Transport Tycoon Forums

Cool beans ever. Sounds like you've got quite a plan and idea there. So when's the patch going to come out?

Mr. Wednesday wrote: Please fix your attribution. I did not say those words, and I have never come close to filling a thread here with my opinions.

sorry, my bad, clicked the wrong button, that was a quote from SirXavius

Xander wrote:Cool beans ever. Sounds like you've got quite a plan and idea there. So when's the patch going to come out?

Tomorrow morning 3pm sharp.

Get it while its hot lads!!!

tbh playing simutrans recently has made me like its setup. Its a good setup.

Wow! Much to read here since I last checked. I would like to ask what the aim with all this is? In my opinion, it should not be to "improve acceptance of goods in terms of realism", which is the thread topic. Rather, it should be to get a more intriguing gameplay.

Today, money is not a problem in the game once you get past the first few years (how many depends on the settings and yous skills). This will not change simply by changing acceptance of goods. The element that balances this in reality is economic competition, and that can give some great elements of gameplay!

My idea, which I stated in another thread a while ago, is to allow the player to set the transport price, as a percentage of a maximum level, which could be todays level. Players would then typically first fill the map with routes to transport everything that is not transported, and then they will start competing. If then the goods choose the route which is most rebated (NOT the cheapest one, which is most realistic, but does not give as good gameplay) players can start competing. In the end, only one player will not be bankrupt.

This makes the game really a game, where all money is needed to win in the end!

I am planning to make a simple patch that does this, but not until (and if) some kind of cargo destinations and infrastructure sharing hits trunk.

This can of course work well no matter how the maximum prices are calculated.

You'd best hope that belugas doesnt see this thread...

Leanden wrote:You'd best hope that belugas doesnt see this thread...

He obviously already has: http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?p=783515#p783515

Yexo wrote:

Leanden wrote:You'd best hope that belugas doesnt see this thread...

He obviously already has: http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?p=783515#p783515

Touche kind sir.

Wolf01 wrote:If the system might be changed to reflect the r34l world, expect a much harder game

Hard? OpenTTD is so easy (economically speaking) that anyone can become a billionaire in minutes by running a long, boring straight train line from one end of the map to the other (I won't get into how uninteresting micromanaging moneymaking airports is).

The fact that I can run a train from 5 megacities to nowhere'sville at the other end of the map and dump off 500 people (in a town of 200) one way and make thousands at a time is really stupid.
The fact that I can run a partial relay route to nowehere and still make money is really stupid.
The fact that an industry is subjected to such a monopolistic transportation environment that it'll purchase goods for any price from anywhere is realy stupid.

I give this game 9.5/10 for it's ability to build complicated trafc networks and 2/10 for its economic model. The economic model needs to be enirely redone from the ground up.

Concider SimCity 4's Quickest-Route Origin-Destination Trip Generation model which takes into account growth and development of both the origin and destination (dynamically) and also the fastest mode of transportation between the two.

I think we have a volunteer to fix our economic model.

I look forward to seeing the patch. Just remember not to break any newgrfs in the process.

Isnt there a way to modefy cargo-payment rates / graphs?

if you can build in a parabolic distance-factor so medium range gives maximum profit then its fine...

ZxBiohazardZx wrote:Isnt there a way to modefy cargo-payment rates / graphs?
if you can build in a parabolic distance-factor so medium range gives maximum profit then its fine...

Possible but it would be nonsense. Transporting further *should* pay more money, (with a factor for cargo decay for time-sensitive cargo) . It's both realistic *and* correct for gameplay. Chris Sawyer got it right

andythenorth wrote:

ZxBiohazardZx wrote:Isnt there a way to modefy cargo-payment rates / graphs?
if you can build in a parabolic distance-factor so medium range gives maximum profit then its fine...

Ahem, but it would be nonsense. Transporting further *should* pay more money. It's both realistic and correct for gameplay. Chris Sawyer got it right

not 100% true andythenorth, only if you can deliver it fast enough....

if you transport fruit then the cargo payment /distance/time should drop way faster (steep curve) then coal, while chris has it just as flat but generally lower...

and my parabolic curve was to illustrate the "reality" of taking your recources form a nearby source rather then 10k miles away...

ZxBiohazardZx wrote: not 100% true andythenorth, only if you can deliver it fast enough....

That's a time-based factor, not a distance based factor. Far as I know, this can be done with newgrf as nfo can modify payment factors for any cargo. Agree with you're point in the case of fruit, but it *is* time you're highlighting, not distance.

and my parabolic curve was to illustrate the "reality" of taking your recources form a nearby source rather then 10k miles away...

Sorry, I'm not trying to pick an argument with you specifically. It just seems to me that almost every week someone proposes modifying the cargo payment rates. If you search the forums, there are *so many* variations on suggestions for tweaking payment curves to 'fix' the problems of the TTD economy.

It's the wrong fix for the problem you describe - transporting from 10k distance when there is a nearby source. The fix for that is for the game to know where cargo originates, and where cargo is available, and do *something* with that (something being a matter of taste).

