Land Buying

[MeusH]

SingaporeKid, rails would be used instead... I think succesfully incerasing cost of signs + abandoned rails patch would be good

[DaleStan]

Why not disable signs in multiplayer?

For the *umpteenth* time: It's cheaper and just as effective to build a couple of rail tracks on the tile. Should we disable that too?

I think succesfully incerasing cost of signs

What part of "cheaper to build a rail" are you folks not getting?

[Purno]

Perhaps it would be a solution if competitors are able to remove your tracks if those aren't used for x months?

[DaleStan]

From the other thread:

As to the tracks, the "aboundoned tracks/shared tracks" idea really does need to work it's way into the trunk.

Imagine the following scenario:
-) A subsidy is being offered that player #1 wants to get
-) Player #1 builds roads and is almost done
-) Player #2 then builds train tracks around parts of the street so player #1 can't finish it
-) Player #2 finishes his own transport line and gets the subsidy
-) The train tracks start rusting long after player #2 "beat" player #1

So yeah, nice idea but it won't solve the immediate problem of blocking someone - and in the case of zig-zag tracks over an opponent's street they also won't even rust since there'll be a really cheap train driving on them to crash the vehicles... =\

[MeusH]

More ideas, linked with my "crash penatlies" idea.
If road vehicle is broken down, it's company will be fined;
Otherwise, if road vehicle is turned on and reliable (with green flag) train company should be fined.

This should keep crash noobs away from road vehicles, especially if each nextfine = 1,5*(previous fine)

[ElectricA4]

From the other thread:

As to the tracks, the "aboundoned tracks/shared tracks" idea really does need to work it's way into the trunk.

Imagine the following scenario:
-) A subsidy is being offered that player #1 wants to get
-) Player #1 builds roads and is almost done
-) Player #2 then builds train tracks around parts of the street so player #1 can't finish it
-) Player #2 finishes his own transport line and gets the subsidy
-) The train tracks start rusting long after player #2 "beat" player #1

So yeah, nice idea but it won't solve the immediate problem of blocking someone - and in the case of zig-zag tracks over an opponent's street they also won't even rust since there'll be a really cheap train driving on them to crash the vehicles... =\

Upside: Can't use rail to reserve land
Downside: Can't keep unused/unfinished transport route

Is this what your trying to point out? If so, than the upside outweighs the downside. If you don't agree or if you do, then maybe this patch should be an option only.

I think people buying too much land to reserve industries and block competitors is the biggest annoyance in the game. So it may be a good idea to stop too much land buying and removing unused track/road, and it would be nice if servers could choose it as an option. It won't stop all lame acts as you pointed out, but putting restrictions on land buying may stop a lot of noobs p***ing people off (as some people don't think it is a bad thing to do, with most other disruptive acts, people know they are doing something annoying).

[DaleStan]

Upside: Can't use rail to reserve land

Yes, you can, it just goes away after a few years. Which is MORE than enough time to block a subsidy, block in a station, and generally lame the living daylights out of everyone.

[ElectricA4]

Upside: Can't use rail to reserve land

Yes, you can, it just goes away after a few years. Which is MORE than enough time to block a subsidy, block in a station, and generally lame the living daylights out of everyone.

True. But I was thinking on a more permanent basis. After however many years the track would disappear, which would be an improvement on what currently happens.

Do you completely disagree to it being an in-game option? As I feel it would not be a solution but it could be a decent improvement.

[chairface]

More ideas, linked with my "crash penatlies" idea.
If road vehicle is broken down, it's company will be fined;
Otherwise, if road vehicle is turned on and reliable (with green flag) train company should be fined.

This should keep crash noobs away from road vehicles, especially if each nextfine = 1,5*(previous fine)

Even if a road vehicle is on and reliable, unless level crossings are fixed, it's possible for a train to smash a road vehicle through no fault of the train.

Likewise, say you're running trains under this scheme, and I deliberately stop a bunch of road vehicles on your track. You'd be getting the fine since my road vehicles function.

And if your retort is that we'd charge the RV company if the vehicles were stopped on tracks; Fine, I'll crisscross your tracks with roads leading between depots and just stick lines of coal trucks going between em so you rack up the fines.

As I said in the original thread about crash penalties: Any accident between a train and road vehicle should be the road vehicle's fault. Always. Yes, I can imagine lamers crisscrossing key roads with tracks just to smash up your trucks. That would indeed suck. But like most of the other things lamers do online, there's no particularly elegant solution (and if someone suggestings disabling buying land again I'm going to scream) so the best option is to just allow admins/rcons to kick/ban anyone being a jerk. Of course, that will result in some servers being run play-skool style where no one can even compete without getting kicked, but there'll undoubtedly be a few decent servers that establish themselves as places free of laming but open for fair competition.

