Cantr II Discussion Forum

Okay, the difference in aluminium is crazy. It shouldn't have a 25kg difference between the two.

Oh come on........................................................................................................................................

wichita wrote:Oh come on........................................................................................................................................

What do you mean?

People wanted balance, and people wanted RD to adjust balance by making things easier rather than harder. Of course it's not realistic, and maybe it's a bit heavy-handed, but I can live with that.

I like that the "over-all" cost was reduced in light of the new fuel changes that are happening, but rebalincing it such that it costs more of some resources doesn't make much since if you plan on leaving in the old method for construction.

I would kind of think the same thing... but as it is, I think with the reduction in aluminium, there are very few, if any, people that would make it the old way anyway. What's a couple more kilos of steel and iron if they need only a fraction of the aluminium they needed before? That's the only reason I think the difference in aluminium is crazy; what's the use of keeping the old way of doing it? It makes it pretty much obsolete. I mean, yes there should be more advantages to the assembly line by less time and maybe not as many materials, if they want to make it that way, but if you're going to make the old way obsolete, then just scrap it altogether. There's no advantage at all. I would have thought the old way would have its advantage in not having to figure out what 50 billion pieces you needed to make it, but be a little more expensive (I really didn't think they would keep the old way of doing it). And yea, that wouldn't be a great advantage, but at least it would have some semblance of an advantage instead of be completely null and void.

Really don't understand why the values have changed the way they have... 10kg more of iron and 25kg less aluminium? almost double the rubber?

I thought an assembly line would make things quicker and maybe knock a bit off the resources needed...doesn't make much sense to me

I agree that the old type of bus is completely ridiculous. I know, because I helped building one.

If it is decided that it should be easier to build one, I don't mind. It will always be way over te top for rational players.

What I do have problems with, is the following:
The majority of trades in Cantr involves iron and/or steel. This makes the trading business very predictable and boring. Therefore, if you need to make changes in vehicle compositions, the share of iron and steel should decrease and not increase like in this bus recipe.

Correct me if I'm wrong...

All the 'engine0x parts' are made out of Iron, rubber and magneisum. The wheels also require iron with the rubber.

Now, I read that one goal was the decentralisation of vehicle manufacturing - parts being made in more than one place and brought together for completion.
I have my own doubts about that, given the rarity of vehicle manufacturing, but I reckon it's a good idea.

Surely the engine parts should therefore be split into seperate resources? And the iron removed from the wheels?
Thus allowing less developed areas to still offer to build parts?
i.e: We have a forest of rubber, we will build your wheels, saving you time, earning us trade...

Apart from that, hooray for cheaper cars!

The reason that we decided to leave the old methods available is because more than a few staff members are tired of reading thoughts like:

If there is no difference to the affect of the parts, then what is the point? Just more complication (just look at the x-bow for the lesson of why that is pointless). It is unnecessary, and the supposed IG benefits are vastly overestimated... learn the lesson, players cannot be shoehorned into an idea through force. Societies develop naturally, as do economies, and trying to force them like this fails. Each and every time.

Basically, I predicted the response to this implementation to be something like:

Before, all I needed was metal and a screwdriver to put a vehicle together. Now I have to build two new machines just to be able to build a frame? Then I have to build all of these parts in a needlessly complicated process that requires me to log into the game five seperate times to accomplish the same end? Oh! And what is with all these tools? That has completely ruined all of my plans to construct his vehicle. You have completely destroyed all of my motivation for playing that character. Now you have added another three game years to the amount of work that he is going to have to go through. It is a senseless demand on the players to invest in that much more in infrastructure, just to build one motor car. You used to be able to make vehicles just from iron and steel technology. Now we have to make aluminium? Oh thanks a lot! You can't force the players to specialize and form businesses. It just isn't feasible.

And then I planned to hear from the characters that already went through so much blood, sweat, and tears to build that damn bus, and how we have just completely underscored that accomplishment by suddenly reducing the price by at least 60%. "Oh gee, THANKS A LOT!" Guess we screwed the pooch on that predicition, didn't we?



So fine. We'll tear through it all again and rescale everything, just so it can make perfect sense to all parties interested in this. Better yet, somebody more capable than those of us who have been volunteering their time - even towards projects that do not directly fall into our own preferred special interest groups - post a full outline of the changes that we are supposed to make.

Why do 75% of the suggestions posts have to regard the stuff that we screwed up? Maybe if the naysayers out there could more routinely tell us when we do something correctly, we'll try not to destroy life as we all know it.


Or am I just being the jackass here? I'm sure some of you will let me know.

formerly known as hf wrote:Surely the engine parts should therefore be split into seperate resources? And the iron removed from the wheels?
Thus allowing less developed areas to still offer to build parts?
i.e: We have a forest of rubber, we will build your wheels, saving you time, earning us trade...

Good point there.

Or am I just being the jackass here? I'm sure some of you will let me know.

Um, well aside from the fact that I was already this close to the amount of steel needed to make a van the old way and now I could have already had all the materials laid out and ready... I think it's a brilliant idea.

That's just bad timing, anyway. Although the new value for resources is a little weird, I would only degrade them as much to say they are downright funky. Which, provided James Brown was around, I could definitely do my Resource Funky Dance. Ok my bad.

THE CHANGE IS GOOD

(that's all I'm really trying to say)

wichita wrote:Better yet, somebody more capable than those of us who have been volunteering their time - even towards projects that do not directly fall into our own preferred special interest groups - post a full outline of the changes that we are supposed to make.

It's very difficult to balance something, IMO, that keeps changing, particularly as new things are always being added.

If you knew where you wished to end up, than such a rescaling would be an excellent idea, albeit a huge undertaking given the size of Cantr technology tree at the moment.

wichita wrote:Why do 75% of the suggestions posts have to regard the stuff that we screwed up? Maybe if the naysayers out there could more routinely tell us when we do something correctly, we'll try not to destroy life as we all know it.

Because people don't make the effort to comment on something that was done "right", because to an extent they expect it? Unfair, perhaps, but that's the way I think it could be.

There are people who post excellent and detailed suggestions, but they seem to have little impact on what actually happens. Even if they do, by the time they are filtered through all the various interests into something that's agreeable to all, then it tends to be very different to the original suggestion.

It is very discouraging to see that happen. It breeds an attitude of indifference, after all "why should I bother if I'm just going to be ignored anyway?"

I think the problem we have here is that no one has a concrete plan for how the game is going to develop. Its discussed as it's implemented, which means future developments that may upset everything and create imbalance are not considered because no one has thought of them yet.

I suppose if you consider a tightrope walker, who has many things balanced across the pole he uses to steady himself, as an analogy for game balance. As you add more things onto the end of his pole, then you have to adjust the entire pole to restore the balance he had before you added the things.