Item Quality - Original

[kabl00ey]

3) What defines a high or low quality tool - yes this is simple with something like a bone knife where the only input is some small bones, but what about a complex modular tool, what's the over all quality of a sword made with a low quality hilt and a high quality blade ?

I guess the simplest way of dealing with this is just to make it strictly proportional. Some people may argue that then a few minor pieces decreases the overall quality, but it's often the weakest pieces of a machine that cause it to fail, regardless of whether it's the chassis of a vehicle, or its cam belt. Anyway, strictly proportional minimises people squabbling about the proportions the parts of a crossbow should be.

Or what's the contribution which comes from the Expert, Skilled and Awkward workers all working on the final assembly of an item ?

Could this be proportional also? person a(skill b) + c(d) + e(f) / n ?
If it's kept simple like that it just becomes an easy mathematical equation.

4) Skills - currently skills are quite Generic - Tool Manufacturing and Weapons Manufacturing - but would an Expert Bowyer really be an Expert Swordsmith ? .. will we need to design a whole new level of sub-skills ?

Yes, probably, some time. But there's a billion other things we want you over-worked and under-paid PD members to do first, I'm sure.
A round of applause for the PD!

[Surly]

I hate skills.

Therefore, I hate this idea.

But in a bad system, you make the most of what you have. With less players, of course, but nonetheless...

So, I'd say no. But that isn't my decision...

[wichita]

Drawing the focus of of manufacturing and combat skills for a moment, I beleiev farming and gathering skills will become more popular if the skill affacts the +/- 20% yield factor rather than the gathering rate as I understand it to be currently If you are an expert farmer you should know more tricks to make food grow and pick it all than the awkward guy sitting off to the side just watching it grow. To best reflect this, it would be nice to shift the mean on the yield.

To summarize firther, expert farmers will be more popular if the routinely gather 800 to 960 grams of potatoes a day, rather than 640 to 800 grams per day.

How difficult would this be to implement?

[Chris Johnson]

But they effectively do this already - Because their speed of gathering is greater than an unskilled person they can gather more in a day - Instead of their projects lasting 1 day , the same size project can be completed in say 3/4 of a day - Their daily yield is higher than an unskilled person

[kabl00ey]

But this isn't easily communicated...
I've been playing for a month or so now, and I still don't have a firm idea as to the speed difference between awkward and expert. This speed difference probably isn't as effective a signal because people typically don't respond as well to time-based incentives as opposed to yield-based incentives even if they result in the same gain.

I understand that the outcome, for farmers, would be the same under wichita's suggestion, but the signals are clearer, and I think, more effective.

[saztronic]

I'd like to respond to about 3 or 4 of these, and in particular the programming questions -- but I can't figure out how to do the nice and neat "in quote" boxes you all seem to be using. I've never been an HTML or web programmer, so am not familiar with the tags I need to be using, probably.

Anyone want to fill in the HTML luddite?[/code]

[wichita]

But they effectively do this already - Because their speed of gathering is greater than an unskilled person they can gather more in a day - Instead of their projects lasting 1 day , the same size project can be completed in say 3/4 of a day - Their daily yield is higher than an unskilled person

That is somewhat true and I am not complaining about that. But to truly gain a mass advantage, you need to work on repeat projects and get on the high end of the variable yield on those. If you start a repeat project that gives you crap yield, you will just gain fewer potatoes faster.

Not that I am going through the effort of detailed number crunching of this idea just yet, but it is a thought.

I'd like to respond to about 3 or 4 of these, and in particular the programming questions -- but I can't figure out how to do the nice and neat "in quote" boxes you all seem to be using. I've never been an HTML or web programmer, so am not familiar with the tags I need to be using, probably.

Anyone want to fill in the HTML luddite?[/code]

There are several ways to do this. First of all, you can click the quote button on someone's post and it will set it up automatically. The other option is to click on the "Quote" button in the toolbar as you are writing a post. Between the two, you should be able to figure out the pattern to attch the whatever name you need to the quote when quoting mulptiple people.

