Grid system

[kroner]

I didn't mean that the slate would be wiped clean, just that switching to a grid system would be such an extreme change from the currunt game play that it would be as if it were a different game with only the basic idea and a few specific elements of game play left in tact. All the characters would still be around but it would hardly be cantr anymore. Not that change is necessarily bad, but I like this system better.

[Rob Maule]

I like your ideas, David.

Instead of making a new grid system, why not use the same system for sailing. I'm not exactly sure how it works, but I assume it to be similar to grids.

As for roads in a grid, or coordinate, system, what about being allowed to follow a road like you already can. If they were dynamic, you would see the direction they go off in. But what if you want to go off the beaten path? Or give directions to someone to your new house? Tell them to follow the northeast past from Cantr City until they are 78% to their destination. Then travel west for five hours (turns). They'll see the building on the horizon.

And about chasing criminals. Being able to see them for such a great distance seems unfair. Sure, we want to stop criminals. But what if you were in a war and you were a retreating soldier? You wouldn't want to be killed then, epecially if you were fighting for a worthy cause. So instead of seeing people on the entire map square, you'd see people within a certain, smaller, radius. Or you could use my footprint idea I mentioned before. (search for 'footprints').

[Solfius]

my only concern with that way of doing it is the major complexoness the movement using a compass system, very precise, and a bit dauting i think. Maybe over-precise. The same thing could be achieved with a map grid (as opposed to a co-ordinate grid) but simpler I think

[Meh]

As for roads in a grid, or coordinate, system, what about being allowed to follow a road like you already can. If they were dynamic, you would see the direction they go off in. But what if you want to go off the beaten path? Or give directions to someone to your new house? Tell them to follow the northeast past from Cantr City until they are 78% to their destination. Then travel west for five hours (turns). They'll see the building on the horizon.

When your on a path your moving along it but never outside of a location.
Manually you could move off a trial at any point.
What would be required to do it automatically is have a movement "stack".
"Move down this path until it forks then bear right" OR
"Move down this path a day and then go north" {a non-path, note a % distance down a path isn't allowed}
"Move down this path until you see a sign saying "turn here"

And about chasing criminals. Being able to see them for such a great distance seems unfair. Sure, we want to stop criminals. But what if you were in a war and you were a retreating soldier? You wouldn't want to be killed then, epecially if you were fighting for a worthy cause. So instead of seeing people on the entire map square, you'd see people within a certain, smaller, radius. Or you could use my footprint idea I mentioned before. (search for 'footprints').

I meant farther than today.
Today it is hit-hit-hit-poof-they're-gone.
So I agree.

[Meh]

my only concern with that way of doing it is the major complexoness the movement using a compass system, very precise, and a bit dauting i think. Maybe over-precise. The same thing could be achieved with a map grid (as opposed to a co-ordinate grid) but simpler I think

Yes. Moving by compass is daunting as IRL. Moving towards landmarks is easy IRL. Landmarks such as resources, buildings, people, signs, paths. If you just go north until you can't see anything familiar then it should be easy to get lost.

People find boating difficult. Well it is IRL. The lack of landmarks is the problem. This is what makes lighthouses valuable IRL and in the game.

[Siphersh]

I think a grid system is unneccessary.

A grid of squares? Oh, will a^2+b^2=c^2 be coded as well? Will it take squareroot(2) times longer to travel one unit ne, than one unit n? Or is it going to have some kind of non-realistic geometry? Roleplaying in a bent and twisted time-space continuum?!

What kind of server will run this grid-system, by the way? That sounds like a lot of processor time...

If towns want to advance to cities, then let's introduce streets. It just a very very simple task of programming compared to any kind of grid system.

The only thing I can see as a positive feature of a grid system lays in discovery. But is it really worth?

More freedom of discovery could be implemented without a grid system, I believe. All that's needed is a "forest-path" system with many locations without any, or with little resources, and simple names. With dinamic naming, they won't even need names. Great. If you want to land with the ship on the shore far away from villages or towns, you just choose one of the little dots on the map that are locations. With dinamic naming, how can someone navigate to a place? You have to have someone with you to show it. That's good. But if it's an unknown little location-dot on the map, then there has to be a button to navigate to the "closest" location, and that's it. And no grid system is needed for this, aside from the one that already makes the map move. And the point of Cantr I think is not that grid-by grid lonely wandering-around. That has nothing to do with social, cultural and interpersonal processes. I cannot imagine what good that would bring.

