Modification to ship sailing orders.

[Songthrush]

What exactly are the reasons you object? Let's hear them. Has anyone offered a single meaty objection so far?

I'm afraid all you've offered thus far, brigade, was out-of-your-league condescension, and emotionally-driven worrying about doing something that could benefit the murderous, good-for-nothing pirates; and you've refused to consider the arguments presented to you. You consider it a positive matter of "game balance" to allow one kind of player to have inexplicable permanent advantages in ship docking over another. I wonder whether you do this on purpose, or just out of ignorance? Can it be, that you really don't see how the things you've referred to including cabins and other things the pirates have working for them have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the issue at hand: an unequitable unintended bias exists in the mechanics of the game. That's a fact. Your moanings on the other hand, about pirates having it easy, or being good-for-nothings with no place in Cantr, are pure personal opinion. To which you are all welcome, but fair is fair. I believe the game should treat everyone the same. Do you disagree?

If not, then let's look at the bottom line together:
-Ship with two people aboard undocks from a city.
- Person A gives the ship a movement order. His order is going to be cancellable at any time.
- Person B gives the ship a docking order. His order goes into effect instantly at any time, is absolutely unstoppable, and always overrides Player A's order.

My real simple question for you is: Why?
Suppose the ship is a longboat, raker, sloop or dinghy. It makes absolutely no difference what ship it is and with how many cabins its outfitted. One player has a marked permanent advantage over the other when steering it in this situation. Why?

All of you guys who said, basically, that Player B SHOULD have this advantage are cordially invited to explain it to me. To what realistic aspect of naval hostage-taking it might correspond, and in which universal law does it say that docking back to the city always unstoppably overrides everything else.

I still have my hopes high in the programming department folks; for them it should be really simple to see that what has been happening with unstoppable-docking is in no way intentional, biased toward only one party, and so cannot be a positive thing "for game balance".

I am disappointed with you, Alf. As a roleplayer you really ought to know that a premise and a descriptive metaphor are, medically speaking, two very different things.

Yours in eternal youth, Songthrush.

[Piscator]

I don't think this suggestion will ever be implemented, because it is intended to solve a problem which can be easily solved in game, by killing the "prisoner" (as pointed out). (I use the quotation marks because there are no ways to really take someone prisoner in game if you don't use cells). I mean, the problem is simple, if a prisoner constantly annoys his wardens, they will sooner or later threaten him with violence. If he doesn't obey he gets killed.

I think it is unwise to complicate the game code with a makeshift patch to keep some people from exploiting a bug in a few special situations, especially if this change could do more harm than good. Think about new ways of sabotage for example. Course changes made by a saboteur could only be corrected after X hours and I guess there would be many other ways to exploit the new rule, too.

[Doug R.]

Songthrush, what you fail to understand is that as the person making the suggestion, the burden of convincing falls squarely onto your shoulders, and you're doing a poor job of it. No one else needs to cite facts or reasons, whether they're for or against it. But you do, and it seems many of us simply aren't buying into it, despite your efforts.

By treating us like we're idiots and beating this horse to death, you're not only making convincing us harder, but your damaging your chances of getting future suggestions accepted. The fact that you're still hammering away at your other overwhelmingly rejected suggestion has already given you an unsavory reputation, at least with me, and I'm sure with others. Listen to alf: move on.

[Songthrush]

Doug.R.: Luckily I'm not a shiny dollar to be liked by everyone, nor are we in a court of law where burdens are as strictly distributed as you make them out to be. Certainly, if someone (for example you) posts against a reasonable suggestion, I would like to hear the objective reasons why - not your irrelevant personal opinions about pirates etc. I feel my task is to point out where the game is currently being unfair, and to get it corrected.

You have my permission to hate my guts for it all you like. But I hope you'll come around and understand that you don't let certain characters continually exploit a bug and call it a game balance thing.

