why?

[kaloryfer]

25/04/2011
English | 398 | 1866
Polish | 373 | 1796
Total | 1027 | 4966

18/09/2011
Polish 336 | 1758
English 302 | 1787
Total 803 | 4668

why?

[SekoETC]

If you're asking why there are more English characters even though there are less English players than Polish players, it's because plenty of people who have some other language as their main language also play English characters. If you're asking why the numbers are going down, I don't know.

[Ronja Rotschopf]

I doubt that anybody really knows.

[Doug R.]

Why?

- The game is 10 years old. Text-based games have fallen out of favor over the last decade. Kids want hip graphics.
- Lack of funds to pay for targeted advertisements to old farts like me that prefer a good story to hip graphics.
- The game is terminally evolved. The world is old, there's nothing new or unique to do.
- Large learning curve, combined with a social environment slightly hostile to new players who "don't get it."

[Wolfsong]

Why?

- The game is 10 years old. Text-based games have fallen out of favor over the last decade. Kids want hip graphics.

Not strictly true. There's still a huge market for text-based games, as evidenced by the plethora still floating around, and the fact that MUDs still exist and, in many cases, flourish into million dollar industries.

[Doug R.]

Why?

- The game is 10 years old. Text-based games have fallen out of favor over the last decade. Kids want hip graphics.

Not strictly true. There's still a huge market for text-based games, as evidenced by the plethora still floating around, and the fact that MUDs still exist and, in many cases, flourish into million dollar industries.

They do? I've never heard of any.

[Wolfsong]

Proof text-based games can still make a lot of money and draw a reasonably large pbase: Iron Realms Entertainment

Personally I'd attribute game decline due to:

- The game is terminally evolved. The world is old, there's nothing new or unique to do.
- ...a social environment [...] hostile to new players who "don't get it."

It can't keep up with other text-based games in terms of features and code, already has an established world with nothing new to accomplish, and worst of all has a pbase of old, well-established characters hostile to new characters.

[lulkoek]

Let's also add that the game is slow-paced and many people in it don't desire to wait that long for a reply.

MUDs are real time.

[Fingersmith]

Its deteriorating rapidly

19/09/2011

English 296 1782
Polish 335 1754
Total 795 4659

[Ronja Rotschopf]

- Lack of funds to pay for targeted advertisements to old farts like me that prefer a good story to hip graphics.

I think funds are not everything. I think all other language groups can learn from the Poles regarding advertising.

- Large learning curve, combined with a social environment slightly hostile to new players who "don't get it."

Is the learning curve really that large? Of course it is large if one compares it to click-once-per-day-games or play-through-in-one-hour-games, but are there really many games that one can play for years without learning about it at least a bit?

[Doug R.]

The bad interface plays a large part in the large learning curve, in addition to the social customs that are entirely unique to Cantr.

[Jaxon]

Why? Because you guys discourage newbies from doing anything and because this game has become a world where war is almost impossible. War is reality and encourages people to unite against a common cause, but no staffer wants to lose a character (or twice in Doug's case). This game fails as a result.

Bring my brother back and bring back tea, and he'll get more people playing. Like it or not, he does add excitement.

[EchoMan]

Making an extreme example of one player/situation is hardly significant for the game as a whole.

The combat system in Cantr is really bad considering that it's not a real-time game. With the changes that are in the pipe-line it will hopefully get better. But then again, development resources are really scarce.

[Jaxon]

Making an extreme example of one player/situation is hardly significant for the game as a whole.

The combat system in Cantr is really bad considering that it's not a real-time game. With the changes that are in the pipe-line it will hopefully get better. But then again, development resources are really scarce.

And will only become more scarce as more people leave. If you guys want to have a society where its almost impossible to kill people, fine. I mean I understand why a players that has a character that is 7 real years old would be pissed if they woke up and died. I myself had a character that was 60 years old die for no reason when my internet went out after a hurricane. I quit the game for a while after that as a result too.

With that said, I came back after realizing it wasn't the character I necessarily missed, but the game. However, when I rejoined I was disgusted at how boring the world had become. Most towns these days simply kill newspawn thieves and work on projects for no real end. There's little change of government from what I've noticed and I think that's because most of the "leaders" of the Cantr world have remained constant throughout the years and will not give up their wealth or power without a fight; a fight that will soon be all but almost impossible for any revolutionary force to win, let alone consider.

Without such a need for revolution, the game has become BORING in many places. Just look at what happened when Blackrock left K-isle for example. K-isle is now completely lame. I'd love it if we could just kill everyone off the darn place, hand it over to newspawns and see what interesting stories would develop (not to mention see how the # of active users rises).

Conflict makes the game interesting, bottom line. Rather than change the mechanics of the game, you should increase the defensive, as well as offensive capabilities of the fighting system. If a town wants to be safe from an invasion out in the open for example, they should be allowed to build a castle. That's what the English did to keep out the Vikings. And If an army of 3 or 4 heavily armed individuals with crossbows want to ambush a large sleeping group of people in a van, they should also be allowed to have the capabilities to do so (i.e. tea). Everything else as far as revamping this fighting system goes, is completely unnecessary. The fighting system works. People need more incentive to work together than simple prosperity. Collective safety can be that purpose.

[EchoMan]

You express yourself as if it is a fact that the number of players would increase if it was easier to kill characters. What sources and statistics do you have for this "fact" other than your own observations you have already stated, and that the player base is declining?

I know several players that would quit if their characters well planned societies were crushed by the "10 people in a van full of tea, amazingly awake at the same time" scenario.

What this game needs is balancing, and making it a fair but still slow paced game. I seriously don't believe in the hack'n'slash version that you seem to be looking for. It is after all a society simulator, not a FPS.