[Economy] Industry cargo payment rate calculation.

[michael blunck]

Are you aware that

1) by setting the time factors T1 and T2, different goods in TTD already are able to show different "degrading" effects with time? See http://wiki.ttdpatch.net/tiki-index.php ... r_10_11_12_

2) that custom industry/cargo .grfs are already setting their own price and time penalties?

regards
Michael

[Keyoke]

Are you aware that

1) by setting the time factors T1 and T2, different goods in TTD already are able to show different "degrading" effects with time? See http://wiki.ttdpatch.net/tiki-index.php ... _10_11_12_

2) that custom industry/cargo .grfs are already setting their own price and time penalties?

In a word, yes we are aware of it. That's why that behaviour needs to be retained. The main purpose of the change is to remove the linear scaling with distance transported.

The basic form of the equation seems fine to me though, if rewritten clearly. I can try and rewrite it soon if you like. After i finish cooking.

Edit: The main thing that probably needs changing is the 'Perishability' - This should be calculated from the existing timefactors T1 / T2 as correctly stated by michael.

[michael blunck]

[...] The main purpose of the change is to remove the linear scaling with distance transported.

But that´s exactly the problem. In general, transport cost in RL is indeed linear (except from overhead): cost like fuel, wages, depreciation, ... , are all linear dependant on distance resp travel time. And in the long run, fixed costs are negligible.

So, the question remains how the original calculation scheme should be changed in favour of playability, even without connection to a RL example.

IMO, Anders has pointed out some interesting ideas. But in any way, I think it would be a good thing to keep it simple, rather than inventing complicated formulas.

Just my 2cc.

regards
Michael

[Zephyris]

In general, transport cost in RL is indeed linear (except from overhead): cost like fuel, wages, depreciation, ... , are all linear dependant on distance resp travel time. And in the long run, fixed costs are negligible.

True, but that is not what this discussion is about. Costs like fuel, wages (running costs) depreciation (vehicle value) do decrease (roughly) linearly with respect to travel time - both in real life and in game. The point of this suggestion is the payment someone is willing to make for transport is not linearly dependent with respect to travel time, thus the income for the company is reduced over longer distances. The current game mechanic lets you force companies to pay this high rate whether they "want to" or not, the suggestions I have made are trying to prevent this "exploit". This has the convenient side effect of making the game less imbalanced and harder

But in any way, I think it would be a good thing to keep it simple, rather than inventing complicated formulas.

I am trying not to make complicated formulae, just rewrite the existing ones in a slightly better way (the existing formula really isn't simple!) I welcome any attempts to further simplify it whilst keeping the same curve!

The main purpose of the change is to remove the linear scaling with distance transported.

This is the main purpose to the extent I would be happy if this was the only change, this is the change which would (optionally, via a patch setting) balance the game.

Edit: The main thing that probably needs changing is the 'Perishability' - This should be calculated from the existing timefactors T1 / T2 as correctly stated by michael.

Yup, definately. I hadn't considered the input of newgrfs in this respect. In the simplest case the variance of the bell curve could be based on T1.

2) that custom industry/cargo .grfs are already setting their own price and time penalties?

Features such as these should still work perfectly in combination with a new cargo payment rate, it might be a bit harder to make money though!

[michael blunck]

In general, transport cost in RL is indeed linear (except from overhead): cost like fuel, wages, depreciation, ... , are all linear dependant on distance resp travel time. And in the long run, fixed costs are negligible.

True, but that is not what this discussion is about. [...] The point of this suggestion is [that] the current game mechanic lets you force companies to pay this high rate whether they "want to" or not, the suggestions I have made are trying to prevent this "exploit". This has the convenient side effect of making the game less imbalanced and harder

Then your suggestion aims into the wrong direction. Instead of changing the way industries are interacting with the player you´re going to change the way transport cost is calculated.

