Cantr II Discussion Forum

Wuds Sud Jalahido Sover that only does 0-2 percent damage to animals as when i first started i would do up to 30% damage. could we get this fixed if its a bug.

Not a bug. It has to do with the new skill system that has been placed. Your character is just unskilled in hunting though he can always get better if he keep practicing.

I'm not sure how can you say keep practising, when there often aren't enough small animals to practise on.

I've been watching the two pigeons in Zhift Forest for almost two years now. They coo at each other but never do the deed. Same with racoons. But lions now - get them down to two, and a day or so later they're at three, then four. I really don't know who set the ecological parameters for the game but Biology 101 would surely help.

Furthermore, hitting just one animal a day if your skills are say half or quarter the median, produces no effect that I can see. I have characters who have religiously hit their lion every day (when they could) since the changes went in, and have seen no improvement at all.

Oddly enough, my only character who showed an improvement is one with skills above the median, 26 with a bone spear, and he apparently rose to 27 after very little of this so-called "practising".

So no, the system is not working correctly, and you can't say it is, and in fact it resembles the worst side of Ultima Online more and more every day. I am not going to sit up half the damn night hitting animals for "practice" - there are much more sophisticated and graphical games for people who want to bore themselves to death with suchlike, and you even get to download macros.

I have just created my last two characters of the 15. One punched a cow for 0 damage. Well, he can just die as far as I'm concerned...

And finally, I refuse to accept any more lectures from anyone "official" until they have actually created some charries since the changes, preferably in the Zhift/Baaak/Mulof region and actually tried to do something with them.
.

You have to remember that the only person that knows how the system works is Jos and I would think he would say something if he knew the system wasn't working. And I'm sure with all the complaints about it that he has looked at it a dozen times to make sure.

First of all, I created all of my current characters about three months ago. My oldest character is 23. The game is just as hard as it was two and a half years ago when I started my original batch of characters (who are no longer alive by the way). In fact I would say it's a little easier because there are actually established societies and cultures where two and half years there weren't many.

If it takes half the night to do anything then you need to get a new connection. And my suggestion for your character is that if he can't hunt very well then he should try to find what he is good at and do that.

The Sociologist wrote:I've been watching the two pigeons in Zhift Forest for almost two years now. They coo at each other but never do the deed. Same with racoons. But lions now - get them down to two, and a day or so later they're at three, then four. I really don't know who set the ecological parameters for the game but Biology 101 would surely help.

You could be right. But I strongly suspect that your lion hordes are immigrants. Somewhere in the wastes are tens or dozens of lions breeding, and their offspring wander down the roads. Pigeons, on the other hand, are massacred everywhere, by everyone, at every convenient opportunity, so there isn't a motherload or nest to be found.

I do think assorted things are bugged (healing, for one). Probably are under repair, I can't know. And besides bugs, there's always the fact that the numbers are very seldom set just how you'd want them to be.

Sociologist...you do realize you are not meant to be able to survive all alone, poorly equipped, in a trackless waste full of aggressive animals? Most of the known regions of cantr, however, just aren't like that. If you leave the fold as a weak and unprotected spawnling you're lion food, and rightly so. Beating back the lions will need a concerted, armed effort.

Not meant to but there is always that possibility that your character does survive.

Also, I'll look into the whole animal reproduction thing. It is my understanding that the fewer animals at a location the less of a chance that more will spawn. The more animals then more of a chance to that they will spawn. The spawn rates can be made lower and higher and it is my opinion as well that areas that have only around 2 or 3 animals spawn too slowly. But there is a trade off to upping spawn rates and that is more dangerous animals will spawn just as quickly and could overwhelm some civilizations that are on the border of civilization and the wilderness. And those dangerous animals will totally dominate in the wilderness.

rklenseth wrote:If it takes half the night to do anything then you need to get a new connection. And my suggestion for your character is that if he can't hunt very well then he should try to find what he is good at and do that.

a) At any rate it's boring... click on location, click on animals, select animal, select weapon, select damage, click, view the depressing message "You hurt a sheep using a bone spear, which loses 6 strength", repeat, and repeat, and repeat. Dammit all!
b) A character of mine spawned in the Baaak Hills and worked for an older man there and all he's ever done in his life is stab lions with his bone knife and cook meat. And his "skill" amounts to 6 damage with a bone spear?

