Re: Zojj
Exactly! To improve a vehicle you need to improve its rating, eg. by lowering price and running costs.
Project: Economy and Balancing
Moderator: OpenTTD Developers
Some prices currently in the game (start, without inflation):Zephyris wrote:Re: Youri219
Balancing aims to equalise the profits a transport route can make. A truck route carrying the same amount of cargo the same distance and at the same speed as a train will currently make less money because the purchase and running costs of trains are so low. A truck route can never make as much money as a train. This aims to rectify this, making a truck route a viable or preferable alternative in some situations. This is irrespective of whether you have or haven't had to build the infrastructure.
For example two industries on opposite sides of a large town. Trucks should be the favoured transport type, they can cut through town, taking a much shorter (and faster) route, a team of 8 trucks can carry just as much as a train, and you don't have to build the infrastructure. Currently a long, slow, around town route in a train will make more money.
In real life trucks fill the niche of local, small scale transport. However they are also viable alternatives to trains. In England, for example, they dominate goods transport. The game should be able to reflect this, and show the evolution of goods transport from rail to road as viable trucks become available. At the moment a truck route can never make more money.
Anyways my motivation for balancing isn't for better emulation of real life its for more varied gameplay. I think it would be nice to have trucks as the best possible option for some jobs!
Bulldozing grass: 15 pounds
Rail on grass: 90 pounds
Rail on bulldozed ground: 75 pounds
Road on grass: 86+71 = 157 pounds
Road on bulldozed ground: 71+71 = 142 pounds
Buying grass: 315 pounds
Buying bulldozed ground: 300 pounds
Added cost on farm land: 360 pounds
Demolishing a house: 375 pounds... you're making some people homeless... rediculously cheap.
I think this is where the main problem lies, and not just the ratios of the vehicles. Placing some rail somewhere costs less than buying the land, even though you become owner anyway. Take your example of two industries at opposite sides of town. Would it still be more profitable to put down a railway if you had to pay an additional 300 for each square (or even more when it's near the town centre), or would you use the free public road?
Note: I think it would be a great idea to have all towns and industries connected with roads already at the start of the game.
-
athanasios
- Tycoon
- Posts: 3138
- Joined: 23 Jun 2005 00:09
- Contact:
Simutrans like...Youri219 wrote:Note: I think it would be a great idea to have all towns and industries connected with roads already at the start of the game.
Industries could be connected via dirt roads (whenever they become available).
http://members.fortunecity.com/gamesart
"If no one is a fool I am also a fool." -The TTD maniac.
I prefer to be contacted through PMs. Thanks.
"If no one is a fool I am also a fool." -The TTD maniac.
I prefer to be contacted through PMs. Thanks.
In real life most passengers want to travel a small distance, with a minority wanting to take, say, a plane trip. In the game equal quantities of passengers will go to a bus stop or an air port - allowing you to make lots more money by providing only the long distance air service. Ideally passengers should have destinations, making the highly profitable long distance services lucrative...
In the game this is balanced by loading times at stations, the slow taxiing around an airport greatly reduces the number of trips per year an aircraft can take. However with the new, larger more efficient, airports have removed this balancing - simply adding more planes works, and allows you to make more money.
In the game this is balanced by loading times at stations, the slow taxiing around an airport greatly reduces the number of trips per year an aircraft can take. However with the new, larger more efficient, airports have removed this balancing - simply adding more planes works, and allows you to make more money.
There's a "passengers with specific destinations" patch already. With that patch, passengers entering any type of station chose a random destination, which can be reached in # hops. From the looks of it, it only choses destinations it can reach, instead of realistic destinations, but it's a major step into the right direction.Zephyris wrote:In real life most passengers want to travel a small distance, with a minority wanting to take, say, a plane trip. In the game equal quantities of passengers will go to a bus stop or an air port - allowing you to make lots more money by providing only the long distance air service. Ideally passengers should have destinations, making the highly profitable long distance services lucrative...