[Meh]

A grid of squares? Oh, will a^2+b^2=c^2 be coded as well? Will it take squareroot(2) times longer to travel one unit ne, than one unit n? Or is it going to have some kind of non-realistic geometry? Roleplaying in a bent and twisted time-space continuum?!

There is an established system for boats.

What kind of server will run this grid-system, by the way? That sounds like a lot of processor time...

The same one that moves boats today.

If towns want to advance to cities, then let's introduce streets. It just a very very simple task of programming compared to any kind of grid system.

Travel time between street is an issue. There should be a delay of some sort for fairness.

The only thing I can see as a positive feature of a grid system lays in discovery. But is it really worth?

More freedom of discovery could be implemented without a grid system, I believe. All that's needed is a "forest-path" system with many locations without any, or with little resources, and simple names. With dinamic naming, they won't even need names. Great. If you want to land with the ship on the shore far away from villages or towns, you just choose one of the little dots on the map that are locations. With dinamic naming, how can someone navigate to a place? You have to have someone with you to show it. That's good. But if it's an unknown little location-dot on the map, then there has to be a button to navigate to the "closest" location, and that's it. And no grid system is needed for this, aside from the one that already makes the map move. And the point of Cantr I think is not that grid-by grid lonely wandering-around. That has nothing to do with social, cultural and interpersonal processes. I cannot imagine what good that would bring.

I agree. What I think of a grid system is what you desribe. The grid system that exists today just with more options on pathing. Becuase IRL you hardly ever go east because east is east. You happen so go EEESE and then ESE and then ES then E becuase you know where the burgers are. All very anolog and abstract.

The other kind of grid system. Where you can just "go east" is what I don't like.

The reason for the orginal post was to get to the bottom of what the Cantr 2.0 grid system will be. Because I like what you suggest better than making the world into a chess board.

[rklenseth]

I like the chess board idea. And I think that is what Jos means. Especially when he talks about how there will be limited space to build, farm, mine etc... in each grid...

...But the only person that can really say what is being planned is Jos himself.

But I think the grid system is a long way down the road.

[The Hunter]

But definatly something to look forward to. SPace will become a commodity, but there's a lot more freedom in the game if implemented. ASnd yeah, it'll probably take quite a while before implemented, but it'd be a huge step forward.

[Jos Elkink]

This is an interesting discussion ... I hadn't read it, I think, even back in November when the first posts were there. I'll try to comment and explain what stage I'm at now, and I'd be interested in comments.

First, about the advantages of having a grid:
1) the really main thing - even though there are other possible solutions to that - is that land become scarce. This is, I think, the single most important problem in the current version of Cantr, in which land is not in any sense scarce. Well, there is a limit to the number of buildings you can build on a location, but then there is no limit to the number of rooms inside a building, so in fact, there is no limit at all. With a grid, a building would use space, farming would use space, mining would use space, etc. So land will become a commodity, something to trade, to defend, to conquer, etc.
2) as a 'society simulator' we will get a bit more realistic and interesting development in how settlements appear and disappear. Already it is very interesting with the new spawning system to see towns coming up and then disappearing from the map again, while other places are really stable, but with a grid system this would become even more 'natural' and it will not be so much predefined anymore where you can settle and where you can't.
3) it will allow much more freedom in terms of 'design' of settlements and buildings etc. Also things like city-walls etc. will be easily implementable, while right now I have been blocking that suggestion simply because it would be too much forcing cities into a fixed direction. But not on a grid.