The whole basis of these genetic skills is that they were supposed to reflect the characteristics of the local area, but that did not work!

The Industriallist wrote:You could be right. But I strongly suspect that your lion hordes are immigrants. Somewhere in the wastes are tens or dozens of lions breeding, and their offspring wander down the roads. Pigeons, on the other hand, are massacred everywhere, by everyone, at every convenient opportunity, so there isn't a motherload or nest to be found.

Either way, pigeons should reproduce at a much faster rate than lions and that isn't happening.

The Industriallist wrote:Sociologist...you do realize you are not meant to be able to survive all alone, poorly equipped, in a trackless waste full of aggressive animals? Most of the known regions of cantr, however, just aren't like that. If you leave the fold as a weak and unprotected spawnling you're lion food, and rightly so. Beating back the lions will need a concerted, armed effort.

And we did have a concerted community effort, with much help from visitors from a neighboring town, and we did beat them back and they're at 3 right now (down from 8 or more).

My principal complaint is that implementing a variation in "skill" from 6 to 26 for a (given) weapon, applied to existing characters, without any apparent rationale for the selections, was a very crude and damaging step to take. It means that one character is up to 4 1/2 times better than the other.
.

rklenseth wrote:Also, I'll look into the whole animal reproduction thing. It is my understanding that the fewer animals at a location the less of a chance that more will spawn.
...
But there is a trade off to upping spawn rates and that is more dangerous animals will spawn just as quickly and could overwhelm some civilizations that are on the border of civilization and the wilderness. And those dangerous animals will totally dominate in the wilderness.

Um, yes. This is why even the most basic Life program, left to run for more than its initialization phase, will tend to show no greater than a 5% (or fewer) predator population among prey animals.

What are the lions eating, besides cantrians? If there are 10 deer and 10 lions, the lions starve-- QUICKLY, because 1 deer feeds 10 lions for about a day, and 10 deer (then 9... then 8...) cannot reproduce fast enough to lose 1 a day. Well, maybe in the current system, but not in any actual biological system.

Predator/prey populations also fluctuate in relation to each other. If there's a large deer population one year, the wolf population increases the next. Because there are more wolves, the deer population decreases that year. Because there are fewer deer, the wolf population decreases the next year. And so forth. Populations eventually "stabilize" into a very small fluctuation from one year to the next, but the prey in a stable population will always outnumber the predators.

The above logic "more population=more spawning" is a classic example of how Cantr doesn't function terribly well, and the logic is massively flawed. Biology isn't a binary system; you can't have it either on or off, and simple algebraic logic simply does not work.

Many of my characters spawned in barely-settled areas. This idea may work for civilized areas, where there's enough weaponry to go around, but in the boonies, the wild animals are slaughtering the people.

What's more, it shouldn't be too hard to program in a system that takes this into account. Unless the programming department is completely ignoring the accomplishments of the past, in which case they might not know about the Life program, which is the basis for nearly all life/biology simulator programs.

Oh, and what's up with the vicious sheep, deer, and cows? Herd animals do not generally get vicious and aggressive unless there's some huge pressure on them (and then only in very limited, individual moments-- like when the herd is directly threatened). [For that matter, predator animals don't really get aggressive unless there's a huge pressure, but in Cantr, the pressure is obviously the fact that there are 2 pigeons and 12 lions, and the lions are hungry...]

I said it before, and your comment just reinforces my opinion: the animals have the upper hand in this game. They're going to win. Can I join their side?

mortaine wrote:I said it before, and your comment just reinforces my opinion: the animals have the upper hand in this game. They're going to win. Can I join their side?

I tried that. The MacGregors killed me.

