Transport Tycoon Forums

Xaroth wrote:based on shares, where 75% shares would mean 100% of tiles, if 3 companies each hold 25% of the shares they each get 33% of the track (but some magic has to be done to check who actually -uses- that track as it's useless for company B to receive track that only A and C uses...)

Keep in mind that share trading is disabled in any sane multiplayer game. Even when shares are enabled, there is no guarantee that anyone has bought any shares.

Also, any proposed solution should also take into account that sharing can end not only because of bankruptcy or 'reset_company X', but also because sharing can be switched off. E.g. converting tracks to OWNER_NONE would not really be acceptable in such a case.

I found out that if you run coal from player one take it and drop it at players two to take it to the power plant player 2 make moeny but player 1 makes nothing

Just fort i say about this

I am hopeing once i got this pacth and Cargo Distribution working togiver it should fix this proble

alain: you seriously need to take a look at your spelling, and were you telling the train/ship/road vehicle to 'transfer?'

ok i missed the transfer thing sorry

This dose what i want

so i am going to relase it in my patch pack and i think i proble be done with it and going to have fun and play a game with my other half

About the Bankrupty troubiles. The First competior train that operate on the track should get posseon. Like this. Green goes bankrupt and Has the trains of Blue and Red on it. Blue started operating trains on it in the 1930s while Red started in the 1960s. Blue wins posseion of the track.

Main problems with this patch are social.

* It's very easy to cheat the system to gain lots of money at the start.
* It's very easy to wipe out other companies who are using your infrastructure.
* Is it okay to expand a competitors network without asking?

petern wrote:Main problems with this patch are social.

* It's very easy to cheat the system to gain lots of money at the start.
* It's very easy to wipe out other companies who are using your infrastructure.
* Is it okay to expand a competitors network without asking?

With #1: the " first user takesover track" is indeed easy abused to make more rails with 3 companies and use a 4th to just have a depot and trains on that.... wins all tracks easily, might have to be countered somehow (town-owned rails???)

with #2 do you mean crash in them on purpose?
with #3 if you both use same network, i think you should be able to expand it, but all owners should be able to receive a note or so (like a news setting???) or just for big changes...?

The Subsidiaries management patch can you take from that patch

Like adding in running more then one companie at a time like for just coal trains just iron trains and they can run on each others track but some can run on part but not on part

so you have a main companie that owns most of the track and only runs some wood trains on it but then they want to start a new companie that is coal trains lorrys any thing to do about coal so they bank role the coal companie and a iron companie

So there are 2 companies both that are run under the main wood companie

But the wood companies will let both run on the wood companies tracks but the sub coal companie will not be able to run on the iron companies track and the other way around
Also can we change how much each companie has to pay like if companie 1 is not blocking the lines up i let them use it a bit cheaper but companie 2 is blocking up and messing the net work up but i am still making moeny from him i make the pay more

also with Subsidiaries you can make the other players stay of parts of your tracks

petern wrote:Main problems with this patch are social.

* It's very easy to cheat the system to gain lots of money at the start.
* It's very easy to wipe out other companies who are using your infrastructure.
* Is it okay to expand a competitors network without asking?

You can already cheat the system by starting up unlimited companies to terraform

Sorry, I forgot that two wrongs made a right...

Well if you reject feature A because it fails to meet criteria X then you should also reject feature B if it fails to meet criteria X.

Not doing so is illogical

ever wrote:Well if you reject feature A because it fails to meet criteria X then you should also reject feature B if it fails to meet criteria X.

Let criteria X be the maximum speed on the road with playing children or so. That speed limit is 30 km/h. Going through there at 35 km/h is wrong, but is it as wrong as going through there with 130 km/h?

Let criteria X be not being allowed to kill someone. Is deliberately running over that person equally wrong than when that person jumps in front of your car trying to commit suicide. Should the driver be punished in the same way for both cases?

petern wrote:Main problems with this patch are social.

Indeed. We've talked a lot about potential abuse during development. It became clear that no technical solution can ever properly 'fix' social issues. The solution; leave IS off if you don't trust the people you are playing with to a certain degree. If things do go wrong, there are enough options to kick others off your tracks.

petern wrote:* It's very easy to cheat the system to gain lots of money at the start.

True, and very difficult to prevent without harming normal companies at the start. Solution: the same as above, leave IS off when you don't trust people. (for what it's worth; the same applies to share trading to some degree)

petern wrote:* It's very easy to wipe out other companies who are using your infrastructure.

A news message warns you when a settings change is announced. There is a notification period (default: 12 months) between this announcement and when the settings go in effect. This should leave the player enough time to adjust to the new situation.

petern wrote:* Is it okay to expand a competitors network without asking?

No, but this is almost impossible. In practice, you will always need your competitor to place the final track bit that connects his tracks with yours. The only places where a network generally has dead ends to connect to are at terminus stations, not along the network itself.

Abusing a 2nd company for "cheating" is a known trunk issue.

The "good" servers anyway have a house rule set for social conflicts, imo, IS isn't useable without as trunk isn't.

Greets
Ammler

Example Rulesets:
http://wiki.openttd.org/Multiplayer_Rules
http://www.openttdcoop.org/wiki/Ruleset
http://ppcis.org/standard/rules.cgi
http://openttd.dihedral.de/rules/
http://expertshard.googlepages.com/

but you can put buffers at them to stop it ll togiver

@ever: Rubidium already summed it up. I'm not rejecting IS2, I just want it to work better.

@Hirundo: Having to turn a major feature off when running a public server is suboptimal. There will be bugs reports about the money cheat issue...

@Ammler: As long as share trading is off, abusing a second company in trunk can't gain you tens or hundreds of millions in credit right from the start with minimal effort.

Suggestion: Do not allow sharing fees to drop your money below 0.* A news message pops up to warn the track owner that one of his 'customers' is unable to pay. This should reduce the abuse potential from hundreds of millions to the maximum loan.

*We can discuss on how to incorporate the loan, or the possibility thereof, into the equation.

To prevent cheating, the sharing could be done using contracts, ie:

• either the tycoon allows for company X to use his tracks, stations, etc... giving him a price of Y€ per train per distance

• or it is arranged that company X will have access to the network for Z€ per month, unlimited trains

• final solution, company X pays a given amount of money all at once, creating a contract that allwos him to use the network during, say 5 years (the time can be set when creating a contract).

Ideally, the cheaper solution for company X would be the third, but it cannot affort it at the start so it uses the other two. Also, the prices Y and Z should have a minimum value to prevent any cheater to make too much money at the start (in any case, a player caught cheating can be expelled).

As for a company deliberately crashing his trains on the other's, maybe we could disallow using the ignore signals button on an other player's tracks. This way, a player cannot crash the opponent's trains their own tracks. And ot prevent players from using the button befor joining the other player's network, as soon as the train soins it it automatically gets set to "do not ignore".
The other way around, I guess there is no way to prevent a player for crashing an opponent's trains using his tracks, but maybe in that case we could have a kind of insurance: when your train crashes on tracks that don't belong to you, you get paid back. Even better, you could have the player that owns the tracks paying you back, so this will convince him out of cheating that way.

I like the sound of that. If it can be implemented then you can create deals with other people. If you do 'create a deal' then should it appear as a news article or kept private between the two companies involved?

Dunno, I think that's not important. If made public, then that means yet another newspaper at the bottom of the screen, that most people will turn off in any case.