[kabl00ey]

You can either hit the 'quote' button on the top-right side of the person's post, or you can type

I did not write this. Lies!

[kabl00ey]

Beaten by a minute, and a wichita!

[saztronic]

I'd like to devote this post to addressing the programming stuff. Most of the comments on this page have been in support of the idea itself, except for Surly, who has a well-documented and rather quixotic grudge against the idea of skills as a concept.

So then, to answer Chris' questions:

Variable effectiveness would only be easily implemented for weapons and tools used in combat - All other tool use situations don't check for a particular tool , just the presence of any tool, of the required type nor do they control the speed of most non-gathering projects - this will have to been implemented

OK. But, 1) projects already check for the skill level of the person working on a project, and incorporate that person's skill into the time takent to execute that project, and 2) as you say, the presence of the tool is already checked for. So how hard is it, really, if a tool has an attribute from 1-5, to 3) also check for that attribute and have it too affect the speed with which the task is performed?

This doesn't seem like a huge or incredibly daunting challenge.

The real curveball here would be implementing travel speeds, I would think -- does an expertly made bike go faster than an awkwardly made bike?

What defines a high or low quality tool - yes this is simple with something like a bone knife where the only input is some small bones, but what about a complex modular tool, what's the over all quality of a sword made with a low quality hilt and a high quality blade ?

I believe this was answered pretty well earlier. The end product has a quality which is the average of its parts' qualities.

Or what's the contribution which comes from the Expert, Skilled and Awkward workers all working on the final assembly of an item?

This is a good question, and not so easily answered. I would think, from a programming standpoint, that you would have to take into account only who was working on the project at the moment of completion. Anything else would be too complicated.

Thus, if an awkward worker did 98% of the work, but then dropped off and an expert worker finished it, the item would be of expert quality. Not ideal. But you can kind of make a case for it, in that if the expert person is supervising or putting the finishing touches on something, it's going to be a better product.

And if multiple people work on it at the moment of completion, their respective talents are averaged to get the quality of the object. I don't like this scheme completely, but note that having people of differing skill levels work on something but still having it come out "expert" would require a fairly high degree of coordination to pull off. Awkwards would have to be awake and smart enough to get off a project at the last moment, experts awake and smart enough to be on it. This would imply the kind of social or organizational structure that Cantr is going for.

Skills - currently skills are quite Generic - Tool Manufacturing and Weapons Manufacturing - but would an Expert Bowyer really be an Expert Swordsmith ? .. will we need to design a whole new level of sub-skills ?

Again, a good question. My answer would be yes. But it's not one that's critical to implementing my suggestion. It doesn't make any sense now that an expert Bowyer is an expert Swordsmith, but that's how it is in the game. Why does it need to make sense before implementing product quality?

[Racetyme]

Surly is not alone, I hate this idea. Suddenly if you weren't an expert, everything you produced would be worthless. Would you trade for a crappy sabre if you knew an excellent one was out there? Hell no! Suddenly everyone has set roles in society based on their skills at spawning.

[saztronic]

Surly is not alone, I hate this idea. Suddenly if you weren't an expert, everything you produced would be worthless. Would you trade for a crappy sabre if you knew an excellent one was out there? Hell no! Suddenly everyone has set roles in society based on their skills at spawning.

Sorry about that, Racetyme, I just assumed that your objection had been addressed already in the thread, satisfactorily. As a matter of fact, there are three possible responses to your assertion, all of which have been touched on before – but I’ll reiterate and expand on them here, to see if they make you feel better about the idea.

First, I think you’re really overstating the effect that varying product quality would have on the game and on your characters. If your char is awkward at making tools, that doesn’t mean he’s just going to forego ever making hammer out of despair at his ineptitude. Having a hammer, no matter how shoddily made, is still better than not having one. You can make any number of things with a hammer that you can’t without one. And perhaps although your char is awkward at tool-making, he’s an expert at building houses, or machinery. With that kind of leverage, and a willingness to work for others, the char would be able to convince someone to give him a superb hammer in a pretty short period of time.

