Rip Van Winkell

[saztronic]

Once more into the breeches, as I like to say.

There's a lot of pissing and moaning and weird conspiracy theories in this thread that I don't get. I mean, Sociologist seems to have this whole other thing going on, which it's impossible to comment on. Haven't been there, haven't done that. Maybe somebody messed with your char inappropriately, it wouldn't be surprising, we are talking about human nature here, with all due respect to the fine staff who labor tirelessly on our behalf to make this a good game. But staff have indeed abused their privileges in the past, everyone knows it, maybe it happened in this case, who knows, but I think we can all grant that it's rare. And I think most reasonable people would agree it's difficult to imagine there's some kind of sinister cabal among multiple staff that's dedicated to organized tinkering in their favor. I just don't buy that it's likely, or likely to succeed in any case.

What's bad about the features isn't that someone is being diabolical, or that someone is trying to force the game into some narrow preconception, or that people are clueless. It's what the guy said -- it's like an ad hoc gingerbread house. There's no global strategy, there's no overarching logic to the changes, no sense that what is being done will lead to some consciously desired effect. End result is a hodgepodge of weird stuff that doesn't really advance the game.

Of course it's still possible to see the fun lying underneath all that, which is why we all play and why we keep talking about this stuff. But I just wish, with all my heart, that someone on staff could tell me what they are trying to do with this game. I've read Jos' stuff and know how it started, but there just don't seem to be any guiding principles that all the the departments use to make judgments about what should or shouldn't be changed. There's no agreed-upon objective -- an ideal Cantr that has been debated and resolved, for example -- that would allow a team to develop a coherent plan for realizing that objective.

Instead, the changes come across as a bunch of kneejerk reactions to things -- grabbing the "solution" that's nearest at hand, and throwing another cog into the clockwork without understanding the overall mechanism. Pirates out of control? Everyone gets tired! People don't farm potatoes but prefer carrots? Mess with the food system! Some chars hoard tools? Make everything rot! Nobody's improving roads? Make vehicles less useful unless roads are improved!

The result of EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE CHANGES? More time needed to do anything, no matter what kind of char you're RP'ing. More busywork, less progress. Generally speaking, less likely that groups will cooperate IMHO, less likely that interesting things will happpen in the game, less likely that myriad types of communities and societies will emerge.

These changes are not necessarily bad taken singly, but in the aggregate they are terrible -- only because there's no strategy behind them as a whole. If anyone on staff can disabuse me of this notion by describing an overall strategy in which all of the above changes (and skills) were all made in order to reach some specific goal, then please, let me know -- because I think that if you can do that, you will put an end to this thread. There might be a new one to discuss whether the strategy is actually a good one or not, but that's a whole different thing than all the griping about this and that that's leading nowhere.

Anyone? Can anyone on staff tell us what the strategy is, and explain how these changes are advancing that strategy? Because if you can't, then please, just stop making changes.

[west]

What's bad about the features isn't that someone is being diabolical, or that someone is trying to force the game into some narrow preconception, or that people are clueless. It's what the guy said -- it's like an ad hoc gingerbread house. There's no global strategy, there's no overarching logic to the changes, no sense that what is being done will lead to some consciously desired effect. End result is a hodgepodge of weird stuff that doesn't really advance the game.

Of course it's still possible to see the fun lying underneath all that, which is why we all play and why we keep talking about this stuff. But I just wish, with all my heart, that someone on staff could tell me what they are trying to do with this game. I've read Jos' stuff and know how it started, but there just don't seem to be any guiding principles that all the the departments use to make judgments about what should or shouldn't be changed. There's no agreed-upon objective -- an ideal Cantr that has been debated and resolved, for example -- that would allow a team to develop a coherent plan for realizing that objective.

Instead, the changes come across as a bunch of kneejerk reactions to things -- grabbing the "solution" that's nearest at hand, and throwing another cog into the clockwork without understanding the overall mechanism. Pirates out of control? Everyone gets tired! People don't farm potatoes but prefer carrots? Mess with the food system! Some chars hoard tools? Make everything rot! Nobody's improving roads? Make vehicles less useful unless roads are improved!

The result of EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE CHANGES? More time needed to do anything, no matter what kind of char you're RP'ing. More busywork, less progress. Generally speaking, less likely that groups will cooperate IMHO, less likely that interesting things will happpen in the game, less likely that myriad types of communities and societies will emerge.

These changes are not necessarily bad taken singly, but in the aggregate they are terrible -- only because there's no strategy behind them as a whole. If anyone on staff can disabuse me of this notion by describing an overall strategy in which all of the above changes (and skills) were all made in order to reach some specific goal, then please, let me know -- because I think that if you can do that, you will put an end to this thread. There might be a new one to discuss whether the strategy is actually a good one or not, but that's a whole different thing than all the griping about this and that that's leading nowhere.

