Population Gathering Limit: For or against?

[julie2]

I voted "No", not because I'm against limits in principle, but because , to judge bywhat Jos has said so far, the sophisticated programming demanded to make this workable just won't be forthcoming.

I like Seko's idea and Snakebytes. Both should improve it vastly- if implemented - but they don't go far enough.

One absurdity in Cantr is that one overlord , or local Coucil, or whatever can easily oversee and control the whole of the surrounding countryside for a radius of several days' walk (that's eqivalent to a pretty large county or two, where I come from). The limits -as they stand- mean that those overlords now have to manage every bit of that area, and impose strict penalties for gathering without permission. Theres no room in this system for indepenadnt operations, such as private farms, or common land. Nor can there be, not unless these gathering slots are clearly divided into individual plots of land, with clear labels, which different individuals and groups can claim ownership over- rather like having several towns- within-the- town, in fact (in programming terms). Whilst those slotse are all lumped together and indistinguishable there's no realisic way of managing them independantly, especially not with these limits. Independant organisations have flourished so far, in spite of this diffculty in distinguishing betewen their resources and the local authority's resources, only because there were no limits, so most towns could afford to be easy going. Only bastards like Lad stamped out independant oprations and forced everybody in the area to conform to a single, uniform regime.

In short, the one shortfall in realism (infinite resources ) compensated for the other ( great big huge individual plots, separated by daunting distances, with over-powerful omniscient overseers lording over the lot). I don't believe you can take away the one withouit seriously adressing the other. The result will be a sad loss of social and political diversity.

[PRUT]

I voted NO, for current limit system, however I like idea of land scarcity.

I suggest implementing resource limits based on location, why? here you can read my post: http://www.cantr.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 215#109215

[Nick]

This along with the addition of more skills a while back are really good moves for Cantrian society.
Perhaps you all are not seeing the future effects, but it's true.
Although, changing the limit to resources rather than the whole town is reasonable.

[CyboRKg]

Against. Current system it`s a paradise for cheaters and CRB, showing dark side of the Cantr

I voted NO, for current limit system, however I like idea of land scarcity.
I suggest implementing resource limits based on location, why? here you can read my post: http://www.cantr.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 215#109215

I agree

[Oasis]

Against. Current system it`s a paradise for cheaters and CRB, showing dark side of the Cantr

CyboRKg, what do you mean by this?

[kinvoya]

Yeah, I can never think of good ways to cheat. If other people are cheating I want to know so I can do it, too!

jk, pd

[formerly known as hf]

I voted YES

I've yet to be badly hit by it, but my charrie in Kwor is going to have to address the issue sometime very soon.

I would prefer it if the limiting was done PER RESOURCE TYPE, but I know that's difficult to implement. Limiting resources in some way was one of the very first things I posted in suggestions, and I am very glad to see it introduced. I know it's not a perfect way to do it, and I'm sure Jos knows that too. But it's a step in the right direction. We can't expect everything we want all at once. If it could be done a better way right now, I'm sure it would have been

[Skarbniq]

This also makes a little more sense to me because the places with the most resources should be the one with most space right? Otherwise how would such a location hold as many resouces?

Why

For example a real forest. You can have large forest with one kind of wood, or a little one with many many different species.

Or... you can have a large mine of gold that holds resources for 100000 years, or a little amount of gold and for example stones.

Location with many resources already have an advantage that it can choose which one is it collecting. Level of limit shouldn't be connected in any way with amount of resources' types.

[Misty]

I voted no. This is a bad idea to begin with. There are natural resources, especially in an underpopulated, newly emerging world. Cantr is supposed to be about society building, not about focusing on trying to keep your characters fed due to the lack of natural resources and foods.

I've got one new spawn just about ready to die now. After she's been through a couple of towns, one where there were posted rules about farming, and nobody around to ask, the other, where there were already the maximum amount of gatherers for farming, and of course, because of the sleeping sickness, nobody to ask for help. She is now on her way to the next town, where, if she does live through the journey, who knows if she will be able to get any food or not.

