Trust your friends...

Out-of-character discussion forum for players of Cantr II to discuss new ideas for the development of the Cantr II game.

Moderators: Public Relations Department, Players Department, Programming Department, Game Mechanics (RD)

User avatar
SekoETC
Posts: 15526
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 11:07 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Trust your friends...

Postby SekoETC » Tue Sep 06, 2005 4:17 am

The tool loaning option got me thinking, even though it doesn't make sense you could have your tools in an invisible leash and be sure to get them back after loaning, you still wouldn't refuse your friend borrowing your file for a bit, even if you happened to be asleep for a week.

So a proposed solution, you could select people on your trust list and define the items you were ready to hand to them on request. You might be able to set a max amount after which you wouldn't auto-hand any more tools before some of the loaned ones is given back. Naturally it wouldn't record the exact ID of the tool but merely the type, so technically your friend might take your file, screwdriver and bone knife and give you back his own bone knife which is in poor shape and come back to take your peen hammer. But then you'd know to beat the crap out of him when you wake up and remove him from your trusted list.

I think if would be good if it would all be played on item types. So instead of getting a checklist of all your items, you'd get a list of where there's no doubles and no deterioration rates.

Example:
Your inventory contains the items

a used bone knife
an often-used bone knife
a brand new bone knife
a used stone hammer
an old stone hammer
a new hammer
a new sledgehammer
a brand new screwdriver
a new file
a used iron shield
a new sabre

Then you click on a name in the events or the people list which says for example Buddy McGoodguy, which is your friend's name, and you get a list that says:

Code: Select all

[] bone knife
[] stone hammer
[] hammer
[] sledgehammer
[] screwdriver
[] file
[] iron shield
[] sabre

Max loans at a time: []
[Save][Cancel]


Now you've known Buddy for 15 years so you pretty much trust him with everything...

Code: Select all

[X] bone knife
[X] stone hammer
[X] hammer
[X] sledgehammer
[X] screwdriver
[X] file
[] iron shield
[] sabre

Max loans at a time: [5]
[Save][Cancel]


but since we Cantrians are a suspicious lot, and you never know when someone goes insane of the boredom, let's not give them rights to your only weapon and shield anyway, after all they got their own already.

Now there's another guy, Shady Nuspawn, which you only met two days ago so you're not so sure about him. But anyway he was wanting to make a bone spear so you're thinking oh alright! I'll let him loan my knife and stone hammer IF he gives one of them back before taking the other one.

Code: Select all

[X] bone knife
[X] stone hammer
[] hammer
[] sledgehammer
[] screwdriver
[] file
[] iron shield
[] sabre

Max loans at a time: [1]
[Save][Cancel]


So you save these presets and go to your little vacation. Now during that, Buddy and Shady become good friends and Buddy wants to make a cot. But he only has two needles and a knife. So Buddy can very well borrow a bone knife and two, now lets say one stone hammer and one hammer from you, teehee I've never had a REAL hammer before! - and hand Shady a set of tools. Now he can't know for sure that Shady will be awake and that he'd give Buddy and you the rights to take those things back from him, but that's a matter of trust.

You get what I'm saying?

Anyway the list would be the same but if they try to borrow a tool that you're already using on a project or if you've run out of that stuff then it would give an error. But anyway preferences should stay even if you don't have the item at the moment since what if Buddy borrows both of your stone hammers and then gives them back, but when Shady tries to come loan one, it's not in the list anymore because they were gone for a while. Not much sense.
Not-so-sad panda
User avatar
Sho
Posts: 1732
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 4:05 am

Postby Sho » Tue Sep 06, 2005 4:20 am

Automation usually gets a knee-jerk rejection from the powers that be. I don't necessarily agree with that; just commenting.
Songthrush
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 1:00 am

Postby Songthrush » Tue Sep 06, 2005 4:50 am

Do we know why, Sho?
User avatar
Sho
Posts: 1732
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 4:05 am

Postby Sho » Tue Sep 06, 2005 5:01 am

http://www.cantr.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=106341#106341

I think a big part of it is that, well, it's always been like this.

Upon further reflection and introspection, I've decided I don't like automation either. It's mostly instinctive, and I can't really explain why. Maybe I'll be able to explain after I get some sleep.

*waits expectantly for someone else to fill in the explanation*
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 3606
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 8:27 pm
Location: Halifax, Canada

Postby Nick » Tue Sep 06, 2005 5:30 am

No. Just, no.
Songthrush
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 1:00 am

Postby Songthrush » Tue Sep 06, 2005 5:36 am

It's clear why some automation is bad - Cantr has no NPCs by design, and every step toward automation is a step toward an increasingly "NPC-centred"game structure.