Anyone? Can anyone on staff tell us what the strategy is, and explain how these changes are advancing that strategy? Because if you can't, then please, just stop making changes.

Quoted for Truth!

[west]

What's bad about the features isn't that someone is being diabolical, or that someone is trying to force the game into some narrow preconception, or that people are clueless. It's what the guy said -- it's like an ad hoc gingerbread house. There's no global strategy, there's no overarching logic to the changes, no sense that what is being done will lead to some consciously desired effect. End result is a hodgepodge of weird stuff that doesn't really advance the game.

Of course it's still possible to see the fun lying underneath all that, which is why we all play and why we keep talking about this stuff. But I just wish, with all my heart, that someone on staff could tell me what they are trying to do with this game. I've read Jos' stuff and know how it started, but there just don't seem to be any guiding principles that all the the departments use to make judgments about what should or shouldn't be changed. There's no agreed-upon objective -- an ideal Cantr that has been debated and resolved, for example -- that would allow a team to develop a coherent plan for realizing that objective.

Instead, the changes come across as a bunch of kneejerk reactions to things -- grabbing the "solution" that's nearest at hand, and throwing another cog into the clockwork without understanding the overall mechanism. Pirates out of control? Everyone gets tired! People don't farm potatoes but prefer carrots? Mess with the food system! Some chars hoard tools? Make everything rot! Nobody's improving roads? Make vehicles less useful unless roads are improved!

The result of EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE CHANGES? More time needed to do anything, no matter what kind of char you're RP'ing. More busywork, less progress. Generally speaking, less likely that groups will cooperate IMHO, less likely that interesting things will happpen in the game, less likely that myriad types of communities and societies will emerge.

These changes are not necessarily bad taken singly, but in the aggregate they are terrible -- only because there's no strategy behind them as a whole. If anyone on staff can disabuse me of this notion by describing an overall strategy in which all of the above changes (and skills) were all made in order to reach some specific goal, then please, let me know -- because I think that if you can do that, you will put an end to this thread. There might be a new one to discuss whether the strategy is actually a good one or not, but that's a whole different thing than all the griping about this and that that's leading nowhere.

Anyone? Can anyone on staff tell us what the strategy is, and explain how these changes are advancing that strategy? Because if you can't, then please, just stop making changes.

Best. Post. Ever.

[Debsy]

Saztronic....You are my hero *bows down to saztronic*

[Marian]

Try this. Go out into the middle of a crowded area in your community and then make an overt suicidal gesture. Then let's see how long it takes before the police come and take you to the hospital to lock you up for your own safety. Better yet..... do the same in front of your family and friends and see if they're likely to play some flute music and help you along your way. Razz

I think his point though is that Cantrian society isn't supposed to be exactly like ours. There have been cultures were suicide and/or self-mutilation is perfectly acceptable, but of course you'll never see that in Cantr because not enough people can break out of the PC 'polite and concerned' mode that society tells you is 'normal human behavior' to actually RP a unique character.

Also...and I should probably save this for another rant...newspawns aren't gullible enough. If a couple of people are on a remote mountain and take all the maps and tell a newspawn they're gods in human form and this mountain is the holy city of Thasapojipso rising from the center of the world and they created him to worship them...well, what evidence does he have that they're not? But of course the player isn't going ot RP that, their char will just call them crazy and either run off or go to sleep.

Anyway, I admit that most of the time I do the friendly and polite thing too, just because it seems possible to advance a character that doesn't *smile* all the time and be helpful and pretend to care when some namesless person drops dead of a heart attack.. Even being slightly rude can get you shunned or killed or doomed to poverty, which is the reverse of real life.

EDIT: And yeah, I pretty much agree with saztronic too. I mean, I think there is at least a vague goal in mind, and that's getting people to cooperate and towns to develop more while staying halfway realistic, but in a lot of cases those goals would contradict each other or just make the game less fun, or like he said get pushed aside for short term solutions to problems that a lot of times don't need to be patched up OOC in the first place.

(Even though I still say in general it's not as bad as everyone says, except possibly for repair times...and I think I might be in the minority in actually liking the combat system, because there's a lot of strategy elemens there for people who are patient and think things through.)

[Talapus]

Once more into the breeches, as I like to say.

I think you intended to say "Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more". The wonderful works of William Shakespeare have managed to find their way into a common turn of phrase.

...the changes come across as a bunch of kneejerk reactions to things

This is how most changes get made; Both in real life and Cantr. We see a problem, and we try to solve the problem. Jos didn't have the time and resources to create this expansive of a game before releasing it for play, instead changes have to be made as things develop. He did it when the game was in its early stages, but now the RD has that task.