I also think it’s a bit of hyperbole to claim that “everything a char makes would suddenly be worthless”. As someone has pointed out, the chances of your char being awkward at everything are astronomical; the chances of your character not being expert at even one thing only marginally less astronomical.

Another illustration of why this wouldn’t be an earth-shattering, char-destroying change is in the area of weapons. Let’s say an expert fighter with a steel sabre does about 40% damage per stab. Is the implementation of varying product quality really going to change things that much? I would say that an expert fighter with a shoddily made saber should inflict 35% damage on average, while an expert fighter with a superb saber might expect to do 45% on average. Not a ridiculous difference, really – just enough of one that the better saber would be worth more, leading to a greater variety of trade skills and values in the game, which is just more interesting overall and leads to more complex and satisfying societies. So to answer your question directly, darn right I’d trade for a crappy sabre, if it was what I could afford, even if a better one was out there.

Second, perhaps the skill system as such could be – and I would argue, probably will be – improved over time. For example, we’ve already discussed the idea of sub-skills and such, and I think that should be implemented at some point. There’s also the idea of allowing people to improve in their skills more rapidly, or perhaps improve according to a separate characteristic that might be described as “aptitude”. And contrary to conventional wisdom, chars do improve their skill levels, even if it takes a long time. My aforementioned tailor spawned being awkward at collecting cotton. After two straight years of farming the stuff, he’s progressed to novice level. Not the rate of improvement I’d hope for, but still an improvement. So I think if your char had a burning, burning desire to be better at something that he was spawned awful at, he could do it – and I think the implication is that in future, this could become easier, through several different mechanisms.

Third – and frankly, in my opinion, most importantly – the fact remains that not everyone in a society can contribute to its economy with equal skill or in the same way. This highlights a contrast between those who seem to think they are “winning” the game of Cantr if their chars are rich or powerful, and those who think the game isn’t about winning, but rather about creating and roleplaying interesting chars against other interesting chars, of all kinds. The former group feels slighted and insulted by the skills system, because it removes the zero-sum aspect of the game, where anyone can be just as good a smith or shipbuilder or warrior as anyone else. The latter group doesn’t care too much about the skills system – perhaps even likes it – because they’re more interested in what their chars are like than what they may have. They’re not put off by the challenge of playing someone who’s not good at things, but rather stimulated by it. One of my characters is a drooling idiot who’s very fun to play. Another is an emotionless drone. Another is a scheming entrepreneur. Another just wants to be married and live a quite life. Another is a quiet, taciturn jeweler. The jeweler just plain sucks at almost everything, but she’s very fun to play anyway.

So, this is a way, way too long post, but I thought it was necessary to put two ideas to rest. First, varying product quality will most definitely not result in everything a char makes becoming useless or valueless. Second, it won’t make the game less interesting for players whose chars find it challenging to find an economic niche – it might just make it more interesting, from a roleplaying and social experiment standpoint.

[Racetyme]

You don't see this from my perspective. Those would all be viable points, if they were true.

To address your first point. All characters do need certain necessities, and would have to live with shoddy basic tools, like hammers. But the fact is, no player is going to want their character at a disadvantage in a fight because of a shoddy weapon. For me personally, and I expect many others, anything but the best would no longer be acceptable. I would rather have a longbow of the highest grade than a mid-grade sabre, just because the longbow has some trade value, whereas once I get the mid-grade sabre I am probably stuck with it. I would never, ever, want anything but the highest grade weapon or shield, or for that matter anything else. I would rather wait a few cantr years, and save some more trade goods, rather than throwing all of my effort away on a terrible weapon I will probably never be able to trade up. I think this has effectively answered both your first and second points.

