An Essay on Motivation (Long)

[Mafia Salad]

(A) Entropy & Mortality; (B) Scarcity & Economy;
I can't really picture the effects of these two in the game right now, so I’m think about them and maybe comment later.

(C) Immortality & Dynasty;
I actually really like that children implication idea. I've always felt that Cantr emphasizes individuality a lot more than reality.

I don't know if babies and baby creation projects would be necessary though, I'd just set an age limit of 40 or 50 years to have a kid. And let everybody know that the kid is someone’s kid.
A boy under ten, the son of a man in his fifties says:

Create children with the intent of them being a controlled and know mule type characters. Limit it to one per parent char and five or less per player (taking up a character slot too) and cut their project rate in half when they are in the same town as their parent as well as under x years old.

(D) Hierarchy & Symbolism;
Since this is a text based game, and I like to look for solutions in game, I think the same effect can be created through names an association in the game right now. Clan or organization names link people together and create a sense of unity and ranks and titles create a hierarchy.

(E) Conflict & Warfare;
There are a lot of issues with the combat system, but because of the limited freedom in the game mechanics, I think any new system including yours will only create a new stuck in the mud fight and only provide a few months of compelling military strategy while the system is being worked out.

If you want a lockless fight now, you just need to look outside of the towns.

[Marian]

Wow, those are some long posts! I'm glad you made them though, the forums been getting a little boring lately.

There's no way I have time to reply to everything, and I don't really agree with everything (some of the stuff about repairs seemed a little drastic, since every char who bought a iron or steel tool would also need to be able to produce iron and steel if they wanted to keep it...though then again, that might encourage more repair businesses to spring up.) And I totally agree that related skills should be, well, related, and they shouldn't vary more than one level. If you're skillfull at forging weapons you should be between efficient and expert at tools and shields and repairing, and the same goes for hunting and fighting, farming and gathering healing food, and all the other obivous stuff.

But anyway, about your other points, one of the things that caused one of those 'Why didn't I think about that?' moments was your suggestions about buildings. Not so much making streets and numbering them, all that's too complicated, and the simple idea was the best. Building slots. So obvious, and probably easy to implement. I've seen a lot of apartments complexes and community centers, but no one ever actually seems to use them. If a town could only build like six buildings, but an infinite number of of rooms inside those buildings, apartments would suddenly make a lot more sense, a business would probably have to get a permit and prove that they'd be useful to the town before being able to take up a slot (or else somebody would build a strip mall adn the businesses would go inside it.)

I don't know how you'd determine the number of slots though, how did they do it for resource slots? They should probably be related in a way, I think it would make more sense for a place with fewer resource slots to have more room for building, but then again it's the places with lots of resources that are going to have more people...

I'm not really going to get into the issue of kids here, because I don't know what the best way to implement it would be or even if it's a good idea period. (Spawning the normal way should still be possible though, that's the only thing I know for sure.) Your way would at least make sure a couple wasn't stuck with a suicidal kid or someone who tipes liek thiS, but if it takes two people to make a kid, who gets to play it? (Maybe they should remain an object until one of the parents dies, and whoever goes first gets to 'possess' them?)

Okay, next, I agree with pretty much everything you said about heirarchy and symbolism, (we already have cobalt, and no use for it as far as I know...and isn't hematite red? ). We need tatoos, body paint, hair dye, more kinds of jewelry, flags, decorated shields (if you can make a diamond encrusted sabre, why not a diamond encrusted shield? Or one inlaid with gold or silver or copper?) and just more ways to look different period. All the resources are supposed to be placed now, but I've always thought we needed seashells for jewelry, and it would be good for dyes like you said...it would be rare, and might even be used for currency in some places like in real life.

Now, as for part E, COnflict and Warfare, I agree with everything you said, and I mean everything. I made a post in Agar's 'Wong Wei' thread about the lock issue being one of the reason towns are so boring, and am I right in guessing you were the one who made the sledgehammer suggestion I was searching for?

Also, I've always thought vehicles should have to be named just like people. Right now if a town is robbed by someone on a ship or bike, and then later see the same one with another char, I think it's too tempting to break the CR there and not trust them.

Edit: sledgehammers need steel now? Why?

[tiddy ogg]

Very interesting and thought-provoking.
The thing that won't work is the dynasty thing. The RL ananogy took place over centuries. It is most unlikely manyy players will play Cantr for more than 5 years, (there ain't many 70 y.o. + chars)). This equates to some 85 Cantr years, about 3 generations, after which the dynasty must die out if continued by procreation, thus it rests on trusted nominated descendants.
Secondly, throughout most of history,, via religious or state suppression, the majority of people had no aspiration to be other than labourer. The game's players don't fit into this category so will be unlikely to allow their chars, and offspring, to spend their entire lives in menial work.

