What are BAD FEATURES?

[lugo]

Generally speaking, subtle features add little to TTD gameplay.

But it's those features which enrich the game as a whole. Took me years to learn about some ctrl-shortcuts and also quite a while to learn what regearing was about. In both cases i thought that people put really f-ing much effort in to this game and the player is there to explore what was created.

The only two "bad" features that I can think of are features that just end up being too complicated for most users to figure out, and that would be regearing and partial refits. Everything else is pretty simple to understand.

Granted, it took me a while to get what regearing is, but when i "got it" i was more than happy to play with it.

About partial refits: they're only bad as long as you can't partially refit at stations or in general change the partial refit in the order window.



Point being: it's (also) the little things, keeping the game this awesome.

[wallyweb]

There are no BAD FEATURES.
I have to echo Kamnet's thoughts.
Adding to his thoughts, most of the sets are nationalistic. We have to thank the developers that worked on TTDP and OpenTTD for their largely successful efforts in providing the set authors with a framework that accomodates such a wide range of features that allow for an accurate modelling of a particular railroad system. I have been around long enough to have played with most of them. I have yet to be disappointed.

If a particular set doesn't suit your needs or desires, then try another set. If none of them work for you, then find a group of like minded players and design a set that does work for you. I may even come around when its done and give it a go. I might even like it. But, please, do not ask a set author to alter his or her creation. They have enough of a challenge to meet their own goals, never mind implementing the thoughts of an outside influence.

[V453000 :)]

Ok ...

1. I did create my own train set already so suggestions like "help to fix that train set or make your own" are quite pointless, and the former is simply hopeless because I doubt anybody would appreciate completely redoing any system of a train set entirely, e.g. changing speed/power/T.E of 90% trains of 2cc Train Set

2. I just asked WHAT problems do people have with newGRFs in order to take them in question and try to avoid them

3. I did not ask DO YOU AGREE with my EXAMPLES of problems that people often have, I just ask if you know about some MORE and have some SIMILAR experience with SOME train set. See, I do not ask about what you dont mind, I ask about what you DO mind.

Offtopic: I dont understand how can you call a restriction "a nice feature" if it doesnt give the gameplay Anything extra at all for the price of unobvious limitations during something as trivial as train construction. Caboose thing most typical.


The only point of this thread was to ask what problems people have, but thanks for your little rage.

Pikka: I absolutely agree that vehicles in 1 depot should be easy to combine, because of that I will do some serious adaptation of my wagons as I always thought of.


... a necessary consequence of basing a set on reality.
^ that is a systematic design flaw and the author can always decide to change that when it starts to limit them, I dont think it should be used as an excuse

Multiple people contributing to some set can obviously become a mess, but just like basing the set on reality, it is just a systematic thing which either needs clear rules and system, or gets messy, naturally. Yes I do not have that problem and I am happy for it

Anything which needs explaining in additional vehicle text may as well be left out.
I think you underestimate some things in this are a little bit, for example trains which gain power when getting longer / lose power when getting longer / lose speed when getting longer etc. can create an interesting mechanic and set the train usefulness to be more specific - which allows more choices to be created. But sure, it depends on the situation.
I myself have watched that people tend to be a lot more slow in discovering these engines, but once they discover the correct usage (which is written at my wiki anyway but yeah), then they feel like they uncovered something and they use it for some time since then. And having e.g. 10 train types like that leaves people occupied for quite a while

The unrealism of NUTS, of course, rather limits its appeal, but removing or streamlining some of its more idiosyncratic features would at least make it more accessible to players. If that's what you want.
This I do not understand, could you please explain it a bit differently/further?

- sets cannot disallow breakdowns?
- allowing autorefit is like removing all industries and leaving only one cargo there, no point

Wagon speed limits - if the trains are already made to be balanced against each other with the respective wagons (capacity, loading speed, weight) they can haul, is it really a good idea to break all of the balance by adding wagon speed limits? Faster trains will automatically be out of the competition while slower stronger trains will become the only option.

Drury: unhealthy obsession with efficiency
It is not just efficiency, but newer players simply have enough learning the game alone, and adding to it restrictions which do not help in any way or improve the game logic in some way, is not helping. That is why I want to make NUTS as simple as possible - so people can learn the game logically without the wtf parts. And in compare to original trains, NUTS indeed is trying to be similar - because original trains are easy to use - while adding the choice, and features like refit, easy autoreplace etc.
What that is aimed to result in is a convenient intuitive set for everyone, but having a great choice of engines and generally adding to the possibilities to what can be done in the game for the experienced players.
The realism part is entirely irrelevant about that and can only hurt the gameplay system. I am not trying to compare NUTS to other train sets because as you say, that would not be a very good idea. But I am trying to learn from other mistakes to make it as convenient to use as possible.

For example my latest NUTS changes are making all of the engines 16/8 long so any can autoreplace to any other, and I am going to attempt to make all wagons into one ultimate wagon which automatically adapts to what engine it is attached to.