That's close to possible with cargo packets, but not quite. I've talked to devs on IRC about possibilities for doing something about it with newgrf, and currently it's a flat 'not possible' due to various code reasons.

cheers,

Andy

andythenorth wrote:

ZxBiohazardZx wrote: not 100% true andythenorth, only if you can deliver it fast enough....

That's a time-based factor, not a distance based factor. Far as I know, this can be done with newgrf as nfo can modify payment factors for any cargo. Agree with you're point in the case of fruit, but it *is* time you're highlighting, not distance.

and my parabolic curve was to illustrate the "reality" of taking your recources form a nearby source rather then 10k miles away...

Sorry, I'm not trying to pick an argument with you specifically. It just seems to me that almost every week someone proposes modifying the cargo payment rates. If you search the forums, there are *so many* variations on suggestions for tweaking payment curves to 'fix' the problems of the TTD economy.

The manual tells there are four factors which determ the revenue. Amount, distance, and two which consist the cargo payment rate: first tells how much you get for one unit of a cargo and second how time sensitiv it is.
If you are not in time, there is a penality mounting up to a final -88% of the estimated revenue.
Ok, if cargo would be far more time sentitiv in general, wouldn´t there be a distance from which on you just can´t deliver it in time anymore and get (relatively) less and less money? Or am I wrong here?

Well it's important to remember that you're a transport company in OpenTTD, not someone who buys and sells at a profit. Put yourself in the shoes of, say, an ore mine operator, and you have a contract with a steel mill for the sale of ore. Of course, to transport the goods, you have to go and hire this separate transport company. So you're purchasing a service from the transport company. Obviously the further the transport company goes the more ful, maintenance and labour costs they incur, and the more time it takes, so they're going to charge you more. The matter of value decreasing with time is really what the purchaser of the transport service is willing to tolerate in terms of time delay.

So we have a distinction here; increased cost for further distances is based on objective factors like running costs, while decreased costs for longer time periods is based on subjective factors like supply and demand, and whether or not time is of the essence. The latter factor would, IMO, be more influenced by market considerations than the former.

I think modifing the acceptance of cargo is not the best way.

There are two basic consideration to start with:

caveatemptor wrote:Well it's important to remember that you're a transport company in OpenTTD, not someone who buys and sells at a profit.

andythenorth wrote: ... Transporting further *should* pay more money, (with a factor for cargo decay for time-sensitive cargo) . It's both realistic *and* correct for gameplay. Chris Sawyer got it right

Since the game is pretty complex allready, I think something basic and automatic would be needed. Everything else might be a nice toping but it´s most important that vanilla works fine.

A look at the wiki reveals that there is theoreticly allready a certain range in which transport at certain velocity is (especially) profitable.
the graphs show it pretty nicely:
http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=31984
http://wiki.openttd.org/Cargo_income
The third curve is very instructiv, it says basicly there is a point when the value is falling faster (penality for the delay) than the increase from distance. Breaking point for pax at 100 km/h would be at 600 tiles. (So it was meant never to be reached in original TTD). On a normal map you wouldn´t ever notice a effect.

so the system we got is basicly allready allmost perfect! But it have to be intensified, to get a stronger effect and earlier.

The 10k - distance problem: Extremly long routes still make money by the sheer distance traveled. There is a linear increase at the end of this curve, which means, above a another certain point, time is not of importance anymore. (so it is actually bug-using!)

I think it only works because one important factor is missing here: a longer route means higher investment, not only to build but also to operate. Today you pay for the train, but there is currently nothing to reflect the upkeep for the route.

So my idea would be:

1. Increasing the time sensitivity of cargo
The breaking point should be much sooner, according to the specific cargo (in the pax example maybe about half or less), and if I got it right, this may be achieved by increasing the time sensitivity.

2. Modify the system of fixed maintenance
Track maintenance, upkeep and modernisation of infrastructure in RL is one of the biggest expenses for any RR company. In the game it seems you just pay for the number of stations. http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=44415
I think one should have to pay for every bit of infrastructure your company owns.
It should reflect both the extent (for each tiles of track-, or roadtype) as well as the complexity (tiles of stations, waypoints, depots, bridges, tunnels, locks, autosloped tiles (if possible), signals (each type differently?) and so on) of your network. Mounting up on a monthly / annual base, as a new and more complex form of property maintenance. Generally speaking the longer the route and the more sophisticated it is the higher the upkeep for it would be. A rather linear increase.
If (one fine day) there are new different types of rails/roads, this system could be extended accordingly.

The beneficial effect regarding the cargo payment would (hopefully) be:
Through a higher time sensitivity of cargo, from a certain distance the margins gets increasingly smaller.
Very long routes would only be (very) profitable when using very fast (plane) or very cheap (ship, big capacity, less infrastructure) means of transport, or you may profit from a very effective network (high throughput) or even mixed calculations (don´t earn so much on coal but now have steel and later goods to transport).
If this could be achieved by the alterations mentioned, it would be better than any restrictions.