have had little wider effect. Moreover, these idiosyncracies are almost universal, which is just depressing.

Whee. I'm I newb, but now I get a reason to post.

hallucinatingfarmer wrote:I would like to see much more deeply location-based differences, as well as much greater differences between the worst and highest skill levels.

Yuk. No thanks. Dare I suggest that the intention from management was that you wouldn't be screwed if you had lousy skills? As it stands now, my character who was good at hunting, fishing and burying before he found out that he was actually a good forester as well (despite growing up a years travel from any actual forest) isn't entirely screwed.
The word of Hellzon: Skills are acceptable as is. If bigger differences are implemented, you need to know all your skills from the get go (why would you travel to the forest to use your unknown foresting expertise otherwise?), and you need a guarantee that you will have at least some skills that are useful (burying, hunting and fishing certainly don't count).

Item deterioriation supposedly means that no one rich person can do much by themsleves, they'd spend forever repairing things, and need to illicit the help of others. This hasn't happened. We still see councillors, senators, commanders, lords and ladies and the like repairing their own gear.

Well, if repairing one person's items actually took all of one person's time, how would this promote instating a repairman? One man can probably keep all the tools in a small town (10 people) in repair, just as one cook (helped out by a lot of hunters) can feed the entire town. That one person seems about right to me.
And I daresay that "one rich person" has enough of repairing to do. I could try to gather statistics from my tailor if you want. (Tailoring is probably one of the most tool-demanding occupations, though.)

From my own experience, I can tell you that it's a fruitless task trying to organise a repair system for a group of people, or a location. It requires players being prepared to have a character do meanial tasks for very little payment.

That's unfortunate. Why does he get "very little payment" though? (And isn't that why it's known as a "menial task"?) Seems one person keeping everyone's tools in repair would be just as valuable as the guy smelting iron.

Resource limits I welcome, wholeheartedly. Whilst not perfect, they go some way to addressing what I've asked for long before, resource depletion. Albeit for a different reason. Yet again, however, I don't think this has fostered much organisation.

I don't get the realism behing either. You have like 10-20 people in a place. There is at least 4 days' travel to the nearest town. Therefore, you have these 10-20 people frolicking about in an area with a radius of 2 days' travel.
And somehow, these people are getting in each others' way, and if you get your way, they will actually scour the land down to an empty husk? Ah dun geddit.
Also, I don't like the idea that the old lands will eventually run out of resources and become "dead spots". But that might just be me.

Rich places just built harvesters, and still don't need to trade for food.

I'm being blond here, please explain. Why should any place where carrots, rice, or potatos grow wild have a problem feeding their people? But then, I don't think food should be a luxury to anyone.

We've gotten good things as well as bad things. The skill system sucks big time but the changes of food are well balanced and justified, the only problem is that sometimes the harvesters get left behind. But when it's finished, everything will be in balance once more.
Custom place names are pretty cool too, helps you to memorize routes and now since the amnesia, you know you've seen a location or at least a road leading there if you've given it a name. And you can write key numbers after building and vehicle names and sometimes write down important resources. Ok if it were my game, I'd done it a bit differently, I wouldn't call it renaming, I'd call them personal memories. And you could attach a memory to a place or a room, but a solid description by land type or outlook or whatever would still remain.
Item deterioration is rather useless and unrealistic but at least it gives something mindful to spend time on on those dreadfully long sea journeys, and also offers work to newspawns, even those the older ones can't trust to give tools (ok, not necessarily a good thing).
Gathering limits... good idea badly done. But we've gotten used to it.

Some especially good additions have been seeing distance to lighthouses, seeing the terrain type of a place you're near enough to dock and getting only appropriate projects in the adding materials menu. So it's certainly not going downhill.

Ok first thing I want to say is that the skill system is a good thing. It means that different people are good at different things and lets you find out what they are, which in the end makes the game far more efficient.

However. Weapon deterioration is a bad thing, a very bad thing. It can add to awkward situations, and stops you making things like, I don't know, I pirates hidden treasure, which is one thing I was thinking of doing, as all the toold and weapons would be gone by the time you return.

That is the only change I do not like, all the others are good

The principle of the changes is right, but the implimentation of all of them is deeply flawed and should be examined before any more big changes are made.

The Surly Cantrian wrote:The hematite change, whilst good in principle, is flawed.

Care to explain? Was this the original switch from minable iron to hematite ore, or subsequent changes? And what is flawed and why?

SekoETC wrote: Some especially good additions have been seeing distance to lighthouses, seeing the terrain type of a place you're near enough to dock and getting only appropriate projects in the adding materials menu. So it's certainly not going downhill.

Thanks
I was trying to think of good changes in recent times when I was posting, I couldn't think of any, but I knew there must have been some...

And the location amnesia is a great thing, especially now that Cantr is in the age of exploration. The wide variety of locations names on burgeo, for example, wouldn't have happened otherwise, and it's something that adds interest to it all.

This was difficult for me because I don't necessarily want to see all programming revert. However, I eventually voted for one year ago because I still consider the skills and tiredness systems a catastrophe for the game. I am however in favor of gathering limits, item deterioration (in an improved implementation) and the new food values. So, there it is.

Let's put it this way. When I first joined the game, people spoke of setting their alarms for the middle of the night, it was so exciting. The pirates, the wars, would the MacGregor's really attack Drojf? And so on...

You don't see that anymore and there were two clear and disastrous culprit systems: tiredness and skills.