[FRDF] Player owned industries

[PJayTycy]

I use encoding: Western (ISO-8859-1) in firefox for Gnu/Linux.

I use Western (ISO-8859-1) in firefox for Windows and see no problems...
Anyway, they were supposed to be alpha and lambda , but I'll edit them out.

[Hyronymus]

My suggestion doesn't allow for much freedom but maybe we can add a second way in which contracts between primairy and secundairy industries are created to solve that. But first of all: nobody will stop you from building lines before a contract has been offered. Your transport company doesn't just get paid the bonus but of course also the normal transportation costs it makes. Now the second way of how contracts could be created:

The player builds a service beteen Farm Z24-3 and Bakery 6îg-7. After having this service for 3 years the connected industries evaluate the service and offer you a contract.

I want to stress (again) that in my suggestion it really doesn't matter if you build a line because you've been offered a service subsidy or not. A contract would only guarantee that you are the only transported allowed to supplie the secondairy industrie. Only if you succesfully start a service after a service subsidy offering you'll get a contract + bonus. If you start a service without a service subsidy offer and it runs well for (let's say) 3 years you'll only get a contract.

Last thing: of course this is the basic TTD approach, why shouldn't I borrow from TTD?

EDIT: we're off topic I guess. Do we want a split or can we live with it until tonights meeting?

[jfs]

I really don't want transport companies buying and selling goods. Can anyone give a real-life example of that happening?
As far as I know, industries always pay someone else to transport their production to the next link in the chain. (Or the other way around.) As soon as we make it possible to buy and sell goods, we've made a clearly unrealistic game, which is not a transport game but a trading game.

How about this:
A producing industry (primary or secondary, doesn't matter) has a list of possible destinations for its goods. As soon as a working transport route is built to any single of those, a contract is signed between the producer and destination. As long as the contract is in effect, the goods cannot be transported anywhere else. If no goods is transported for a long time, the contract is broken. No penalty. Producing industries may change their possible destinations over time, possibly influenced by some criteria, like the success of the potential destinations.
(Any company can transport goods from one industry to another, as long as they follow whatever contracts are in place. Contracts are only "source and destination industry", not player-specific.)

[Zuu]

I really don't want transport companies buying and selling goods. Can anyone give a real-life example of that happening?
As far as I know, industries always pay someone else to transport their production to the next link in the chain. (Or the other way around.) As soon as we make it possible to buy and sell goods, we've made a clearly unrealistic game, which is not a transport game but a trading game.

It might be unrealistic. But you can out it in other words to make it more realistic. The industries pay more for transport to certain destinations. And less for other. But you don't buy and sell the goods.

It might be unrealistic, but I think the player should have control over where to transport goods. The industries can try to affect the players chois, buy paying more for some destinations than other.

Actually that is what TTD does, althroght they favor destinations far away. We can make the industries pay more for far transport than short ones, becuse of transport costs, but to a certain limit, so that you cant transport things past the whole world to get paid more.

[Steve]

I agree with jfs that i don't want a buy/sell situation. His idea is a compromise, that i can live with, but hopefully we won't need to use.

With the TTD method of longer distances = bigger bucks, then you had to make some decisions. A long route would cost A LOT more to build, a short one would make less profits. From a loco game, i remember doing a short route until i had enough money for a bridge across a lake to make more money. If it was a simple as buy and sell, then it's just as likely for my short route to pay off than the long one, so i lose out on the strategic building of the bridge and thus, lose out on fun.
Also, if your buying and selling, then time isn't a factor. You could loop round the world twice and still sell for the same amount! Meaning you don't need fast trains, efficient junctions, planned routes.

[jfs]

I can accept the solution that the income for transporting from one industry is based on a price set between those two industries. That translates to "some destinations are favored'. That price per unit should then be scaled in some way, based on the time taken to deliver the goods.

As long as we don't have the following I'm fully happy: Players own industries, players buy/sell goods, players can directly influence industry production rates.
I think those are simply unrealistic and/or split the game into several different games.

So how about a vote. For each of the following points are people for and against?

