How would you run it?

[Agar]

Is there any kind of overall plan that the RD can refer to when making changes? Or does the emphasis of the department's work change depending on who is working in it?

Perhaps a set of stated design principles and objectives would make it easier when staff inherit other player's work and help avoid the creeping featurism HallinatingFarmer dislikes so much

Solfius gave me this idea with this post. I damn near cheered when I read it.

So heres the general idea: What would you do if you had to develop the game? How would you go about balancing things? Would you go more for a game, or more towards a society simulator? Would you increase the variety of things cantrians can do, and how? Or would you try to make it easier to build things by homogonising things more?

Let's here what kind of "Plan" you would like to see, and maybe us on staff can get a better "Plan" to base changes and projects on.

[saztronic]

I'll be brief. You need to double the amount of things people can do, and you need to halve the effort it takes to do them.

People can do more stuff faster = more, happier players with far more opportunities to RP and interact, ergo = better, more complex societies.

I've read The Sociologist's treatise on the subject of why curriences and advanced economies don't develop in Cantr, and I respect the ideas in it. But it's pretty complex. It's not a blueprint, it's a manifesto.

More things. Easier to do them. Period.

[Mafia Salad]

I don’t know that an overall plan would be as good of an idea as a simple philosophy behind implementation. I think that the way things are implemented now force the way society in game is developing too much as it is, so making some meta-goal to work towards would just make that worse. I’d just want to follow real life when setting up plans.

I would make a purpose for everything before it is implemented (RP aid‘s such as clothing and instruments have enough purpose IMO). I would not add any boats or land vehicles unless they had a distinct and specific advantage over the other vehicle in the game already. Or if it opens up the ability to travel, make something, or do something in an area that it is currently impossible or very difficult by using different resources. Diversity for diversity’s sake is stupid, and that’s what I see in the vehicle build menu right now.

I’d like to separate the person and stuff space in vehicles. (probably not something RD can do, but would be good for the overall plan) To give some of the different vehicles we have now a purpose other than to drive something different. So that a tandem can carry 2 people but not one person and 60,000g of extra stuff, or make that tandem’s and boats move faster with more people on them to a point. After all, in real life 4 people can row a longboat faster than 1, more crew can change the sail position in the wind better than a few, and two people have twice the power on a tandem bike. This change would encourage more diversity in vehicles and cooperation between people. At the same time add the ability to make bags, baskets and trailers to tandems, vans, and other people carriers so that the people who already built them for trade can still trade with them.

I’d also look to solve the problems found by the characters in game with the development of new items. Development of a way to combat rot would be a must, because that would be something characters would be trying to fix. Either by the implementation of new slower rotting weapons and tools, or by creating a way to minimize repair by some form of maintenance like sociologist suggested. Maybe both so people can use different approaches to the same problem. Modify any weapons that are never made so that they have something unique about them, especially for the ones that need steel. (A working example is the good repair to rot ratio on the pilum, which makes it an ideal weapon for a working person who doesn‘t have a lot of time for repairs)

In general, I’d like to follow the real life examples of invention when implementing new features, add things that solve everyday problems in game. And create a lot of alternative solutions, so that different area’s can solve the same problems in different ways (like what has been happening with cooking). How about smoke signals from large fire pits as an alternative to radios in copper less places? Simple goals based on what the characters would desire.

Create the ability to do more advanced things without a lot of travel to get some resources that nobody in that area would have ever seen before. As well as create a better way of solving the same problem that involves travel and trade.

I typed this up pretty quickly and didn’t really check through it so I don’t know how coherent it is, but I’m sure that some basic ideas wouldn’t be to hard to find in it.

[kinvoya]

Ever since item deterioration was implemented it has been a problem. Chars spend insane amounts of time fixing items that should need almost no repair...ever (for example, crowbars). If chars didn't have to do this then it would amount to the game speeding up.

Anthony was supposed to fix the deterioration times but disappeared instead and no one else has done a thing about it. There used to be a lot of compaining but everyone just gave up. We even lost some wonderful players who just didn't want to play a game where they spent most of their time as minor repairmen.

This has made it impossible for traders without bikes to exist. I like to play small, simple chars and I see most of the changes benefiting the power players and the wealthy chars.

Instead of inventing more new stuff that falls apart how about fixing this basic problem?

[Marian]

I'd put Sociologist in charge. Then I'd go play Puzzle Pirates until he made it all better, and everyone could congratulate me for fixing Cantr.

[wichita]

My philosohpy on implementing ideas....

The game is a society simulator. Not all societies are at the same level of development. We have a mixture of primitive bushmen and modern city dwellers (who here has seen The gods must be crazy?).

Certain technology must be simple enough for simple people to access it. Hunting, eating, and shelter need to be available using simple resources. Tech level 1 should fulfill the BASIC NEEDS of a character. This is the survival stage.

