Suggestions for long standing game issues.

[uzurpator]

Where "long standing" is what Chris Sawyer actually has baked into the game, and OTTD grandfathered in.

1. Industry rating algorithm

From the WIKI, it still works in the same manner as it did in TTDPatch/TTo - which is:
- vehicle speed ( 85 - 255 km/h )
- vehicle age
- cargo waiting
- last visit

This causes it to be exceedingly hard to raise production of low grade industries in the early game, because vehicles are slow and weak. Which causes cascading failure of it causing infrequent visits and low chance of production increase. On the other hand, once things speed up ( the 160+kmh era ) then all of a sudden we get an explosion of productivity. Moreover, vehicle age is not really something a player can control other than replacing stuff every 2 years. If you combine speed/age restriction it gets pretty hard to recover until brute forcing it with TGVs.

My suggestion is to base industry ratings by:
- percent of maximum vehicle speed of this class in the current era
- vehicle reliability
- cargo waiting ( no change )
- last visit ( no change )

Speed restriction:

For ships, planes and trucks - quite obvious, if the fastest of its kind: 100% rating, if there are none, than failsafe to current behaviour

For trains - it would be:
- unpowered carrier ( wagon ) - fastest which can carry a commodity. Those without speed limits, don't count towards this goal.
IF all unpowered carriers have no speed limit, then:
- powered carrier which can carry a commodity - the fastest one
IF there are no unpowered carriers:
- fastest locomotive
IF there are no locomotives
- fastest rail vehicle of this kind
IF there are none
255km/h, so current behaviour

For trains this has the purpose to ensure that sets which have speed limits on wagons don't get penalized, otherwise, in a given year the fastest available train sets the restriction.

The reliability is more in line of giving the player means to manage station ratings and add a purpose to having vehicle replacements/depot visits in games with no breakdowns. It would also add a nice tradeoff to be made between 'slower, but more reliable or faster but less reliable'.

2. Can trucks get some love in the base game?

I just started a tropical game in bare OTTD. Year 1980. I've built a Turner Turbo train with 5 ore cars.

This cost 336000 moneys and costs 22700 moneys per annum to run. That is 180 units of cargo carried at 160km/h. Let's say this is 'rate' of 24000. What do we need to do to get the same rate in trucks of the era?

UHL Ore truck goes 88km/h and carries 25 tonnes of ore. The rate I need to match is 24000 * 1.3, because trucks can't into diagonals. To match such rate I need to buy 11 trucks. More or less.

That will put me back 592000 moneys and cost 82000 to run per year. TWICE the install cost and FOUR TIMES higher running cost. Moreover, as years come and go trucks become less efficient and trains, the opposite. Late game trucks are so inefficient that it is downright impossible to make money on some routes. Because those already expensive trucks need to compete with trains running 400km/h. The way I see it, trucks should cost half to a third of what they cost now and running costs ought to be slashed by 5-6 times. Otherwise their only purpose is to feed or boost ratings on select stations.

[odisseus]

I don't think these features actually constitute "issues", though I agree they are quite arbitrary. This is just the way the game is balanced; in particular, trains are intended to be superior to trucks, and fast vehicles to slow ones.

However, in case you aren't content with the rules of production increase or the relative costs of trains vs trucks, both of those can be modified by add-ons.

[uzurpator]

What did I do to deserve this passive aggressive snark? This is 'Suggestions' forum, right? I think I made a suggestion. You might want to agree or disagree, but at least at discuss the proposition put forward.

This is just the way the game is balanced; in particular, trains are intended to be superior to trucks, and fast vehicles to slow ones.

I certainly am glad that Josef didn't have this particular attitude, otherwise we would never get TTDPatch. I also am pretty sure that current OTTD is a touch different from the vanilla game. Last I heard you can get more than 80 trucks.

[Eddi]

it might come across as passive aggressive, but it might just be the basic inertia of a long standing community.

in particular, we agreed a very long time ago that the default vehicles should be touched as little as possible, especially if the same thing can be achieved with a NewGRF. (a notable exception would be the addition of refittable cargos)

[uzurpator]

it might come across as passive aggressive, but it might just be the basic inertia of a long standing community.

