- and I think this is one of the main causes, that people are too much spread over different locations.
The idea that the world is too big has been discussed many times, among which here, here, and here. Especially that last one is a really extensive thread on the issue and I can't get myself to read it all now
... We should try to make a list of all things suggested to reduce world size - so if somebody is rather bored ... .
There are many things you can think about in terms of reducing the world size - make animals more aggressive, introduce natural disasters, etc. - but one of the ones that seems least aggressive and might be helpful is resource depletion. I.e. locations should run out of their resources over time. This is a very basic idea, suggested several times (like here, here, and here). The main argument - about the requirement of scarcity - is made here by Jur.
This summarizes in what context I argue for this now:
formerly known as hf wrote:Although, the major pitfall of that is what happens once resources are gone. It would kill many areas. But I's have seen that as something good - Cantrians need incentives to up sticks and move (as Jos pondered upon before...)
The implementation I would suggest would be really very simple:
- for every resource location we store the amount that is present there
- for natural resources (stone, hematite, etc.) once it is gone, it is gone, the resource simply disappears from that location
- for agricultural products (foods, etc.) it will be reset to the original amount every year or so, so it is basically a cap on production per year, not forever
- the caps will differ entirely per location
- resources can also be added by the RD to emulate the discovery of new resources
- if a resource gets depleted midway a project, the resources that were gathered so far should end up as project result - this is the only part of the suggestion that takes more than an hour to implement
When we placed resources, we always kept in mind that every language area should have a somewhat reasonable chance to set up a society. So every really important resource can be found in every language area and on every major island. But once societies are somewhat developed and sailing has become common, this is actually a pity. It would become much more interesting if resources have to be brought in from far. So the distribution of resources that makes the game fun and interesting is different for less and more developed areas. If we have a depletion system like this, we can basically manually adjust, to keep gameplay interesting.
If some common resources are harder to find, this should really encourage trade, and more trade should really encourage more travelling to key trading locations, i.e. cities. Isn't an important reason for the existence of cities that that is where the markets are? This is something I would really like to see more in Cantr - bigger cities providing the markets and services for larger areas, which attract people for all city-like jobs.
Although I am suggesting this now, I am not at all 100% convinced this is actually the best solution to the problem. I.e. will it help city formation or not? Will it increase scarcity? We definitely really need more scarcity, because this is what generates conflict and cooperation.
And Jur is absolutely right in his assessment, which is a big problem: we have always been convinced that more scarcity would improve the game. So we implemented repairs / deterioration, we implemented resource slots, we implemented animals (to make remote locations harder to live), etc., but always after serious player protests, we reduced the seriousness of each (animals less aggressive, more resource slots, slow deterioration) so that the effect was practically zero, while it still adds unnecessary complications to the game. We need to find a solution that does not lead to that result
...Some quotes and minor points:
Doug R wrote:The current caps are too high to be effective. They used to be lower, but massive complaining by the players caused them to be neutered.
I see suggestions regarding recycling and complicated mechanisms, but one thing to keep in mind is that we should keep it simple. The above is a simple suggestion. This is a really fair point:
Tiamo wrote:How realistic and complex do we want the Cantr world to be?
We should not aim for too much realism, albeit still some, because we only complicate the game without having much positive effect on the gameplay in the end. I think this is what we've done too much over the past few years. Along the same lines:
Racetyme wrote: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.
I give my complete and utter support to Idriveayugo, lordcooper and BZR in their fervour to support each other, however I will not elaborate further for fear of spamming the thread.
) needs to be kept up to keep it running.
) when you're always aware that ANYTHING could be going on outside while you're sitting there bored out of your skull stuck working at a machine. This is even worse with someone like a leader who's actually important to the town, they basically have to live outside so they can keep up with what's going on...all it takes is for one person to die and drop a weapon or keys for all hell to break loose.