The result of EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE CHANGES? More time needed to do anything, no matter what kind of char you're RP'ing. More busywork, less progress. Generally speaking, less likely that groups will cooperate IMHO, less likely that interesting things will happpen in the game, less likely that myriad types of communities and societies will emerge.

I agree with what you say. Most of the changes have indeed made things harder for people, however I don't see how that discourages cooperation. Rather, I believe that many of the changes encourage cooperation, and therefore encourage more interesting societies.

Can anyone on staff tell us what the strategy is...

The only directive of the Resource Department is "stimulating an interesting economy". Skills and tool rot in theory lead to specialization, and then to trade between these individuals. The food changes allowed more room for, and desire for prepared foods, withthe goal of developing an area of work that really didn't exist before. And if you look, you will probably see other effects on the economy from the changes. We all admit that some changes do not have the desired result, but most of the changes do have purpose.

[Marian]

I agree with what you say. Most of the changes have indeed made things harder for people, however I don't see how that discourages cooperation. Rather, I believe that many of the changes encourage cooperation, and therefore encourage more interesting societies.

I'd agree that that seems to be the case in theory, but in practice I think the staff underestimates how lazy most players are. Making roads be upgraded should make everyone get organized and upgrade roads, but instead it would probably just make all the chars with big vans get disgusted and commit starve thekmselves.

Like if we had all the ways to cook food we do now, but raw potatoes were still ate in the smaller amounts, how much cooking would go on? But make them pretty much impossible to live on and suddenly you have everyone cooking. (even though with the less extreme cases like carrots there are still plenty of people that just eat those....like I said, most people don't want to bother with anything unless they're forced into something, and even then they'd rather let their char die than try to improve things for them. So making things harder can be good, but then at the same time you have to worry about pushing them to far, to the point where the game's not fun any more...and right now things are too imbalanced. We need some more helpful changes like the wooden cart before we're ready for more unfun stuff.)

Even though I like games where survival is actually hard...but then I play Nethack and am addicted to this little Finnish game called Unreal World where you can die of frostbite and have to resort to cannabalism to keep from starving, so I'm probably weird.

(Sorry if this made no sense, I'm really tired and I'm not even wearing my contacts right now so I'm typing with my face like three inches from the keyboard and it's kind of hard to concentrate. )

[west]

Once more into the breeches, as I like to say.

I think you intended to say "Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more". The wonderful works of William Shakespeare have managed to find their way into a common turn of phrase.

He may have meant exactly what he said. In which case he's quite clever and deserves a cookie, and I may have to steal his line.

[Schme]

Once more into the breeches, as I like to say.

There. He's got it.

Why can't you guys be like this guy, eh?

[Phalynx]

The point Socialist is Cantr life was very very cheap, now its just quite cheap.

If suicide just means you start again with a new character straight away, there is no 'instinct' for survival. People from other cultures have suicide for varied reasons, but I would say generally not for the western person centred... I'm bored.. or I can't get enough stuff... reasons. I think you are crossing two different cultural schema...

As for the other stuff, I think the staff work against a lot of inertia, but carrots work better than sticks. I also think that there is an element of enjoyment from some staff in keeping developments hidden. How many times has a change been released, then there is a little game of who notices and posts here first... I pity those that don't keep an eye on the forums..

The recent game announcement for the prosposed road changes was a positive move, there should be a lot more of that...

[the_antisocial_hermit]

The point Socialist is Cantr life was very very cheap, now its just quite cheap.

If suicide just means you start again with a new character straight away, there is no 'instinct' for survival. People from other cultures have suicide for varied reasons, but I would say generally not for the western person centred... I'm bored.. or I can't get enough stuff... reasons. I think you are crossing two different cultural schema...

It was an OOC method of controlling an IG problem that should've been left to being solved IG. There weren't that many run and spawns that I'd seen; I don't think I'd seen one for months (since the late fall, at least) before that was even suggested, nor have I seen but one or two since it was implemented. It should have never been put in place because it's useless. Most spawn and runs were probably people that never logged in again.

And for the record, I have a full sheet of 15 characters, the youngest being 31, so the rule wouldn't affect me if I wanted one to die. But all of my characters have a strong will to survive, no matter how dismal their life is.

[Phalynx]

It was an OOC motivated problem that therefore need to be dealt with by OOC means...

Your character Spawns in a forest with no gathering slots and an evil empire, the only reason to suicide in that circumstance is because you are comparing with another cantr location and you don't like it...

Anyway this isn't the thread for this.. not sure what it is the thread for now, but not this...

[saztronic]

Once more into the breeches, as I like to say.

