

Moderator: OpenTTD Developers
I guess there are two different meanings to "time period".thegreatpl wrote:i selected time periods, but thats mainly because i want a good playing time, and dont want to have the game end when its getting good.
i definitely think participants is important. that is why we are playing multiplayer after all. and i like to have some people to play against.
OK, thanks for clearing that up - it makes sense. As far as the time period, earlier games would be interesting, but in many ways the games is really built around the rail networks. Maybe an 1830-2030 scenario would be playable. I haven't looked at the GVRTS set yet, but I understand it has early steam. Any game before 1850 would be geared around water transport, and coastal cities would by far have the competitive advantage. Are you thinking of a scenario where players begin with sailing ships and gradually transition towards railroads as the technology improves?thegreatpl wrote:what i meant was, i didnt want to be playing a game when it gets to 2050, or whenever it finishes. so i look at the dates and try to chose a date which will give me a good few hours play time. dates dont really matter me themselves, but i would like to see a game with more historical GRFs., set back in the 1700s and 1800s. of course, what would really be good is if we had further back periods...
anyway, i dont want to be on a server when it auto-resets, or at least, i want to have had a good game. i dont want to begin a game and then half an hour later have it erased as the server resets.
Given how this poll works I could check anything or nothing. It's not one particular "feature" which makes a game interesting, but it is a fitting combination of many. And then there's the thing that twice the exact same thing is rather boring...KeikyuFan wrote:Well, the poll results so far are a bit different from what I imagined they would be (you mean not everybody agrees with my personal preferences?) but based on what I see so far, it appears that people want more challenging games, based on more competitors, more complex economies, and if I interpret the results correctly, perhaps more challenging terrain as well.
Sorry, I thought the reason for the poll was pretty self-evident. Given that there are now lots of new GRFs to expand game possibilities, yet most servers don't use them, I wanted to get an idea what the multiplayers wanted. As much as I like all the newgrfs, I'm sure that for most players, the idea of having to download 20 or 30 GRFs just to play on a particular server would chase them off...Timmaexx wrote:Dear KeikyuFan,
start a Server with these options, then you can try to make a server all inclusive.
But a few options are allready in Trunk or yet in stable.
Perhaps i don't understand the POLL.
No offense, but this is knowing very little about the usual players. Mostly, they want to grab ANY grf that they see passing near by. Up to the point where they don't have a clue about what the said grf brings in to the game. It's just...KeikyuFan wrote:I'm sure that for most players, the idea of having to download 20 or 30 GRFs just to play on a particular server would chase them off...However, a game that offered what most people wanted with say no more than 4 to 6 new GRFs would have a better chance of attracting more players. Hopes that makes sense...
, no matter what.I WANT IT!
Interesting definition of "self-appointed". I was under the impression that Belugas was appointed by Owen. i.e. Belugas was not appointed by himself.KeikyuFan wrote:I did ONE bump, and the self-appointed forum police come charging out.
I'm getting the feeling that no matter what I do, it's not going to meet wth someone's approval.DaleStan wrote:Interesting definition of "self-appointed". I was under the impression that Belugas was appointed by Owen. i.e. Belugas was not appointed by himself.KeikyuFan wrote:I did ONE bump, and the self-appointed forum police come charging out.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests