Does anyone still enjoy the game?

[LittleSoul]

You think that won't kill the role play mood of the players?
I'm not saying the idea is bad, but I am saying you don't seem to know our players very well.
Or maybe they'll shock and awe me by actually not being too put-off.

I don't see why it should, but that doesn't mean I don't agree that it will.
But if it allows other players the chance to build something actually sustainable on the simulation side of the game, and more importantly helps to retain new player interest, I would say it's worth the rest of them being upset. Aside from which it's not as if all their current resources would be taken away. Leaders would just have to create smarter industrial systems to replace the ones they have now, or pay other characters who know how to do so for them.

Wolfsong, most people don't leave resources on the ground very long. I don't personally feel a greater rot rate would make a difference as most of the hoards of resources are in inhabited towns.

And I'm not even saying to get rid of the hoards of stuff. This has to do with the infrastructure of the economy, how it begins in the first place.

Non-organic resources being limited creates an important aspect of the market. Personal desire. That's why custom items are so popular, and why, as Piscator was saying, they will always have some demand. It's because they are limited in some small way (L&L anyone?).

With the resources as they are now, it doesn't matter what resource you have. As long as you have something you can trade it for something else. It gives no real incentive to prioritize or gravitate into obtaining one resource or another.. which is an important aspect to miss. Wanting something just for its value, as we so often do in real life. As it is now, characters want things because they either have some unique property (descriptions, or they're aesthetically pleasing, so on and so forth) or they fill a certain need (like to make a machine, make food, so on).

If certain resources were limited it would push the market to value something beyond its labor production rate. It would flux other prices, and create more of that flow that Piscator was mentioning earlier (though resource distribution being a little tighter would help that even more).

[MonkeyPants4736]

... As it is now, characters want things because they either have some unique property (descriptions, or they're aesthetically pleasing, so on and so forth) or they fill a certain need (like to make a machine, make food, so on).

I might be missing something. What else is there to want things for, aside from personal value attributed or practical value?

[LittleSoul]

You aren't missing anything, you're correct. It's just that some of this isn't being applied to resources like it is to items.
I want certain items and clothes because they're unique, or because they're interesting. If I go around the island with a particularly unique piece of clothing, some characters may pay greatly for it because they find it desirable, others not so much because they don't see it the same way. This doesn't apply to resources, but it should. There should be more to them than production value like in real life. Diamonds in real life are obscenely abundant - they are not rare -at all-. However people want them, and so they continue to be outrageously expensive. Limited resources make scenarios like this more possible where prices cannot be so entirely based on the game itself.. but must be weighed in terms of that personal desire as well. It's like with foreign gems, for example. If my character has ruby they are much more careful about how and where they sell that ruby because they know they are limited in where they can get it again. It makes their prices much more based on desire on both sides.

Most characters don't see resources that way. There are no resources in the game anyone particularly wants or particularly despises because of what they are, you see (except non-native island gems, as stated in the example before, but even that is unlimited, just rare in certain regions). In real life, people want gold because everyone else wants gold so it allows them to get things they want. In Cantr that doesn't exist. As an example, I can get gold, and no matter where I go that gold is going to be basically worth the same to everyone as a number based more or less purely on production value.

If it were limited there would be a much greater desire.
This is a major part of the economy. Expressing your own personal evaluation of value through price.

[Wolfsong]

People don't leave things on the ground outside, sure, but they do leave things on the ground indoors. Why should storage rooms be largely exempt from rot? I've seen some places with half a million grams of steel just lying around, wood, iron, tens of thousands of grams of clarified honey and beer. Thousands and thousands of grams of rubber, diamonds and gold. And these are abandoned places. I can't even imagine what the storerooms of highly active towns look like. So even if resources were to be limited to fix the economy... It wouldn't matter for a lot of places. They have stockpiles to last for IG centuries.