One is not mutually exclusive of the other and online communities always inbreeding themselves into a specific chirality of opinion is pretty much a meme by now.

in particular, we agreed a very long time ago that the default vehicles should be touched as little as possible, especially if the same thing can be achieved with a NewGRF. (a notable exception would be the addition of refittable cargos)

I am but a lowly customer. I had randomly chosen a server and joined a game. It used a base set. I just checked and of the first ~50 or so servers three used any sort of newgrf. It has been like this since forever. Thus for anyone willing to online - the base set is the predominant experience. Thus whatever grfs are supposed to address, isnt. Then again, I'm not going to discuss dogma. Either way - as I said, I'm a customer, I saw an issue, or two, actually, I suggested how to address it.

BTW - I was pleasantly surprised that my sprites are still the basis for the arctic/tropic trains. I figured they would be replaced long time ago.

[kamnet]

I didn't see the reply as being snarky, but I can see how it might be read as such. I don't think it was intentional.

I think this is a nice suggestion, actually. But not many of the devs read the forums anymore. You may want to file this on the official Github and see what response you get from the devs there.

[odisseus]

I didn't mean to sound passive-aggressive. Maybe I should have explained my thoughts in more detail.

You are perfectly within your rights to post suggestions, but I think these particular suggestions are very unlikely to be accepted. Moreover, OpenTTD already offers the means for changing the specific things that you dislike.

The development team has long had a policy of not accepting into the core any features that can be implemented as an add-on. This is the reason why there still are no available helicopters after year 2030 or so. On the other hand, hardcoded limits such as maximum number of stations, vehicles etc. cannot be changed by an add-on, so the development team has been working to raise them over the years.

Most of the issues you have pointed out are either already solved by add-ons, or cannot be solved in a simple way. Let me address them one by one.

1. Industry rating algorithm
...
This causes it to be exceedingly hard to raise production of low grade industries in the early game, because vehicles are slow and weak. ... On the other hand, once things speed up ( the 160+kmh era ) then all of a sudden we get an explosion of productivity.

The low production industries are harder to boost because every change of production rate is calculated as a percentage of the current production, and 10 percent of 36 tonnes is not quite as large an increase as 10 percent of 360 tonnes. This has nothing to do with vehicle speeds.

However, you can keep the station rating in the range of 70-80 % just by ensuring that there is a vehicle loading at all times, no matter how slow it is. This will boost the production quite reliably (but keep in mind there's an element of chance), and eventually your industry will reach the high output rates.

My suggestion is to base industry ratings by:
- percent of maximum vehicle speed of this class in the current era
- vehicle reliability
- cargo waiting ( no change )
- last visit ( no change )

This is not unreasonable, but the improvement over the current system would be marginal, if any.

ensure that sets which have speed limits on wagons don't get penalized

This is actually part of a larger issue when mixing multiple vehicle sets. In the general case, different sets are not balanced against each other, and usually one of them will be strictly more profitable than the others. Changing the rules of station rating calculation is not sufficient to mitigate this issue. For what it's worth, the fastest engine and wagon is not always the best in terms of profitability or cargo throughput.

The reliability is more in line of giving the player means to manage station ratings and add a purpose to having vehicle replacements/depot visits in games with no breakdowns.

Unfortunately, the reliability system is utterly unreasonable, and most players disable it altogether. There have been many ideas about overhauling it, and some patches (not add-ons) that implement them.

2. Can trucks get some love in the base game?

There are many vehicle sets that limit the speed of trains, and there are sets that provide fast trucks (up to 500 km/h hover bus). Some of those sets allow changing their vehicle costs by a multiplier, and on top of that, another add-on can change the base costs of everything in the game.

I just checked and of the first ~50 or so servers three used any sort of newgrf. It has been like this since forever. Thus for anyone willing to online - the base set is the predominant experience. Thus whatever grfs are supposed to address, isnt.

I see it the opposite way: the existence of NewGRF servers proves that people actually use add-ons to mold the game experience to their liking. It is true that most servers don't use add-ons at all — I assume that the admins of these servers are either content with the way things are in the core game, or just not motivated enough to make any changes. For what it's worth, most of the public servers are empty most of the time — but the most popular one is a vanilla server with no add-ons.

[Eddi]

I assume that the admins of these servers are either content with the way things are in the core game, or just not motivated enough to make any changes.

i don't think the admins have anything to do with that, the audience for NewGRF servers is just so much smaller. And that doesn't even have anything to do with the content of the NewGRFs, just that they're NewGRFs at all, which need additional steps for the user to set up.

[uzurpator]

The development team has long had a policy of not accepting into the core any features that can be implemented as an add-on. This is the reason why there still are no available helicopters after year 2030 or so. On the other hand, hardcoded limits such as maximum number of stations, vehicles etc. cannot be changed by an add-on, so the development team has been working to raise them over the years.

