Cantr Future: Science, Invention, Progress etc

[BarbaricAvatar]

3. The sheer distance between towns prevent anything bigger. The introduction especially provided a disincentive to create larger communities are motor vehicles became more expensive and cumbersome. It provided even greater incentives to use boats - and provided even more incentive for piracy.

Introducing vehicle fuel did that.
Still the most socially destructive change that's been made to the game over the past year.

[Surly]

Yeah, that was supposed to say the introduction of fuel. I have literally no idea what happened there!

Original post edited.

[Snake]

those who kill for no reason and definitely not stop the genocide from the Poles (who kill the English primarily, as far as I can see, just because it's easier than speaking to them)

A potential war is the only thing that really keeps me in the game. Peaceful towns are dead boring, and killing foreign spekaing chars is far more acceptable than killing your own mates.

[Surly]

those who kill for no reason and definitely not stop the genocide from the Poles (who kill the English primarily, as far as I can see, just because it's easier than speaking to them)

A potential war is the only thing that really keeps me in the game. Peaceful towns are dead boring, and killing foreign spekaing chars is far more acceptable than killing your own mates.

Honestly? I think you are playing the wrong game. Sure, war is a part of social change but it really is a small part. If it's all that keeps you here, you'd be better off playing Medal of Honor online with your mates.

[Snake]

Nope, I'd rather play Cantr, cause death here is permanent - that's why your chars are so preciouuuuuuuuussss. I agree that society bla bla bla was fun at first! Now only a global scale conflict (gimme some nukes!) can make the difference. But it's a male way of thinking, females prefer SimsStyleCantring Fortunately for you, there's a long way to make it happen, cause everyone but me is afraid of loosing their chars. :> Bless...

[Doug R.]

3. The sheer distance between towns prevent anything bigger. The introduction especially provided a disincentive to create larger communities are motor vehicles became more expensive and cumbersome. It provided even greater incentives to use boats - and provided even more incentive for piracy.

Introducing vehicle fuel did that.
Still the most socially destructive change that's been made to the game over the past year.

I disagree. I've seen more politics and trade arising around procuring fuel since it was implemented. If people are letting their vehicles run out of fuel, it's not because it's difficult to procure, it's because motor vehicles are inherently unnecessary. Since age is not a factor, time is not an inherent factor. You can achieve the same thing with a tandem as you can a motorcycle, it just takes longer.

[Surly]

I disagree. I've seen more politics and trade arising around procuring fuel since it was implemented. If people are letting their vehicles run out of fuel, it's not because it's difficult to procure, it's because motor vehicles are inherently unnecessary. Since age is not a factor, time is not an inherent factor. You can achieve the same thing with a tandem as you can a motorcycle, it just takes longer.

Under that logic, communities are inherently unnecessary. Age is not a factor (nor is time), so anyone can do anything by themselves. And it's exactly that logic that leads to chars spreading out and the long-term decline of any community.

Time is a factor, as achieving things more quickly is absolutely the only reason for working together with anyone else with the game set up as it currently is. In fact, time would appear to be the only factor since anyone can achieve anything given enough time.

[Doug R.]

It would seem, then, that implementing death from old age would be the answer to a great deal of our problems.

[Joshuamonkey]

It would seem, then, that implementing death from old age would be the answer to a great deal of our problems.

There was death from old age in FTO, but it seems like that was mostly sad and annoying. I don't think characters and players are really motivated to move faster just because they only have 70 years years or so to live. Also, old age and having a long character history behind you adds to the roleplay in many cases.
Perhaps what's needed is an easier way to kill the old characters who cause problems such as key hoarding, etc. Though I've learned that old characters aren't indestructible..

[DylPickle]

It would seem, then, that implementing death from old age would be the answer to a great deal of our problems.

There was death from old age in FTO, but it seems like that was mostly sad and annoying. I don't think characters and players are really motivated to move faster just because they only have 70 years years or so to live. Also, old age and having a long character history behind you adds to the roleplay in many cases.
Perhaps what's needed is an easier way to kill the old characters who cause problems such as key hoarding, etc. Though I've learned that old characters aren't indestructible..