The animals don't need to win, you just have to realize, sometiimes you need to run. Sometimes you need to hide. Sometimes you need to beg for healing food. You can become a battle scarred hunter with a grudge. It's be more fun that way.

mortaine wrote:

rklenseth wrote:Also, I'll look into the whole animal reproduction thing. It is my understanding that the fewer animals at a location the less of a chance that more will spawn.
...
But there is a trade off to upping spawn rates and that is more dangerous animals will spawn just as quickly and could overwhelm some civilizations that are on the border of civilization and the wilderness. And those dangerous animals will totally dominate in the wilderness.

Um, yes. This is why even the most basic Life program, left to run for more than its initialization phase, will tend to show no greater than a 5% (or fewer) predator population among prey animals.

What are the lions eating, besides cantrians? If there are 10 deer and 10 lions, the lions starve-- QUICKLY, because 1 deer feeds 10 lions for about a day, and 10 deer (then 9... then 8...) cannot reproduce fast enough to lose 1 a day. Well, maybe in the current system, but not in any actual biological system.

Predator/prey populations also fluctuate in relation to each other. If there's a large deer population one year, the wolf population increases the next. Because there are more wolves, the deer population decreases that year. Because there are fewer deer, the wolf population decreases the next year. And so forth. Populations eventually "stabilize" into a very small fluctuation from one year to the next, but the prey in a stable population will always outnumber the predators.

The above logic "more population=more spawning" is a classic example of how Cantr doesn't function terribly well, and the logic is massively flawed. Biology isn't a binary system; you can't have it either on or off, and simple algebraic logic simply does not work.

Many of my characters spawned in barely-settled areas. This idea may work for civilized areas, where there's enough weaponry to go around, but in the boonies, the wild animals are slaughtering the people.

What's more, it shouldn't be too hard to program in a system that takes this into account. Unless the programming department is completely ignoring the accomplishments of the past, in which case they might not know about the Life program, which is the basis for nearly all life/biology simulator programs.

Oh, and what's up with the vicious sheep, deer, and cows? Herd animals do not generally get vicious and aggressive unless there's some huge pressure on them (and then only in very limited, individual moments-- like when the herd is directly threatened). [For that matter, predator animals don't really get aggressive unless there's a huge pressure, but in Cantr, the pressure is obviously the fact that there are 2 pigeons and 12 lions, and the lions are hungry...]

I said it before, and your comment just reinforces my opinion: the animals have the upper hand in this game. They're going to win. Can I join their side?

Firstly: 'Life' is totally irrelevant to cantr animals...at least, assuming you're talking about the celular automata simulation called 'The Game of Life' or 'Life'...that doesn't simulate anything remotely useful to cantr. What they would need in an upgrade is a straightforward difference equation that takes the populations of all animal types at the location and determines the change in one particular population (or the new population)

Second: You're right about normally there being far fewer predators than prey. You're not right about inherent stability, though. Outside a certain area the system rapidly self-destructs in some manner.

Third: The animals do not remotely have the advantage. Drojf isn't much bothered by the animals. Krif isn't much bothered. Last I heard, Seatown doesn't have problems at all. The Quill area has no problems that I've seen. If you're talking about a few people with bone spears, in an isolated, undeveloped wilderness full of vicious animals and determined to fight to the death...yes, the animals may have the advantage...particularly since your low population means you won't be getting many newspawns. But that is not a bad thing. You just need to reallize that you aren't supposed to win, are going to die if you stay in fact, and make a getaway. IRL it took concentrated, externally supported effort to civilize and secure many parts of the world. Mesopotamian nobles hunted lions to protect their people, not just because they liked being nearly killed on a regular basis...

Fourth: It's true that herd animals are probably normally a bit less aggressive. But it's not like sheep are notably dangerous in cantr. Back when people healed, 10 sheep would hurt you much less than you recovered. Also, it's often believed IC (and it may be true) that animals attack more often when attacked. So if you don't want the cows to raid you, leave them alone. That seems awfully logical to me...

