Population Gathering Limit: For or against?

[KVZ]

There is no return to the world without limits Many players and chars have done lot of things to organize after limits' implementation, and i can't imagine situation that their hard work would be wasted.

This is egoistic argument that your chars done something to organize, so limits must stay in this form. Others didn't organized just because they don't use telepathy to know how to organize, or they are too liberal to make something like others do. And I don't say "no for limits", but I say no for limits in current form and my proposal is fair and more realistic.

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.

But why not? Maybe just don't like it because you have char who is town leader in location where is only few resources, and other towns on the same island have more resources? But your argument is good, and I didn't proposed that.

My suggestion is to have total resource collection limit based on factor but not resource gatherers. But it still will be flexible, like Jos wants. Town can select if they want to get carrots or stones. Basic example: if there factor would be 10 for one location, then town can gather 4000 grams of carrots per day, or 7500 grams of stone per day, or 2000 grams of carrots and 3750 grams of stone, or any other possible combination. Factor could be something like double of current gatherers limit for any locations, or even triple or more, because it should affect machines too. Jos should know how to balance those factors to be fair and realistic.

This suggestion have many advantages:
In location from this example, there could live 100 chars gathering carrots without any war for food, living their pathetic life (or less of them, if someone will start to dig stone, or use skills, tools and machines to gather more carrots for themself. But they can still get their back and move to more suitable place if there is any.
Undeveloped towns can use more man power to get their full resource limit, or can towns can start to be more developed by building tools and machines to have more man power available for other tasks. There is flexibity. Now there is no flexibity like that, and current implementation is unrealistic. Now with tools from the same field or mine town can get more resources, and they can't allow more people to work to archeive the same effect. And now with machines they can get unlimited amount of resources, which is unfair and unrealistic. Currently this is like man scarcity but not like land scarcity.
It will not force liberal govs to enforce harsh laws because of unrealistic limit. They can still allow for everyone just gather smaller amounts of everything. If some region have liberal laws it will be not forced to be not so much liberal to allow all citizens to gather lesser amounts of resources. This will leave more flexibity to making policy and it will not force to changes liberal govs by artifical limitation at least until gov will be ineffective to feed their own citizens.

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.

Harsh? I don't think so. Harsh are those who know that my suggestion is more fair and realistic, and they still vote "YES" or they say that my idea is worse from current implementation. And vote should have third option "I want land scarcity but no man scarcity". There was not such option, so I voted for "NO", and I said why. But both arguments used in vote are egoistic "My people are starving and my business is failing" is egoistic, and "My people can work around it and trade is booming." is egoistic too. No one should vote yes or no, because this limit affected him or not. But notice that, I voted for not, and I said that this limit not affecting my chars I just vote "NO", because I think about other new players who will be affected most by this limitation, and thats why I have used this argument that others are egoistic. But to be fair, I think that everyone who voted "YES" because they are not affected, or everyone who voted "NO" because they are affected using egoistic argument and if he/she not gived other arguments for this vote is egoistic. But I think, that those who voted "NO" just because they are affected have more right to do that, then those who voted "YES" because they are not affected. And maybe some of them who voted for "YES" but said that they are affected, think about their friend who are not affected. And just to not give you counter argument, I must say that I don't have friends who are affected by this limit, but I think about new players who will join this game and they will face hard unreality of man scarcity.

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.

I very like to hear Jos opinion about this pool, and also hear from him if he changed his opinion about my suggestion from "worth considering" to "worth implementing". If not, then let me know why? And which arguments I have to use? I don't like to use argumensts which Jos and no one other would like, f.e.: threaten or bribe arguments. But I must to say, that some players on Polish forum think that, Cantr changed policy from "geting more players" to "no more players" because there to much of them (mainly becasue of very good advertise action in Poland) and server can face problems, but if it is true, why not someone say this to let us stop advertising a bit, but doing this by implementing unrealistic and unfair limitations which would focus on new players?

Seko and Snakebyte's suggestions are reasonable and the Prg.D. should give them consideration

Seko suggestion is about how to deal in the game with current situation. Where do you see something to implement in that suggestion? Snakebyte's suggestion maybe is good from his point of view, but others will not agree, especially those who have town leaders in locations where are few resources. And I don't say that it is more realistic or fair than random numbers. But I give something more fair and realistic, and Jos already said it is worth considering. I know that it is much harder to implement, than current implementation, but is it not worth to do such effort? I supposed that dead body deterioration and other burial solutions was hard to implement, but they are already implemented. And there are many aspirant members in Prg.D. one of them is Marol from Poland. Marol what do you think about my proposal? Is it hard to implement? Maybe you can do that?