70, no, but there are plenty of cantrians over 120. That's long enough, don't you think? Some of the most intriguing events in history were centered around the concept of succession, but these types of events are impossible in cantr because so long as a player is playing, the king will always be king until their player steps away from the game or they are assassinated. Time also moves much slower in cantr, from what I can remember, so chars over in the hundreds (120 being 100 years of life), have had their time.

[Doug R.]

I don't think characters and players are really motivated to move faster just because they only have 70 years years or so to live.

Of course they don't. Are you? Am I? But what if they had only 10 more years? Five? A player's interest in their characters tends to start high and slope lower and lower over time. If suddenly you had a legacy to protect, it could create an upward trend in the end. Implementing player-induced death might create death by old age indirectly, but only to a limited extent.

[Joshuamonkey]

70, no, but there are plenty of cantrians over 120. That's long enough, don't you think? Some of the most intriguing events in history were centered around the concept of succession, but these types of events are impossible in cantr because so long as a player is playing, the king will always be king until their player steps away from the game or they are assassinated. Time also moves much slower in cantr, from what I can remember, so chars over in the hundreds (120 being 100 years of life), have had their time

Actually, it seems like most of the time leaders die eventually, through heart attack if not murder. There are some leaders who don't die, yes, but I still don't think that dying from old age is the best solution. I really think that being able to live long is an important aspect of the game, because that means that what you work you can keep, theoretically, for forever. Would people care as much if they're going to end up dying anyway? Cantr time doesn't quite compare to real life time, because even though the years are only 20 days, 1 day is still 1 day. Because Cantr is a slow-paced game, time actually moves slower in Cantr, generally, then real life. Conversations can take days, etc.

But what if they had only 10 more years? Five? A player's interest in their characters tends to start high and slope lower and lower over time

Yes, I was thinking about this, and it's a fair point.

What if great role play is ruined because characters die of old age? It certainly happens with people dying of sleep. I may be biased, but I don't think much would be gained by my characters dying. This also relates to resetting the game, in a smaller scale, since people would be forced to lose their characters.

[Joshuamonkey]

Pies (not Pie) brought to my attention what may work as a good compromise, which is something that's been considered before, which is not allowing older characters to do certain actions or to be weaker. For example, lowing skills, strength, ability to work, or even ability to move if you want to go that far. To be honest, I just don't want a bunch of my characters to die, and I know others would feel the same. Even if it means all that they can do is talk and eat. I may be emotional unstable if they were to die.
As Pies put it, the old characters shouldn't be able to hold the keys because of how easily they could be dragged away and killed.

[Surly]

Cantrians have a natural life span. I see a few situations:

1) They will live as long as the RP keeps them there. If they are active and RPing, killing them would be more harmful to the game.
2) There is not sufficient RP and the player effectively kills them (heart attack or starvation). So no problem.
3) They are killed for their lack of contribution (e.g. sleeping). So not really a problem.
4) They are killed in a CRB-fuelled killing spree. The problem here isn't the killing of the characters...

So I don't see a situation where killing old people will actively help RP and the game. The real issue is the sheer length of time things take to build. And I mean basic things (knives, hammers, clothes, resource collection) rather than motor vehicles. Most businesses fail in Cantr due to the sheer amount of work in setting up in comparison to the small number of chars to sell to.

My immediate preference would be to implement item quality, to add some value to experts (a thread which Echoman merged with old threads and promptly got no feedback at all ). Then we can consider standardising build times (irrelevant to skill), and hopefully encourage players to keep building and developing. We need to find a way for the mechanics to assist RP rather than eventually killing it through player frustration.

EDIT:

...not allowing older characters to do certain actions or to be weaker...

Limiting certain actions, fine. Making them weaker - hell no. Strength is already horribly unbalanced with certain chars being able to drag others singlehandedly.

[SumBum]

Very much against old-age death. How can you argue against wiping the world and starting with a clean slate, then say that old chars dying would be a benefit?

+1 to Surly's list.

Towns aren't always held hostage by old chars keeping all the keys to themselves - could be a char of any age fallen to sleeping sickness. There are a ways to deal with that in game (kill the key holder, organize everyone else to protest or have a more peaceful coup, move, etc). I'd rather see that scenario solved in game than have such a strong penalty invoked. Chars have a high enough mortality rate as it is.

Considering how few survive to see old age, I don't like the idea of nerfing them in any way either.