No, Cantr becomes far less fun, especially for new sign up's, when they can't even get food. Shouldn't be an issue. At the very least, there should be the last resort option of getting on hands and knees and digging up some roots, or picking some berries, or whatever.

[Razorlance]

Ex: if the area has a total number of 6 resouces and it was 2 people for each resouce then that is a total of 12 people being able to gather/farm ect... these twelve will be able to be put all on one resource if the leaders want, or 2 each but tnot restricted to the two each. (also you could substitue Seko's project suggestion)

I like this ideal and Seko's project ideal as well.
The combination of the two might strike a good balance. i.e. If a location has 4 resources they have a limit of 8 active projects. But the issue would shift to places with one or two resources. Once they had a population of more than 3 or 4.

I voted yes, but only if its tweaked somewhat. Ideally as above but maybe still with a minimum number, say 5 to 6 for places with only 1 or 2 resources. The current numbers do seem to be rather low.

[CyboRKg]

Against. Current system it`s a paradise for cheaters and CRB, showing dark side of the Cantr

CyboRKg, what do you mean by this?

Like in Chicago at 30-th Prohibition. Limits bring in patology like f.e. cooperation one player chars together, mob rules, wars... No place for democracy and peacefull coexistence

[Augery]

I voted yes, because I think something like this is good for the game, I do think Seko's or snakebytes suggestion would be better though

[KVZ]

Everyone who voted "YES" is egoist Most often argument I hear from those who like limits in current form is that their chars are not affected. I can say that my chars are not affected too, but so what? Are someone here think about new players and their chars? PRUT knows the problem well, because he is Polish Marketing Department member. Me and PRUT proposed much more fair way to implement land scarcity. However my idea is less realistic (IMHO) than PRUT idea, but mine is more compromise to current Jos's vision of land scarcity. But I like it also as PRUT suggestion too. Skarbniq wrote on Polish forum, that players should have less characters now to new players can have chance, but why some char who is developed well, and is not affected by limit have a can have IN GAME reason to do suicide to help newbies? If you all want to have Cantr only for yourself, fine That's your choice. Have a fun. Please all who voted YES for limits in current form think about it...

[Agar]

Everyone who voted "YES" is egoist Most often argument I hear from those who like limits in current form is that their chars are not affected. I can say that my chars are not affected too, but so what? Are someone here think about new players and their chars? PRUT knows the problem well, because he is Polish Marketing Department member. Me and PRUT proposed much more fair way to implement land scarcity. However my idea is less realistic (IMHO) than PRUT idea, but mine is more compromise to current Jos's vision of land scarcity. But I like it also as PRUT suggestion too. Skarbniq wrote on Polish forum, that players should have less characters now to new players can have chance, but why some char who is developed well, and is not affected by limit have a can have IN GAME reason to do suicide to help newbies? If you all want to have Cantr only for yourself, fine That's your choice. Have a fun. Please all who voted YES for limits in current form think about it...

There are valid arguments for both sides of this and I am genuinely surprised on how this has spawned such an outpouring of constructive debate. Saying everyone that voted yes is and egoist is a bit harsh, and you should admit you don't even belive it yourself. Some may or may not be, but the vote is about if you want it, the discussion is about if it's affecting your characters.

I think this is turning out to be a great poll as it shows more of peoples motives for thier opinions. I'm really pleased with this response and hope someone can point it out to Jos, so he can see what people are thinking about this, both numerically and vocally.

So, there's only been a couple of pot shots at people here, lets try to keep it to that and stay on topic.

[AoM]

I voted yes, in basic principle. I know that this will affect my characters even if it isn't affecting them now. Seko and Snakebyte's suggestions are reasonable and the Prg.D. should give them consideration.

I believe that cantrians can overcome this hurdle, the same way they overcame iron not being freely mined from the ground.