1. Players can own industries
2. Players can buy/sell goods
3. Industries make contracts between each other, and players must follow those
4. Industries have favoured destinations for their goods
5. Players can fund new industries
6. Players can fund already existing industries
7. Industries will pay for their goods transported to any destination
8. Secondary industries have a max. output per time unit

I think those were all points that were discussed.

I am against all but D and G. (I'm for those two.)

[Hyronymus]

You didn't summarize C correct. noone forces you to go by the industries proposed contracts, there is enough space for the player to decide self. I stressed that twice making this the 3rd time .

[Zuu]

a. Players can own industries
b. Players can buy/sell goods
c. Industries make contracts between each other, and players must follow those
d. Industries have favoured destinations for their goods
e. Players can fund new industries
f. Players can fund already existing industries
g. Industries will pay for their goods transported to any destination
h. Secondary industries have a max. output per time unit

For: D, G
Against:A, B, C, F
Accept if...: E, H

E: I can accept E if it is only processing industries, and they are expensive.
H: if industries expands when they are floded with material.

[jfs]

You didn't summarize C correct. noone forces you to go by the industries proposed contracts, there is enough space for the player to decide self. I stressed that twice making this the 3rd time .

Uh, I'm not sure I get what you mean.
Of course, a player doesn't have to accept a contract, but then he won't get to transport anything for those industries either.
But if the contracts are only "we'll prefer if you transport to there", then what's the difference between C and D?

[jfs]

I added two options to the list, so please read it again I'll edit it when Hyr clarifies what his idea of C is.

[Hyronymus]

I never said industries wouldn't produce anything if you don't transport goods by a service subsidy. I wouldn't know how to implement that even. But no worries, I am against all but A, D* and E with the important note that I only go for E if players can ask local authorities to fund a new industry.

*jfs' solution looks easier to accomplish and is less 'magic'

[Steve]

Good: D, E
Unsure: C, H
Bad: A, B, F, G

C, only good if there are lots and lots of contracts. If there are just a few.. Either way they should be pretty static. I wouldn't want to have to build a new line because an industry fell out with another.
E, good presuming you can't fund anything anywhere.
F isn't needed, industries should expand themselves when needed.
G is bad if you mean there is a set price, whereever it is sent.
H could have a limit, but it would go up when the industry expands. I can live with or without it.

[Grunt]

1. Players can own industries
2. Players can buy/sell goods
3. Industries make contracts between each other, and players must follow those
4. Industries have favoured destinations for their goods
5. Players can fund new industries
6. Players can fund already existing industries
7. Industries will pay for their goods transported to any destination
8. Secondary industries have a max. output per time unit

In favour of: B, D, F, H
Unsure about: E, G
Opposed to: A, C (except perhaps optionally)

[Hellfire]

In favour of: A, D, E, G, H
Opposed to: B, C, F

[uzurpator]

How about this:

Principles:
1. Distance = money (as in real life)
2. Industries decide themselves where they prefer their production to be shipped to.
3. Players can own industries.

So - here goes.

Each industry scans for nearby (or not so nearby) industries that accept its production - and then determines how much it may pay for transporting goods there. If a players finds this connection profittable - it may set up a service there.

If a player owns an industry then it will show:
how much will it cost to buy + transport goods from certain suppliers
how much will it profit from selling gooods (total - exocluding transport prices).

Also - I assume that the game will not be so "cash rich" as TTD is - players will - on hardest settings - have to work for that money - so owning an industry should not be so common.

[Hyronymus]

You missed our meeting yesterday, uzurpator. This has already been discussed last night. Perhaps we should lock topics on which we reached a decision yet.

[uzurpator]

And the decision would be?

[Hyronymus]

Had to check my log for that: 4, 5, 7 and 8 have been choosen with 7 and 8 as difficulty settings.

[PJayTycy]

First of all, I think this was not dicussed enough before the meeting. I hadn't even seen this list of possibillities. It was posted only 3 hours before the meeting.

Next, some comment on the decision (I had to leave the meeting for half an hour, just when this thread was on the agenda).