Second, about what I am doing now:
Currently, I am, sort of 'in secret' (but ruining that with this post), working on version 2.0 again. This version will be quite different from the current one. People will have to download a program to play Cantr, instead of using the web, so that I can program it in a way that part of the computer resources used are on the user's computer, not on the server. This allows for a more complex setup and also for a bigger game - currently, the game is getting way too slow, and I hope to solve that this way.
Of course, as always stated, although the game will change, it will continue the 'story' of 1.0, so all characters/buildings/objects/notes/etc. will be transferred to the new version, and the whole basic concept of creating your own society will be protected in the same way. The most important change will probably be that you have to install this program, you will have a grid on which everything takes place, and you will see this grid, graphically.
Ok, now to how I am implementing it. Currently, all locations already have a position on the map, a (x,y) coordinate. They will stay at that location (duh) ... I will enlarge the grid, though, by multiplying all locations by a certain number. Probably 10 or 15, but this can easily be adjusted. You can then imagine one square as sort of the equivalent of 1 m2. That is, only one character can be on one square at any time; a regular building will be something like 3x3 squares (buildings will be 'build' and consisting of walls and ceilings, so existing stone buildings will become 3x3, but new buildings can take any form and even floors; so with the same concept you can build a city wall). When you login, you can only see something like a grid of 15x15 (not a definite number yet either). Any activity takes up land, and how this will work exactly, I am still thinking about. Farming would resemble real farming a bit more, I think, whereby you need to put in seeds, maintain the land, and harvest, and thus use the land that way. Mining will require that you build a mine first. Etc.
How does walking work? Every character will at any moment have two positions, his (or her) real position, and an 'anchor point'. While you are playing, you can only move within a fixed distance (pythagoras ) from the anchor point, something like a distance of 7 or so, without waiting for any turn change. Once you want to move further away, you will be prompted and if you agree, you will have to wait for the next turn change, which will move your anchor point, etc. You don't need to worry about sailing directions - the computer will just ask whether you want to continue in the direction you walk, relative to the anchor point - in other words, the interface should make really clear how it works.
You will be able to walk freely over grass, hills, desert, beach, etc., but you will not be able to go outside existing locations or paths in forests, mountains, swamps, etc.
It might look like this will take more processor / computer resources, but that's a misconception, I think. The suggestion above about simply having many more locations would take more storage, since it would require that I define all those locations. With a grid, I only have to describe it, I do not have to store information about every single square. Only if it is used.
The only difficulty is paths and roads etc. I want existing paths and their improvements to stay, but I also want to make it possible to create new ones. How to implement those exactly, I haven't really worked out. I think paths should have the same travelling speed as walking freely on the grid, while improved paths should increase speed, like now. And there should be some option to say 'keep following road until direction is ambiguous', which will mean that you keep following until there is a sideroad and your input is needed to make a choice. With the current roads, all points with sideroads are the current locations, but with the ability to create new roads, new 'points of ambiguity' can be created.
It will also make implementation of railroads etc. easier.
Harbours etc. should be serious land occupiers.
etc.
Travelling would have the same speed as it has now, also with a grid. So, once you move further away from your anchor point, moving the anchor point will be at exactly the same speeds as currently in the game.
Animals will be able to walk everywhere, of course.

This whole idea will not at all remove the need for cooperation, I think. For example, when there are many animals, one would rather build a city wall and live behind it to protect oneself, and thus cooperate. Or when there are people on the road robbing travellers - which would be easier with this system - you want to protect yourself and set up guards or something. Or when you really need to have land to farm, you will want to protect this land. And if you need that much land for farming, you need external supply of food in more densily populated areas. Etc. etc. So it really should increase cooperation, not decrease it. Also, if land becomes a commodity, power-hungry people will want to control land and force people to deal with them. I think it really should improve the gameplay.

[The Hunter]

Wow... That's a lot of info on 2.0 and the grid system. But when all locations will be multiplead by 15 when turned in to "squares" and buildings taking up 3 already, harbours even more, many towns will get into trouble. For example Sil. there are about 10 buildings in that location, who would take up all existing space in that "location" (Now 15 SQ) and be expanded in the surrounding. But 1 location away in FLika woods east, there's a setlement too, currently existing of 4 buildings. When Sil is expanded when changing to 2.0, will it expand into the free "locations"?

But it'd be a very interesting addition. Like you said, dispute will arise over the remaining land, something the game lacked sofar. (Lad exempted). Territorialism is one of the first things that come to mind when when thinking of societies.