I don't think there was a chance to get them accepted into anything. Just to be frank. Either way - considering that, as noted before, overwhelming majority of servers run the game vanilla, or as close to it as feasible, allowing issues to linger is ... odd.

Most of the issues you have pointed out are either already solved by add-ons, or cannot be solved in a simple way. Let me address them one by one.

'Can be' is not an equivalent of 'Are'.

The low production industries are harder to boost because every change of production rate is calculated as a percentage of the current production, and 10 percent of 36 tonnes is not quite as large an increase as 10 percent of 360 tonnes. This has nothing to do with vehicle speeds.

No. This is plainly incorrect. Magnitude of production does not influence chances of increasing/decreasing production. It is just down to industry rating. Now it _does_ take a looong time to get there, and once the ball is rolling, it is _rolling_. Which is whole another issue, but not covered in my proposal.

It would however be nice if the production increases/decreases were in constant 5-15 tonne range on each change, as then rescuing an industry from nigh extinction to health would be easier, yet getting it from base to seven gorrilion production was harder. But - another issue.

However, you can keep the station rating in the range of 70-80 % just by ensuring that there is a vehicle loading at all times, no matter how slow it is. This will boost the production quite reliably (but keep in mind there's an element of chance), and eventually your industry will reach the high output rates.

No. You can't. If you disregard speed and age criteria, and run on cargo waiting and visit frequency than rating will plateau at about 67% - give or take 1%. Which gives a razor thin 7% margin before the abyss of dwindling production. Once vehicle speed is out of scope ( so 255km/h for trains and 127km/h for trucks ) then the plateau is at 83%. Protip: you won't be getting 120km/h trucks in 1935.

This is actually part of a larger issue when mixing multiple vehicle sets. In the general case, different sets are not balanced against each other, and usually one of them will be strictly more profitable than the others. Changing the rules of station rating calculation is not sufficient to mitigate this issue. For what it's worth, the fastest engine and wagon is not always the best in terms of profitability or cargo throughput.

Changing rules of station ratings is not going to resolve problems caused by rules of station ratings? Got it. It was always understood that vehicles sets are implicitly not balanced against each other, why would you bring it up?

Unfortunately, the reliability system is utterly unreasonable, and most players disable it altogether. There have been many ideas about overhauling it, and some patches (not add-ons) that implement them.

...and that has to do with my proposal precisely what?

There are many vehicle sets that limit the speed of trains, and there are sets that provide fast trucks (up to 500 km/h hover bus). Some of those sets allow changing their vehicle costs by a multiplier, and on top of that, another add-on can change the base costs of everything in the game.

Yes. I made two, participated in a third. It is also irrelevant, as my concern is with the base game and core game mechanics. Even if 1000000km/h teleport buses were available in some mod does not change anything.

I see it the opposite way: the existence of NewGRF servers proves that people actually use add-ons to mold the game experience to their liking. It is true that most servers don't use add-ons at all — I assume that the admins of these servers are either content with the way things are in the core game, or just not motivated enough to make any changes. For what it's worth, most of the public servers are empty most of the time — but the most popular one is a vanilla server with no add-ons.

And you don't see that as an inherent contradiction? Base set has its quirks and issues, so let's not change anything, because reasons. People can fix them in newgrfs, except people don't seem to use them, because data we have shows that does not happen. Unless you have telemetry to show us otherwise.

[uzurpator]

i don't think the admins have anything to do with that, the audience for NewGRF servers is just so much smaller. And that doesn't even have anything to do with the content of the NewGRFs, just that they're NewGRFs at all, which need additional steps for the user to set up.

It is pretty much every game out there. There are very few mods ( like Counter Strike or Garry's Mod ) which gained some sort of prominence. Otherwise vanilla is what most people play. I say that from the perspective of a person who made several mods to several games. I used to find it pretty infuriating, but in the end - this is the reality of reality. Mods are for the very few, dedicated, long time fans who seek something different. Most casual players run vanilla, and if they don't like it, switch to something else.

Which makes the issues I discuss here that much more pertinent.

[uzurpator]

I just made an experiment. I knew it was bad, I didn't know just how much.

I started a tropical game, and started to run ore trucks against trains and allowed it to fast forward 50 years.

Trains were getting operating ratio of ~25%. Which means for each each 1 money spent they were making 4.
Witcombe - 48km/h trucks were had a ratio of ~70%, so each 1 money spent gave 1.3 moneys back
Uhl - 88km/h over the same route ~85%
The 112km/g ones whose name escapes me - downright losing money.