Piscator: What exactly do you mean by the term "sabotage"? Perhaps your input will give us a real, legitimate objection to discuss. As for killing a prisoner, that is not a solution - THE DOCK ORDER REMAINS IN EFFECT EVEN AFTER THEY ARE DEAD. What further evidence would anyone need as to the atrociously unfair situation that this creates?

[Piscator]

What I meant is that a single person could easily set a course, not wanted by the majority of the crew. The prisoner from the example could for instance set a course away from the pirate ship if he happens to be quick enough. If you have a problem with the incancelability of docking, why do you think another incancelable action would improve matters? The person who comes first will still have the advantage. It's not much fairer and possibly much more annoying because the whole matter will extend over a greater stretch of time.

[Songthrush]

Thank you for your question. It's a very good one.

Let's visualize again the boat, with two people A and B. A is trying to move the boat, while B is trying to dock back to his city. Both are legitimate, of course. The problem arises when A's order to move is always cancellable, while B's order to dock is always non-cancellable. So currently it does not really matter who is more active - B's dock order always prevails regardless of who was "first at the rudder", so to speak.

It has to be considered seriously, because the outcome of this can in many cases completely determine who, A or B, lives through the ordeal.

With the suggestion proposed implemented, in this same situation A and B both have chances. The first, A, can set the ship to move fixed (unstoppable for up to 3 turns), think of it as an emergency mode of the steering. However, just as you described, three Cantr-hours later, player B, if alert, may retake the initiative and either direct the ship back to the city, or attempt to dock it once again, if that's still possible.

Do you see what I mean? B still has his fixed docking possibilty, but now, A has a modest fixed movement possibility.

The number of turns that a boat's movement can be fixed is minimal: from 1 to 3 max. Thanks to Seko for pointing the necessity of that out to me. But even that makes it fair once more - both players are "in the game", as opposed to only one. Moreover, the "reset-battles" on the ship will now be every 3 cantr hours, not every 1 hour as before. This helps reduce the tackiness a little, allowing the players involved to get some sleep, have a job, a life, etc. The way the game always intended.

You're absolutely right, it still will be possible for prisoners on ships to sabotage the course. Three turns at a time max, though. Subject to all the same rules as now.

Meanwhile the unstoppable-docking exploitation near cities(possible only for player B) will be completely resolved. If you think that players do not use it, you are wrong.

It is widely used by active players because they understandably want to rescue their character. And if they manage to put the ship into a dock-undock cycle, the ship will essentially always stay in the same spot, where any other ship undocking from the same city can catch it and dock to it at leisure, and also characters in the harbour or the town can assist character B by attacking, passing items and so on during the brief period that the boat is docked.

[SekoETC]

Now there's a good point, the docking being uncancellable when close enough to the target. There we have the logical reason of why this suggestion should be considered. For balance. To stop the control tweaking. If we can't accept this suggestion then we might as well remove the limit that prevents one from stopping the docking process 1 to 2 hours before completion because that's a totally artificial limit.

[Piscator]

Yes, but we should consider if the proposed method is the only and best one. I would much prefer to find a way that seems less artificial. A way to somehow restrain a prisoner would solve the problem, too, and would even add a dimension to the game, just as an example. Or perhaps docking could be made cancelable. We should evaluate the alternatives first.

[Dapre]

I do agree with Songthrush on this one. Nothing else to point out, but I see this as a good suggestion.

Pirating, as it is, consists of the few active crewmembers who can go raiding at a certain time and drag someone into a boat when needed.
Your solution of killing the prisoner is rather weak when you want a hostage or just want to grab someone and make their lives miserable by taking them away fro mtheir friends etc. etc. A dead hostage isn't really anything to blackmail with and killing them only makes the player miserable (and maybe not even him/her) but no way a dead character would feel miserable.
And the cabin thing.. I don't know if you really got over it, theres a lot to read and I'm tired, but that would mean that the pirates needed to be rich.. Who says pirates have to have galleons with full sails and cabins and holds.. It just makes the whole pirating easier, but it isn't neccessary if I've understood correctly.