To be sure: we have already planned a complete rewrite of the animal system and it is one of the highest priorities for me. One of the things I want to change is that indeed animals attack/eat animals, so that we get more realistic population dynamics than we currently have. It's not that we're stupid that we don't have that currently - this was just a very crude approximation. You can't program everything at once if at all ...

And the genes don't show regional specifics because that takes time ... Over time, people with bad genes in animal rich areas will die before the others do hence reproduce less, hence we'll get typical local characteristics. But entering that manually was too complicated and also from an evolutionary perspective uninteresting.

You're not right about inherent stability, though. Outside a certain area the system rapidly self-destructs in some manner.

Er, that would be the "external pressure" I mentioned. Certainly, if you take animals away from their habitat, the balance will be thrown all to hell.

: The animals do not remotely have the advantage. Drojf isn't much bothered by the animals. Krif isn't much bothered. Last I heard, Seatown doesn't have problems at all. The Quill area has no problems that I've seen.

I believe it's Seatown Gardens that is being attacked by aggressive cows.

But that is not a bad thing. You just need to reallize that you aren't supposed to win, are going to die if you stay in fact, and make a getaway. IRL it took concentrated, externally supported effort to civilize and secure many parts of the world. Mesopotamian nobles hunted lions to protect their people, not just because they liked being nearly killed on a regular basis...

So, what you're saying is that small, newer population areas are just supposed to die? And this isn't a problem? In some cases, the area was settled, then a bunch of people died suddenly, and now it's a ghost town with a few survivors and newspawns trying to rebuild. But the wild animals populate faster than the newspawns.... it's something of a problem, you could say.

And yes, you might say "but that's how it's supposed to be!" but consider this: it would take a newspawn in that area too long to farm enough food to last them the journey to someplace safer. So, basically, they're screwed. The hunger system, combined with the number of animals and lack of resources means that entire towns will die and never have had a chance.

I don't really play games, even simulator games, to start out with no chance of long-term survival, you know? And from what I understand, this is was originally a role-playing game.

Also, it's often believed IC (and it may be true) that animals attack more often when attacked. So if you don't want the cows to raid you, leave them alone. That seems awfully logical to me...

I've seen no evidence that this is true. While I'm sure that animals may be programmed to attack when hunted, I've also seen that herd animals also attack when not hunted.

mortaine wrote:

You're not right about inherent stability, though. Outside a certain area the system rapidly self-destructs in some manner.

Er, that would be the "external pressure" I mentioned. Certainly, if you take animals away from their habitat, the balance will be thrown all to hell.

No, I mean as a purely internal effect. The difference equations that seem to best describe animal populations are only convergant or stable for a limited region surrounding the fixed point. Outside that area they colapse toward zeros and infinities. Which isn't exactly inaccurate...

Life does not inherently balance. The only reason it looks at all like that is that imbalances have a tendancy to erase themselves.

mortaine wrote:

: The animals do not remotely have the advantage. Drojf isn't much bothered by the animals. Krif isn't much bothered. Last I heard, Seatown doesn't have problems at all. The Quill area has no problems that I've seen.

I believe it's Seatown Gardens that is being attacked by aggressive cows.

Ate they losing? That would be impressively bad for people with nearby access to wood, healing food, and advanced neighbors.

mortaine wrote:

But that is not a bad thing. You just need to reallize that you aren't supposed to win, are going to die if you stay in fact, and make a getaway. IRL it took concentrated, externally supported effort to civilize and secure many parts of the world. Mesopotamian nobles hunted lions to protect their people, not just because they liked being nearly killed on a regular basis...

So, what you're saying is that small, newer population areas are just supposed to die? And this isn't a problem? In some cases, the area was settled, then a bunch of people died suddenly, and now it's a ghost town with a few survivors and newspawns trying to rebuild. But the wild animals populate faster than the newspawns.... it's something of a problem, you could say.