We are all sick of typical automatic RPG village shopkeeper and the like, we don't like how they become two-bit fixtures that players practically ignore, when they come in, buy, sell, move on.

We'd like, if I understand the ideas you've laid out, to have a maximum of interesting player-to-player interactions, not players interacting with pre-coded NPC-like game features.

Great!

I don't understand though how this policy or strategy necessarily also goes against having PLAYER CONTROLLED NPCs, or game features that work somewhat like NPCs, in that they carry out some player-interaction tasks for their owners semi-automatically, even while the player is asleep.
User avatar
kinvoya
Posts: 1396
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: The Wide, Wide World of Web

Postby kinvoya » Tue Sep 06, 2005 5:49 am

You know, my char just wants to be able to get her rapidly deteriorating shovel back from her trusted friend of ten years when he falls asleep for six months without having to kill him.

It shouldn't have to come down to my irreplaceable shovel or my friend especially if it's totally out of character for my char to commit murder. Is it realistic that my char would stand there and watch her valuable tool fall apart right in front of her eyes without taking it from the hands of her sleeping friend?
<a><img></a>
User avatar
wichita
Administrator Emeritus
Posts: 4427
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 6:46 pm
Location: Suomessa!

Postby wichita » Tue Sep 06, 2005 6:47 am

I think it is going to be knee jerk to label this as automation. The selection is completely player controlled, and the transfer is requested by another player. Why is it really superior for a character to have to ask for a tool and wait three days for his friend to be online to hand over the tool. These little bursts of non-synchronous login patterns within companies can severely hamper production, in essence, an OOC phenomenon controlling IC behavioral patterns.

I think kinvoya hit the nail of necessity on the head here. This idea could add a realistic IC solution to an OOC problem and boost productivity as a result. (Nevermind the incessant bitching about the repair rates :wink: -- j/k *pinches Kinvoya's cheeks* )

The downside I do see, is that it seems rather complicated and would require quite a bit of database space. It might not slow down the game too badly, depending on how many time characters decided to use the feature. But now I am rambling. :D
"Y-O-U! It's just two extra letters! Come on, people! This is the internet, not a barn!" --Kid President
User avatar
creepyguyinblack
Posts: 680
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 9:05 pm
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

Postby creepyguyinblack » Tue Sep 06, 2005 6:48 am

This statement would indicate to me that the addition needed is not in fact automation, but a method for seizing items from another's inventory in some fashion. If "mugging" or whatever you wish to call it, were allowed, then alot of these other problems mentioned could be avoided. The implementation however could be difficult to balance in a fair manner.
“We are beginning to see intimations of this in the implantation of computer devices into the human body.”

Ray Kurzweil quotes
User avatar
SekoETC
Posts: 15526
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 11:07 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Postby SekoETC » Tue Sep 06, 2005 7:28 am

Yeah, the thing is that instead of making all in your inventory "muggable", you could give the right to selected people, with limits. Every rule would have to be set separately and share nothing would be the default. So it would require a conscious decision to make your items fit for taking.
Not-so-sad panda
Schme
Posts: 2067
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:21 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Schme » Tue Sep 06, 2005 6:52 pm

Nick wrote:No. Just, no.


I agree with Nick.

Try just lending things to people you trust. It happens in real life that people don't return things you've lent them, and you don't solve it with a button. Confront them, ask them for it back, if that doesn't work, you take it back, or you get your friends or the police.

But you don't use a button. That just makes no sense.
"One death is a tragedy, a million is just statistics."
Joseph Stalin
User avatar
SekoETC
Posts: 15526
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 11:07 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Postby SekoETC » Tue Sep 06, 2005 7:00 pm

Dude, did you read what I said? You CAN'T get the thing back automatically. Unless the other person defines you are allowed to take such item from your inventory, you can't get them back after the loan (/theft?) is over, unless the person hands it back out of their good will.

It DOES make sense. All there's proposed is a system where people are let to loan/steal things out of your inventory, but just predefined items, a predefined amount at a time and this filter applies to only people you have selected.

The trust part comes from that there is no programmed in recovery of the item, that's all based on the other person.
Not-so-sad panda
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 3606
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 8:27 pm
Location: Halifax, Canada

Postby Nick » Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:15 am

Whether you trust someone or not should be a concious decision, not a variable.
User avatar
SekoETC
Posts: 15526
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 11:07 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Postby SekoETC » Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:15 am

You make the conscious decision beforehand, comprende?
Not-so-sad panda
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 3606
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 8:27 pm
Location: Halifax, Canada

Postby Nick » Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:17 am

Yes, I'm not a retard. I understand your suggestion.

It just sucks. No automation in Cantr.

I might lend someone a tool one day, but if they start attacking people I'm not going to hand them everything I own. Making me do so automatically would be stupid.

Return to “Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest