Code change for buying exclusive transport rights suggested

[pickpacket]

After the discussion in the other thread about how buying exclusive transport rights should work I've made code changes and submitted a pull request on github (this means that the code change has been submitted for review and discussion).

This is the time to make your voice heard about this change. Please keep the discussion on github, and remember that the discussion this time is narrow in scope. It's not about how the feature should work, but only about whether this particular change should be accepted. That is, do you think that it's better than the current mechanic?

https://github.com/OpenTTD/OpenTTD/pull/11076

[LaChupacabra]

Sorry for the bluntness, but for me this is not an improvement. If you think that this can be useful in multiplayer games, you are simply very wrong. Again, note that this option is not enabled on ANY of the established servers. And no one who knows what this function can be used for will ever enable it. Do you think that if you hand out knives to children for them to play with, it's going to be fun? No, this game will be a slaughterhouse. First, one child hurts the other for fun. Then the second will do the same to the first. Then the former will get angry and drive the knife deeper. The second one will get mad and cut the first one's throat... Is this funny? Of course, I colored it, but the mechanism and its effects will be just as destructive.

One story...
Some time ago, while playing on one of the popular servers, I came across a player who decided to connect to "my" mines. It wasn't formally forbidden, the rules allowed it (which is nonsense), but none of the more experienced players like it and no one does it. When I asked him to find other mines, of which there was a lot on the map, he said that he can use mine and will continue to do so. You know what happened after? Me and a few other players did the exact same thing to this guy. At each of his stations, several others appeared, from different companies. Even as he built a new station, new ones popped up every time. Everything was in accordance with the rules of the server he referred to. Only then did he realize that his approach was a mistake (to put it mildly) and he removed his stations. He also had the choice of leaving the server, because his further play no longer made sense.
The same will be the case when the possibility of buying exclusivity is made available. Your change here doesn't really improve anything here. Instead of a double-sided knife, you suggest a single-sided one with teeth.
It doesn't matter how you modify it. As long as this behavior is aggressive towards other players, this feature will not apply to online games (except for accidental, one-day, pathological servers where the game is about destroying each other).

[pickpacket]

You're not wrong. I just don't see how you're making an argument either for or against this change

What you're saying is basically "I don't like that Exclusive transport rights exist as a concept because I don't think it's very kind. Therefore i don't play with it." Which is, y'know, a perfectly valid point of view.

As I wrote in the description:

In multiplayer games where exclusive rights are disabled, or where a social contract restricts this abuse, this change will have no impact. However, in more competitively inclined multiplayer games this change makes exclusive transport rights a more dynamic and balanced tool for both defensive and offensive play.

And commented here:

Exclusive transport rights -- like road reconstruction -- is not meant to be kind. I love kind games as much as the next guy and play like that 99% of the time. Exclusive transport rights are for fiercely competitive games, last-man-standing kind of play.

[LaChupacabra]

I just don't see how you're making an argument either for or against this change

1. It is creating a niche, disposable product that almost no one will use after the first use.
2. This feature in its current form and the one you propose is extremely conflict-prone and therefore is not and will not be used on any server (apart from unknowingly enabling it).
3. It is saying that corruption and dishonest dealings are ok.
4. It's a self-perpetuating hate machine (aggression breeds aggression), which for most players will only ruin their mood or even their whole day.
5. It's a waste of an opportunity to make this feature really useful in all online games.

This is not particularly important to me and actually does not change anything in offline or online games, because as I wrote, this function is nowhere and will not be enabled. The biggest downside to this change is simply that it wastes any chance of making it really useful.

[pickpacket]

1. It is creating a niche, disposable product that almost no one will use after the first use.
2. This feature in its current form and the one you propose is extremely conflict-prone and therefore is not and will not be used on any server (apart from unknowingly enabling it).
[...]
4. It's a self-perpetuating hate machine (aggression breeds aggression), which for most players will only ruin their mood or even their whole day.

Well... again you're only arguing about the feature existing at all, though I agree with every point you're making (except the word "disposable"). It's niche, it's conflict prone, it's a self-perpetuating hate machine that ruins most players' mood. But that niche is there. I for one enjoy the occasional all out war with friends, where we laugh together at each others' successes and failures. And I know I'm not alone in that. Since the feature is already there it makes sense to change it to something that is really useful in the types of games it's meant for.

3. It is saying that corruption and dishonest dealings are ok.

The very existence of the bribe feature already makes it ok in the game. It's a game mechanic, not a moral lesson

5. It's a waste of an opportunity to make this feature really useful in all online games.

The opportunity will still be there. Changing it now doesn't mean it can't change again in the future.

[kamnet]

3. It is saying that corruption and dishonest dealings are ok.

And are you of the belief that tycoons became tycoons by being honest, transparent and fair-dealing?


I don't have a problem with this being a mechanic. You can either enable it or disable it, use or not use it to your advantage.

[LaChupacabra]

Well... again you're only arguing about the feature existing at all, though

Because your change practically doesn't change anything and that's the problem (at least for me). These changes are just details, which in themselves are not bad. You've more than doubled the cost of taking over exclusivity - if that's what it's supposed to look like, it makes sense. I just think this feature is flawed in its basic premise. I prefer to build rather than destroy, and this form of this function unfortunately serves to destroy. The implementation of such changes also means that nothing will change in terms of the availability of this feature in 99% of online games.

3. It is saying that corruption and dishonest dealings are ok.

The very existence of the bribe feature already makes it ok in the game. It's a game mechanic, not a moral lesson

And are you of the belief that tycoons became tycoons by being honest, transparent and fair-dealing?

Yes, this argument alone is a bit of an exaggeration here. But if it increases the global corruption index by 0,0...01%, don't say I didn't warn you.

By the way... I don't know whether to write this, but maybe it will broaden the perspective a bit... Unfortunately, this is not a particularly funny topic for me. Unfortunately, I deal with the effects of corruption and such shady contracts on a daily basis and it's really nothing cool. A few years ago, my colleague had a serious accident in which he almost lost his life. His face was crushed, he spent two months in the hospital, he suffered severe brain injuries as a result of which he lost his hearing and is now an invalid. It was the result of such "mutual courtesies". The company where he worked did not care about the safety of employees. It was too expensive. It was cheaper to give the right person an envelope of cash. Because the chairman wanted a new, bigger Lexus. And he bought it. A few months after that accident. Funny? It's just only game? Well, unfortunately not. Every relativization of evil is a way to its acceptance. Of course, you need to be moderate and not go to extremes. I like dark humor myself, I even have much "worse" ideas , so I'm shooting myself in the foot with such moralizing. Maybe I'm oversensitive, but well... I have reasons for that.

[pickpacket]

Yes, this argument alone is a bit of an exaggeration here. But if it increases the global corruption index by 0,0...01%, don't say I didn't warn you.

By the way... I don't know whether to write this, but maybe it will broaden the perspective a bit... Unfortunately, this is not a particularly funny topic for me. Unfortunately, I deal with the effects of corruption and such shady contracts on a daily basis and it's really nothing cool. A few years ago, my colleague had a serious accident in which he almost lost his life. His face was crushed, he spent two months in the hospital, he suffered severe brain injuries as a result of which he lost his hearing and is now an invalid. It was the result of such "mutual courtesies". The company where he worked did not care about the safety of employees. It was too expensive. It was cheaper to give the right person an envelope of cash. Because the chairman wanted a new, bigger Lexus. And he bought it. A few months after that accident. Funny? It's just only game? Well, unfortunately not. Every relativization of evil is a way to its acceptance. Of course, you need to be moderate and not go to extremes. I like dark humor myself, I even have much "worse" ideas , so I'm shooting myself in the foot with such moralizing. Maybe I'm oversensitive, but well... I have reasons for that.

I'm so sorry for your colleague and for the fact that you have to deal with real life corruption like that

[odisseus]

2. This feature in its current form and the one you propose is extremely conflict-prone and therefore is not and will not be used on any server (apart from unknowingly enabling it).
3. It is saying that corruption and dishonest dealings are ok.
4. It's a self-perpetuating hate machine (aggression breeds aggression), which for most players will only ruin their mood or even their whole day.

Let's ban all shooter games, because shooting at people is bad.