Renewable or inexhautible resources? Animals too

[Sicofonte]

(I hit edit and not quote, and posted before I realized it. Here's the post back, but much less pretty - Doug)
(no problem - Sicofonte)

This comes from the Suggestions forum:
http://www.cantr.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13056

Doug R. wrote:
I'm against this idea [renewable resources that can become depleted]. There is no tangible benefit.

Would you mind to explain what do you mean with "tangible benefit"?
For example, which is the tangible benefit of having animals and migrations and so on?

Doug R. wrote:
Towns that run out of resources will stagnate and die slow deaths over RL years as characters move on to other places. This will not stimulate wars or anything else interesting.

I disagree.
If you have read the whole thread, you've seen that one stone source would be able of supplying stone to a whole island for centuries.
I do think that after all those years, other building materials would be implemented (apart from bricks).
And the fact that the town was running out of stone would be noticeable years and years before the production begins to decrease. So the city can do many things in advance to avoid it.
And anyways, how many stone sources are there? and how manu locations?. I am sure that, if we adjust properly the number, Cantr would have enough stone for seeing Jos and Jur retired... IRL.

I am sure this would have less impact than the fuel in the vehicles.

Doug R. wrote:
Nothing will stimulate trade in the game. This has been proven already with some other implementations.

False, and you do not give any proof.
I am seeing commerce increasing all around my characters.

Doug R. wrote:
Making the system less scary by making the effects of depletion not seen until real-life years essentially passes all the problems off of your shoulders and onto the shoulders of the next generation of players, which isn't fair IMO.

I repeat that the effects would be visible years before it has any negative impact on the city.
And I repeat that there would be more a lot of improvements, technologies, alternative resources, etc that would bring more variety to the society, more goals for the players, more RP diversity, etc.

Doug R. wrote:
Reap what you sow. If it'll take so-long to see an effect, there's no point in implementing it.

If we are going to have this mentality, we can leave Cantr as it is, and become another boring MMORPG in which, after a year of playing, you have seen everything and you can do nothing else but quiting, becasu you know that nothing new will happen there.

Doug R. wrote:
Quote:
Cantr world is big enough for many more players, full of undiscovered islands.

The last thing the game needs is further population dilution.

Resource depletion won't mean population dilution.

shapukas wrote:
There is one tiny problem. When resourses depletes, youll have to seacrh them further. That will take time. And what will hapend to old civilization? Extinced? They will have to wait long terms while they'll get new resourses if they'll get.

I repeat that the effects would be visible years before it has any negative impact on the city, so that old civilizations will have planty of time to plan something (improve their technologis with new techniques and machines, get into recycling, search for good trading, settle new gathering colonies, become a pirate nomad nation...).




PEOPLE! LADIES AND GENTLEMENT!

Let me make to all of you three short questions:

1. What will happen to the (RL) mankind when hydrocarbons become depleted?

2. Is it Cantr a civilization simulator?

3. Do you like challenges?

[Doug R.]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Change for the sake of change should be highly discouraged. Change should only happen when it is to solve a clearly defined problem, or else it will create new problems.

I say "tangible benefit" because this proposal provides none. All the suggested benefits are speculation or based on the premise of "realism" which has been invoked in the past to implement changes that have angered and driven players from the game.

I stated in another thread that the way to keep more players is to shift our mentality away from this being a "simulator" and to begin treating it like a game. So no, this shouldn't be a simulator.

So I'll ask you a question:

What problem are you trying to solve with this suggestion?

Oh - and what is Cantr, a MMORPG or a simulator? You call it both, but it can't be both; it's either one or the other.

[Racetyme]

MMORPG. Every change that is made just for the sake of making the game more realistic is a bad one. This is a game. If we don't remember that, we will continue to lose players.

[Sicofonte]

what is Cantr, a MMORPG or a simulator? You call it both, but it can't be both; it's either one or the other.

False.
A flight simulator can be a game.
In fact, there are many games that are flight simulators.
A MMORPG can be a society simulator also.

