Massacres

[The Sociologist]

Impossible for small groups or loners against large groups of people but if you build larger groups and then try to go up against other larger groups I can tell you now that things would probably get interesting.

I highlighted a word there. "Probably", indeed. Just consider the logistics. You have to select a group from the larger group that have acceptable combat skills. Even just identifying such skills is a major curse, even presupposing that you have enough of the newspawned "protoplasmic blobs" to practise on, or else an ocean of nuts or popcorn or whatever to cure your own people after "trial runs".

And this is after you've stuffed ten or so people into a factory to make weapons and then watched them all gradually start sleepwalking (ie their players have reduced them to minimal residual minutes since their lives aren't all that interesting).

But it will very likely be the case that at least some of those in your selected group won't have the inclination or personality to want to go off to war. In fact, given the current makeup of Cantr players, it is very likely that hardly any of them will want to go off to war. So that is a neat summary of the logistical issues which any would-be warlord would face.

I would suggest that, given a medium-sized town of say 30-40 people and perhaps 20 actives in your organization, you would be looking at a resulting "army" of 4-6...and that's too small. Also bear in mind that, apart from a few clans and a few multi-town organizations here and there, nobody else even has 20 actives to call upon.

Probably? Yes, well I'd very much like to see this "probably". Meanwhile, I more or less agree with Yo Yo. With the proviso, however, that the Barons have shown that limited guerilla tactics do work if the circumstances are right and the towns being attacked are really small. Similarly, the few pirates that are operating again are doing so in much the same fashion.

[nitefyre]

Impossible for small groups or loners against large groups of people but if you build larger groups and then try to go up against other larger groups I can tell you now that things would probably get interesting.

I highlighted a word there. "Probably", indeed. Just consider the logistics. You have to select a group from the larger group that have acceptable combat skills. Even just identifying such skills is a major curse, even presupposing that you have enough of the newspawned "protoplasmic blobs" to practise on, or else an ocean of nuts or popcorn or whatever to cure your own people after "trial runs".

And this is after you've stuffed ten or so people into a factory to make weapons and then watched them all gradually start sleepwalking (ie their players have reduced them to minimal residual minutes since their lives aren't all that interesting).

But it will very likely be the case that at least some of those in your selected group won't have the inclination or personality to want to go off to war. In fact, given the current makeup of Cantr players, it is very likely that hardly any of them will want to go off to war. So that is a neat summary of the logistical issues which any would-be warlord would face.

I would suggest that, given a medium-sized town of say 30-40 people and perhaps 20 actives in your organization, you would be looking at a resulting "army" of 4-6...and that's too small. Also bear in mind that, apart from a few clans and a few multi-town organizations here and there, nobody else even has 20 actives to call upon.

Probably? Yes, well I'd very much like to see this "probably". Meanwhile, I more or less agree with Yo Yo. With the proviso, however, that the Barons have shown that limited guerilla tactics do work if the circumstances are right and the towns being attacked are really small. Similarly, the few pirates that are operating again are doing so in much the same fashion.

I have the feeling you complain just for the sake of complaining and arguing. Not that a healthy debate isn't definitively bad, so I'll add my two cents.

The situation in Cantr prior to troublesome, in how easy it was to acquire resources, produce weapons and go off and start massacring the entire town in a matter of seconds with just about 3-4 people, if not utterly ridiculous. I witnessed events that took a good chunk of a populace out in a matter of moments, which made absolutely no realistic sense to me as a player. It's not conceivable. For instance, 40 people would simply pounce on 3-4 massacrers in a matter of moments if they were all awake. Of course, they weren't. One proposal was to have an automatically guaged hit-back option, but that would make Cantr into a hack n slash game.

This is not what Cantr is.

Cantr is a society simulator.

Yes, societies in present and past have had the need to commit to actions of war. This is replicated in Cantr, and has been, through out Cantr's history. You talk of War as if it should be easy for a bunch of people to get together and obliberate a large town. As RKL argued, that makes little sense. Now, perhaps, if these few people aimed at taking down a single person (assassination) that would make sense, and they would quite possibly be successful. But then again, the likelihood of them escaping might not be so feasible, nor would it be in real life. And just like in real life, it is not an easy task to assemble dozens upon dozens of people to undertake a task, especially if it was equiping for war. They need the right incentives, and if they have those incentives, they will be awake to play. I know my characters just wouldn't follow anybody just because they have nothing better to do. However, if given the right motivations, my characters would not only sponsor such a task, but would possibly undertake in it, if they believed in it. There are many aspects you have to look at, from charismatic leaders to acquiring supplies. It's not supposed to be easy, and it shouldn't be easy.

And you're taking this from a player whose character all but operates a double digit multi-locational organization, who is faced with these challenges through out. But you don't hear me complaining.

