Play balancing statism with responsibilty.

David · Postby **David** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 4:30 am

If one reads my post, they will see I advocate leg irons, handcuffs, and straight jackets. Something that allows for signifgant possible statist crackdowns. At the same time, I advocate personal stealth, antithema to statism in the broadest sense. People tend to want a lot of countermeasures against raiders to bolster their sendentary and imperial ways.

I don't have a problem with this; however, there ought to be more asked of those who want to hold power, whether ruthlessly or benignly, because in societies this is neccessary. Providing for the public welfare ought to be a component that extends beyond making sure their are enough carrots to go around and having an expansive military (which is what those in power want anyway)

If all of these countermeasures are implemented that people advocate for strict statism, Hygiene and other things yet to be mention should be introduced as well. For instance, if you have a huge population and no one is clean and possibly clothing should have something to do with it, disease should spread. People should get minor injuries that truly impair their abilities while doing day to day tasks requiring medical attention if they want to get back to full strength, famines and epidemics and natural disaster should randomly wash over every once and awhile. And other things that require responsibility on the part of the state that others may think of.

Play balancing is just one way to look at it. There are other ways to look at it too. For one it would add a lot of depth to the game. Another reason is it more accurately reflects society as this is a society sim.

rklenseth · Postby **rklenseth** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 4:32 am

I agree. It can be easy for people to catch and hold someone but it should be equally easy for someone to get away or do things unnoticed.

Solfius · Postby **Solfius** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 11:19 am

It all sounds good.

Out of interest: what does "statism" mean?

Pirog · Postby **Pirog** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 4:46 pm

It would also be good if people played some of their characters a little bit less heroic also.

Take Lad for example, where many players personal dislike of such governments make them create characters that "fights the system".

People in IRL history hasn't been as enthusiastic.
During WW2 the same people who cheered and worked for the Germans would change sides when the Allies liberated their towns.

Life is a bit too cheap in Cantr...

Postby **Jos Elkink** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 4:49 pm

Pirog wrote:Life is a bit too cheap in Cantr...

True. Any solutions are welcome

Postby **Jos Elkink** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 4:53 pm

To reply more in general: I agree with your ideas, David. It would be interesting if leaders had more responsibilities, if there were more demands on organisation - whether it be some anarchistic form or a very statist form, but at least more necessity for organisation.

Solutions would be the long, long planned introduction of diseases, that could indeed be related to clothing and weather. And simply more and more goods, so that there will be a starker difference between living in an underdeveloped and a developed area. Now people are simply too easily satisfied with their material life

...

Imagine in real life all still being around farming potatoes and chatting a bit with others farming ... really a bit boring

... but technically that's the only the physical environment now demands of people.

Pirog · Postby **Pirog** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 4:55 pm

Having it take a week before you can start a new character would, I think, solve the problem with the ones who kill their characters off to start in a more "fun" area.

If there is any way of monitoring how people play the game you could even make that kind of behavior (people who spawn and instantly attack everyone, scream "KILL ME, KILL ME" or steal all notes and makes a suicidal run for it) against the rules and close down the accounts of people who does those things.

Personally, I don't see the reason for allowing such behavior.
Since the characters spawn randomly it is obvious that you should play from where you start...

Postby **Jos Elkink** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 4:57 pm

It would be nice to just disallow it, but there is already a huge workload for the PD and this would add too much. I am definitely considering a time delay between when a character dies and you want to create a new one. E.g. when we introduce babies, we could create something that starting as baby can always be done, but for the grown-up spawners, you cannot do this within 2 or 3 weeks after a character died.

jeslange · Postby **jeslange** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 4:58 pm

Perhaps there could be an option to delete your own char until they are a full day old? I figure some people think it's faster to get killed than to e-mail the PD.

David · Postby **David** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 4:59 pm

A society that is statist is one that has a developed centralized government, usually with some elements of government control of economics and domestic policy.

EDIT: There are degrees of statism as well... China and Saudi Arabia are very statist, whereas European Democracies are less so, though many have a governmental social policy that is more statist than say America... then there are some Anarchic countries in the 3rd world that barely have the trappings of a state at all. Also, socialism or communism are mot interchangable with statism, though these types of governments lend themselves to a very statist society.

The Hunter · Postby **The Hunter** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 5:00 pm

Jos Elkink wrote:
Pirog wrote:Life is a bit too cheap in Cantr...

True. Any solutions are welcome

Yep. And like in the violence thread I'll give thesame opinion. A spawn delay. Let people wait for some time untill they can spawn a new character. People might discover that life where they spawned but didn't want to end up isnt bad at all and keep them from stealing and running off.

Characters are way too suicidal. :cry:

Pirog · Postby **Pirog** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 5:07 pm

Jos>

Actually I'm against making grown up characters harder to spawn than babies. Playing as a child requires much devotion and I think such a player has a big responsibility towards the players of the parents to RP in a good way.
Therefore I see a risk in "forcing" in people with bad RP skills or with little interest in playing children by making it easier than starting grown ups...

The Hunter · Postby **The Hunter** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 5:13 pm

No way. I'm not going to get a char spawned as a baby and not being able to do anything that makes sense. If some ppl want to, go ahead, but not me.

Meh · Postby **Meh** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 5:24 pm

Requesting to die in the game is much better than doing things that will get you killed. At least you can offer them one more invitation to life before they are gone. I wouldn't say that ever requested suicide is good RP but some may be. And I do prefer it to the alternatives.

Now if babies are introduced and someone had 15 adult chracters and wanted to play some babies, what is the best way to exit?

Make peace with your contacts and then e-mail PD or just e-mail PD?

Pirog · Postby **Pirog** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 5:38 pm

Meh>

If it was up to me I would let the children "slots" be separated from the others and having some form of check-up before being allowed to play one.

I don't think there will be much of a baby boom, since there is more to lose than to gain with children from an economic perspective...meaning that I think there will be a lot more players wanting to play children than available children...

Perhaps the parents could somehow decide who plays their child, and thus being able to contact the player before giving them that trust.
(Kind of like a reverse adoption, where the parents chose from a list who is suitable to play their kid?)

Play balancing statism with responsibilty.

Play balancing statism with responsibilty.

Who is online