Q: When reaching a crossing in the road when travelling, a traveller would stop and the comp. would wait for input. Does that mean that travelling until the end of the road is not possible anymore? (When new roads are built)

Q: Communicating with others. What's the area in which a char can communicate with others?

Will all maps become (almost) useless? Even the graphical ones? Cool.

Also, to make the need for co-orperation greater, a certain level in dependancy is required so the haves can control the have nots easier. ( A key point in most societies and government forms) Like the way it is now in areas surrounded by dangerous creatures. Newspawns will have to work for a shield and maybe a weapon first. Now, if a char controls the foodresources, that'd have the same effect. Armies would have to be fed and provided with resources, making deserting as soon as certain "guards" receive a weapon and a shield a difficult task (Unless they found someone who can provide them with those resources). In short: Heriarchy will become more important.

[Revanael]

I think it sounds pretty good. Though I am a little uncertain about this "anchor point" of yours, Jos... Would the player decide where they are anchored, or would the game?

The grid system would also need buildings to be destroyable, I think. Takes a long time, but possible. That means your city wall can be broken down... But theres a bunch of guards shooting you from above as well. So you wouldnt get very far with it. Also means that anyone who starts a building on someone else's land can have it removed again.

[Jos Elkink]

The anchor point would be moved by the computer ... that is, moving the anchor point will be what is currently travelling. Moving the position, without moving the anchor point, would be similar to currently walking in and out of buildings. So there is a difference between moving locally - like in and out of buildings - and moving to other places - like travelling on a road, which will involve moving the anchor point. Players will have no control over the anchor point, as that would allow them to travel much quicker ...

And I agree about damaging buildings. The reason that this is not possible now, is that we don't have something like 'broken buildings', but since buildings will consist of separate walls, you can imagine a building where a wall has been removed, or something like that.

Wow... That's a lot of info on 2.0 and the grid system. But when all locations will be multiplead by 15 when turned in to "squares" and buildings taking up 3 already, harbours even more, many towns will get into trouble. For example Sil. there are about 10 buildings in that location, who would take up all existing space in that "location" (Now 15 SQ) and be expanded in the surrounding. But 1 location away in FLika woods east, there's a setlement too, currently existing of 4 buildings. When Sil is expanded when changing to 2.0, will it expand into the free "locations"?

This is based on a misconception. The current "grid" in 1.0 is much larger than just the locations. So Sil and Flika Woods are perhaps neighbouring locations, they are still several dots away from each other on the map. And each of these dots will become 15x15 (or something like that) dots. So this should not be a problem at all. In fact, there will be quite large lands. I was first thinking of making them 30x30, but that leaves so much land, that land will never become a scarce good, unless we get thousands of players ... So don't worry .

Q: When reaching a crossing in the road when travelling, a traveller would stop and the comp. would wait for input. Does that mean that travelling until the end of the road is not possible anymore? (When new roads are built)

The concept "the end of a road" has no meaning for a computer program ... it can recognize a crossing, though.

Q: Communicating with others. What's the area in which a char can communicate with others?

I don't know yet exactly. Probably something like ... 5 cells away or so. Actually, I think I was slightly confused when talking about the free walking - you'll be able to walk further from the anchor point than the distance of communication. But I do want to stimulate people to walk to each other to talk, without talking to the whole village at once all the time. While 4 or 5 already means about 80 or 100 people can potentially listen at the same time (if you really have a crowd that is not working on other things).

Will all maps become (almost) useless? Even the graphical ones? Cool.

No ... Well, shouldn't be . Where we have locations now, people are still likely to have settlements (especially since in forests and mountains etc. those are the only places possible for settlements) and also the maps that you can see on the locations page will still be the same. It's still the same map. They might just get outdated when new settlements are created - but that's normal for maps, also in real life ...

[Siphersh]

Meh, I don't think that time delay is needed when roaming the streets of a town. The ones who know the town well, will find the buildings faster. That's OK. I don't see any real gaming relevance of a time delay.

[Dust14]

What u say about the space between places(several 15*15 squares), if the people in two(or more) places like to build there will be a huge metropolis after some time