[The Sociologist]

You talk of War as if it should be easy for a bunch of people to get together and obliberate a large town.

I'm afraid this is what is called a "straw man" argument. You have set me up as supposedly saying something that I didn't actually say.

And you're taking this from a player whose character all but operates a double digit multi-locational organization, who is faced with these challenges through out. But you don't hear me complaining.

Great. Marvellous. And you have witnessed any of these mighty double digit multi-locational organizations making war on each other lately?

No? Hmm, I thought not.

So we are back to RKL's "probably". And my answer remains "probably not". This is a case of "the proof of the pudding" So my question is: where is the pudding?

Bring me pudding!

[wichita]

For instance, 40 people would simply pounce on 3-4 massacrers in a matter of moments if they were all awake. Of course, they weren't. One proposal was to have an automatically guaged hit-back option, but that would make Cantr into a hack n slash game.

This is not what Cantr is.

Cantr is a society simulator.

I actually wish we had this. I don't think that implementation would directly make it hack n slash. I guess that it would actually discourage fighting somewhat, because right now you run very little risk in attacking a sleeper, or a group of sleepers - aside from making yourself tired. Now, if a sleeper had the ability to automatically attack back, that ought to make people think twice about trying to lay into a group and then running off. It could also allow the implementation of multiple attacks, which would make things more realistic and interesting without disrupting the balance to greatly. The possibility of backstabbing (2x damage ala D&D), poisoning, subdual damage, etc could also become pheasible in such a combat environment.

Actually, I see the sleeper factor as the most unrealistic aspect of the game. For example: In order to be an effective guard, a person needs to be logged in 24/7 at times, which I don't feel is the idea of the game.

Cantr II is a slow-paced game. Many players only play for a few minutes per character each day and one meeting can take a week to play. The game is designed for players who have more on their agenda then just gaming.

Basically, I'm not against the massacre of a town per se, but it is a problem if it is carried out by just a few people. That is just a senseless loss of character life.

And on that topic, if you're going to be involved in a massacre, could you please, please add some character to it? Is that so freaking hard? This rant will quickly get irrational so I'll end it, but I just have to say that I love a good villian, but just give 'em some character people. Give your pirate some pizzazz, don't just play it like a thirteen year old kid who's playstation is broken this week and needs some buttons to push. ROLEPLAY!!!

[kinvoya]

Now that tiredness limits chars from committing massacres I think it's time for the one hit per day limit to be eliminated in order to make warfare more feasible.

I'm like the least interested in war that any player could probably be and even I think it is a necessary evil for Cantr to be both realistic and to be able to hold player's interest.

Seriously, there are only so many things you can make before you get bored.

[rklenseth]

Now that tiredness limits chars from committing massacres I think it's time for the one hit per day limit to be eliminated in order to make warfare more feasible.

I'm like the least interested in war that any player could probably be and even I think it is a necessary evil for Cantr to be both realistic and to be able to hold player's interest.

Seriously, there are only so many things you can make before you get bored.

I agree with that proposal.

Maybe allow it one hit per hour even if we are afraid of people taking advantage of players who aren't on all the time.

But I do definitely agree that the one hit a day is ancient history with the way combat works now.

[creepyguyinblack]

I've reccomend changing combat to one hit an hour instead per person, but it does need some serious consideration first as it will drastically alter the game mechanics.

[black knight]

yeah im all in for the one hit per day to be removed, but i'd say change the healing methods. make healing a slower process do just a quick swallow of some fruits and you're back to full health. LET THERE BE MEDICINE, which needs to be made, different types for different types of wounds, and maybe for deseises too. let the people discover them in charachter.... change the tiredness a bit too.. dont make char too tired with the first hit. let tiredness come with progressive hits....

[Just A Bill]

NOOOOOOOOoooo.

I have a job, I occasionally sleep. If you change the one hit/day rule, no character would be safe in a town with a cot. Any idiot with a saber could hit you, rest, hit you, rest, hit you, rest, until your dead.

I wouldn't mind too bad if 3-4 guys with weapons ganged up on a character and killed him without a chance to respond, IRL one guy would usually lose to three or four, but when one guy can do it, without the attacked character having a chance to respond is crazy.

As to backstabbing ect, shifting more power to those who happen to be awake is not a good idea either.

[McManus]

I have said this before in a different thread but i feel I should add it here too.

I think different weapons should have different speeds...like if you use a dagger you could hit every hour/turn or something but if you are useing heavy weapons...like the claymore, it would be once a day.

The weapons would be sorted in to different classes...

What do you all think?

[The Sociologist]

I've reccomend changing combat to one hit an hour instead per person, but it does need some serious consideration first as it will drastically alter the game mechanics.

