Ctrl-linking non-adjacent stations: Do you feel it 'cheaty' or no?

[Pinstar]

I'm on the fence about this mechanic. On one hand, it can save a lot of fuss when trying to link boat docks with train stations in a town that has otherwise completely covered the coastline. On the other hand, you can essentially use it to expand your catchment area without the fuss and expense of road vehicles.

I know the main response is going to be "Play how you want" but I'm curious how other members of this community interact with this mechanic in their own games.

[Pyoro]

I certainly don't like "abusing" it. However, since the economics in OTTD are pretty much a joke anyway, and I mostly play for aesthetics, it's not like I'm super fussed about it either. I don't really have a rigid rule; essentially if I feel that within the scale of the game it makes sense for stations to be connected or for something to have a bigger catchment area then it's fine and if not then not ^^;

[jfs]

Keep in mind that there already is a game setting for how distant you can distant-join stations. Extending the catchment area is definitely "cheaty", but it's also something I was doing in TTD by "walking" stations, before TTDPatch came up with the ability to directly distant-join. My point being that it's an exploit as old as the game.

[ebla71]

I'm on the fence about this mechanic. On one hand, it can save a lot of fuss when trying to link boat docks with train stations in a town that has otherwise completely covered the coastline. On the other hand, you can essentially use it to expand your catchment area without the fuss and expense of road vehicles.

I know the main response is going to be "Play how you want" but I'm curious how other members of this community interact with this mechanic in their own games.

As mentioned before, if your style of gameplay is "realistic networks" and "aesthetics" you will not care about it much and it will come very handy.

Personally, I'm definitely more strict in my "style handbook" to avoid 90 deg turns, depots at right angle to the track, "spaghetti tracks", and the like rather than joining stations.

[pickpacket]

Personally I love it. It's a little silly and makes me snicker a bit to know that cargo is transported via star trek teleporters for a short distance.

It's possible to entirely disable it in the settings but I've never heard of anyone doing it.

[Skarfester]

It feels like cheating to me, so I try not to abuse it.
One intermediate solution could be to disable distant join and then use station objects to link stations. I know, the result is mostly the same, but at least you are really building one station, you need the space and you have to pay maintenance for the extra tiles. It feels somehow more realistic. Maybe I try this is my next game.

[mauried]

A possible solution to this problem would be to change the formula which calculates Property Maintenance costs, so that linked stations are far more expensive to maintain than regular stations.
eg if the property maintenance costs for linked stations were exponentially proportional to the number of linked stations this would seriously discourage players from having too many.
It would also solve a problem with some of the AIs who love building lots of linked stations . AIAI is a classic example .

[pickpacket]

A possible solution to this problem would be to change the formula which calculates Property Maintenance costs, so that linked stations are far more expensive to maintain than regular stations.
eg if the property maintenance costs for linked stations were exponentially proportional to the number of linked stations this would seriously discourage players from having too many.
It would also solve a problem with some of the AIs who love building lots of linked stations . AIAI is a classic example .

Property maintenance cost is a setting which can be disabled or enabled. So is the possibility of linking non-adjacent station tiles If you don't like non-adjacent station tiles then just turn it off?

[Redirect Left]

I feel alright using it in single player. I tend to avoid doing it in multiplayer though, even if its enabled. Too easy to use it to steal other peoples [anything], if you're forced to build away from your target [resource], too easy to do that then build a more local tiny one square thing to connect & get [resource].

[skc]

A possible solution to this problem would be to change the formula which calculates Property Maintenance costs, so that linked stations are far more expensive to maintain than regular stations.
eg if the property maintenance costs for linked stations were exponentially proportional to the number of linked stations this would seriously discourage players from having too many.
It would also solve a problem with some of the AIs who love building lots of linked stations . AIAI is a classic example .

Property maintenance cost is a setting which can be disabled or enabled. So is the possibility of linking non-adjacent station tiles If you don't like non-adjacent station tiles then just turn it off?

Additionally, there's a setting relating to the spread a station, which impacts how far apart dis-jointed stations can be.

[odisseus]

To be honest, I don't see the point of the "disjoint stations" setting. It doesn't prevent the players from building a disjoint station — it just makes the procedure a lot more cumbersome. As a consequence, a determined player can still engage in catchment area spreading and/or cargo teleporting.

[Captain Rand]

"Cheaty"? No.
I guess it depends how you use it.
There's at least one A.I. that spams a town with linked bus stops to increase the catchment area. I usually use the cheat menu (I think of it as the "Advanced Features" menu) to play as that A.I. and remove all the linked stations except the one under the name (I do a lot of "editing" like this).
On the other hand I use this feature to link nearby industries. For example, if there's a cluster of coal mines close together I'll use a linked station tile to connect a mine that's just outside the catchment area of a rail staion serving other mines. I use conveyor belt objects for a visual connection so the whole complex makes sense.

................. it's an exploit as old as the game.

Please don't call it an exploit. Somebody is bound to come along and remove the feature from the game, and not care how many players they upset.

Pete.

[Eddi]

like many game mechanics, there's a way to abuse it. but not all uses of the feature are "cheaty".

[ChillCore]

as above ... not cheating to me ...


soft-ish rule I apply for myself:
"don't cover the whole city with one station ... but a (multi-stop) bus/truck station across the road is fine"

[accipiter2000]

I always awoid it. I am trying to link them togather with bus or railway stations

[GarryG]

I don't think it cheating if your playing a realistic type game.

In real some large stations have many platforms. I'll pick on Sydney, Australia. Platforms 1, 2 and 3 for Interstate trains, 4 to 10 country trains, 11 to 15 metropolitan and inter city trains, and 16 to 25 for suburban trains.
So in game play joining adjacent stations makes it easier to control what trains enter what platforms.

[goodgame]

imho catchment areas as they are are way too small anyway, it's quite absurd that someone would walk across a 12 or 15 or whatever (depending on settings) tile station to get to the right platform but wouldn't walk a mere five tiles to get to that station. By that logic I wouldn't call it cheating, I'd say it's making the catchment area a bit closer to what you'd expect it to be given how big stations get. That, and without this feature it would be impossible to for example have a tram stop in certain places (that carries passengers and mail) since they can't be curved or on intersections, so sometimes having them a tile apart or smth is the only way to have one.

[trainrover]

no qualm supposing thereat be conduits in the form of either travelators or pipelines...

[Wahazar]

Personally I prefer to switch this feature off. Beside of obvious cheating with station labels, I feel that I'm cheating whenever placing separate station parts.
With non-adjacent stations off, it is still possible to make station consists of separate parts - just dismantle intermediate parts.
The one quirks is if there is another station adjacent.

[GarryG]

Good thing about OpenTTD is we can play it any way we wish .. can be fair Dink-um and play to make money with no cheating or we can play almost like a sand box mode just for the fun. Maybe the codes could put a sand box mode button on the menu with the next update to the game.

Even the The Sims game, I just like to play it to build my dream house with I win lotto.

Cheers