[LittleSoul]

People don't leave things on the ground outside, sure, but they do leave things on the ground indoors. Why should storage rooms be largely exempt from rot? I've seen some places with half a million grams of steel just lying around, wood, iron, tens of thousands of grams of clarified honey and beer. Thousands and thousands of grams of rubber, diamonds and gold. And these are abandoned places. I can't even imagine what the storerooms of highly active towns look like. So even if resources were to be limited to fix the economy... It wouldn't matter for a lot of places. They have stockpiles to last for IG centuries.

That's true, there is quite a lot of abandoned areas with resources, but I suppose I didn't see the point in relation to the economy since the resources aren't in circulation of the market anyway in that case. I'm not against that idea at all.

It would matter because those stock piles move, at least in active trade towns. I have a trader that routinely moves 400-500 days worth of resources between towns a few times a week (while gaining profit). Also, eventually those resources get used, at least by some characters. One of mine invested over a thousand days worth of them into their business between actual materials and paying employees.
Limiting resources increases desires to move things around this way, which keeps it from sitting in the storehouse for who knows how long.
And the lack of movement is precisely one of the reasons why the economy is so bad (stagnating). Rather than sit there, resources should be circulated around to characters and towns as currency (as it is in bartering) to pay for living costs and to erect whatever ideas the characters decide to put forth.
Of course half of that really depends on characters doing something with the resources.
And more players couldn't hurt in that department.

[sherman]

You think that won't kill the role play mood of the players?
I'm not saying the idea is bad, but I am saying you don't seem to know our players very well.
Or maybe they'll shock and awe me by actually not being too put-off.

This. Many seem to be RP-oriented and just sees economy and politics as something that just exist. (or might be that I just interact with same players but with multiple of their chars...) When we get into politics it's more clear we have players not interested or simply don't have time. Why I know? Well, I have been town leader and tried to set positions to others too make my work easier but nobody is up to such things. And then we think about certain small island nation we also see that people aren't just interested. Or don't have time for higher things like that. Either way it's clear when you think how all towns are kinda just little nations that.. Don't really work together unless necessary. They just go on with their own life.


On matter of playing time.. I'm actually curious now what's average time for language areas to play Cantr? We then could get answer is average player generally people with less time or not

[Jota]

Gold has a value associated with the tradition.

The fact that gold = currency change is accepted because the elites (in a hierarchical society) demanded it. And the elites had surplus resources that can change for gold, so in the end, this metal is supported, as it can be exchanged for anything and everyone trusts in value from the above explanation.

Similarly, when elites were interested in other things (exotic feathers in American pre-Columbian societies, iron blades in Asia, shells in Ocenia ... p.e.) These have been accepted as money.


Leaving this little off-topic aside (I could not avoid it after reading up some things) we will now think about the interests of our autocratic elites in Cantr.

Resources = Work
If resources (work) are managed by some elites whose interest is not beyond satisfying the basic needs of their people (in short term), and they produce a surplus that is saved, we can say that store work.

This work (capital) stored is useless if it does not move. To move is trade. The problem exists when this is not supported. And the economy stagnates.


I read that many leaders are not interested in economics or politics. This is legitimate. I can understand that just like it that role-playing or simply want to put some order in their communities to ensure peaceful coexistence. Perhaps some circumstances forced them to be leaders. Why then they devote resources to store and monopolize work?

Maybe they are not actively interested in political theory or economic theory, but who make decisions (consciously or unconsciously) such decisions that directly affect the economy, freedom, opportunities and possibilities of its inhabitants.

Jota, why you always blame the leaders?

This is not exactly:
More resources and management capacity = More Power
More power = more influence
More influence = more capacity to condition other characters.
More capacity to condition = more responsibility.

"It's that many players do not have time to play or take on certain roles." Okay. They do not have time to take responsibility for their own decisions and organize the lives of the characters they play? Why play Cantr then?

I think this paternalistic practice is not working. (Or corporative association, if desired.)