In the game this is balanced by loading times at stations, the slow taxiing around an airport greatly reduces the number of trips per year an aircraft can take. However with the new, larger more efficient, airports have removed this balancing - simply adding more planes works, and allows you to make more money.
The same problem applies for industries... you can also ignore all nearby factories and deliver your cargo at the other side of the world.
It seems kinda fundamental for the balancing of widely available 'perishible' cargoes (especially passengers) with new airportsI've done some basic simulations of cargo payment rates in excel to see the maximum profit a vehicle can make over differences at different speeds. This takes into account number of vehicles, their speed, price, running cost, capacity, and cargo payment rate. Infrastructure costs are also included; both station/airport and intervening road/rail. Depreciation in cargo value is modelled as the positive half of a normal distribution (not as OpenTTD does, it doesn't use a simple formula!), but cargo payment is otherwise calculated as in OpenTTD. Vehicle movement is simply modelled as travelling at maximum speed between stations, then a certain number of days in a station.
This nicely shows what every player knows - that all vehicles make a loss over short distance, and lower speed vehicles have their optimum profit at a shorter distance than high speed vehicles. Interestingly infrastructure costs and vehicle costs have very little effect on the profitability of a route, it is dominated by the distance the cargo is transported. Hence a faster vehicle, which can go further whilst not loosing cargo value, will always make vastly more, and so gamers will always use these transport types.
In real life long distance transport clearly doesn't dominate, you get a bus or train hundreds of times more than a plane, there is no demand for the long distance travel. One possible (partial) solution to balancing problems is to take this into account. There are three obvious ways of doing this:
Separate all cargos into short, medium or long range versions. Long range cargoes should have higher payment rates, but be less abundant.
Give destinations to all cargos, see the passenger destinations patch. The cargo intelligently takes the best route, changing vehicles on the way. I like this one.
Finally (for industries) the industry could specify where its goods must be taken, reflecting the transport to the industry which pays the best price.
Any thoughts?
This nicely shows what every player knows - that all vehicles make a loss over short distance, and lower speed vehicles have their optimum profit at a shorter distance than high speed vehicles. Interestingly infrastructure costs and vehicle costs have very little effect on the profitability of a route, it is dominated by the distance the cargo is transported. Hence a faster vehicle, which can go further whilst not loosing cargo value, will always make vastly more, and so gamers will always use these transport types.
In real life long distance transport clearly doesn't dominate, you get a bus or train hundreds of times more than a plane, there is no demand for the long distance travel. One possible (partial) solution to balancing problems is to take this into account. There are three obvious ways of doing this:
Separate all cargos into short, medium or long range versions. Long range cargoes should have higher payment rates, but be less abundant.
Give destinations to all cargos, see the passenger destinations patch. The cargo intelligently takes the best route, changing vehicles on the way. I like this one.
Finally (for industries) the industry could specify where its goods must be taken, reflecting the transport to the industry which pays the best price.
Any thoughts?
-
LordOfThePigs
- Route Supervisor
- Posts: 435
- Joined: 01 Jul 2004 10:28
- Location: Jura/Switzerland
The excel simulation; variables are at the top, change whatever you feel like! It roughly corresponds (atm) to road vehicles, trains then planes left to right. The graph is max profit/year (y axis) against number of squares the cargo is carried (x axis).
- Attachments
-
- Vehicle balancing.xls
- (141 KiB) Downloaded 355 times
dynamic cargo rates 10.1.1
This is a very interesting thread, but until now not much has been reflected on the dynamics of Cargo Payments Rate and how this can impact the gaming experience! (point 10.1.1. in the pdf.)
For the moment, (and as far as I know) a transport connection will not impact and is not impacted by the world around it in terms of Cargo Payments Rates. In “the real world” if you had the only train in the world, you would obviously be in an extremely nice strategical position. But if you happen to own and use a Kirby-like train in the year 2000, and you where serious about transportation, people should just laugh at you. In “the real world” one type of business will never make money for ever. Without internal development it is only a matter of time before it is obsolete and surpassed by its competitors with big consequences for the business. As someone said: “If you don’t impact the world, you are condemned to adapt to it.”