These fledgeling societies need to be able to grow and eventually work on more complicated technologies. More people requires more food. More people leads to more conflict requiring more protection. People need bigger buildings, to prepare food more quickly, to transport resources from more distant locations.... improved tools, improved machinery, simple vehicles. We have to make sure that the transition to tech level 2 is POSSIBLE and that the end result is worth the amount of work it took to get there.

Society grows more and more, characters get bored with their old stuff and want new stuff or better stuff. We have to make sure that the transition between tech levels is possible, and that the stuff on the other side of the transition is better than the stuff before the transition.

A large benefit comes from a large investment. If you do the work, it should be worth it, and will you go back to what you had before after having the new development?

Bone/stone tools suck. They do the job but they fall apart quickly and are a pain to maintain. Get a bit of metal, make metal tools. They last longer, they are easier to fix, you have more time to spend on work.

Primitive machines are inefficient. Do some work, get some tools to make a more efficient machine. They should work faster. You should get more done with them.

Blah blah blah, I think I am rambling now....

[SekoETC]

Wear from usage and age should be two different things, instead they are bunched up as one monster called deterioration. Aging could be slowed down (with proper storing, oiling, cleaning etc.) but not reversed. While wear and tear through usage could be repaired. There could be items which are antique but in good shape, or new things that are worn out.

Things should weight more in general. Then you would need to get people to help you carry stuff. Also it would make the weight of big things more reasonable.

People should be able to carry over their capacity for short periods of time. Being over-burdened would give you pains and slow you down and make you tired.

It should be possible to take things from people without killing them. And also to get them back.

Undocking should not be instaneous.

Boats should not be able to make 360 degree turns on a spot. I would make it so that you can steer to one side and the boat would then move on an arching track. When going straight, your vessel would gradually gain speed instead of going 100% at once.

Machines should deteriorate. They should be buildable outdoors (for example smelters) but they would deteriorate faster due to rain and stuff. You should be able to build a shelter around/over a machine.

Everything should be possible to be taken apart. Buildings, tools, machinery... dead bodies?

Animal domestication. I would like to get rid of the cars and motorcycles, those are too high tech. Trains and other steam powered vehicles would be ok. But mostly if you want to go fast, you'd have to get a bunch of horses or zebras or dogs or buffalos or whatever to pull your vehicle. "You see a wagon driving past you, being pulled by 143 dogs." Animals would mostly feed themselves but would have to be given food if on a desert, mountain or indoors.

Free roaming...

Gathering rates should vary between locations. Like you might be able to find a bit of firewood on a grassland region, but if you wanted to get enough for a boat or cottage, you'd have to travel to the forest.

You should not be able to build cottages without an axe or a saw. You could make a hut out of twigs, but that could be destroyed by kicking or cutting in a moderate time and would not have a lock.

People would not vanish when going on a road, but you would be able to see them until they get off visible distance. This is a part of free roaming.

[formerly known as hf]

- Halve, no reduce by two thirds at least, the animals populations on some islands.

- Make bronze a possible metal
Bronze, for me, is the epitomy of what is wrong with so much of the recent developments - a great idea, but really, really poorly implemented.


- Encourage and actively reward co-operation, rather than trying to enforce it.
Stop assuming that organisation and co-operation is easy.
It's not - it's actually bloody difficult in Cantr - there maybe countless characters, but a precious few are active enough to drive the game.
Enforcing through implementing decay, or resource limits and the like, goes some way to creating co-operation, but it is done so grudgingly.
Co-operation should be seen by players as a means to get rewards - not as one way of dealing with problems Cantr presents.
Projects which have more than one person working on it should be faster, not as it currently is, but exponentially - so that two people more than doubles the speed, three more than triples it etc.
Radios should be easier to make, or should be transportable, so that relays can be set up. The greatest problem with co-operation currently in Cantr, is that it is nigh impossible to have it span more than one location. There are somereally powerful, great organisations, but they have zero influence over even their neighbours.

- Stop assuming that trade will be a result of a desire for a resource
It won't.
Bronze is again an obvious example - there is, and never will be a thriving cross-island trade in phosphorous and zinc.
The resource limits taught us this too. They were designed to foster trade, as places which have limestone and the like will want to use all the slots for gathering that, and so will trade for food. This has not been the case. Town leaders have adapted - they know they can get hold of the resources for iron, so have built harvesters - which, even though they are expensive machines, they are in the long run a lot easier than setting up a constant trade for food.
Making harvesters take up resource slots won't help - there will still be no trade, as it's so bloody difficult to set up a regular trade.
Almost all trading is done by lone traders, moving things they think will be wanted - which basically boils down to wood and resources for iron / steel. Setting up a regular trade between two locations is nigh impossible.
Without contact, there is now way of knowing that next time you send someone off to compete the agreed trade, a year later, that those who it was agreed with are still alive or in power. Hence, organisations soon learn that it's just pointless, so stick to ad-hoc trading, or just send people off to collect what they need.