Maybe you are right about the third point, but for me personally, I play cantr because it is a chance for me to excell, through my intelligence as a person, in the form of characters in a game. If suddenly one of my characters finds themselves unable to effectively do that, I would just let them die. That is not the game I want to play. I would just get around this if it were implemented by starving my useless characters to death, however I shouldn't have to. And no, not all of my characters are fighters and conquerors, I have several characters who don't really need good skills. I don't want to be forced to create characters like that if I don't want to though. It is my choice as a player, for all I know my political characters may be much better smiths than my characters who are going to make weapons, but because the only price I have to pay is time, I am willing to work around it. If it is really going to make as large a difference as this though, I would no longer really be able to get around this situation.

[kabl00ey]

But the fact is, no player is going to want their character at a disadvantage in a fight because of a shoddy weapon. For me personally, and I expect many others, anything but the best would no longer be acceptable.

Close, you've got the sentiment of it, if not the reality. Everyone will desire to obtain a superb sabre, but not everyone will pay 1 000 000g of smoked meat to get it.

I would rather have a longbow of the highest grade than a mid-grade sabre, just because the longbow has some trade value, whereas once I get the mid-grade sabre I am probably stuck with it. I would never, ever, want anything but the highest grade weapon or shield, or for that matter anything else. I would rather wait a few cantr years, and save some more trade goods, rather than throwing all of my effort away on a terrible weapon I will probably never be able to trade up.

That, sir, is your opinion and desires. Great! Already the system is creating distinguishing features 'cos hey, I'm going to be perfectly happy with a mid-grade sabre if its better than a highest-grade longbow and is cheaper for me to obtain.

Do all your chars have only the best vehicles? In fact, do you have a single char that has a "sub-standard" boat or land vehicle?

In real life do you choose to save your money month after month to buy only the finest wines, the surloin cuts of Azerbaijanian mountain elk, the finest Venezualan beaver cheese ( )? I suspect that you price-discriminate: that is, you purchase the best "basket" of goods you can buy given your available money, and there is a tradeoff between cost, quantity and quality.

Plenty of people drive cheap Japanese imports. If they had unlimited funds, they wouldn't, but they have chosen what they believe to be is the best choice given their limited funds and the choices available. And if you mention saving up to get something better, that is countered by saztronic's mention that sometimes a person/char _needs_ something, then and there. I'm not going to not eat this week because it takes me 2 weeks to save up for my specially-airlifted-in-just-for-me Coke, made from the purest waters of the Swiss Alps, and carefully brewed by the Swedish Women's Volleyball team. Sorry, I think I'll buy baked beans and bread and whip me up a "baked-bean-supriso". Nicer? No. Affordable? Yes. Necessary? Very yes.

I think this has effectively answered both your first and second points.

No. You don't.

Maybe you are right about the third point, but for me personally, I play cantr because it is a chance for me to excell, through my intelligence as a person, in the form of characters in a game. If suddenly one of my characters finds themselves unable to effectively do that, I would just let them die. That is not the game I want to play.

I wondered why there were so many newspawns with the sleeping sickness and/or suicidal tendencies.




I love this idea. Why? Because people aren't identical clones. If we were, the world we live in would be a boring place. Cantr chars aren't identical clones, by virtue of the disimilarity of the real life people playing them. Skills aside, every char is the same at spawn. The idea of skills is, yes, to force you to differentiate. If this forced differentiation is flawed, in your opinion, where you spawn must be too. Because that forces even more differentiation, and should mould your chars' behaviours, to some extent. Perhaps we should all spawn in the same place, with the same characteristics and skills, and we should all be called Barney (yes, irrespective of gender) - that way it'd be a true 'level playing field', just like real life!

[Racetyme]

It is not supposed to be like real life! Holy crap everyone, walk outside! In any case, yes, I do save my money rather than buying sub-standard things. And no, none of my characters is in a sub-standard vehicle, in my opinion. However, you are looking at this wrong. In game, if it you knew it was going to be much, much, much harder for you to sell your product, because it was of shoddy quality, would you even make it? Hell no! Suddenly only the people who are expert at things would do it. You are not seeing the trade off.

"Do you have an axe I can buy?"

"Yes, but it is of shite quality, and it took me longer to make, so I have to charge more for a product of less value."

Who the hell is going to buy it?