Now in OTTD, if you once make money with one system, you will always make money with that system. Is this really dynamic? I dont think it is. To change this we should introduce a new constant that is impacting the Cargo Payment Rates. There should be a moment in time where one type of vehicle in practice is obsolete and condemned to lose money. (This is an idea that also is reflected in the train board game 1870.) I am here referring to transport speed and cargo rates, not running cost.
What I think I am aiming for is dynamic curves for each Cargo Payments Rate, based on a factor or constant between 1.0 and 0,5 that decrease their value. With this we should be able to see how different cargo payments rates fluctuates based on the market of transportation.
What should impact this factor ? Not time, and not the fastest train which is available either (as proposed in the article), but more practically on how quick one specific type of cargo has been delivered over a minimum distance of certain number of square. This will not only take train speed into account, but also relate to how well the route is constructed. A complicating factor could be also to relate to quantity being transported. That small quantity being transported at a higher transit time will have little effect as to if a large quantity is being transported at a quicker rate.
This could be done in many different fashions. For example
• it could be made up of a local factor related to your specific distance of travelling. This will mean more direct competition
• It could be made up of a global factor related to top speed over a given distance, example minimum 100 squares. Or more complex, related to 5 different key distances ranging from 20 squares and up to 200 squares. Every distance will keep its top transit rates and calculate new cargo payments rates based on this. It is then likely that a long and quicker route all of a sudden could change the whole industry in an instant and make the game very challenging to play. Many companies could then all of a sudden be in trouble, and be forced to bankruptcy or to new investment.
• It could be made up of a factor related to type of cargo being transported.
• A combination of the above mentioned factors. By giving each of them a lower scale impact both of them or all of them could in fact be used.
Which formulaire should we suggest for this?
“Old cargo payment rates” mulitiplied with an factor N that takes record delivery time into consideration.
For the moment, (and as far as I know) a transport connection will not impact and is not impacted by the world around it in terms of Cargo Payments Rates. In “the real world” if you had the only train in the world, you would obviously be in an extremely nice strategical position. But if you happen to own and use a Kirby-like train in the year 2000, and you where serious about transportation, people should just laugh at you. In “the real world” one type of business will never make money for ever. Without internal development it is only a matter of time before it is obsolete and surpassed by its competitors with big consequences for the business. As someone said: “If you don’t impact the world, you are condemned to adapt to it.”
Now in OTTD, if you once make money with one system, you will always make money with that system. Is this really dynamic? I dont think it is. To change this we should introduce a new constant that is impacting the Cargo Payment Rates. There should be a moment in time where one type of vehicle in practice is obsolete and condemned to lose money. (This is an idea that also is reflected in the train board game 1870.) I am here referring to transport speed and cargo rates, not running cost.
What I think I am aiming for is dynamic curves for each Cargo Payments Rate, based on a factor or constant between 1.0 and 0,5 that decrease their value. With this we should be able to see how different cargo payments rates fluctuates based on the market of transportation.
What should impact this factor ? Not time, and not the fastest train which is available either (as proposed in the article), but more practically on how quick one specific type of cargo has been delivered over a minimum distance of certain number of square. This will not only take train speed into account, but also relate to how well the route is constructed. A complicating factor could be also to relate to quantity being transported. That small quantity being transported at a higher transit time will have little effect as to if a large quantity is being transported at a quicker rate.
This could be done in many different fashions. For example
• it could be made up of a local factor related to your specific distance of travelling. This will mean more direct competition
• It could be made up of a global factor related to top speed over a given distance, example minimum 100 squares. Or more complex, related to 5 different key distances ranging from 20 squares and up to 200 squares. Every distance will keep its top transit rates and calculate new cargo payments rates based on this. It is then likely that a long and quicker route all of a sudden could change the whole industry in an instant and make the game very challenging to play. Many companies could then all of a sudden be in trouble, and be forced to bankruptcy or to new investment.