But there´s a much broader context for transport cost which hasn´t been taken into consideration here:

- firstly, the higher payment for "unconditional" delivery over large distances is/should be balanced by the money needed to set up those long transport lines in the first place. This is a point which had been discussed for years, even before establishment of tt-forums (in the TTDPatch mailing list and/or in agmtt) or OTTD. The whole building scheme for railway lines (land purchase, track building, signal construction, other infrastructure, rolling stock purchase, running cost, ..., has often been found to be "flawed", both with regards to RL and with regards to "game balance". O/c, there have been quite a lot of attempts to change this (mine included), but until now there hasn´t been a generally accepted agreement on how a new building cost scheme should be defined.

- Now, secondly, changing the building cost scheme and/or the transport cost scheme would have significant consequences on game style. E.g., at the time being, the game encourages building of large networks based on long-distance transport. If the cost schemes would be modified to "prevent this exploit", this behaviour would change as well.

The main purpose of the change is to remove the linear scaling with distance transported.

This is the main purpose to the extent I would be happy if this was the only change, this is the change which would (optionally, via a patch setting) balance the game.

That´s the question. It should be scrutinized in the light of the notes above and before the background of what kind of game people would like to play.


BTW, could you please change your quotations to include the cited author´s name in certain places? That´ll be helpful both for the occasional reader and the cited poster when answering again. Thanks.

regards
Michael

[CommanderZ]

Now, secondly, changing the building cost scheme and/or the transport cost scheme would have significant consequences on game style. E.g., at the time being, the game encourages building of large networks based on long-distance transport. If the cost schemes would be modified to "prevent this exploit", this behaviour would change as well.

Long distance transport should be an option, not the only way if you want to have some income. I agree with Zeph that long distance transport should be at least slightly nerfed.

Anyways, this will be later or sooner solved by cargo dest

[DaleStan]

I didn't see this mentioned:

If the nearest supplying industry supplies only 5% of the total cargo, why should all of the cargo be paid as if it came from that industry?

If, for example, I'm supplying 3,000 tonnes of cargo per month to a factory, of which 150 tonnes come from the nearest steel mill and farm, the best way to increase my income is by removing those industries -- presumably the next nearest industries are more than 5% further away to offset the 5% reduction in cargo transported. (OK, fine. ~5.26% further away.)

[CommanderZ]

I said it is not useable. I fact, both versions are incredibly stupid.

The new Zeph's idea - making it non-linear - is much better. But still - the new cargodest branch seems to be quite advanced, so I think it would be best to wait and soo how it affects in-game economy.

[Zephyris]

If the nearest supplying industry supplies only 5% of the total cargo, why should all of the cargo be paid as if it came from that industry?

I considered this, but went for the simpler option. The obvious solution would be to give a cargo payment reacalculated each month which is based on the average minimum distance the cargo could sourced from, ie. take the total amount of cargo delivered to the secondary industry in the previous month, (virtually) assign that cargo to the successively closest industries then make a weighted average of the distance the cargo has to travel. Bear in mind this is completely separate to my other suggestion in this thread (a new cargo payment calculation)...

[Keyoke]

Simply tweaking the distance calculation to no longer be linear is a much more elegant solution, and looking at how its calculated now would probably be easiest just to modify the (i think) one line of code. I'd do it myself but I still need to work my way through getting the source code and setting everything up, and no idea when i'll have time to do that...

Main problem would be not penalising it too much, would require some playtesting.

[Zephyris]

Yup there will be a lot of balancing to do, but once done well it should balance the payment for cargo delivery, with the added bonus of making road vehicles more profitable and planes less profitable.

[andythenorth]

Yup there will be a lot of balancing to do, but once done well it should balance the payment for cargo delivery, with the added bonus of making road vehicles more profitable and planes less profitable.

Curve looks good, think this will enhance gameplay.

[Marcoooooo]

Is a combination of a non-linear payment and a payment based on nearest accepting industry not the best solution?

Non-linear payment still allows a player to move cargo from one edge to the other edge of the map, but it reduces the huge profits of long lines. Basing the payment on the nearest accepting industry would solve this. A player would only be paid for the distance to the nearest accepting industry, no matter how far he moves the cargo.