I think you intended to say "Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more". The wonderful works of William Shakespeare have managed to find their way into a common turn of phrase.

Billy and Henry ain't got nothin' on me.

Can anyone on staff tell us what the strategy is...

The only directive of the Resource Department is "stimulating an interesting economy". Skills and tool rot in theory lead to specialization, and then to trade between these individuals. The food changes allowed more room for, and desire for prepared foods, withthe goal of developing an area of work that really didn't exist before. And if you look, you will probably see other effects on the economy from the changes. We all admit that some changes do not have the desired result, but most of the changes do have purpose.

Talapus, I love the effort you all put into this, really I do, so I hope you'll take what I'm about to say positively, because it's meant that way -- but your paragraph here is exactly the problem.

Three points. First, "stimulating an interesting economy" is not a goal unless everyone knows and agrees on what the words "interesting" and "economy" mean. I don't get the sense that there is any such shared understanding among the staff. Hence, the utter lack of strategic direction to changes that get made. Second, "stimulating an interesting economy" will never happen, UNLESS everyone on staff also understands and agrees on exactly what is necessary to make that happen. Again, not so.

If that is indeed your goal, then you need to work backwards from that goal step by step. "Well, if we had an economy where people used currencies, that would be interesting". And "if people truly specialized in their professions, it would lead to more barter/trade/exchange, which would be interesting." Then you work backwards. Z = "interesting economy". Y = "widespread use of currencies". X gets you that. W triggers X. Q through V are necessary to set the stage for W. You need to know what the chain reaction is going to be in advance. You need that roadmap, that blueprint, and until you have it, you should get used to the fact that the changes you make will not achieve your intended objective, and will probably have consequences you didn't foresee and didn't want.

Thirdly and lastly, but not least. "Stimulating an interesting economy" is well and good. I approve. But I would suggest that, as a goal, that should always be subordianted to "Develop a fun game." Cantr is not, after all, simply a scientific or sociological experiment. It is those things, which is part of what makes it fun. But first and foremost, it's a game. If a change makes the game less fun, then there better be darn good reasons for making it -- reasons that you can point to and say to the forum tweakers "I know, I know, calm down -- see, this is just "S" in the grand scheme -- wait until T and U come along, and all will be well."

Otherwise, we are just twisting in the wind out here, and we'll continue to be vocal about it.

[Doug R.]

You need to know what the chain reaction is going to be in advance.

This is ideal, but even this approach requires that the designer can predict how people will react to changes, and people generally tend to be unpredictable. Even in the most elaborately planned system, I think achieving the intended effect of a change on the first try will always be an exception and not the rule.

Edit: I'm not saying that "you won't get it on the first try to don't try preplanning." Preplanning has other benefits, like keeping the designer focused when things don't go as planned.

[nitefyre]

These changes are not necessarily bad taken singly, but in the aggregate they are terrible -- only because there's no strategy behind them as a whole. If anyone on staff can disabuse me of this notion by describing an overall strategy in which all of the above changes (and skills) were all made in order to reach some specific goal, then please, let me know -- because I think that if you can do that, you will put an end to this thread. There might be a new one to discuss whether the strategy is actually a good one or not, but that's a whole different thing than all the griping about this and that that's leading nowhere.

Anyone? Can anyone on staff tell us what the strategy is, and explain how these changes are advancing that strategy? Because if you can't, then please, just stop making changes.

Your post seemed to have enough ripple to start a parallel Staff discussion on the matter (?), which I responded to albeit a little delayed in this discussion:

In the recent Webzine Issue, I made an effort to discover exactly what was the guiding principle behind the continued progress (or digression) of Cantr by interviewing Jos about the Roadmap. The Roadmap, after all, is the clearest, most-tangible item representing any cohesion behind the changes to game mechanics, etc. As I think you can deduce from the interview, although some of the ideas (as have been introduced to Cantr already) are bright and worthwhile in their singular form but, as a whole, there lacks any true conviction or oversight to see a general idea brought to justice and form. This stems most directly, in my opinion, from a lack of management and vision at the highest level to oversee the 'aggregate' impact of things, rather than each one as an individual entity. By saying that, I am not criticizing any person in particular but the mish-mash there which hinders any effectual (project) successes of the departments--only to have it work as a whole against the theme of making the game accessible to part-time players.

Ultimately, I have already come to the decision to withdraw from Cantr altogether and probably not return after my vacation--everything is too time-consuming (and I have invested too much time, energy, etc) as I take back my social life--though I will continue to work as a Staff-member in the spirit of 'giving back'.

Well, I was a little more vocal and direct about what things had to be done to change the style of current management in an after thought to my original post, but you catch the gist, and I don't want to appear too insubordinate on the train to nowhere.