I stated in another thread that the way to keep more players is to shift our mentality away from this being a "simulator" and to begin treating it like a game.

If the most agree with you, I should quit. I don't want "another" MMORPG. I get bored of any other MMORPG. Only Cantr gets me addicted, and it is just because it is far more complex than other games.

MMORPG. Every change that is made just for the sake of making the game more realistic is a bad one. This is a game. If we don't remember that, we will continue to lose players.

Have you ever played a RP game?
The Lord of the Rings, Rolemaster, Stormbringer, Vampire, Werewolf, Changeling, Mage, The Call of Cthulhu, Alien, Ars Magica, Shadowrun, Cyberpunk, Far West, James Bond 007, even Dragon Ball...

In those RP games, you have something "extra" to the reality: powers, magic, fantasy, etc.
Moreover, the society there is built up, you don't have to shape it (if you are not the narrator/gamemaster).
But anyways, those games are realistic, and awesome.

In Cantr, the society is made up by the players. So we have to bring to the game the mechanic to tdevelop rich societies, or that part of the game will suck.

And in Cantr, there is no magic nor fantasy of any kind, so the only thing we have to deal with is the reality. So we need a diverse and full of options reality.

If we set up an odd reality, we all will have always problems with the new players that find weird the game whilst they are not got along.

Racetyme, you are the kind of player that like simple games where you can go on for a goal and achieve it. You are an achiever. You do need more goals to deal with, more aims for your characters, or you will quit after achieving what you have now in mind.

What problem are you trying to solve with this suggestion?

The shortage of reasons for interaction among civilizations in Cantr, violently or not (more exciting events in the game)
The lack of ecologist movements in Cantr (more issues for RPing)
The lack of dynamism in the Cantr environment (if nothing changes, people becoma bore and do quit).


Doug R., if you don't want that resources can be depleted, you don't want that animals can become extincted, isn't?
So I can't understand why you are telling that players should be responsible of the extinction of animals.
You should be suggesting, instead of all that animal system remodelation, that the animlas become

[Doug R.]

what is Cantr, a MMORPG or a simulator? You call it both, but it can't be both; it's either one or the other.

False.
A flight simulator can be a game.
In fact, there are many games that are flight simulators.
A MMORPG can be a society simulator also.

The issue is role-playing versus simulator. It is a matter of focus. An RPG focuses on role-playing and hence enabling social interaction among players. The environment facilitates RP. A sim focuses on reality, and the environment is the sole focus. You can't have more than one focus or the game will suck. Cantr is currently populated by people that lean one way or the other. Any sim-oriented change will upset the RPers, and any RP oriented change will be met with rolled eyes by the simmers.

I stated in another thread that the way to keep more players is to shift our mentality away from this being a "simulator" and to begin treating it like a game.

If the most agree with you, I should quit. I don't want "another" MMORPG. I get bored of any other MMORPG. Only Cantr gets me addicted, and it is just because it is far more complex than other games.

That's because Cantr's an exceptionally good RPG. The limited interface stimulates the imagination of the player, engaging them on a much deeper level than a typical MUD or something like WoW. All the RPGs you listed below have fantastical elements, yes, but they are not an integral part of "role-playing." Role playing is pretending to be someone else, ordinary or extrodinary. Cantr is the closest thing to a pen and dice game I've ever found on the internet in terms of sheer enjoyability and quality of the experience.

In Cantr, the society is made up by the players. So we have to bring to the game the mechanic to tdevelop rich societies, or that part of the game will suck.

I disagree. The only thing you need to develop rich societies are people. The game infrastructure as it is is already totally sufficient, or else the game would have gone under years ago.

And in Cantr, there is no magic nor fantasy of any kind, so the only thing we have to deal with is the reality. So we need a diverse and full of options reality.

Do you realize how humorous this statement is? One-man galleons. Being born at twenty. Buildings that work like Dr. Who's Tardis. No night and day. The fact that everyone looks the same except gender, age, and clothing. Only attacking once per day. The list goes on and on and on...

