Idea: Improve acceptance of goods in terms of realism

[Picahulu]

Hi,

you know that people like to build loooooong routes to maximize income. But how realistic is it, that (for example) a town takes water from a source 1000 km away, when there is one round the corner?
Of course, sometimes there are good reasons for that, e.g. the closest source doens't produce "enough" etc...
Lets assume that in reality prices include the delievery costs ( = players income).

My suggestion for modelling that:

1. Industrys/Towns accept ressources/goods only in limited amounts per month and keep in mind how much they received already (this is already implemented in some "industry NewGRF")
2. additionally, industry saves information how much is delivered to which costs ( = from where)
3. if the capacity is reached, the cheapest cargo will be prefered and the more expensive one will be rejected (partly or completely, depending how much is delievered from the cheaper source).

That would make the transport businesses not only fight for sources, but also for the good-receiving ends
Would be more realistic and increase the challenge in my view.

What do you think of that?

[planetmaker]

Hi,

2. additionally, industry saves information how much is delivered to which costs ( = from where)
3. if the capacity is reached, the cheapest cargo will be prefered and the more expensive one will be rejected (partly or completely, depending how much is delievered from the cheaper source).

Certainly a nice idea. Probably it needs partially newGRF support (though it probably could be implemented without, too), but at least also support from the game side itself. Design decisions have to be made there. However those decisions are made, it involves a lot of work - which someone has to do...

There's a cargo destinations branch (a bit older, currently not well maintained) and a cargo distribution patch (currently maintained). Maybe you have a look at either.

[Bilbo]

Well, I saw how stockpile is currently done in-game. Industry accept goods up to the level of stockpile and the goods that won't fit in storage are either left in the train or in the station, according to the train orders.

Problem is the industry doesn't know the history (it does not store what for what price was delivered) and implementing something like "industry will somehow pick the cheapest cargo and pay later" would need major changes to game mechanics.

Simple solution that does not require large changes could be "dynamic stockpile" - industry have 1000 tons stockpile, but for deliveries from more than 100 tiles the stockpile is only 950 tons, for more than 250 tiles it is 900 tons, etc .... we can have few fixed bounds or some formula controlled by few coeficients - all in control of particular GRF....

Basically, if industry sees almost full stockpile, it decides to accept only cheaper goods.

So if someone is filling the industry to full from nearby source, the source from "Far away" have no chance of getting in. If someone is filling the industry only a bit from enarby source, source from far away stil have chance, though the nearby source will have advantage.

[Picahulu]

yeah that problem came into my mind just after i posted the suggestion

another "simple" solution which i like more would be that the industry saves this information lets say for the last 3 months. it could compute average supply from cheaper source, and reject the expensive delievery if it expects to get supply cheaper.

@planetmaker
the cargo distribution patch seems really nice, but i guess (?) that my suggestion would be much easier to implement than that.


edit :

Code: Select all

accepted_supply(costs) = capacity - expected_cheaper_supply(costs) - delievered_cheaper_supply(costs)

[caveatemptor]

I think this is an excellent idea. As well as being more realistic it would also make for more challenging and competitive gameplay as we would see something more akin to a competitive market.

[Wolf01]

/me is staring at the topic waiting for Belugas' raptus caused by the *R* word appearing too many times in a post

About your suggestion, the game currently works very differently from the r...eality, in the r.......eal world the services have a price and you pay it, so, to bring items from Paris to London you might pay 100$/ton as trip taxes, usually the dealer pays the trip taxes, the purchaser instead pays the dealer and not the service directly (in some cases the purchaser pays the service, as may happen in postal service)

In the game, instead, the purchaser pays you both the item and the trip taxes, looks like the dealer doesn't receive anything
In this way the purchaser doesn't know at how much the dealer sell the item, and only pays you in relation of how much time/items you bring to him
If the system might be changed to reflect the r34l world, expect a much harder game

[Xander]

How about this for a consideration: You just enforce the rule in your own game!

The joy of OTTD is it's sandbox nature. Some people love bringing all the coal to one power station, some love supplying every powerplant with no more than 2 coal mines and some love to turn off industries altogther.