[henrik]

A problem with the aging rails suggestion is if you build an intricate junction with room to expand for the future, and add a couple of little railway stretches that are not currently used. After a few years a competitor could come and ruin the expandability of your junction.

[ElectricA4]

chairface, perhaps you should not read this thread again if you don't wan't to scream.

the best option is to just allow admins/rcons to kick/ban anyone being a jerk.

This is simply your opinion, which does not necessarily out rule anyone else’s opinion.

My personal opinion is that with the removal of unused rail, a limit on land buying is a good suggestion. I would much rather play on a server with this option than simply hoping the lamer eventually sells his land or gets kicked.

People, please don’t tell other people to stop posting this suggestion, as I really wish people would stop posting to stop the posting of the land buying suggestion. Your opinion is loud and clear and I feel you should move on as you seem to have nothing else to add. If it annoys you you, don't have to read it.

[ElectricA4]

A problem with the aging rails suggestion is if you build an intricate junction with room to expand for the future, and add a couple of little railway stretches that are not currently used. After a few years a competitor could come and ruin the expandability of your junction.

I agree. But perhaps they could make it an option? As I still like it.

[chairface]

This is simply your opinion, which does not necessarily out rule anyone else’s opinion.

My personal opinion is that with the removal of unused rail, a limit on land buying is a good suggestion. I would much rather play on a server with this option than simply hoping the lamer eventually sells his land or gets kicked.

People, please don’t tell other people to stop posting this suggestion, as I really wish people would stop posting to stop the posting of the land buying suggestion. Your opinion is loud and clear and I feel you should move on as you seem to have nothing else to add. If it annoys you you, don't have to read it.

See, the problem here is that you're assuming all opinions are equal. Let's do a logic exercise to demonstrate that this is not true:

Guy 1: My opinion is that gravity does not exist. I will walk off this building now.

Guy 2: My opinion is that gravity does exist. I will stay on the building.

Guy 1 dies, Guy 2 lives. Guy 1's opinion sucks and wasn't worthy of consideration as it's demonstrably nonsense.

The opinion that disabling land buying would be a good idea has been demonstrated to be nonsense again and again. Even with aging rails, someone will use roads (can't build RR crossings on intersections!) and if someone retorts that there should be an "aging roads" patch, then someone will stick one coal truck to drive between two depots on his snarl of blocking intersection-roads.

Adults are trying to have a conversation. This conversation does not need to be clogged up by people suggesting the same demonstrably meritless opinion again and again.

[MeusH]

Okay, considering Chairface's and ElectricA4's posts, I'm with abandoned rails+voting to kick+eventually a moderator

[ElectricA4]

This is simply your opinion, which does not necessarily out rule anyone else’s opinion.

chairface, what part of this quote assumes everyone's opinion is equal? And don't assume that gravity exists until you have tried walking off the building.

Many people are trying to discuss different ways to lesser the effects of the problem. eg. what to do about someone building a circular track around an industry and running a train on it. I can't think of anything, I bet you can't either. I suppose we should tell everyone to shut up, just because we think its impossible (is this how adults have a conversation?) or maybe we could let people come up with some suggestions to try and make things better.

The main reason I think it is a good idea and that it should be discussed, is because some people don't think it is a bad thing to do, with most other disruptive acts, people know they are doing something annoying. This option would clearly make people aware that is not good, (there are no rules saying you can't do it, and read mr.adam's last post in this thread). Plus, I think it is an improvement even if it is not a solution. I think we should be able to have moderators kick of course, but not as the first and only defence.

[White Rabbit]

How about setting a radius around each industry, the size which varies according to the number of players in the game, and allow only a certain percentage of that land to be used by one single company? A singleplayer game would allow 100%, 2-player game 50%, 4 player game 25%, and I think we'll stop there, because industries rarely get more than 4 companies drawing output away from it at once. There should also be a 'radius limit', to prevent companies from simply buying land on one side, and then buying land on the otherside, which leaves a lot of empty tile gaps, but none of which are large enough for stations. This would at least stop one guy from hoarding off whole industries on his own.

[chairface]

Many people are trying to discuss different ways to lesser the effects of the problem. eg. what to do about someone building a circular track around an industry and running a train on it. I can't think of anything, I bet you can't either. I suppose we should tell everyone to shut up, just because we think its impossible (is this how adults have a conversation?) or maybe we could let people come up with some suggestions to try and make things better.

