Infrastructure sharing 2.1.1

[Klaatu]

I would have thought you would have covered this in your initial post, but for those of us who have no idea what you did before...

What is "Infrastructure Sharing"? Please describe what this patch does.

Thanks.

[kul]

From the original thread:

I've made some change to Vikthor's tracksharing patch from subsidiaries & contracts thread.

I really hope this is MP stable, it seems to be ok on my LAN, but I would like to see it tested on the net (Ammler ? )

what's in :

patch setting to enable sharing of :
railway tracks
railway stations
railway depots
airports (and air depots)
road stops
road depots
water depots
docks

and also :
depot owner provision (% of build cost)
cost of 1000 tons per tiles on shared tracks
landing fee (per tons of cargo capacity)
fee for harbours (new)
fee for road stops (new)
enable each activated patch settings to be selected by player (see screenshot)
set delay for individual settings validation (so you won't be surprised by brutal change of prices)

When activated, individual settings can be set via your company windows (button "sharing" under "build HQ")

[Hirundo]

i want to throw a question in here, why is selling competitors's trains on bankrupcy a favourable solution over making the tracks "owner none" instead (unifying this with the behaviour of roads)

Bankruptcy is a relatively rare phenomenon. Someone disabling sharing is much more common, and in such cases you need to 'remove' the trains anyway, one way or another.

Infrastructure sharing, in a nutshell, means that you can choose to open your infrastructure to other players. You can select which parts of your infrastructure (e.g. train tracks, airports) you open and ask a certain fee for it.

[Neuralize]

I played with the compiled win32 a little bit and I'm wondering if there could be an option to automatically grant sharing to a new company?

[Aali]

There will probably be a user-configurable setting for new companies in the future, we just haven't implemented it yet.

[deepblue2k8]

feature suggestion, mentioned yesterday in the game:

some kind of world map overlay to see which tracks you are allowed to run your trains on.
But it still might be hard to figure out, if there is a single piece of track, which isn't shared... Any ideas?

[Buhmann]

Ok, here is my idea how to solve the problem. It might be not very realistic, but trains getting selled without being in a depot isn't very realistic, either.

So, I would add a freature wich allows a player to teleport one or all of his trains (who are on an opponents track) to his nearest own depot. In exchange, the train can't be used for a certain timespan .. maybe 2 month or something like that. (To prevent malpractice)
This feature can be used to save trains wich have been trapped by an opponent and should be automaticly used if the owner of the track a train is using doesn't share his infrastructure anymore.



(Btw.: I know, that my english isn't very good ... but what the hell is "Infratructure"? (Thread-title))

[Conditional Zenith]

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/infrastructure , definition 2 fits the best.

In a TT context: roads, rails, depots, stations, signals, etc.

[Buhmann]

I know, what Infrastructure is. But there's a typo in the thread title.

[FooBar]

So, I would add a freature wich allows a player to teleport one or all of his trains (who are on an opponents track) to his nearest own depot.

I'm in favour of the teleporting idea.

Real life example: if I park my car in a place where I shouldn't put it, it will be towed to a depot. At the depot, I can collect my car after having to pay a fee.

Now back to the trains:
- If someone disables IS, a warning should be issued that you have x months to remove your trains from your opponents tracks.
- Trains already on opponents tracks should be able to use those tracks until they find your own tracks. Trains not on opponent track should not be allowed on those tracks.
- If you fail to get all your trains off in x months, the remaining trains will be teleported to the nearest own depot and stopped.
- For each teleported train you'll have to pay a 'towing fee'.
- If the fee is larger than the remaining value of the train, the whole train should be deleted, no fee charged and no refund for the train given.
- If the fee is smaller than the remaining value of the train, the fee should be paid immediately.

In order to prevent abuse:
- At the time a train gets teleported, it should be checked if that train is able to find a route to your own tracks/depot/whatever.
- If so, you pay the whole fee.
- If not, both you and the opponent pay half of the fee.
This should stimulate the opponent not to remove access to your network so that you have the opportunity to get your trains off in time.

This is just my 2$. I don't know how hard it is to create such a feature or if it even works. Just an idea which is open for discussion.

but what the hell is "Infratructure"?

Something with trucs I reckon

[Eddi]

(Btw.: I know, that my english isn't very good ... but what the hell is "Infratructure"? (Thread-title))

that's a clear proof that people do not read long words in full anyway

[TheJosh]

I like FooBar's suggestion.

[Conditional Zenith]

I know, what Infrastructure is. But there's a typo in the thread title.

Ahh, it was close enough that I didn't notice. Throw in the stuff about not knowing English well and I assumed you really didn't know.

[yoyo1505]

I like FooBar's suggestion too, and the thread has covered solutions to several potential exploits, but I would object to automatically deleting a train if the towing fee is larger than its value.

Although there are many valid reasons for doing this, I don't think everyone would be happy with the idea. For instance, they may be aesthetically minded and be using old trains that look different (e.g. with Pikka's renewal sets) or may simply not be available anymore if they've turned off persistent engines. And there's extra effort in that you have to then find the trains that have gone missing, remember what they look like and often have to remember their orders so you can replace them.

If people see it as a good enough feature then I guess it could be made optional?

[FooBar]

but I would object to automatically deleting a train if the towing fee is larger than its value.

Well, I figured that if the value of a train is less than the towing fee, it's not worth keeping it. But keeping old vehicles is a good argument against that.

Maybe charging a years worth of running costs as towing fee could be a good solution for all cases, without automatically deleting trains.

[Ican'tthinkofaname.]

Just to say I have been playing this with a few others and think that it is brilliant, but just one thing though, is it not possible for one company to build a junction into another companies railway. As in the two pictures. The don't destroy anything just add a piece on to link the two railways. The blue is one company and the yellow another. Basically can the yellow build it or does the blue have to do it for them or am I just missing something?

Demo pic.png (141.6 KiB) Viewed 1050 times

[Aali]

Blue company owns the whole tile, not much we can do about that.

Allowing this would also introduce another issue when a company can connect to your railway anywhere they want instead of just where you have left a "loose end" for connection.

[Ican'tthinkofaname.]

Thank you. So I take it that trains can pass between two companies tracks. See picture.

Demo pic.png (109.19 KiB) Viewed 1043 times

As in trains pass from blue track to yellow and vice versa?

[planetmaker]

Provided that track sharing is allowed in general, both companies allow sharing tracks, mutually allow eachother access to the tracks, and the set time span from when on changes take effect is passed for both companies: yes.

[Ican'tthinkofaname.]

Ok I get it more now

And thanks again to who ever made it, multiple companies with big networks made the maps look a mess, this neatens it up and even the track now pays for itself.