When I play, I set myself a number of limitations, the main ones I encounter being "2 straights before a rise" and "elevation may not be changed by more than 1 level". These work great for me but I'd never want to force or even suggest it as a hard change to the code! Perhaps you should just "play by your own rules" than make me have to play by them aswell?

[caveatemptor]

How about this for a consideration: You just enforce the rule in your own game!

The joy of OTTD is it's sandbox nature. Some people love bringing all the coal to one power station, some love supplying every powerplant with no more than 2 coal mines and some love to turn off industries altogther.

When I play, I set myself a number of limitations, the main ones I encounter being "2 straights before a rise" and "elevation may not be changed by more than 1 level". These work great for me but I'd never want to force or even suggest it as a hard change to the code! Perhaps you should just "play by your own rules" than make me have to play by them aswell?

No. All must abide. Anything but subservience will be punished.

About your suggestion, the game currently works very differently from the r...eality, in the r.......eal world the services have a price and you pay it, so, to bring items from Paris to London you might pay 100$/ton as trip taxes, usually the dealer pays the trip taxes, the purchaser instead pays the dealer and not the service directly (in some cases the purchaser pays the service, as may happen in postal service)

Okay, that is quite true. Forget my reference to realism in my first post, it's mainly the competition thing that would be cool. Introducing market principles would make the game more akin to a market simulator as well as just a construction simulator. I suppose there are questions to be asked as to whether the game should go in that direction, but as long as the construction aspect of the game isn't compromised I don't see what harm can be done by it.

[Picahulu]

yeah, of course this should be something optional so sandbox-players can continue building their tracks without really regarding competition.

Introducing market principles would make the game more akin to a market simulator as well as just a construction simulator.

that's exactly what i thought. the main reason the game bores me after some time is that there is no challenge at a certain point. especially in multiplayer games, that could lead to a new level of fun, because everyone can cut down your incredible long-route profits by delievering cheaper, which reflects the basic principle of market quite nice

How about this for a consideration: You just enforce the rule in your own game!

that doesn't help me a lot because i only play in multiplayer and everyone should stick to the same rules

[Xander]

that doesn't help me a lot because i only play in multiplayer and everyone should stick to the same rules

Why not run your own passworded server and only let people play when they agree to the ruleset you want to enforce then?

[Picahulu]

Well, its no "rule" anyway, its a new game mechanism which must be calculated by the game. It should be still allowed for everyone to build wherever they want, but if you build a very long cargo route when there is a shorter one you risk that your profits may be reduced or diminished completely by your opponents. You can't put that in a "ruleset".

[Bilbo]

Introducing market principles would make the game more akin to a market simulator as well as just a construction simulator. I suppose there are questions to be asked as to whether the game should go in that direction, but as long as the construction aspect of the game isn't compromised I don't see what harm can be done by it.

Introducing few simple market principles (cheaper goods from nearby source are more likely getting accepted than more expensive goods from far far away) may force people to build more realistic transporation network, minimizing transporation costs. That won't ruin the construction part, just people won't be able to abuse so easily the current payment system by delivering cargo across entire map to get monstrous profits.

[Xander]

Introducing few simple market principles (cheaper goods from nearby source are more likely getting accepted than more expensive goods from far far away) may force people to build more realistic transporation network, minimizing transporation costs. That won't ruin the construction part, just people won't be able to abuse so easily the current payment system by delivering cargo across entire map to get monstrous profits.

Please remember in TT you are paid to Move Cargo, not buy it and then sell it on. It actually makes a lot of sense for companies to pay more to have the cargo moved across the whole map because that's exactly what they pay you to do!

And don't forget - even though you get monster profits there's still the issue of running costs when the train is heading back empty.

And it Can be made into a ruleset - "no cargo may travel more than x tiles" or "all cargo (except goods/mail/passengers) must be delivered to the nearest accepting industry". Those quick and easy rules save both a) the nature of TT and b) the developers or yourself a huge amount of time and hassle re-writing and testing the transportation charges which, as far as I am aware, are based off TTO and thus never going to change in the main code.

[Bilbo]

But in reality you move cargo too, with price usually proportional to distance (as in openttd), but the difference is, that nobody will order cargo from far away when there is available source nearby.