No, many people aren't discussing that at all. The vast majority are spamming the same worthless idea again and again without bothering to read the thread.

Games never built with internet multiplay in mind are very hard to kludge to a state acceptable for dealing with lamers and jackasses. And I have made suggestions, if you'd bother to read the thread. Basically that there's no truly elegant way to hack this into something lamer-proof so just stick with moderated servers, throw in some kind of rcon access so more people than just the server owner can boot folks, and play on servers you know are moderated well. There'll be plenty of servers full of lamers and plenty full of people who view any competition at all as "unfair" but there's not much to be done about it.

Anyone who wants to make a suggestion is welcome to, as long as it is a real suggestion. "Disable land buying !!!1111!!" is not a real suggestion. Anyone who bothers to read the thread before posting would know that already.

The main reason I think it is a good idea and that it should be discussed, is because some people don't think it is a bad thing to do, with most other disruptive acts, people know they are doing something annoying. This option would clearly make people aware that is not good, (there are no rules saying you can't do it, and read mr.adam's last post in this thread). Plus, I think it is an improvement even if it is not a solution. I think we should be able to have moderators kick of course, but not as the first and only defence.

The people who don't think it's wrong would continue to insist it's not wrong and use rails/roads/depots/whatever to block industries anyway. It's not "Land-buying" that they are arguing is acceptable but rather "Industry blocking." People with that view are going to continue to industry-block with whatever means are available.

Although you've indirectly given me an idea; Some kind of Message Of The Day functionality where users who log onto servers can be given a list of rules. "Industry Blocking = Kick" would be a nice thing to paste up there.

As for the guy suggesting a limit on overall land usage around an industry, that's a decent idea, if you can work out the kinks you yourself mention in your post. Also I'd suggest making it where the max limit was 50%. After all, even if there's 4 companies on the map, the first two who get to the industry are the only ones'll who have a real shot at building decent stations anyway.

[ElectricA4]

No, many people aren't discussing that at all. The vast majority are spamming the same worthless idea again and again without bothering to read the thread.

well maybe those people should read the thread first and expand on how they think it could be done.

Games never built with internet multiplay in mind are very hard to kludge to a state acceptable for dealing with lamers and jackasses... Basically that there's no truly elegant way to hack this into something lamer-proof…

true

…so stick with moderated servers, throw in some kind of rcon access so more people than just the server owner can boot folks, and play on servers you know are moderated well.

I did read your suggestion, these are good ideas, but why should we “stick” to just this? Because you tell us to? As you have seen, many people have suggested limits for land buying, so there is interest in it. I’m interested in different ways it could be done eg. White Rabbits last post in this thread.

Remember I'm saying it could be an improvement, not an outright solution. It would be harder for people to build used track around an industry, than simply buy land around it. So in this way it is an improvement. Plus less people may choose to be lamers with this option.

Think of this… an option becomes available for servers to limit land buying. I could play on a server with it turned on, you could play on a server with it turned off.

Although you've indirectly given me an idea; Some kind of Message Of The Day functionality where users who log onto servers can be given a list of rules. "Industry Blocking = Kick" would be a nice thing to paste up there.

I also feel servers should be able to give more info, such as opening a small server info text file in-game. It could include rules and any meseges, eg. "Online mondays 14:00 GMT - ..." or "unmoderated server..."

[lucaspiller]

I have been following most of this, and most of it, to be honest is a load of rubbish. These suggestions would either be too complicated or impraticle to implement, or change the game play so much that it is just stupid.

To me, the only reasonable options would be moderated games, which shouldn't really be too hard to add, especially if we get IRC support, then the moderator doesn't have to be playing the game. We could also quite easily add a thing to the server list to show whether the game is currently being moderated or not.

[ElectricA4]

I have been following most of this, and most of it, to be honest is a load of rubbish. These suggestions would either be too complicated or impraticle to implement, or change the game play so much that it is just stupid.

Maybe most are rubbish because of implementation, I wouldn't know. OTTD is something that has already changed gameplay a lot compared to TTDX and I don't think it's stupid. The changes for a land limit suggestion may not change gameplay much, firstly it depends on what the actual suggestion is. If a simple suggestion does not solve the problem it might still be good to add IMO.

To me, the only reasonable options would be moderated games, which shouldn't really be too hard to add, especially if we get IRC support, then the moderator doesn't have to be playing the game. We could also quite easily add a thing to the server list to show whether the game is currently being moderated or not.

I hope this idea gets implemented. Maybe it will solve the problem almost entirely.