• It could be made up of a factor related to type of cargo being transported.
• A combination of the above mentioned factors. By giving each of them a lower scale impact both of them or all of them could in fact be used.
Which formulaire should we suggest for this?
“Old cargo payment rates” mulitiplied with an factor N that takes record delivery time into consideration.
Magnato, Oslo
You could also change cargo payment rates by factor witch describes complexity of your network in zone near those industries.
This way it could keep cargo payment rates at high level when constructing new routes, but lower the payment as time passes, and your network in that area grows.
Another way of making cargo payment rates more realistic may be signing contracts with companies about delivering certain amount of cargo in certain time. Of course, like in real life, the faster you will promise those companies to deliver the cargo, the more you can earn, however there is still risk of not making it before deadline and paying some penalty.
This way it could keep cargo payment rates at high level when constructing new routes, but lower the payment as time passes, and your network in that area grows.
Another way of making cargo payment rates more realistic may be signing contracts with companies about delivering certain amount of cargo in certain time. Of course, like in real life, the faster you will promise those companies to deliver the cargo, the more you can earn, however there is still risk of not making it before deadline and paying some penalty.
OTTD is simulation game eg. tries to simulate real world where transport company chooses price. TC chooses price to meet those conditions:
a) industries whose goods are transported must survive and make (minimal) profit
b) profit from transport route should be as big as possible
or
TC chooses to use low prices on certain route to support some industry or town
or
TC chooses to get customers by dumped prices
...
there are many possibilities - but one thing remain: ,,TC chooses...''
so let TC ie. player choose price for the route
(as default lets use "minimum to be profitable + bit more" or whatever you think is reasonable)
In real life there are no cargo payment rates or artifical cargo payment formulae, in real life transport company chooses prices for transportation.
(There are few exceptions - local goverment may force some limits by law or
by other means of regulation (that could be done by local authority in game) )
poor passengers always try to find cheapest mean of transportation (i know that pretty well)
some choose some balanced compromise
and only few passengers try to find fastest mean of transportation
in industry there is situation a bit different
what decision possibilities has factory with only transport route nearby? only two - to choose that route if it is still profitable or not to transport at all.
and what happens in real life? transport company with monopoly will bleed that industry dry or (if TC is smart) will nearly bleed that industry dry or takes it over
if we use ,,everybody tries to make highest profit'' scheme,it will simulate real world good enough,it will be variable because every single change will cause a chain of changes elsewhere and we will not need to think about some artifical formulae. we could just use action, reaction and ,,willingness to make highest profit avaiable''
a) industries whose goods are transported must survive and make (minimal) profit
b) profit from transport route should be as big as possible
or
TC chooses to use low prices on certain route to support some industry or town
or
TC chooses to get customers by dumped prices
...
there are many possibilities - but one thing remain: ,,TC chooses...''
so let TC ie. player choose price for the route
(as default lets use "minimum to be profitable + bit more" or whatever you think is reasonable)
In real life there are no cargo payment rates or artifical cargo payment formulae, in real life transport company chooses prices for transportation.
(There are few exceptions - local goverment may force some limits by law or
by other means of regulation (that could be done by local authority in game) )
poor passengers always try to find cheapest mean of transportation (i know that pretty well)
some choose some balanced compromise
and only few passengers try to find fastest mean of transportation
in industry there is situation a bit different
what decision possibilities has factory with only transport route nearby? only two - to choose that route if it is still profitable or not to transport at all.
