Swymir wrote:I don't like the idea of items rotting at the rate they are used. The whole point of deterioration is for items to deteriorate just to limit how many of them are. If they only go down when they are used. I would like to see them deteriorate rather quicklys othat repair is essential or you can just buy a new one. Of course people usually don't support anything I have to say because most feel the game is already too hard and I welcome challenges.
I vehemently disagree with this point of view. In fact, I disagree so much… I’ve written out my response and my argument against it in more detail... but it is still quite unrefined. Please excuse that...
I would appreciate player feedback, a well-thought out response to this article would not only create a more interesting environment for discussion… it will give me something to think about and respond to over the weekend…
Item deterioration: Economic saviour or social suicide?
My perception of the argument for deterioration: Trade is hampered by the huge backlog of goods manufactured in the past, and the only way to create a working economy in Cantr is to destroy all of that backlog. Deterioration would mean that upkeep would be needed to maintain tools, preventing unrealistic hoarding, limiting the number of tools.
I will try and answer that argument, and try to explain why I think this idea is poorly thought out and highly detrimental to the advancement of in-game society, as well as impairing the enjoyment for players.
First off, the perception that it is huge backlogs hoarded by the powerful organisations that hamper trade. I don’t understand this particularly, because I have a number of very successful merchant characters, which never fail to trade most of their goods. By a simple application of the idea of supply and demand, a successful economy can be established. Hoarding may be a problem, yes. But there really isn’t a huge backlog in most places, and I feel that more consideration needs to be taken for the whole Cantrian world, rather than just the KDS region, which often seems to be the case. If you supply what the economy demands, you will be successful. There is nothing wrong here and I don’t think hoarding is a major problem outside 2 or 3 areas.
The idea that hoarding is detrimental is also slightly biased. The other side to the argument is that hoarding is beneficial; that by removing tools and such from the economy, more production is required, more trade takes place. I feel the view of “destroying their backlog through ooc complaining” is a poorly developed argument. It has turned an interesting element of the in-game economy into a out-of-game issue, which I resent. If this is the way to counter any in-game problems and dilemmas, what is the point in even trying to have merchant characters? This moves the goal posts for aspiring merchants; the stock they’ve built up to allow them to trade will disappear unused and they are left back in the same position as before.
Another aspect of this point is the misguided belief that all Cantrians are equal, and that they should all have the same base. This jars with RL examples, I am unsure how people think the industrialised west exercises dominance over other nations; it is because they have advanced, hoarded and developed. This is vaguely similar to a powerful in-game area such as Siom. They are a power, and should remain so, on the back of machines and tools they have built. By rotting that away, you would make everything ‘fairer’, yes. But that does make for an interesting economy. It is an OOC response to people exercising power in-game.
The way to stimulate the Cantrian economy is not to go crying to programming for a change, it is to create dedicated merchant characters. This is a social class almost entirely absent in the Cantr environment – it is almost exclusively the older, richer, aristocratic class who run things and own machinery and such and the working, peasant class who provide labour. The middle classes, professionals and merchants, are missing. I don’t think this is the result of a deficiency in the game system but rather a deficiency in the player base.
Repairing, or maintaining, tools and equipment is a crucial part of the deterioration argument. I feel this is also detrimental to in-game economic development, as people will have to spend time maintaining what they already have instead of being able to produce new things. Production levels are no where near high enough in most cases to support such a blow, and it will become yet another set back, similar to the hematite change. It is another step to make production harder, with no thought for the repercussions. There needs to be some kind of balance to this and other changes, balances which are sorely lacking in the current situation.
Another argument for deterioration is “realism” – the obsession with some players that Cantr mirror real-life exactly. Well, I do agree that to be realistic, Cantr would need some kind of deterioration. However, I am not convinced that realism is a good enough reason for such a drastic change as this. The Cantr economy will never totally resemble a RL economy, in fact I believe it is a mistake to even think in those terms. I find Cantr interesting in how it develops on the restrictions in place, and I find it interesting in how different it is from RL.
However, I do accept the grounds of the deterioration debate. But I feel the type of deterioration needed to balance out the problem of tools is not item rot. In fact, I don’t think item rot (or age deterioration, whatever you want to call it) solves anything… all it means is there will be a sudden void in the Cantrian economy in a few years time. Suddenly a vast number of tools will disappear, and most people will have to return to making new tools or repairing tools. This will, as previously explained, further hamper the already seriously low level of production and will, far from solving any economic problem, serve to decimate the Cantr economy and cause near world-wide economic crisis. However, deterioration based on use is more reasonable, more realistic and will eventually work off the backlog. By this more gradual erosion of the backlog, trade will be needed from both sides and will help to avert a collapse in the Cantrian economy.
What I feel is really required, instead of deterioration, is greater regional specialisation. Stone from Kwor needs to be differentiated somehow from stone in Kirinn, so trade can occur for other resources – not dictating the requirement for trade, but providing a method for trade where none existed before. For example, changing Kwori stone to marble and Kirinn stone to granite, there is more tradable resources. There is regional differentiation and grounds for more change. By creating positive new economic opportunities, rather than limiting those that are perceived as detrimental, a more supportive attitude to the economy will be created.
On one hand, the argument is that item deterioration will change the Cantr economy, removing certain restrictions and allowing it to flourish. But on the other is the impact the current implementation will have: reduced production, reduced items for trade… a major step back in the Cantr economy. Deterioration may be a good idea but I would argue it is far from necessary. The startlingly complicated implementation of deterioration previously experienced in Cantr is off-putting, unnecessary and harmful to the game. If you want Cantr to be a society simulator, then let it’s societies develop… stop undermining anything positive and interesting in Cantr. And if you want it to be a game, let it be enjoyable. Deterioration may not quite be social suicide and the end of the world as we know it, but it is far from an economic saviour.