Bear in mind then that if you have a town leader--ie the person with the keys--whose combat skills are at the lower end, then that person becomes a sitting duck, perhaps even to a pirate plus accomplice. A mere two characters, both of whose skills are especially good, could take him or her out in a matter of two or so Cantr hours. They hit at the start of hour two, again in hour three after the tiredness recovery, and then perhaps just one more time if needed. Six hits by skilled combatants against a charrie whose iron shield can barely defend, and you would surely have a knockout, not so?

Indeed, given what Just A Bill said above, it may even be that just one character could succeed at a one-on-one assassination within a time frame barely much longer than the above.

But by all means correct me if you think my calculations are wrong.

[rklenseth]

And I don't see a problem with that. Otherwise it will always be long drawn out battle where no one ever dies or we can go back to the old way where just a few people can massacre 40 in a matter of seconds.

At least if we go this route with the way combat is now then things will be more realistic.

Anyways, it would take about a day or so for someone to actually get a kill in so chances are that a person being attacked will be awake at some point during that day. If not then that is the way it goes. I lost many of my characters this way. Cantr is a game really meant to be played at least once a day with some brief periods of recess (sometimes I go camping on the weekend), but if you only play a few times a week or are often absent for long periods of time then Cantr isn't really for you.

And if your character is a leader in town that suck as defending then he or she will have to come up with a new tactic at surviving and staying in power. IE. Being behind locked doors and allowing advisors take care of business, bodyguards, secret service units inflitrating assassin cells, etc...

Right now, one of the reason why Cantr has become so stagant is that many of the leaders and governments in power really have no fear of losing power or dying. Add in one hit per hour and then false sense of security is no more. But at the same time these same assassins would be unlikely and unable to massacre an entire town due to tiredness, random damage, skills etc... So everything in the end balances out. Cantr society won't become stagant because no one can be killed and killing many is impossible for one or a small group of peolple versus larger groups.

Before these changes about a year ago we were out of balance way and now with the changes we are out of balance the other way. Now we can get to some middle ground perhaps.

[kinvoya]

I agree with Serenity. If everybody becomes invulnerable then there really isn't much "game" aspect left to Cantr.

And Sociologist, perhaps it's better not to spell out to every one on the forums how to do things like that. At least if the players have to figure it out for themselves it gives the town leaders a chance.

[wichita]

If there was a chance for automatic retaliation, then there would always be a chance of a character fighting back, so the multiple hit per day take out of sleepers would be a moot point. I would hope that if someone came into my house at night and stabbed me with a sabre, I would get up and do something about it (providing I am still alive. ) I think we should expect the same for Cantrians. And yes it is better if you are able to log in everyday, several tiimes a day, but I just hate to think that it is a requirement to do so.

Part of the reason I have grown so aggravated with the big cities is that I log in in the morning and life is peaceful, then I log in four hours later at lunch break and find the world gone to hell-in-a-handbasket because I was not logged to provide simple responses that my character would have given. *cough* Lake Village *cough*



All I would like to see is that if someone gets attacked, they send a strike back in defense. And to keep it interesting and balanced, there could be a chance that the sleeper would not strike back, sort of like the miss chance with hitting. I would think that this should help maintain balance in attacks.



I guess this will still make the massacre thing difficult, so some fine tuning would be needed, but I would think in principle it could be a step in the right direction towards fixing the problem. I would love to see a different dynamic to warfare as much as the next guy. The way it is now feels more like chess than people fighting each other, which shouldn't be the intent. Armies should come together and have a big Braveheart melee, which is difficult to achieve routinely without a CRB.

And yes, the guy with all the jkeys probably should not be standing out in the square in broad dayloght. That is what lieutenants and henchmen are for. If that becomes a problem, that is just bad leadeship in my opinion.

[kinvoya]

I don't think automatic strike-backs are a good idea because they go against roleplaying. Each char needs to respond to an attack according to his or her personality. One char might be a pacifist and would never strike someone even if attacked. One might be a coward and be too afraid to retaiate. One might be too clumbsy to make an effective hit, etc.

In a dagerous world like Cantr there is always the possibility of sudden and senseless death. That's one of the main reasons that chars strive to get protection in the forms of shields and houses and well-armed friends. If your chars sleep a lot they are going to be more vulnerable than a char who is alert. That's just the reality of Cantr.

Also, and here's a good tip, if you go to sleep out on the street in front of your rl house, you will probably also be pretty vulnerable (even if it's just to a dog peeing on you). If strangers with sabres and crossbows tend to pass through your town you better cover yourself up with a good shield and hope your neighbors keep an eye on you.

It's true that you don't have to play a lot of minutes to participate in Cantr but unless you do and you're on at least once a day your chars are not going to do a lot with their lives. They probably won't have very interesting or complex roleplaying experiences or be able to trade for the things that will make them less vulnerable.