I think the sleepiness is not a problem of time. It is a problem of interest in playing.

Again, sorry for my grammatical errors.

I just want to say that I think there is some discontent in relation to how communities and resources are managed in certain places, and give my opinion on possible causes.

I also want to clarify that I do not wish to change anything IC through the forum. This would be illegitimate. I think the purity and beauty of Cantr eradicates that everything is done (or should do) IC.

If I'm wrong, please tell me. I'm new in Cantr, and I can be drawing the wrong conclusions. I do not pretend that my conclusions are interpreted as absolute conclusions, but rather as an opinion that can be discussed.


Finally, I would like to ask a Sherman:

You said you had a leader character and tried to involve your community dividing responsibilities. (If I misunderstood, please correct me. My English is very basic) It seems that this attempt was frustrated by the inaction of the other characters (or players).

Well, from this:

Was there a clear distinction between what belonged to the leader and what belonged to the community? Or is this line was fuzzy?

How they were rewarded for their responsabildiades characters? It was clear this system?

What expectations had your subordinates to fulfill their own goals? Could they possess very title or exchange goods freely share (a considerable amount based on the work they did) I mean; The value of their work (or production) was proportional to the property that could be as personal property (or private, as desired interpreting).

I understand that you do not remember many of these things. I also want you to know that these questions are not an attempt to say that bad gestionaste community. I myself have doubts about whether I could play a character who could do it. After all, at least you tried. That does you credit.

We would greatly appreciate answers as help me get closer to the reality of Cantr. This would avoid any hasty conclusions from me.

After this post, I am compelled to comment that my interest in politics or economics of the game is not an end in itself, but rather is a means. I'm interested in the game progresses and new players come to enjoy it (provided that they comply with the rules), avoiding the monotony and making it more dynamic (dynamic and fast does not have to be the same).

Thanks for reading this!

[sherman]

Finally, I would like to ask a Sherman:

You said you had a leader character and tried to involve your community dividing responsibilities. (If I misunderstood, please correct me. My English is very basic) It seems that this attempt was frustrated by the inaction of the other characters (or players).

Well, from this:

Was there a clear distinction between what belonged to the leader and what belonged to the community? Or is this line was fuzzy?

How they were rewarded for their responsabildiades characters? It was clear this system?

What expectations had your subordinates to fulfill their own goals? Could they possess very title or exchange goods freely share (a considerable amount based on the work they did) I mean; The value of their work (or production) was proportional to the property that could be as personal property (or private, as desired interpreting).

I understand that you do not remember many of these things. I also want you to know that these questions are not an attempt to say that bad gestionaste community. I myself have doubts about whether I could play a character who could do it. After all, at least you tried. That does you credit.

We would greatly appreciate answers as help me get closer to the reality of Cantr. This would avoid any hasty conclusions from me.

After this post, I am compelled to comment that my interest in politics or economics of the game is not an end in itself, but rather is a means. I'm interested in the game progresses and new players come to enjoy it (provided that they comply with the rules), avoiding the monotony and making it more dynamic (dynamic and fast does not have to be the same).

Thanks for reading this!

Alright, I will try to answer as well as I can. First I want to point out that I also have a leader char now but on both times such position was put on me and I didn't seek to get that position.

Yes I have tried my best to involve others to join too. Now my first town was kinda middle of nowhere and not rich so basically I as leader didn't own anything. Only some tools and animal stuff and food so it was more about using what little we had to help community. Now on my current it's different with town being richer but I still see that town is there for people and not opposite, thus town goods are used to help people if possible. Maybe a bit fuzzy line though

Well first town was poor so it was more of matter helping people being tied to community and feel being something. And the fact that most action tended to be times when I was offline so I wanted also to help others and limit time they had to wait for me to do something. I would say a bit forced system cause it worked well with just me but since there wasn't much else to do giving them chance to be part of community was a way to keep things interesting. I still let them fulfill their own goals and help on them if I could. Now with my current town even more since it's richer. And on both towns they could get quite fair sum from what they worked, even more on my current town because it's richer and can support people better.

