Transport Tycoon Forums

As many of you aware terraforming is dirt cheap. In 1991 for example, raising/lowering 1 tile only costs ~500 Pounds, not counting any extra costs like clearing trees, rocks, farmland, etc. Hell, even clearing 1 tile of farmland costs more (~750) than raising a tile.
This coupled with the already easy way to make a lot of money fast doesn't pose a big challenge for playing.

I think we all agree costs should be increased dramatically. The question is how much? I'd opt for at least a triple increase in cost to pose some challenge. This means that in the beginning you will really need to be careful where to build and what. You cannot just cut through a forest to make the perfect straight line, etc. etc.

Of course this will be a patch if/when implemented, to please the not-wanting-to-be-challenged players

Lowering a small 1-point hill is actually a lot of dirt. Three times is still not enough, and since I didn't vote Greenpeace I say 5 times the price. Also, perhaps raising land is more expensive than lowering, because you have to get the dirt from somewhere and by for instance trucks (irl of course)...

Then you need to allow bridges start on slopes, as TTD Patch does

AlienDNA wrote:Also, perhaps raising land is more expensive than lowering, because you have to get the dirt from somewhere and by for instance trucks (irl of course)...

But when you lower land you have to drive the dirt into dumping area to get rid of it. So the cost would be allmost same. And when years go on land moving methods be come better and cheaper...

I would just chance the price of terraforming. I think all the prices should be corrected.

-J

Even better way of doing it:
In patches, have variable settings for various costs.
<> Cost of construction: 1.0x (ranges from 0.5x, 1.0x, 1.5x...up to whatever, in 0.5x increments.)

Same for Cost of vehicles, Cost of factories, Cost of town authority actions.

That way people can fine-tune their game.

George wrote:Then you need to allow bridges start on slopes, as TTD Patch does

What does that have to do with terraforming cost?? Anyways, propose suggestions in the appropiate forum and on SF.

I don't think by time terraforming should become cheaper. Why? Yes, indeed, it will become better, faster and cheaper. But technology is more expensive, you have to pay more loan, and citizens as years go on will opppose more and more the destruction their natural habitat. Let's not even talk about greenpeace, that didn't even exist in 1930 and environment was never an issue.

You can already choose in the difficulty settings for construction costs multiplier, etc. I wanted to increase terraforming seperately from that.

So, for example:

1. Easy, normal terraforming. Cost 1x * 1x = 1x
2. Easy, expensive terraforming. Cost 1x * 3x = 3x
3. Difficult, normal terraforming. Cost 2x * 1x = 2x
4. Difficult, expensive terraforming. Cost 2x * 3x = 6x

1x * 1x == 1x^2

Lilman424 wrote:1x * 1x == 1x^2

It's supposed to be a multiplier Cost 2x is supposed to mean that the ingame cost is the base cost * 2.

maybe tunnel costs upped to, since its terraforming with dynamite

Born Acorn wrote:maybe tunnel costs upped to, since its terraforming with dynamite

that's a completely different kind of terraforming and the tunnels are expensive as it is now


raising/lowering land shoud get cheaper as time passes. Today we have machinery to do the job, while 100 years ago, all the hills were removed by shovels (ok, that's a bit before OTTD, but still)

What about private owned land? It should much more expensive near cities than one the country. Minimum twice the price you pay on the country. Wide Countries are usually owned by the state or province. City areas usually owned by the people who live there or by the city.

cu, Spaceball

when you make it more expensive plz don't use a fixed value. put it into the difficulty-setting like someone mentioned above

Darkvater wrote:

George wrote:Then you need to allow bridges start on slopes, as TTD Patch does

What does that have to do with terraforming cost?? Anyways, propose suggestions in the appropiate forum and on SF.

The idea of high terraforming costs is good only when the player has not to do the useless terraforming, but can use build on slopes instead. Then, we also need the ability to build two-level rails on the one tile and the ability of building on very non-flat tiles (that have the height difference of diametric corners equal to two). Other way, the idea of high terraforming costs unbalances the game.
And, you also have to learn AI not to remove mountains for free. Otherwise, player can use the AI to make his way flat

Why don´t let player to choose multiplier in settings?

I suggest making one switch where you make game financial reality
dont put many switches or there will be too many of them

SHADOW-XIII wrote:I suggest making one switch where you make game financial reality
dont put many switches or there will be too many of them

many small switches would make network games confusing as the server might use some, but not all. The clients will not always carefully read the settings

I've just run a little test.
Played a game, starting in 1936, with custom difficulty (based on "hard", but with few tweaks to give AI more of an advantage). There were only the original 3 steam engines available.
The catch here being that i didn't allow myself to terraform ANYTHING. Not one single square of land. Though i did allow tunnels. And build-on-slopes was on.

Anyhow, the results of the test are as follows:
I have about 800k cash in the bank, and a value of 1.4mil, with no debt. (GBP of course )

So even with increased terraforming costs, it's still far too easy to make money.
I suspect that had build-on-slopes been off, i would have been in rather more trouble.

The funny part is that it's now fairly difficult to tell the difference between my tracks and those of the AI's. Though i don't double back on myself where i can avoid it.

If anyone is interested in it, i can upload a save.

uh....what year?

Moriarty wrote:I've just run a little test.
Played a game, starting in 1936, with custom difficulty (based on "hard", but with few tweaks to give AI more of an advantage). There were only the original 3 steam engines available.
The catch here being that i didn't allow myself to terraform ANYTHING. Not one single square of land. Though i did allow tunnels. And build-on-slopes was on.

Anyhow, the results of the test are as follows:
I have about 800k cash in the bank, and a value of 1.4mil, with no debt. (GBP of course )

So even with increased terraforming costs, it's still far too easy to make money.
I suspect that had build-on-slopes been off, i would have been in rather more trouble.

The funny part is that it's now fairly difficult to tell the difference between my tracks and those of the AI's. Though i don't double back on myself where i can avoid it.

If anyone is interested in it, i can upload a save.

That's very interesting.

Although, if you think about it, if you spent 500k on terraforming, would you have made an EXTRA 500k back by now?

What I would like is for terraforming to be left for things where you REALLY need to smooth out or fix a route, to squeeze a bit more profit out of a route. Currently, my network tends to be hundreds of miles of perfectly straight track. I wish real life networks were so straight.

What climate were you on?

And if we were to also crank up the maintenance costs (notice how everyone works for free at your company?) then it might become signifigantly more difficult.

I'm voting at least 5x more.

Make it a switch thou(Increased Terraform Costs)