A third point is that in RL all but a few of the population are their through procreation of their own kind, immigration being minimal in most cases, and certainly historically. In Cantr, even with the advent of children, most new chars will be newspawn "immigrants" thus destroying any such cohesion an immobile subserviant population would provide, even if chars were played in that role... which contravenes the game blurb, (which so many otther posters love to quote,) that you must set goals for your character.

Most of the other ideas, however, are very good, but as this part was the basis of many, (viz enclosures etc) I'm afraid I can't give it 100% applause. (Not that my opinion is worth much, I know.)

[Marian]

The game's players don't fit into this category so will be unlikely to allow their chars, and offspring, to spend their entire lives in menial work.

Um...actually I'd say that spending their lives on 'menial work' is all most Cantrians do. That's part of the problem. It's hard to find anyone who's awake enough to do anything more complicated than standing there and growing rice or working at the smelter all the time.

[Doug R.]

Very interesting and thought-provoking.
The thing that won't work is the dynasty thing. The RL ananogy took place over centuries. It is most unlikely manyy players will play Cantr for more than 5 years, (there ain't many 70 y.o. + chars)). This equates to some 85 Cantr years, about 3 generations, after which the dynasty must die out if continued by procreation, thus it rests on trusted nominated descendants.

You forget that it takes 2 to tango. Each offspring will be controlled by the mother or the father. The offspring's offspring will be controlled by the offspring's player or the other parent. Each generation will cause a 50% chance to move away from the founding patriarch/matriarch's player, meaning entire dynasties will not just drop dead when a player quits. The more generations, the less impact a founding player dropping out will have.

[Talapus]

sledgehammers need steel now? Why?

We made this change at the same time that we increased the rate of hematite crushing with a sledgehammer. It gives more function to this tool, and also alleviated the bottle neck in the current iron production process.

[tiddy ogg]

[quote="Doug R."
You forget that it takes 2 to tango. Each offspring will be controlled by the mother or the father. The offspring's offspring will be controlled by the offspring's player or the other parent. Each generation will cause a 50% chance to move away from the founding patriarch/matriarch's player, meaning entire dynasties will not just drop dead when a player quits. The more generations, the less impact a founding player dropping out will have.[/quote]

I'm still dubious. One of the pair must decide who will play the child. By the time the child is 30 that player will have been playing for at least 40 Cantr years= 2+ RL years. Then the grandchild appears. To get a third generation requires another 2.3 year commitment by whichever plays on. Maybe statistics show the proportion of players playing that long, then squaring, cubing etc to infinitessimally small.

[formerly known as hf]

Agreed, eniterly. I'll avoid making a long-winded reply, as, well, I don;t have the energy right now...

Espceially about the decay, and the combat system.

One thing I will add though, is that even with decay, currencies will not take off. Barter is the prime trading experience, and it will continue like that as long as it is possible to universally tell how many days worth of work X amount of carrots is, compared to X amount of limestone (or other resource) - it can be even carried over to manufactured items.

I've even seen people discussing how many 'days worth' of work a certain amount of iron is - how many days collecting X amount of limestone, X amount of hematite and X amount of coal, days travelled, days crushing and smelting. The result is actually fairly accurate and not all that difficult to work out.

Cantr does have a universal currency - it's just in a purely abstract form, embodied in the 'days worth of work' that a certain amount of a resource represents.

Now I've (kind of) got my resource scarcity, one thing I've moved on to asking for, is resource variation - some places should be good for food, providing greater daily yields, others for stone/coal etc. and so forth.

Mostly, it's so that resource slots actually mean something - as it stands, anywhere with a valuable resource and a harvestable food source still has no need for trade, and just attracts more and more characters. But, in addition, it will remove the possibility of accurately knowing the 'days worth' of work a resource amount is.

[Marian]

I'm still dubious. One of the pair must decide who will play the child. By the time the child is 30 that player will have been playing for at least 40 Cantr years= 2+ RL years. Then the grandchild appears. To get a third generation requires another 2.3 year commitment by whichever plays on. Maybe statistics show the proportion of players playing that long, then squaring, cubing etc to infinitessimally small.

Maybe that's actually a good thing, to keep kids rare. Only the really, really dedicated players would have them, and they'd be something special that way.

Cantr does have a universal currency - it's just in a purely abstract form, embodied in the 'days worth of work' that a certain amount of a resource represents.

I agree, hours and days of work are the real 'currency', it's how everything else is calculated and in most cases you can buy anything you want outright just by promising to work for a certain amout of time.