In bold is whay Hyronymus tells is choosen:

1. Players can own industries
2. Players can buy/sell goods
3. Industries make contracts between each other, and players must follow those
4. Industries have favoured destinations for their goods
5. Players can fund new industries
6. Players can fund already existing industries
7. Industries will pay for their goods transported to any destination
8. Secondary industries have a max. output per time unit

First a question: with the "players" here, do you mean the player's company or his personal account ?

As number 2 and 3 are not choosen, companies won't be using the buy/sell method, and we won't use contracts. This only leaves the TTD method open, where you are paid for the transport, no matter wheter the goods where needed at the destination or they could get them somewhere cheaper.
But, then number 4 IS choosen, where industries have favoured destinations for their goods. What would this look like? Some kind of bonus if you ship the goods to where they want? So, the industry is like "here, if you ship this to my friend 2 towns away, you'll get 15% extra !!", then the player says "Never mind, I'll just ship it to the other side of the map, that's twice as far, that'll get me 100% extra instead of 15%". This is in case you don't switch off number 7 as a difficulty setting. If you do turn it off, companies only pay to transport to their favoured destination, which would be like a contract ? But we won't have contracts (see number 3).

Next, point 5 IS choosen, while point 1 is not. So players can fund new industries, but they can't own them ?? What's that supposed to be like ? Something like the airport-thing : ask the town nicely if they would like to build a furniture factory so you can turn your wood into nice tables? Then the player has to pay for it, and the town builds and owns the industry?

Point 8 as a difficulty setting... => I can live with that

[Hyronymus]

Are you being chased by a mean crowd, Pjaytycy? You're style is a bit hostile tonight but I don't think you intended that .

First of all, I think this was not dicussed enough before the meeting. I hadn't even seen this list of possibillities. It was posted only 3 hours before the meeting.

We didn't just decide this topic on the meeting, we first dicussed every point in jfs's bullet list and then we voted.

First a question: with the "players" here, do you mean the player's company or his personal account ?

A player's company.

As number 2 and 3 are not choosen, companies won't be using the buy/sell method, and we won't use contracts. This only leaves the TTD method open, where you are paid for the transport, no matter wheter the goods where needed at the destination or they could get them somewhere cheaper.

I disagree here, what's left open is a TTD-like approach. As you said, you will be paid for transporting goods anywhere you take them BUT:

But, then number 4 IS choosen, where industries have favoured destinations for their goods. What would this look like? Some kind of bonus if you ship the goods to where they want? So, the industry is like "here, if you ship this to my friend 2 towns away, you'll get 15% extra !!", then the player says "Never mind, I'll just ship it to the other side of the map, that's twice as far, that'll get me 100% extra instead of 15%"

Number 4 is not an option, it's a standard feature of transporting goods. I don't see a problem in combining number 4 with the result of not choosing 2 and 3:

Goods can be transported to any place on the map. No matter where the goods are sent the player's company will always receive money for transporting the goods. The amount of money does vary though. Industries (or towns) can favour another industry (or town) for receiving their products*. If the goods are transported to a favoured industry (town) the player earns more money per transported unit.

This is in case you don't switch off number 7 as a difficulty setting. If you do turn it off, companies only pay to transport to their favoured destination, which would be like a contract ? But we won't have contracts (see number 3).
*probably better to let industries indicate where they want their raw goods to come from

Mind you that nobody said transporting it to the other end of the map would pay more (it does work like that in TTD) or that industries only look 2 towns far! And as you said: switching option 7 on works like a contract but I have my doubts if it's really the same.

Next, point 5 IS choosen, while point 1 is not. So players can fund new industries, but they can't own them ?? What's that supposed to be like ? Something like the airport-thing : ask the town nicely if they would like to build a furniture factory so you can turn your wood into nice tables? Then the player has to pay for it, and the town builds and owns the industry?

You weren't there during the discussion so I can't really blame you but point 5 was accepted with a minor adjustment. A player's company can initiate the funding of new indsutries by lobbying at the local authority. The local authority decided if it accepts the request and funds it. It was decided that a player's company can never own industries because it's unrealistic.

Point 8 as a difficulty setting... => I can live with that