We are now under 400 english characters

[Idriveayugo]

I recently spawned someone in a town that obviously doesn't need any new people. It's lame.

This can easily be solved by implementing a system where people who build a device like a "spawning pool" and tend to it are more likely to gain newspawns. As many of us have been stating, let's let newspawns go to where they are wanted!

[SekoETC]

I'd rather have characters contribute time than resources since resources are so different on different regions that if there were newspawn attractors like cradles or spawn sacks, there would have to be different ways to make it. It would be cool if somehow a person could start wishing for newspawns and others could join in. Or it could be like hunting, once a day you could hit a button for either "I wish we got newspawns" or "I wish we didn't get newspawns", that way having several people cast their vote would make it more effective.

[Miri]

I like Seko's idea.
Just one thing - not 'voting' at all should be counted as "I wish we didn't get newspawns". If they don't even care, isn't that just the same...?

[N-Aldwitch]

Reading this thread makes me quite upset and tempted to return now that I'm a bit more mature.

[Tiamo]

Eh, what do people usually do IRL when they want 'newspawns'?

Make it an m/f project (no material input needed, just effort) resulting in a higher chance of attracting newspawns...

[SekoETC]

There is a difference between "whatever" and "definitely not!". If you have a mountain community that relies on a very small breeding population of animals to hunt, they definitely wouldn't want to have new people unless they were certain those new people were dedicated workers and didn't hunt for fun. Likewise if you have a community based on a radical philosophy that's very different from mainstream ways of thinking, they would probably rather have travelers instead of newspawns since travelers are likely to have food and equipment and can afford to move on if they don't like the town, while a newspawn might need to be fed and shielded before you kick him out. A town with a lot of resource slots and abundant food might not have use for extra people but their economy wouldn't be crashed by some newspawns.

It would all be relative. If all the towns had a vote balance of 0, the spawning would solely be based on population while if there were several towns with positive vote balance, they would get all the newspawns while the 0 and negative wouldn't get any. If there were no positive towns then spawns would land in the zero and slightly negative towns while the strongly negative would always avoid getting spawns.

[joo]

The question is, how can you make it fair on the characters voting - it wouldn't really be accurate if a lot of travellers came and voted a certain way. It could be used to sabotage a town.

Do newspawns get to vote? Do people in vehicles, or buildings, or rooms inside buildings get to vote? If somebody leaves town to chase a thief, then come back, do they have to cast their vote again?

Also, will new players be confused by the option to "vote?" - I don't think they'll really be thinking about the minutae of spawning dynamics when they're trying to get adjusted to the game.

However, I do agree that there is a problem with people arbitrarily spawning. I was against this idea when it was brought up several times before, but now its make more sense to me. It should be... something transparent, yet that makes sense, and doesn't intrude too much on the game.

Something like an "opt-out" system of people wearing or taking contraception... or perhaps there should be couplings between two people.

Of course, if the latter were implemented it would basically be a more innefectual version of full-on baby-making, and if that were to be the path to implementing it fully, I don't think it would turn out to be as good as if it were planned out properly from the beginning.

[BZR]

a person could start wishing for newspawns and others could join in

... Sex?

Anyway, those are good ideas.

Voting sounds the best, we should find another name for it.

[lordcooper]

a person could start wishing for newspawns and others could join in

... Sex?

Anyway, those are good ideas.

Voting sounds the best, we should find another name for it.

How may people get to join in?

[Tiamo]

"Voting" or even "wishing" would be completely OOC.

I refer to my prior post. Having sex is nicely IC, and has a direct RL connection to creating new life.
Effectively it would be the equivalent of a voting system, with some restrictions (you do need a willing m/f couple) and needing just a little effort.

[BarbaricAvatar]

Even that could be exploited. You'll just get the two strongest and most skilled fighters in each town 'breeding' and creating armies that are all stronger than average and expert fighters.

[SekoETC]

>joo: Allowing people to run into a town and either boost their spawn rate or lower it would be quite an interesting strategy. It would be like invaders killing all the children or impregnating all the women but without all the mature elements. One vote wouldn't make much of a difference. Voting would probably only be available outside and it could be based on the hunting code. One vote a day, even if you leave town and then come back, that wouldn't give you a second vote. Maybe it would be one vote a day anywhere so that people traveling fast couldn't vote in several towns a day. If a newspawn clicks on a voting button without knowing what it does, it wouldn't make a big difference.

>BarbaricAvatar: I wouldn't call that an exploit, I'd call that Sparta. It would open interesting strategic options, imagine if regular clumsy people wanted to have a child but the government didn't allow them, then they would have to do it secretly.

>Tiamo: It's true that it's OOC (or well, against the way things work in the real world) but it would make less people mad than a project called making babies that was only possible between a man and a woman. You haven't been in the game for long so you've probably missed all the big arguments about procreation. There are people who think having sex to make babies would be a disaster even if the word sex wasn't even mentioned. There are people who think that Cantr would be sued by some hysterical parents for endorsing pedophilia in that case since 13-year-olds are allowed in the game and their characters wouldn't be prevented from procreating with other characters.

[Piscator]

I really don't see why this voting has to be so complicated. Just add a celibate checkbox somewhere that makes your character invisible for the spawn routine if checked.

People with deactivated celibate mode are just assumed to have sex when no one's looking.

If enough characters use the option on a global scale the remaining breeders should recieve an increased amount of newspawns too.

[Tiamo]

BarbaricAvatar,
the baby project (or the 'sleeping together project') is not connected to the persons performing it, but to the location. Genes would still be associated with all inhabitants.

SekoETC,
so incorporating any kind of procreative activity in the game (without any specifics, just the word) is a problem, but the explicit RP-ing of it (which apparently does happen) is not? Strange argument!

[pirokiller666]

What is really needed - make interface more understandable and add easy FAQ for new players. Me and my friend like such kind of games, and both were trying to play Cantr. He tryed two times and quiet because interface was too much confusing. Same was with me first time (I saw some corpse, started to drag it and, of course, it wasn't processing and I couldn't understant how to get rid of that damned body). You know, we are working people, we often don't have temper and time to dig for info "how to play this game".
Now I am playing and it's okay for me, some of my characters are in very quiet places, but that isn't too bad, can feel more free there. So, imho, you need more noob-user-friendly interface.