Really I love the barter system, even if it makes things more difficult sometime it's one of the more unique things about Cantr that makes it more interesting than your boring run of the mill "gold coins" (or "credits" for sci-fi) every other game seems to have.

[wietse]

good post!

it cleary shows most of the weaknesses in cantr..

Although some details may need clarifying, i do like the general ideas.

[Solfius]

That pretty much supports his point

Agreed. I am not attempting to dispute The Sociologist on all points.

That's absurd. I own a sledgehammer, and it's made from a wooden handle and stone

*Waves his magic Resource wand and the stone of Solifius' sledgehammer turns into steel* Go check the construction in the game. I think you will find that I am right.

I would be very worried if the sledgehammer in my garden suddenly turned to steel now...

[sem]

But anyway, about your other points, one of the things that caused one of those 'Why didn't I think about that?' moments was your suggestions about buildings. Not so much making streets and numbering them, all that's too complicated, and the simple idea was the best. Building slots. So obvious, and probably easy to implement. I've seen a lot of apartments complexes and community centers, but no one ever actually seems to use them. If a town could only build like six buildings, but an infinite number of of rooms inside those buildings, apartments would suddenly make a lot more sense, a business would probably have to get a permit and prove that they'd be useful to the town before being able to take up a slot (or else somebody would build a strip mall and the businesses would go inside it.)

I don't know how you'd determine the number of slots though, how did they do it for resource slots? They should probably be related in a way, I think it would make more sense for a place with fewer resource slots to have more room for building, but then again it's the places with lots of resources that are going to have more people...

Maybe have each street use a resource slot? The town government would then need to balance the desirability of buildings against the restricted ability to gather local resources. Eventually if a city ever arose it would be unable to support itself from local resources, and would become dependent on trade.

[Solfius]

But anyway, about your other points, one of the things that caused one of those 'Why didn't I think about that?' moments was your suggestions about buildings. Not so much making streets and numbering them, all that's too complicated, and the simple idea was the best. Building slots. So obvious, and probably easy to implement. I've seen a lot of apartments complexes and community centers, but no one ever actually seems to use them. If a town could only build like six buildings, but an infinite number of of rooms inside those buildings, apartments would suddenly make a lot more sense, a business would probably have to get a permit and prove that they'd be useful to the town before being able to take up a slot (or else somebody would build a strip mall and the businesses would go inside it.)

I don't know how you'd determine the number of slots though, how did they do it for resource slots? They should probably be related in a way, I think it would make more sense for a place with fewer resource slots to have more room for building, but then again it's the places with lots of resources that are going to have more people...

Maybe have each street use a resource slot? The town government would then need to balance the desirability of buildings against the restricted ability to gather local resources. Eventually if a city ever arose it would be unable to support itself from local resources, and would become dependent on trade.

That's a really good second post....

[Sho]

Solid. I agree with all of the criticisms of the current system - some (e.g. the problems with currency) I've had in mind before, and others are new to me but feel right.

Of the proposed changes:
The children suggestion feels like the children suggestion I've been waiting for - finally, a way to ensure that children will be played properly and the number of children born matches the number of players who want to play them. Obvious CR issues, but since children will start in the same place as the parents, will most likely stay with them and will be expected to share goals anyway, they should be manageable. It will also shut down the massive opposition that players have to mortality - I thought it could be accepted as necessary for Cantrian society to develop, but got completely shouted down by players who didn't want their characters to die. I'm not convinced that it will have all the positive effects suggested, but there should be enough.
The changes to decay should indeed have the stated effects. They will also be hugely unpopular - people have gotten used to hoarding.
Urban property I like. Renaming buildings is nothing new, but permanent addresses remove the principal objection to it. And of course limited building space should liven things up a bit.
Enclosures will be interesting. Their design must be balanced to make sure it isn't too easy for just anybody to enclose common space against the desire of the rest of the town, though. I liked Quillanoi's idea of "ownership" of gathering spaces, even though it was entirely too inconvenient - this will make it more practical.
The clothes/heraldry idea is very nice - there has been a lot of demand for in-game art, and this will point that in a direction that might change society as well.
I don't really know what to think of combat in Cantr in general, so I'm not sure about the suggestions for fixing it. But I don't see anything obviously bad with these.

Implementability is another issue - some ideas should be straightforward to implement, others less so. But mostly I think these ideas will be easy to implement relative to the changes that they will bring.

[Nixit]

I love it. I don't really think there's anything wrong with it, save for a few technicalities (but that doesn't make any moot points). He's explained it all, so I will just show my loving support.