Sharing of Infrastructure

[aarona]

Okay so the DD says we can share tracks with our competitors. Do we need to rethink this, or should we continue with this idea?

Will the game be better off for it?
Can it be exploited? (Like crashing your $2 toy train into your competitors ICE, or blocking tracks, etc)
Are there ways around it?
Will we end up too many train tracks if its not shared (which may look ugly and unrealistic)

If we continue with it how about...
Government owned infrastructure
Government allowing competitors to use your lines
Static agreements (everyone can use everyone elses infrastructure, like RT)
Dynamic agreements (contracts, etc)

Are there things we can share (say extending stations for our cars - to syphon/link with other lines), and things we can't (like the rail itself)?

[Hyronymus]

Okay so the DD says we can share tracks with our competitors. Do we need to rethink this, or should we continue with this idea?

Stick with it.

Will the game be better off for it?
Can it be exploited? (Like crashing your $2 toy train into your competitors ICE, or blocking tracks, etc)
Are there ways around it?
Will we end up too many train tracks if its not shared (which may look ugly and unrealistic)

A way to prevent exploiting this feature would be disallowing trains to be permanently stopped on competitors' track at all. And naturally trains from Player 1 cannot crash with trains from Player 2, that doesn't happen in reality either.

If we continue with it how about...
Government owned infrastructure
Government allowing competitors to use your lines
Static agreements (everyone can use everyone elses infrastructure, like RT)
Dynamic agreements (contracts, etc)

We discussed airports being government owned to prevent each company building individual airports. I really need to dig up those important discussions. And I would prefer dynamic agreements although I understand that is more difficult. I don't think competitors should be able to extent the station of another company.

EDIT:

[RFD]Can several companies add elements to the same station?
[RFD] Sharing of infrastructure

[FRDF] Who builds airports? [REVOTE]: outside towns
[RFD] Airports: how is they constructed? by modules or fixed
[FRDF] Who builds airports?

[RFD] Construction of stations in cities

EDIT 2:
Thanks for pointing me to the revote, Steve. I overlooked it:
[FRDF] Who builds airports? [REVOTE]: outside towns

[Purno]

Okay so the DD says we can share tracks with our competitors. Do we need to rethink this, or should we continue with this idea?

I think shared tracks should be an option for the player.

[Hyronymus]

Please read the links I provided. It's not so much a matter of thinking as we discussed and decided on things last year.

[aarona]

Please read the links I provided. It's not so much a matter of thinking as we discussed and decided on things last year.

The only thing that looks "decided" is the fact that there will be sharing of infrastructure.

Perhaps you could give me your interpretation (based on what was agreed upon) on how sharing of infrastructure will be used and how it ties in with the other game concepts.

There doesn't "seem" to be a place in the DD on sharing, so perhaps this is something to be done (if it hasn't already). The DD should have been the place to put all these "decisions" that were made. The forums are cluttered with opinions but not decisions which is why the DD should be the "final say".

Also: Does a decision made over a year ago still hold? Why isn't Purno's thought valid?
It may be a closed issue, but until all the detail are nutted out we need to keep an open mind.

[Hyronymus]

Be aware what you are saying now. It took us 2 years (!) to get the things discussed in the first place and I am not looking forward to restarting every debate again quite frankly. I don't know how the others like that but I actually want to use what we do have (for once) and get on with it.

I did read the Sharing of Infrastructure topic by the way and we didn't vote for anything as you said. That's not good .

[aarona]

Be aware what you are saying now. It took us 2 years (!) to get the things discussed in the first place and I am not looking forward to restarting every debate again quite frankly. I don't know how the others like that but I actually want to use what we do have (for once) and get on with it.

I did read the Sharing of Infrastructure topic by the way and we didn't vote for anything as you said. That's not good .

I'm not suggesting we start again, I'm just suggesting that we need to look at some issues in terms of implementation rather than just a notion. I don't like the idea of (anyone) getting half way through a mountain of code only to realise, oh wait, we didnt actually want that, or damn, thats not compatible with this game concept.

There are three options I can see...
1) We can discuss each point ad nauseum until we finally reach a community consenus (which will no doubt take another two years to complete)
2) We form a design committee (of three to five people say) to fast track decision making, giving the community the power over major issues but the committee has the power over the minor issues.
3) A person of great vision comes along and says...do this, do this, and everyone agrees. (Yeah right...). Or says stuff u guys and does it alone.

Now as you can see, in terms of time, the lower the order the faster the process.
In terms of community consultation, the lower the order the less community orientated it becomes.

1) Pure democracy
2) Representative democracy
3) Dictatorship/Monarchy

So far we have been using 1 and are getting nowhere, time for 2 methinks!

[/ramble]

[Hyronymus]

OK, I agree on that but I personally "need" more clearity from the coders on what exactly needs to be decided. I understand you want to finalise the sharing of infrastructure but I have no clue at all what exactly is important for the coders to know. If I had a little more notion or some more cues I might be able to follow you entirely.

This is a 100% personal note, I don't know how far others can think along with the coders. I also hope I don't sound harsh somewhere, it's hardly ever my intention to sound harsh but I seem to have a vulnerability for it.

[aarona]

OK, I agree on that but I personally "need" more clearity from the coders on what exactly needs to be decided. I understand you want to finalise the sharing of infrastructure but I have no clue at all what exactly is important for the coders to know. If I had a little more notion or some more cues I might be able to follow you entirely.

This is a 100% personal note, I don't know how far others can think along with the coders. I also hope I don't sound harsh somewhere, it's hardly ever my intention to sound harsh but I seem to have a vulnerability for it.

I understand where you are coming from.

See this post. The thing I like is there is a visual diagram of what he is proposing along with a description.

Programming is about cause and effect. What are the options? What do they do? Whats the flow of events frame by frame or those caused by the users changes.

These are the questions i would ask about sharing of infrastructure...
What can be shared?
Is there a non-company entity responsible for ownership?
How will we work out useage payments?
How will they connect?
Are there any special circumstances about sharing which aren't obvious?

I'm playing a game where sharing is occuring, what is happening? How do I use someones line, how do i stop someone using my line?

I'm sure most things could be explained using mock-ups, although it would require more effort.

Locked until the DD discussion arrives at this issue.