[Yo_Yo]

You got my simple mind confused. Explain it to me in words that each have letters fewer or around the number five. Such as this. See, less then five letters per word!

<------ Dreams of being smart :0

[KVZ]

For your simple mind. My suggestion is something like this:
newspawn must no beg for food, but still he can starve if there are to much resource gatherers or harsh laws

I hope that you understand this statement. It was too difficult to wrote this using less than five letters per word. But I hope you know meaning of underlined words.

[kinvoya]

Yo Yo, I've seen that website where the Japanese girl posts pictures of her bunny with all kinds of things sitting on it's head. It's the cutest site ever!

[Skarbniq]

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.

Some of my chars are affected, a they had to left their matherlands. Some other changed profession. Nobody is going to starve.

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?

No, they shouldn't kill their chars. But some player wrote that now organisation takes much more time... and they don't have time for 15 chars. So... some of them probably will die I don't have this problem. Newbies have chance. Their chance is a good town leader, who needs people for trade missions and gatherers with top skills.

The true is that polish locations on first island are overcrowded. Very intensive marketing is the reason. Amount of chars is not adequate to the level of civilization.

[PRUT]

Problem with current limits is that they are unnatural and weird. I know that GAC can implement any rules they want, even magic or teleportation - but it will change Cantr and makes it classic RPG with maybe dragon, and knights?

[Misty]

Remember that imagination is our limit, not unnatural rules

Agreed. This is unnatural - no matter how it is manipulatively justified.

Newbies have chance. Their chance is a good town leader, who needs people for trade missions and gatherers with top skills.

I have a newspawn who has nearly died because of this implimentation. Refer to my post above.

And I know how to roll play with the other characters - - I, the player, know what to do, and yet my character is nearly dead. Some newbie players who don't have a clue what they are doing, don't know how to interact, and are unsure, or just a bit shy, who would normally just start digging up some roots for food, may not be able too. I think you'll start seeing a lot more bodies, and fewer players.

[lukaasz]

Problem with current limits is that they are unnatural and weird. I know that GAC can implement any rules they want, even magic or teleportation - but it will change Cantr and makes it classic RPG with maybe dragon, and knights?

no, no magic, but teleportation yes, and spaceships, so we can go where no men has gone before and visit strange new worlds with strange new civilisations

I dont care about resource limits...give me spaceships

[julie2]

You got my simple mind confused. Explain it to me in words that each have letters fewer or around the number five. Such as this. See, less then five letters per word!

<------ Dreams of being smart :0

[Edit: bold formatting inserted by myself, julie2]

Um...either Yo-Yo was joking, or he can't count either!

[julie2]

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

Some people think that's a good thing. Makes the game more "realistic" and challenging. Trouble is, if it's due to a permanent Cantr-wide programmed-in change, then it becomes a permant problem. What's realistic about that?

[Misty]

This simply cannot be justified as being a natural problem, especially in an underdeveloped, newly emerging world where foiliage and resources are abundant. It's just a thorn in the side problem to create more problems. Basic food gathering is a non issue plain and simple.

[julie2]

This simply cannot be justified as being a natural problem, especially in an underdeveloped, newly emerging world where foiliage and resources are abundant. It's just a thorn in the side problem to create more problems. Basic food gathering is a non issue plain and simple.

Yeah, well I was very surprised about it coming in at this stage. It suggests that the populated areas of Cantr are reaching the point of maximum sustainable population already. I thought the Prog Dept wanted higher population density, ideally. Certainly a lot of the things we're supposed be building almost demand a high population density before they really become feasible.

But when It does come in, I would expect it to apply to renewable resources like food and wood, and not to finite resources like coal, which you dig as fast as you like IRL, so long as you have the machinery and manpower- until it runs out. (but we're surely nowhere near that point yet, either)

[Nixit]

The problem with your idea (or one of them) is that is essentially puts tools and other resource gathering machines out of use. Because once you have enough people to gather the max, you don't need the machines.

[Yo_Yo]

She found my weakness! The Yo cannot count either!

Damn my dropping out after kindergarden! (<---- misspellings curse me as well!)

[KVZ]

The problem with your idea (or one of them) is that is essentially puts tools and other resource gathering machines out of use. Because once you have enough people to gather the max, you don't need the machines.

No. Tools and machines never will be out of use. Individual and companies will use them to gather more from the limit for themself. And many societies never will have enough people to do all other tasks and gather maximal possible amount without tools and machines.