If we set up an odd reality, we all will have always problems with the new players that find weird the game whilst they are not got along.

As I said, you've been playing in an odd reality since you started, and I think I can speak for any player with a charrie over thirty when I say these oddities add to the game's enjoyability and flavor.

What problem are you trying to solve with this suggestion?

The shortage of reasons for interaction among civilizations in Cantr, violently or not (more exciting events in the game)
The lack of ecologist movements in Cantr (more issues for RPing)
The lack of dynamism in the Cantr environment (if nothing changes, people becoma bore and do quit).

-There are plenty of exciting events in the game. Sorry none are happening near you. But if you want reality, let's look at my life...Hmm, nothing really "exciting" has happened to me. I've never been in a war, or attacked on a road, or had my house broken into. I did get married and had a kid, but kids aren't in Cantr... So I guess my life is unrealistic then? If you want to simulate life, it should be realistic, no?

-The lack of ecologists is due to the fact that the way animals work is not directly controllable or understood by the players, and the fact that there is no ecology to speak of. However, there doesn't need to be. Having a complex food-chain and web of life is an over complication that will just go wrong and mess things up (just look at animal individualisation; how long have we been bitching about lag?)

-People will always become bored and quit even the best games. To think you can make a game that will hook someone for life is hubris (although Cantr is hands-down the most addictive game I've ever played).

Also, keep in mind that all the problems and fixes you stated are subjective to you. What is a good fix for you may not be a good fix for someone else. If we retain five Sicofontes and lose 5 Racetymes, what has been gained?

Doug R., if you don't want that resources can be depleted, you don't want that animals can become extincted, isn't?
So I can't understand why you are telling that players should be responsible of the extinction of animals.
You should be suggesting, instead of all that animal system remodelation, that the animlas become

You don't understand because you apparently haven't understood any of my posts on the topic. I thought I had been very clear that I do not believe animals should be treated as resources. The fact that they contain resources does not mean that they are themselves resources. If they were meant to be, they would be gatherable like fish.

I've said what I wanted to say.

[Sicofonte]

You don't understand because you apparently haven't understood any of my posts on the topic. I thought I had been very clear that I do not believe animals should be treated as resources.

Ya'I'now.
That's what I was trying to tell,
for consistency and coherence with what you have said about (non)renewable resources,
you should be suggesting something different about the animals,
animals that can't get extincted,

You are right, no need to turn animals into resources with a button "to hunt" instantly.
There are better and simpler ways.
And for this, IMO, you should be suggesting one of those simpler ways.
Animals shouldn't become depleted.
There would be always pigeons and wolfs to hunt.


I think that, just because

What tangible benefit do you find in
animals migrating from one place to another,
and getting out of control in some areas
or extincted in other places,
giving more work to the stuff
and more lag the the system,
and that is really good reason for quitting,
more than any realism for the shake
?

I've said what I wanted to say.

Sorry, but my English is not good. Do you mean I won't get any answer?


Simpler way:
Fixed ammount of each specie in each place.
No matter the much you hunt, there would be always the same ammount of each animal.
Just becasue.... when you kill one, another comes from the deep forest/plain/etc to occupy the free territory.
No migration system. No reproduction nor mortality calculations. No overpupulation mechanisms. No lag.
Elegant

Not so simple:
Fixed minimum and maximum ammount of each animal specie.
Reproduction and mortality still applies.
The "another comes from the deep" rule is only applied when the minimum is reached.
And the new rule "one is expeled to the deep" is applied when the maximum is reached.
Still no migration. So (probably) no serious lag.

But why to chose the not so simple?
Or the current one?
Or the one that you suggested?
Why bothering about reproduction or whatever?
Just for the shake of realism?

I hope you can understandme, if I can understand you


I do agree with any of both systems:

All resources renewable.
Challenges (dificulties) for players and societies. Diversity of RPing, technologies and strategies. Much less lag.
or
All resources inexhaustible.
Easy playing. Really much less lag.




And what do other players think?

[the_antisocial_hermit]

I don't really see a need to drastically change the way the systems are now.