For each I could not get stable ratings above 67%-ish.

[Eddi]

vanilla is what most people play.

As a general rule of thumb, 99% of people never even change a single default setting.

Which makes the issues I discuss here that much more pertinent.

i tend to agree. however, if you want to open this can of worms with the developers, you need to have a comprehensive and convincing argument. because everyone will have an opinion on this, and it'll be an uphill battle.

one of the problems you will encounter is that game balance is widely considered a lost cause. the game is so unbalanced that you can't even begin anywhere to fix it.

[uzurpator]

i tend to agree. however, if you want to open this can of worms with the developers, you need to have a comprehensive and convincing argument. because everyone will have an opinion on this, and it'll be an uphill battle.

Which is a shame, to be honest. I'm not going to be going against the grain though.

one of the problems you will encounter is that game balance is widely considered a lost cause. the game is so unbalanced that you can't even begin anywhere to fix it.

'Game balance' is one of those things which is almost a religious thing. If we consider TTD to be a promordial Factorio, then it works perfectly fine. I don't consider it a lost cause though, just requires good will from those in charge. Issues are known and kicking them one after another does not seem like much of a problem.

I personally did it three times in two different games

[Eddi]

Issues are known and kicking them one after another does not seem like much of a problem.

Yes, changing the values themselves isn't the big problem. convincing everyone that the new values are better is.

[kamnet]

i tend to agree. however, if you want to open this can of worms with the developers, you need to have a comprehensive and convincing argument. because everyone will have an opinion on this, and it'll be an uphill battle.

Which is a shame, to be honest. I'm not going to be going against the grain though.

But, maybe that's what somebody needs to do? Going against the grain is not bad, it just requires somebody who can put forward the idea. It probably will take some time and discussion to the point that either the devs accept that this is where it should go, or that you've become convinced that your idea was not the right way to go.

[uzurpator]

But, maybe that's what somebody needs to do? Going against the grain is not bad, it just requires somebody who can put forward the idea. It probably will take some time and discussion to the point that either the devs accept that this is where it should go, or that you've become convinced that your idea was not the right way to go.

That is certainly what needs to happen. I'm not going to be that someone though. I have limited time, both professionally and in private, to indulge in another crusade against status quo. Especially, not for a video game.

[uzurpator]

Yes, changing the values themselves isn't the big problem. convincing everyone that the new values are better is.

That is the 'dogma' part everyone has an opinion and is too busy to navel gaze to even consider what others are saying.

[Eddi]

i'm sorry, i didn't make this world

[odisseus]

Yes, changing the values themselves isn't the big problem. convincing everyone that the new values are better is.

That is the 'dogma' part everyone has an opinion and is too busy to navel gaze to even consider what others are saying.

It seems to me that you are the one who's entrenched within a dogma. You want the development team to write code to change things that are already configurable, and you refuse to acknowledge the configuration mechanism on the grounds that few people bother to use it.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong, and maybe your ideas would actually change the game for the better. Why don't you create a patch so that everybody can try them out and be convinced? If your patch gets some traction, it will be more likely to be merged into the master.

[uzurpator]

Respectfully, are you indulging in writing the most vacuous posts on these forums?

It seems to me that you are the one who's entrenched within a dogma.

To a degree, yes. Then again, I'm literally walking away from the issue. Although I am now indulging in petty drama, thus either being a hypocrite or just too mentally weak to live to my own standard. Make a pick.

You want the development team to write code to change things that are already configurable

Yes. On a suggestions forum. Seems appropriate.

and you refuse to acknowledge the configuration mechanism on the grounds that few people bother to use it.

How do I refuse their existence? I acknowledge those mechanisms, I used them, but they don't resolve the issue I'm having, as online nobody* uses them. Once again 'can be' does not equate to 'is'. I 'can' write my own Transport Tycoon, I'm a code monkey. Yet there is a grim reminder on these forums that I didn't.

*where 'nobody' is three out of 50 servers at the moment of testing.

You might have had a case if I went to wherever where project owners reside and pester them into submission. But I didn't. I just went to a 'Suggestions' forum, respectfully pointer to issues ( which, for the most part, you acknowledged ) and suggested solutions. Which for some reason offend you, as you are there in your trench, defending honour of your lady. Don't get me wrong, browse through the 'US Set Development Thread' to witness how buttmad I could be over insignificant issues.