Sadly on first town nobody wanted to help me and even if I asked their opinions about things few would answer. It was frustrating to try be open and communicate instead of just saying you do that etc. when people didn't respond.I even tried to build community where everyone had really chance to have a word about what we do. But well.. Lack of interest was obvious. My current town at least have people helping me leading but still I feel in general people don't care much about doing. Even then they would get a chance to be part of leadership they still go for model where one person leads

[hyrle]

I actually understand Sherman's points. I currently have 3 town leader characters and the biggest problem is lack of motivations. People don't seem to want to share their motivations, so my leaders don't know how to serve.

[sherman]

I find it hard to think how there used to be empires when now people are happy with one leader system to the point they don't want to change it even if leader would want... Hard to try fulfill town is for it's citizen then citizen don't share their goals or motivations

[Jota]

Thank you very much for your sincere and quick responses Sherman. I will try to summarize the circumstances in which the characters are in that particular situation (I do not know much about Cantr yet, but I think that these conditions have been given more times in different places.)

Elected leader: Well, one is as manager of the community, and has legitimadad for it as it has been elected by its members. It is understood that this position is for life. On the other hand, newborns in that place are required to assume this leadership. Lifetime .

Difference between the assets of the leader, on the one hand and property of the community, on the other: Here's the basic problem: The social pact, which is misinterpreted:

The leader, as every character can have things (technically speaking game effects). He may even have to personal capacity all that there in the city. When a new member of the community (assuming he has accepted the leader as such) have any need (food, clothing ...) leader gives these things. The new character, with whom is taking on the debt? With the community or the leader? Is a quantifiable debt? Is it a moral debt? Is there any way to pay it off? And the most important; With whom this debt is paid off?

I think the work and legitimadad also confused:

"As I worked as a leader on this site, it's mine." (I'm not saying that is the case of Sherman nor a general rule, but I think it is something that happens with some frequency.)


I think a fair leader; recognizes his property, recognizes the ownership of the community, and recognizes the ownership of each of its members.

The subtle difference between managing and owning.

To whom owns what in the community? It would be fair: if they are the product of direct work of the leader, belonging to the leader. If they are the result of community work, they belong to the community.

Justice is also reward players participating in community projects in proportion to their work. If the goods are for the community, the community rewards. If you are for the leader, the leader recompensee.

Quantify, quantify. A very wise phrase: Measure what is measurable, and make measurable what it is not.

How a community property is endowed to compensate their members? That depends on the leader. You can donate things. (Donate in the strict sense and clear, completely renouncing their rights to these things) or he can lend a personal capacity. Its only some ideas.

I'll stop here. I find it extremely difficult to go translating abstract concepts from Spanish to English.
I just hope that the essence is understood.

PD.: Yes, maybe I'm being unfair and asking a lot of players who have leadership roles in the game. I know this is not easy.

The general criticism I do is not personal nor an attack. I myself have tried to involve people in projects and have finished frustrated.
I do all this to contribute my grain of sand to try to improve the community. Unfortunately, I think the attitude of some characters (or players) will never change under any circumstances, have who have as their leader. But as I noted above (More power = more responsibility) I think it can be a help to those who wish to take on this responsibility.

[LittleSoul]

After this post, I am compelled to comment that my interest in politics or economics of the game is not an end in itself, but rather is a means. I'm interested in the game progresses and new players come to enjoy it (provided that they comply with the rules), avoiding the monotony and making it more dynamic (dynamic and fast does not have to be the same).

Thanks for reading this!

Your entire part in this discussion was well put, I just want to say. I actually learned a few new things. Thank you.
And this part quoted here is exactly why I want to play too. It's not so much for the politics or economics itself, it's the amazing journey that well established politics and economics can bring for the entire cantr community.