[Solfius]

My plan for Cantr would start with a statement of intent:

To produce the most sophisticated society simulator available on the internet by creating a simplified replication of reality in the form of a game.

The emphasis would be on realism and creating a simplified version of the real world for players to play in.

This would lead to a number of design principles:

- Tech progression should follow real world precedent
- All changes should be researched and based upon real world science
- Changes need not match exactly the real world, especially if that makes the game boring or too hard to play.
- Work should be focussed on creating a realistic environment, rather than trying to encourage certain activities.


Most importantly, the whole of Cantr II version 1.0 would be planned in advance. I know this isn't possible now, but as someone else said, you decide where you want to end up, your end goal, and work back from that.

Rather than tweaking and adding things as people think of them, every process, game mechanism, resource, and object would be designed prior to any work starting. This would detail everything to be included. Anything not included would be put to one side until v1.0 was achieved, then it could be evaluated and another design document made up to guide the next stage of development: v2.0

Not very well explained, but what such a design and grand plan allows is to see how all the different ideas work together, where duplication may occur, where processes could be combined and streamlined, and it would avoid implementing things only to change them again later.

[Doug R.]

The biggest change I think I would make is a completely dfferent manufacturing process. The way things are now, we are locked in as to how specific things are made. All embroidered cotton shirts have bone buttons. What about stone buttons? Metal buttons? The poor vegan characters out there can't use or wear half the things out there because they can't make simple, obvious, substitutions because objects are hard-coded.

1) All materials in the game would be classified as either:
-nutritional
-structural (stone, wood, iron, etc)
-textile (cotton, etc)
-chemical (oil, salt, etc)

2) All manufactural items would have requirements based on these three classifications (so a hammer would require any structural instead of specificly wood).

3) All materials would have an inherent durability. If you build items out of more durable material, they last longer.

4) All items will have a quality. The more time spent making something, the higher quality. Quality affects wear.

5) All land and water vehicles would not be hard-coded either. They would be built modularly, based around a core frame. There would be X different frame times, ranging from small to large. The character would then customize what goes onto the frame, and can sacrifice speed for cargo room, etc.) That would make every vehicle essentially unique, eliminating all those useless vehicle classes that currently exist. ("she doesn't look like much kid... but she can do the Naron to Sjoftich run in less than a year") Bigger engines add more power but are also heavier, meaning you could put "car" engines on motorcycle frames, carry almost nothing, but get across the island in a day... You could also even dispense with having fixed frames and allow the players to customize their frames.

6) Item wear would be based almost entirely on usage, with an environmental factor coming into play for damp regions. I would also cut current deterioration in half.

7) Metals could be alloyed. We have tons of nearly useless metal in the game. Let the players refine and mix it all up to make new alloys. Let them experiment (each "optimal recipe" would be a kept secred by the RD, and players would have to experiment mixing various proportions of metals, with the outcome either being too soft or too brittle depending on how far off the "optimal recipe" they were. All metals in the game would get new fictional names to keep players from looking up alloy recipes.)

8) Weapons would be simplified. You would have the basic D&D style classification (slashing, piercing, bludgeoning, ranged or melee), with damage calculated by the class and amount of construction materials used and the quality of the weapon, making each weapon unique (unless mass produced). Ranged weapons would be the only weapons that could be used for hunting, and they could also be used to hit characters out on a road from a town, or to hit characters in docked boats (and conversly, to hit characters in a town from a boat, or on another docked boat). Since this would make ranged weapons in higher demand, they will also be harder to use, having a different hit success rate than melee weapons (and bludgeoning melee weapons would have higher success rate than slasing or piercing to reflect the lower skill needed to wield).

9) Any item can be onamented with anything. If you want a bejeweled smelter, go for it.

10) Buildings can be made any size, and descriptors would be dropped (no more cottage, etc). If you only have 10kg of stone, go ahead and build, you just can't fit as much inside. I would also have building features, like windows.

So, basicly, I'm going for more realism of a society simulator by not boxing characters into making pre-determined items.

[Solfius]

I like that Doug, liberating the build system would be an excellent move.

[notsure]

HF - I love you for your animal comment.

notsure

[Solfius]

- Halve, no reduce by two thirds at least, the animals populations on some islands.

Good

but better:

set maximum animal population densities for each species. This represents the maximum number of animals of that type that can survive/live in the same location. This would take into account lifestyle (eg solitary or pack) and location type could also be taken into account. When the max density is reached any extra animals leave, or are attacked.

[notsure]

But that all depends on the populations of people. Six people in a forest with no iron can't handle 40 each of the vicious animals. There will never BE more than 6 people this way, probably fewer. I'm speaking of other-language islands with maybe 20 people total.

notsure

[formerly known as hf]

set maximum animal population densities for each species. This represents the maximum number of animals of that type that can survive/live in the same location. This would take into account lifestyle (eg solitary or pack) and location type could also be taken into account. When the max density is reached any extra animals leave, or are attacked.

*carves the suggestion onto a bat and heads towards the ProgD