Thank you to the ones who reply with some relation to my questions.

[michael blunck]

[walls of text]

Apparently, your opinions seem to differ largely from those of the majority of other vehicle set developers. E.g., I don´t think that basing a train set on RL prototypes is a "mistake". Quite the contrary, that was indeed the principal idea that Josef and me had when developing the newGRF system and the first vehicle sets for TTDPatch back in time ("the community" always wanted to get train sets of their home countries). Whoever doesn´t like it is still free to use the generic original trains of TTD.

I´m sorry to have answered again in this thread, w/o having any "problems" with certain newGRFs, but I do so because of the meta discussion you were sparking by the way you reacted to some of the other postings. If that´s not what you expected, then let me point out that your thread is clearly in the wrong section (i.e., in "Graphics Development", instead of "General ..." or " ... Problems").


And BTW, I always welcome a fruitful discussion between vehicle set developers w/r to an understanding/agreement about set features, sizes, capacities, prices, ..., simply because people are using a wild mix of vehicles sets today, and this might indeed cause problems.

regards
Michael

[Purno]

The only point of this thread was to ask what problems people have, but thanks for your little rage.

Then perhaps you should be more careful with your choice of words. Some things tend to upset people.

I myself have watched that people tend to be a lot more slow in discovering these engines, but once they discover the correct usage (which is written at my wiki anyway but yeah), then they feel like they uncovered something and they use it for some time since then. And having e.g. 10 train types like that leaves people occupied for quite a while

It is not just efficiency, but newer players simply have enough learning the game alone, and adding to it restrictions which do not help in any way or improve the game logic in some way, is not helping. That is why I want to make NUTS as simple as possible - so people can learn the game logically without the wtf parts.

Yes, you're making it so simple, it needs a wiki to explain things...

If you can't explain things within the depot list vehicle description, it's probably overcomplicated.

[alluke]

I'm sure V was the kid who always picked this instead of this at the sandbox.

[V453000 :)]

Yes, you're making it so simple, it needs a wiki to explain things...

If you can't explain things within the depot list vehicle description, it's probably overcomplicated.

These are two different things:

1. a mechanic --- perfectly and briefly described in the purchase menu

2. the usage --- how to make the best use of that mechanic.

Obviously describing how to use a train can have a lot more to say - while seeing how the train works must be simple.

For example: chameleon trains lose speed with each added unit.
The mechanic is easily described on one line, constructing the train is simple, there are no restrictions to that,
BUT in which situations to use that train is something to describe - what kind of network, what about curve friendliness, kinds of stations it fits, if it is suitable with longer trains, shorter trains, ... .

Also, my choice of words does not relate to you answering the actual question or not.

...your opinions seem to differ largely from those of the majority...

...when developing the newGRF system and the first vehicle sets for TTDPatch back in time...

...Whoever doesn´t like it is still free to use the generic original trains of TTD...

Yay, how is it relevant whether "the almighty majority" agrees with me or not? I personally dont care.

That something is "an original principal idea" does not mean it is correct.

Back in time the idea was X and nobody is allowed to build on the system that original trains create, right?


I dont think I understand you attempt for a joke Alluke, sorry.

[Purno]

That something is "an original principal idea" does not mean it is correct.

Neither does it mean that our intentional designs are "a mistake".

Also, my choice of words does not relate to you answering the actual question or not.

Actually it does. If you don't take our project serious, you can't possibly expect me to take your serious. Don't get me wrong, I totally support your ideas to make a project that's different than the majority, that's good. But the way you've been critisizing other projects is simply unnecessary.

[beeurd]

The fact is that you can't please everybody.

I happen to like the brake vans and wagon speed limits in some sets.

[Purno]

The fact is that you can't please everybody.

That's why diversity in NewGRFs is a good thing. It'd be pretty pointless if all NewGRFs were the same. Each NewGRF has its special features.

[michael blunck]

The fact is that you can't please everybody.

That's why diversity in NewGRFs is a good thing. It'd be pretty pointless if all NewGRFs were the same. Each NewGRF has its special features.

Right. So, it´d be interesting to return to the start of this discussion:

For example many people get often annoyed by:

Where's your source? What research methods to come to this conclusion?

regards
Michael

[wallyweb]

...

Perhaps a more positive approach ...
Some of your suggestions are not entirely unreasonable.
The problem arises when it is infered that some features are "BAD" and it is suggested that set authors provide switches to set some of those features to "off".
This would require a significant amount of extra coding whose sole purpose would be to defeat features that were intended to contribute to the flavour of the set.
The simplest solution would be to design the desired featureless set from scratch.
Your opening comment suggested a list of features to be avoided and asked if anybody had any others to add to the list.
This is ok. In fact, it is good. It sets a clear path to what you wish to accomplish.
Simply avoid suggesting that other authors change their ways and I think you will find that all will be well. They might even contribute to your list.

[andythenorth]

Really? We now have to show our research before we're permitted to ask the questions that form the research?

Or have we misconstrued a silly hobby as some serious activity that must have an academic basis?

