there is no reason why you couldn't have a "community vote". but there's also no reason why the devs should act on such a vote...
It's always worth a try
I know from previous comments on the thread by the devs, that apart from the bugs which need ironing out, there is (or at least was) interest in the patch, but the post-bug stumbling point would have been IS's risk of introducing more abuses of play in MP.
Maybe, for once, a community vote would have swayed opinion on this if the majority accepted the IS risks...
That said, there's always going to be a bunch of teenagers appear somewhere screaming that their game was ruined by someone else because of the patch, so I've always seen the counter argument for it not being included.
Nonetheless, i suppose priority should still be the two main problems that were pointed out; Payment for Cargo Transport between companies and Bankruptcy Management as trunk isn't going to happen unless the patch is clean
Hopefully we'll get some more thoughts on this eventually.EDIT: Ooo, seem to have missed out reading page 26, good to see more discussion. Apologies for not reading
Planet maker could you give some feedback on the feasibility of my suggestions please?
This is difficult, as a log of time travelled, number of tiles, and with which companies would have to retained for each packet... It's only logical that the ratio of profits is split according to those factors... For example; Company 1 took cargo across 30 tiles in 5 days, company 2 took the cargo 70 tiles in 10 days, so ratio of share would be about 7:3
But i can foresee CPU load being an issue when games get large (Which is one big problem with CargoDist, which has not currently got a solution to CPU overload either)... On the other hand, IS working in this form would compliment CargoDist at a later time should both make it to trunk as they could share information from the same cargo packet information...
Why not give all companies the chance to take over the network infrastructure in some kind of bidding system; the winner would then take control (The most "realistic" #DirtyWord situation).
Alternatively; can a dummy company be created to take up the infrastructure ownership until a player company can afford to buy it out?
The latter, Dummy Company, is most likely the easiest coding option as a bidding system would require a lot of extra work.
The Dummy company would be kept afloat by the income from people using it's infrastructure. If the dummy company goes bankrupt, again, it's just replaced with another dummy company until bought out.
I think that anything that involves destroying/blocking vehicles or infrastructure is going to be bad, and make the abuse options open to players more of a problem, hence the suggestion of a dummy company until bought out...
The only problem with this is that we would need an incentive (other than getting some cash from other players) for people to buy the dummy company out; otherwise i can see players just leaving the infrastructure in the hands of the dummy company forever... That said, they can't modify the network if it's in the hands of a dummy, so i guess there are two incentives to buy out ASAP, but is this enough? Maybe a price reduction for buying out a dummy company every-time one goes bankrupt (but again, this is much more work than simply making a dummy take over when the original player goes bankrupt)
Dummy Companies, as the name suggest do nothing; they don't build, amend, or alter anything; they just sit their solely to give a player ID to all of that infrastructure (and any vehicles).
If other players are on the network of the bankrupt player when it goes under, they remain going about their business on the network as it moves to the new dummy company; only from that point, all that happens is you pay the dummy company, not the previous player for the right to use their networks.