Payment could also be made as the sum of a starting price (representing loading/unloading costs) and a price for each kilometer the cargo has to travel. This would also lead to non-linear payments. Coal for example would give a huge loading payment, but only a marginal price/km.

Another option is making the payment dependent on the vehicle type. I pay for a train that travels at 100 km/h almost the same price per kilometer as a bus traveling at 30km/h. But when the train would travel with 30 km/h I would stop travelling because it's too slow for the long distance.

[PhilSophus]

Basing the payment on the nearest accepting industry would solve this. A player would only be paid for the distance to the nearest accepting industry, no matter how far he moves the cargo.

That was discussed over and over again

Cargo does get transported around the world, although closer sources are available. For example, coal gets imported to Germany from China and elsewhere and at the same time coal mines in Germany close down not because they are exhausted, but because far away producers are cheaper despite the transport fees. And of course, the transport company is paid for the real transport from China and not from the next German mine.

The problem is more that until now in OpenTTD the transport company can select the destination. But with the cargodest branch this is now taken care of (well, almost. Cargodest only selects destinations among the reachable destinations according to the company's vehicle orders and not all possible ones, so the transport company can still select destinations in some way).

[Zephyris]

The point of a new economy would not be pure realism but balance, and the opportunity to transport coal across the map for millions is not balanced!

[Tekky]

I do agree that longer routes shouldn't necessarily be more profitable than shorter routes, if they are not reasonable.

However, the basic question is the following:

When there are two coal power plants on the map and one coal mine, which player behavior should be the most profitable? Should the player deliver most of the coal to the power plant which is closer to the coal mine? Or should the player deliver most of the coal to the further away power plant, in order to be paid more due to the additional travelling distance?

I personally think it would make more sense if the player would first deliver the coal to the closer power plant. Only when the closer power plant is oversupplied and the further away power plant is undersupplied, should it be meaningful for the player to also deliver coal to the further away power plant.

This is my personal opinion. I think industries should not care how far the goods were hauled. The industries should only pay according to their current demand. Therefore, a player's revenue(=income not taking expense into account) is maximized if he delivers to all power plants equally. However, since it costs a player more to deliver to further-away industries, a players profit(=income minus expense) should be maximized if he delivers about 70% of the cargo to the closer industry and 30% of the cargo to the further-away industry.

I have described this solution with mathematical background over a year ago in this thread. Please note that I am not referring to the first post of the thread, as the person who started the thread is someone else.

This solution is also ideal for multiplayer, because it allows for price wars between competing players, as I have described later in the linked thread.

[michael blunck]

[...] I think industries should not care how far the goods were hauled. The industries should only pay according to their current demand.

Right. Most of the arguments given here are moot because by using newgrfs (industry and cargo sets) there´s a clean way to handle the majority of the discussed "flaws" of the game´s original economic model. And because (in the future) there´ll be a bunch of different industry and cargo sets, players may choose the model they like best.

The original behaviour could still act as a "standard" needing no "fixing" with regards to modified or arbitrarily introduced parameters. This should really be left to the diverse newgrfs.

regards
Michael

[Zephyris]

But bear in mind that the vast majority of players can't/won't/don't use newgrfs. Just because it can be done one way doesn't mean it shouldn't be done another...

[michael blunck]

But bear in mind that the vast majority of players can't/won't/don't use newgrfs. Just because it can be done one way doesn't mean it shouldn't be done another...

You didn´t understand. Instead of adding disputable complexity to the game itself, it would be far more useful to put these in add-ons (newgrfs). Not only would this allow for a number of different approaches, it would also allow to keep the "core game" unchanged for "the vast majority of players" who "won´t use newgrfs" (possibly because they want the plain old vanilla TTD).

regards
Michael

[Marcoooooo]

Like any patch it should be able to be turned off. Just an extra option like "Advanced economics" in the settings would suffice to switch between standard and new economics.

Adding this feature to the game and not to the GRF's makes the game more standard.