[Sicofonte]

The migration system of the animals, together with the individualized-animals system, is important part in the lag problem, maybe the only guilty, when animals' numbers grows.

The system is too precise, too detailed, and that need huge calculations efforts. So lag. And more than 90% of this lag is due to calculations about animals in undiscovered islands.

The currently official solution is manual cull when too much animals (lag), manual reseeding where extincted (if players where responsible exologists), and improving the animal rules system for more control/sense of the animals numbers.

That do not solve lag, it's only a patch.
If player base grows, lag would increase, and more animal culls would be needed (or a new server).


Be water, my friend.

Open your mind.

It is never late to make things better for everyone.

Don't be scared by changes, if changes benefits you.

[sanchez]

The motivation for animal individuation was never realised because we never got domestication. IMO this could be obviated by machine farming: barn + milking machine gives milk, coop yields eggs, etc.. We could make access to certain domesticated animal products distinct from our wild animal hunting, which I would vote to keep as is in large part. But I like SIcofonte's suggestion of no more migration, if an area is populated by potential for different species, with actual populations somewhat randomised and adjusted periodically.

I still think this discussion belongs in the Suggestions forum.

[Sicofonte]

This time I can move it myself
But the suggestion should be splitted anyways, isn't?

And I prefer to start a new suggestion thread for the simpler animals system
And leave alone this thread for the discussion and a poll (comming soon)

I bet the final answer would be "don't touch anything"

[Sicofonte]

The motivation for animal individuation was never realised because we never got domestication.

But domestication can still be implemented with the "(wild)animal-pack" coding:

In the same way that items are created by project (currently only machine projects, I think), a tamed animal can be "created", from the wild not-individualized animals in the location, as an output of a taming-project.

So domestication can be implemented without individualized wild animals.
Animals then can be just numbers (one row for each specie of each animal in the DB, with total amount, the average health, and whatever you need to simulate the growing and decreasing mechanics of the population).
And no lag

[sanchez]

Yes I agree. And it's only raw (i.e. divisible) resources that are generated by machines. Objects are created with potential specification that a machine, location type, or other feature be present... So, you could create a building type, Barn, and make an machine Dairy Cow, etc...

[the_antisocial_hermit]

I don't mind simplifying back to non-individualized animals, but I like them migrating like they always have. One place used to only have one or two dogs, and now there's a variety of animals there.

And yes, I realize that lag is caused by the animals, but they don't have to be completely changed to fix it.

[formerly known as hf]

We -do- have limited resources. These were implemented in the form of resource slots.

The resource slots provided no direct benefit. They were designed to promote resource governance and stewardship. To boost resons for local politics.

This was probably one of the more successful attempts to 'force' a change in how people play Cantr.
I like to think that the many views expressed over this and other changes aimed at changing how Cantr is played were taken on board.
Though it's likely staff are too busy getting the game to run than to spend time screwing it up further


Anyway, we have resource limitations. personally, I would prefer a more 'realistic' model thereof.

[SekoETC]

It was cool when there were old iron projects left and a person could get rich (or at least have some easy iron) just by digging the ground in the right spot. But this doesn't go for all the resources.

Imagine if there was only one forest on an island and then it was protected by the government because it could get chopped off, then new trees wouldn't grow anymore. Granted, it happened in Iceland. Actually, come to think of it it would be kinda cool, but then the resources would have to be measured so that they wouldn't run out straight away and that they could be re-seeded by characters and that they would be renewed fast enough if people stop gathering for a while. It would be a disaster if it was like with rabbits or pigeons, every damn place has protection signs up and it takes years before they breed over the limit, then some traveller snatches the animal that goes over the limit and you must wait another year.

I think I proposed varying resource density, that would allow gathering a bit of wood outside an actual forest. With rare resources such as gold and diamonds, it would be more realistic if those things were hidden and would be found as side products of stone mining.

It should be possible to seed plant resources anywhere without having to build machinery, just as long as the terrain type is suitable for growing the stuff.