The fact that made me write this, and I had no intention of writing any more than 50 words at most, was that the ones who hang out the at the forums and post a lot and more actively, fail to even think of the things this suggestion would bring to the game but you seem to see the things it would ruin and take away.
It seems like anything that would make pirating a bit more easier than it "already" is, is repulsive. "Pirates are villains and they make the game bad since my character could be one of their victims". This isn't a hack'n'slash game, no it isn't. But I don't see it as a chatroom neighter. Why is there a possibility hit someone if anyone who uses that possibility, more than killing stealing newspawns etc. are clearly players who are from the hack'n'slash -generation and don't know how to properly play this game. (that might've been a little bit exaggerated, I know, but I blame the tiredness)

Thank you.

[Chris]

Look, most people aren't that active. If you are a pirate and you don't have a cabin, then you should target someone who isn't going to log in every hour to mess with the ship's direction. Again, we are talking about a situation where someone can go to sleep, wake up, log in, and find his/her character abducted with almost zero he/she can do about it. Not fun. Being an active victim should make life difficult for pirates. If you make PvP easier, then PvP rates go up, and a lot of people leave the game. Bad idea.

[SekoETC]

Um, how can you know in advance if a person is going to be that way? And a person might sleep but if you kidnap them, you can be pretty damn sure that they'll do anything in their power to get out, unless there is no way out or it would be too hard in which case they get suicidal or fall asleep. It's only natural that a player would try any means possible to get out of trouble or to slow down one's capturers. It may not be realistic but people will use the mechanics to their benefit. This just leads into less people trying to kidnap anyone, which means less action -> more boredom. The best way is to get a ship with cabins or a house with sub rooms, lure the victim inside and lock them up. Oh, or hope that the person you dragged is a good player who doesn't take things seriously. But I think those are pretty rare. Too bad players can't tag themselves as "will play along if kidnapped", that would make it.... well, possible. Without being plagued by the thought "oh no, I might hurt someone feelings so I'll just play Cantr as a building/resource gathering game."

[Chris]

Your solution of killing the prisoner is rather weak when you want a hostage or just want to grab someone and make their lives miserable by taking them away fro mtheir friends etc. etc.

So you want to make players miserable? I'm going to guess that's not good for the game. Cantr will attract more anti-social griefers and lose players who enjoy doing a little bit every day and watching their characters grow over time. Read Bartle's article on the dynamics of different player types.

[SekoETC]

Chris, Cantr needs more "killers". It's so boring without bad guys. They create all the drama. Now it's just explorers and some achievers and clusters of hearts who just use Cantr as a chatroom.

Tying people up would be even more unfair than this thing because it's hard to implement with a chance to give the prisoner an advantage. While in this case the prisoner could still use the system to their benefit if they happen to wake up before the kidnappers have time to set the course, or if they are first to log in after the 1 to 3 hour waiting period has passed.

[Pilot]

You are missing one thing...

The primary use of ships and land vehicles as well, is the transportation of people, their belongings and merchandise.

This suggestion is a bad one because is short-sighted. It's supported by an event that seldom if ever happens.

To solve a bad roleplayed event by cutting down the maneuverability options in the vessels is a non elegant solution to put it in friendly terms.

This measure will affect people who never would be in such situation in the first place.

[Piscator]

Your solution of killing the prisoner is rather weak when you want a hostage or just want to grab someone and make their lives miserable by taking them away fro mtheir friends etc. etc. A dead hostage isn't really anything to blackmail with and killing them only makes the player miserable (and maybe not even him/her) but no way a dead character would feel miserable.

If you want to have a prisoner, the player of the prisoner has to cooperate in any case. If a prisoner wants to stay alive, he will most likely respond to the threat of killing him and stop manipulating the rudder. If he doesn't, he will be dead soon anyway, by starving or getting a heart attack. In this case there would be no difference if you kill him for not following your orders or not, because you won't get him alive anyway.