Also some features just are BAD. Whether authors want to include them or not is moot. They're still BAD.

[michael blunck]

[...] Also some features just are BAD. Whether authors want to include them or not is moot. They're still BAD.

Which features exactly are "BAD"? And since when and why this game did introduce them in the first place?

The list V453000 gave in the initital posting isn´t really convincing, at least not for me (except "regearing", but that was even missing).

regards
Michael

[andythenorth]

Which features exactly are "BAD"? And since when and why this game did introduce them in the first place?

BAD FEATURES
- Regearing
- Wagon attach restrictions
- Using cb 15E to limit certain autorefits (silently and definitely breaks orders)
- 'Upgrading' vehicle stats significantly, but keeping same ID ('breaks' autoreplace)
- Preventing mixing with vehicles from other newgrf sets
- Extensive provision of subtypes for refits (makes the refit menu unusable)

QUESTIONABLE FEATURES
- Refitting vehicles to different lengths or capacities
- Mixing cargo types in a single vehicle

When and why? Well you know this of course, it's a free-for-all for making newgrfs, there's no central quality control, and this is as it should be, but still, some stuff has been tested and is now known to be BAD. Some people can see what's bad, and some can't. This is life. [Shrug].

[Purno]

I reallly expected more of you Andy...
Your offensive approach dissapoints me.

Really? We now have to show our research before we're permitted to ask the questions that form the research?

No. You're permitted to ask questions that form the research. But there were facts stated without the argumentation which led to their conclusion. The first one being right there in the topic title.

Or have we misconstrued a silly hobby as some serious activity that must have an academic basis?

No. But again, when stating certain features are being considered BAD by a lot of people, people will ask for your source. After all, you're critisizing other people's work.

Also some features just are BAD. Whether authors want to include them or not is moot. They're still BAD.

No. They are not bad, you may consider them bad. Some people may think they're undesirable. On some occasions, even a majority might agree with you. But your offensive approach causes developers to defend their work, and is what made this topic derail into one giant train crash.

[V453000 :)]

There is nobody being offensive, there are people stating non-biasedly that some features are BAD because they limit/confuse players.

That has only Y/N as answer, some people might be neutral.

Nobody asks you to defend your set, nobody even cares about your set in this thread really. These were just examples of annoying features, which we consider BAD.

If you disagree then you probably have nothing to do in this thread and no reason to derail it towards a train crash any further (by which you amuse me considerably though).

Thanks to Pikka and andythenorth, I got the idea to simplify purchase rules like attach things and unifying wagons into one and so on.

[michael blunck]

BAD FEATURES
- Regearing
- Wagon attach restrictions
- Using cb 15E to limit certain autorefits (silently and definitely breaks orders)
- 'Upgrading' vehicle stats significantly, but keeping same ID ('breaks' autoreplace)
- Preventing mixing with vehicles from other newgrf sets
- Extensive provision of subtypes for refits (makes the refit menu unusable)

- yes, "regearing" collides with some industry sets.
- no, there are examples of its inalienability in DBXL.
- "autorefit" per se is a questionable feature, needs care to use it. Probably the order mechanism of OTTD needs some more thoughts.
- "breaking autoreplace" might be another problem with OTTD. In TTDPatch it works totally different, i.e. your problem with it seems to be introduced by OTTD.
- this is another problem introduced by OTTD. Mixing vehicles from different sets makes no sense most of the time, because stats of vehicles are often based on quite different assumptions.
- "cargo subtypes" makes sense per se, but I agree this feature might be used in a problematic way with some sets (xUSSR?)

QUESTIONABLE FEATURES
- Refitting vehicles to different lengths or capacities
- Mixing cargo types in a single vehicle

- you can´t refit a vehicle to a "different length". Hacking it by introducing invisible part vehicles is ... well, just a hack. Refitting capacities OTOH makes sense, I´m using it too.
- DBXL uses articulated vehicles with different types of cargo for good reasons.

regards
Michael

[andythenorth]

No. They are not bad, you may consider them bad. Some people may think they're undesirable

Ok Purno, fine. We'll just delete the words 'good' and 'bad' from the language, as they apparently have no meaning, and no use. We can also delete 'great', 'terrible', 'awesome', 'awful' and many other words. This is a great saving you're making. Many trees will be saved by the reduction in paper, and many fewer megabytes of data will also cause a saving on electricity. It's a service to humanity.

But while we're doing this, let's also delete 'offensive'. You'll see that if it's impossible to be 'bad', then it is also impossible to be 'offensive'.

- you can´t refit a vehicle to a "different length". Hacking it by introducing invisible part vehicles is

He yes I should have said 'changing the apparent number of units in an articulated consist'

[YNM]

I didn't think that this thread would become a "clash of NewGRF Developers" in general.

Anyway, IF you think things are bad, things aren't the way they supposed to, a set of sprites, text editor, nmlc or nfo (and it's respective documentation) are your friend. I believe any of us who had talked here know that, right ?