We can give GRF authors chance to implement some "economic" behavior by preferring cargo from nearby sources and then we leave it to GRF authors and GRF users whether they actually want this feature or not.

[Wolf01]

In OTTD the purchaser doesn't order the cargo, it's YOU which force the purchaser to purchase the cargo (at any price)

[Picahulu]

yeah, and this is maybe the key point why the game is too easy => a change would be cool

@xander: no, this isn't the same.
a) you have to count tiles during the game, i can imagine funnier things to do => sucks
b) if there is no local supply, the far supply is the best. why should i forbid that? make exceptions? => in game discussions and quarrels => sucks
c) a ruleset doesn't improve the gameplay economic-wise
d) if its optional, no one is forced to use it, so why worrying about destroying something?! this point was mentioned before so i really wonder why you again come up with this. you just want to say "no no no"? maybe you should have a chat with a little girl.

and finally: of course its easier for the developers no to change anything. and no one is forced to change something, thats why its a "suggestion". so whats the problem? (rhetorical question, i don't really want to know.)

[Serpentbane]

One problem with this...
In multiplayer everyone would have to pick the shortest route from industry a to industry b, or you would lose. Every industry would in reality also only accept one source of delivery as the 2nd would more or less be blocked.

I can't see how this "rule" could be fun?

If a change were to be made, in my opinion the game should make rules that industry a only accept cargo from industry b, c and d +-. B, c and d could be any compatible industry on the map.

Also, a 2nd rule could be used, with or without the rule above. The price could be preset per ton/unit, so that cargo from far away would be less profitable due to building of new infrastructure and running costs. This could encourage building of very long and economic trains from far away locations, as the price would be the same regardless of speed.

The max stockpile rule is fair enough...

This way blocking the opponent would not be a tactical part of the game.

[Conditional Zenith]

One problem with this...
In multiplayer everyone would have to pick the shortest route from industry a to industry b, or you would lose. Every industry would in reality also only accept one source of delivery as the 2nd would more or less be blocked.

Yes, that's pretty much the point. You might call it a problem, I call it a feature.

[Picahulu]

One problem with this...
In multiplayer everyone would have to pick the shortest route from industry a to industry b, or you would lose. Every industry would in reality also only accept one source of delivery as the 2nd would more or less be blocked.

Thats not true, i give you an example:

Industry initially accepts 500 units / month (should grow when whole economy grows).

You deliever 400 units by a far away source with 2 feeders. Now an opponent delievers 250 units/month by a close source with 1 feeder. Industry will still accept 250 units from far away, so your route will still be profitable, you just loose profit of 150 units/month. It will just cut down you profits, which are far too big now anyway for long routes.

Exception is when the local supply is so big that it completely supplys the industrys demand. In this case you just shouldnt build a far route! The hard world of business, if you still do you indeed loose because you didn't analyze the market situation. So there will be more competiition and more strategy involved => thats why i think it would be more fun. Its just a matter of balancing ( = finding good values / growth rates for accepted cargo).

Also, a 2nd rule could be used, with or without the rule above. The price could be preset per ton/unit, so that cargo from far away would be less profitable due to building of new infrastructure and running costs. This could encourage building of very long and economic trains from far away locations, as the price would be the same regardless of speed.

yeah thats another option, but i like the other one more because it reflects the market principles better. and in my view, transportation charges SHOULD depend on distance (its realistic). what is not realistic is that industry pays for high charges when (and only when) it can get it cheaper.

[Xander]

You deliever 400 units by a far away source with 2 feeders. Now an opponent delievers 250 units/month by a close source with 1 feeder. Industry will still accept 250 units from far away, so your route will still be profitable, you just loose profit of 150 units/month. It will just cut down you profits, which are far too big now anyway for long routes.

I think I'm starting to get where you're coming from. Work with me here - let's see if I've got this right.

Remember: This is Transport Tycoon. The player makes money moving Items from Location A to Location B. If you disagree with this fundamental assumption, you're playing the wrong game.

Your industry needs 500 units. For those first 500 units it pays standard payment rates. After those 500 units have been supplied, the industry then pays a significantly lower amount (say, half base rate) for units. That way most of the money should go to the local supplier whilst giving a harsh penalty to the long hauler.

Yes?