And yes, you might say "but that's how it's supposed to be!" but consider this: it would take a newspawn in that area too long to farm enough food to last them the journey to someplace safer. So, basically, they're screwed. The hunger system, combined with the number of animals and lack of resources means that entire towns will die and never have had a chance.

I don't really play games, even simulator games, to start out with no chance of long-term survival, you know? And from what I understand, this is was originally a role-playing game.

The area was originally settled, you say. When people die there's a sudden windfall of resources and equipment. Including food, usually. Now, if a newspawn can't get any supplies, no one is willing to help them, and the population is too small and under-equipped to hold off the animals then yess, they should die. But it's difficult to create a situation where you initially had no chance...maybe (almost) no chance if you try (or are forced) to go solo, certainly. But not no chance.

As for farming...do you acrually mean that you can't survive for two days? Because pretty much every food I've seen you collect over 15 days of food in two days. So collect enough for the next road and run. You heal and rest on the road (well, you're supposed to heal I think, and I'm pretty sure you rest) so when you get to the next area if you're short on food you can grab some more and keep running. Eventually you can hope to hit somewhere with less animals, or more people.

Now, if you keep talking about a low-population foreign language region (you don't specify...) then that is a problem. It may be that the spawn rate makes those regions very nearly hopeless. And the fact that they may have gotten even nastier animals. And can't make any weapons better than a fishing spear without killing some now that bows have changed. But that is really a specific issue of those areas because for outside reasons they are underpopulated.

mortaine wrote:

Also, it's often believed IC (and it may be true) that animals attack more often when attacked. So if you don't want the cows to raid you, leave them alone. That seems awfully logical to me...

I've seen no evidence that this is true. While I'm sure that animals may be programmed to attack when hunted, I've also seen that herd animals also attack when not hunted.

It's possible to attack whether or not they are hunted and attack more often when hunted, you understand.... I'm not certain it's true, though.

The Industriallist wrote:The area was originally settled, you say. When people die there's a sudden windfall of resources and equipment. Including food, usually. Now, if a newspawn can't get any supplies, no one is willing to help them, and the population is too small and under-equipped to hold off the animals then yess, they should die. But it's difficult to create a situation where you initially had no chance...maybe (almost) no chance if you try (or are forced) to go solo, certainly. But not no chance.

Believe it or not, there were 30 dead bodies and practically nothing in terms of fallen resources. Nobody else had anything, either.

As for farming...do you acrually mean that you can't survive for two days? Because pretty much every food I've seen you collect over 15 days of food in two days. So collect enough for the next road and run. You heal and rest on the road (well, you're supposed to heal I think, and I'm pretty sure you rest) so when you get to the next area if you're short on food you can grab some more and keep running. Eventually you can hope to hit somewhere with less animals, or more people.

That's not how it works. You grab enough food for what you hope is 15 days, and you run, and when you get to your destination, there's nothing to eat, and it'll take another 3 days to get back to anywhere, thereby guaranteeing that you're going to starve to death on the road. This happened to one of my characters, it's happening to a second one, and I think it's going to happen to a third soon.

Now, if you keep talking about a low-population foreign language region (you don't specify...) then that is a problem. It may be that the spawn rate makes those regions very nearly hopeless. And the fact that they may have gotten even nastier animals. And can't make any weapons better than a fishing spear without killing some now that bows have changed. But that is really a specific issue of those areas because for outside reasons they are underpopulated.

I'm mostly talking about a low-pop FL area, but the real issue here is that the game got harder and because the larger population areas were doing well, nobody minded too much. But the impact on the smaller population/low resource areas is that, basically, the laws of nature changed and now no one has a chance.

My point is that it's now really really hard for a small, stone-age era area to survive. And while it may be possible, it sure isn't a whole lot of fun. No wonder people spawning in such areas decide to die-- who wants to live in an area where you're going to get killed by boars no matter how hard you work?

I do...my top place to spawn would be in a colony on a newly discovered hell island full of nasty animals and totally unexplored. I might die, but it would be really neat.