and what happens in real life? transport company with monopoly will bleed that industry dry or (if TC is smart) will nearly bleed that industry dry or takes it over
if we use ,,everybody tries to make highest profit'' scheme,it will simulate real world good enough,it will be variable because every single change will cause a chain of changes elsewhere and we will not need to think about some artifical formulae. we could just use action, reaction and ,,willingness to make highest profit avaiable''
Except they don't. Railways and other transport networks vital to the economy have always been very heavily regulated with regards to what services they must offer and how much they may charge. This has always been the case everywhere, as far as I'm aware, even the good ol' free-market USA.THX-1138 wrote:there are many possibilities - but one thing remain: ,,TC chooses...''
map in ottd is market itself or could bemagnato wrote:In real life there are no cargo payment rates
Cargo Payments Rates reflect a larger market system, but simplified. We dont want to much micro-management either
But to open up for higher interaction between players make Dynami Cargo Payments Rates could be one alternative.
i do not want mandatory micro management. i want possibility of micro-management and fine tuning.
default setting of all routes should be they're priced automaticaly. however if you want to play with prices somewhere (to destroy other company, start new route etc....) it would be nice to have that possibility.
excactly, I want to be able to put other companies out of business, just by competing with them!automaticaly. however if you want to play with prices somewhere (to destroy other company, start new route etc....) it would be nice to have that possibility.
But there has to be a link between my actions and their company. I think this link should be Cargo Payment Rates.
Magnato, Oslo
Great thread!
One item I would suggest is that secondary industries (factory, sawmill, oil refinery etc) should have to be within a certain radius of houses. I've always wondered why the steel mill demands passengers, but not the equally large factory and refinery. Also, these industries should start out small, as one-tile "baby" industries" and grow from there as production and profits increase. Remember, Ford and Microsoft started out in somebody's garage. Each industry should have a maximum capacity (based on tile size), not be a "black hole" for raw materials. It would also be nice to be able to fund a "baby" industry as opposed to the huge cost now.
Industry startups and shutdowns should happen a bit more often than now, and with more small industries the effect of a shutdown wouldn't be as devastating. Who hasn't spent a bunch of capital adding a factory to the network, and just before the first loaded transport arrives- Poof!
As far as governments, economies, etc. I would love to see a fusion of SimCity and Transport Tycoon. (This would of course be a different game.) Might be interesting to be able to choose whether to play as Government or Industry (or a Soviet style blend of the two.) Do I go with Muny (municipal) power, or allow private companies to build power plants and buy on the open market? Those power plants need coal (or oil or natural gas later) so do I open a Muny coal mine, or buy on the market? Do I build Freeways, toll roads, or let private companies build turnpikes?
Here's a currently relevant question: Do I build and maintain the rail network as public infrastructure, letting multiple companies trains run on it, or make the railroads foot the bill for the rail infrastructure?
One item I would suggest is that secondary industries (factory, sawmill, oil refinery etc) should have to be within a certain radius of houses. I've always wondered why the steel mill demands passengers, but not the equally large factory and refinery. Also, these industries should start out small, as one-tile "baby" industries" and grow from there as production and profits increase. Remember, Ford and Microsoft started out in somebody's garage. Each industry should have a maximum capacity (based on tile size), not be a "black hole" for raw materials. It would also be nice to be able to fund a "baby" industry as opposed to the huge cost now.
Industry startups and shutdowns should happen a bit more often than now, and with more small industries the effect of a shutdown wouldn't be as devastating. Who hasn't spent a bunch of capital adding a factory to the network, and just before the first loaded transport arrives- Poof!
As far as governments, economies, etc. I would love to see a fusion of SimCity and Transport Tycoon. (This would of course be a different game.) Might be interesting to be able to choose whether to play as Government or Industry (or a Soviet style blend of the two.) Do I go with Muny (municipal) power, or allow private companies to build power plants and buy on the open market? Those power plants need coal (or oil or natural gas later) so do I open a Muny coal mine, or buy on the market? Do I build Freeways, toll roads, or let private companies build turnpikes?
Here's a currently relevant question: Do I build and maintain the rail network as public infrastructure, letting multiple companies trains run on it, or make the railroads foot the bill for the rail infrastructure?
Who is John Galt?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 13 guests