Perhaps the conclusion is this though; maybe some things in the game really should be automated, at least to an extent.
It does take a lot of time and effort to create these things ourselves, yet without them the game can be dull.

[Alladinsane]

I grew tired of being a town leader and decided to let others do those roles.
I can easily see why a leader can get sleepy, the constant issues etc.
I solved the problem by delegating such responsibilities and grooming my replacements.
My chars got old and leadership got old.

I have some strong opinions on the economies, but am dealing with that IC.
Just be careful to those of you who took a few macro classes in college, especially Keynesian drivel (only an opinion of course).
The thing with custom clothes is...ewww... especially a few of the old designer labels.
I have one char who thinks all of them have been stripped from a chain of dead bodies.
ooc its probably right... its just hard to part with customized things and bury them with the bodies.

That has two effects I guess, one is you can play a char who is grossed out by it.

The chars who have their own clothing businesses probably need this^^^ since their newer products are going to lose their demand when you can just strip a particular design off of a dead body and it will never tear or deteriorate. Those who took Micro will see this as will the chars who don't mind wearing the zombie clothes. These may cause some trouble in a few top heavy economies.

[Jota]

Excuse my limited knowledge of English. I could translate some concepts like to feel alluded. If this is just a confusion, please excuse me.

I do not think this is the right place to start an ideological debate. The theme will initially is whether anyone still enjoy the game. I have given my opinion argued trying to bring something to the community, following the thread of the conversation. I have never come into personal judgments, nor have qualified the comments of other members. On the contrary, I have tried to obtain information to provide the most accurate way.

My ideas for the game have not necessarily be the same as in real life. In relation to my training, it is anthropological and sociologist, not economic (though I touch parts of this field). Please, do not go to disqualify my contributions without argument. If you are not agree, it has better arguments without going into personal issues. You are within your rights to do so. As I expect that everyone who disagrees with what I said tell me I'm wrong and argue why.

I appreciate the warning about Keynesian ideas, but these are not social-liberal, but that they are purely liberal (in the classical sense, no current neoliberal). --I say this last not with the intention to start a debate. I say this last with the intention not to confuse those people who do not have knowledge about it.-- The other, (these Keynesian stupid things you say) could come later. Or not. It depends on the players and their characters, I do not think these things interest them. In any case, I invite you to continue the ideological debate in private, but inany case out of this thread.

Moreover, I understand that you are saying this as an individual player, not as a candidate to be part of the staff of the game.
If you think than I should leave this thread (as a player), I hope a contribution to the community on your part , and rebut my arguments without disqualifications.

If you do as a candidate to join the staff (and I understand that you have authority in this regard) I will not cause discomfort in this thread.
In short, I hope arguments and no disqualifications. I hope things for the game and not political debates.

Sorry for my English. I expect that the message is understood.

And please understand that it is not my desire to challenge an experienced player like you, sure has the respect of the community. I just want to my opinions are not subjected to disrespect.

[Alladinsane]

The talk of economics comes directly from my enjoyment of the game, I turned it theoretical to avoid allusions to any particular economy, location, or personal practices of myself or any other individuals. It is not an indictment of currently proposed or actual policies in any particular country (I am glad that rl politics has not creeped here yet...its the wrong forum anyhow) whether past, present of future. Probably our language differences are stepping in here. I still enjoy the game.

As far as me becoming staff one day... I can only hope.

Economics came up a few pages ago on this thread, though the micro was examined, it was not named. I apologize to everyone who did not already realize that it walked, talked, and quacked like a duck. I will gladly drop the issue in agreement with you and other players.
Thank you so much for joining the discussions and I would like to compliment your grasp of English as a second language.
You write (and probably speak) it better than I do with it as my first and (pretty much) only language.
I look forward to seeing more of your well considered and thought out posts in the future.

Be well