The International Simutrans Forum

 

Author Topic: Passenger/Mail Accumulation: Penalty?  (Read 8641 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline colonyan

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 526
  • Full and Warm
Passenger/Mail Accumulation: Penalty?
« on: December 03, 2008, 04:01:20 AM »
So this is transportation simulation.
Unless one is a supercomputer, after a while there will be a station with very high volume of passenger/mail left at station. But its about the policy of the player. Some might just ignore and some will try to eliminate the situation.

Is it just to set some kind of penalty for accumulating too much passenger/mail compared to station capacity?
Effective penalty can encourage player to plan more carefully before expanding its service area and/or existing one.

Any thoughts about this?

Type of additional penalty (other than current one(rejected customer=unhappy face))can be
Station exceeding Xtime the capacity limit
A. Destruction of passenger/mail arriving to that station
B. No income from vehicle arriving that station
C. Hyper maintenance cost for the facility
D. Vehicle stop entering the station (line stops)
E. Negative influence to growth of nearby cities
and others
B seems reasonable.
Ofcourse any combination would work as long as it is balanced...
(I see that some like E is program wise cubersome...)

Offline VS

  • Senior Plumber (Devotee)
  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 4855
  • Vladimír Slávik
    • VS's Simutrans site
  • Languages: CS,EN
Re: Passenger/Mail Accumulation: Penalty?
« Reply #1 on: December 03, 2008, 10:40:48 AM »
Also, why not (F) Passengers don't get off vehicle (too scared of the crowds behind window :D )

To me, B and C sound like something that can be lived with, if the situation can not improve.

What would you suggest as "crowding factor"? Twice the capacity? +50%?

Offline colonyan

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 526
  • Full and Warm
Re: Passenger/Mail Accumulation: Penalty?
« Reply #2 on: December 03, 2008, 01:13:09 PM »
um.... like 5 time the base  capacity? That sounds reasonable.
I guess we will see less money accumulation.

I'm totally fine with x2. Wow game will require so much planning now. I guess.

By the way if passengers don't get off is that mean they keep running the same vehicle
and go back to initial station?
That sounds good because other station will be filled quickly too!(Guess it takes more computing though...)

Offline VS

  • Senior Plumber (Devotee)
  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 4855
  • Vladimír Slávik
    • VS's Simutrans site
  • Languages: CS,EN
Re: Passenger/Mail Accumulation: Penalty?
« Reply #3 on: December 03, 2008, 01:27:38 PM »
Err, I'm not going to do this, you know... just talking!
« Last Edit: December 03, 2008, 01:35:29 PM by VS »

Offline colonyan

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 526
  • Full and Warm
Re: Passenger/Mail Accumulation: Penalty?
« Reply #4 on: December 03, 2008, 02:09:44 PM »
I know :)

Offline isidoro

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 1128
Re: Passenger/Mail Accumulation: Penalty?
« Reply #5 on: December 04, 2008, 02:22:37 AM »
I like the idea, but not the A-F alternatives proposed (perhaps only F).  If I don't pay attention to a station and it gets crowded, I would like that that case stopped development nearby the station, but not influence my income.  My idea would be that when city increases population and a new bigger building is to be built, locations near crowded stations are excluded.  Also, in extreme cases, building could be downgraded and effective city population decreases.

A. Destruction of passenger/mail arriving to that station
B. No income from vehicle arriving that station
C. Hyper maintenance cost for the facility
D. Vehicle stop entering the station (line stops)
E. Negative influence to growth of nearby cities

With goods, more realistic would be that the limit capacity of a station would never be exceeded.  So that space at the destination station is reserved before transporting the goods there.  Otherwise, they don't load at origin.  But perhaps that could be a different game.

Offline yoshi

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 133
  • PAK128.Japan Maintainer
    • pak128.Japan
  • Languages: JA
Re: Passenger/Mail Accumulation: Penalty?
« Reply #6 on: December 05, 2008, 12:02:06 PM »
The current problem is that stations are mainly overcrowded by transfarring passengers/mails, but the negative impact of the overcrowded stations are only limited to the nearby cities. If there is no city around the overcrowded stations, there is no negative effect. Therefor, what I would suggest is...

H. Forcing all the convois serving overcrowded stations to have "no load" status except for loading the passengers/mails from the overcrowded stations. This way, convois can earn less money, the overcrowded stations won't be crowded any more, and passengers/mails will be also accumulated at other stations connected to the overcrowded stations (i.e. origins of these passengers/mails). This has also negative impact on the growth of other cities as well.

Offline z9999

  • Devotees (Inactive)
  • *
  • Posts: 848
Re: Passenger/Mail Accumulation: Penalty?
« Reply #7 on: December 05, 2008, 12:39:18 PM »
Simutrans is not a puzzle game like "Tower of Hanoi" nor "15 puzzle".
It should not be a purpose of the game to avoid overcrowded stations.

In simutrans, number of passengers depends only on building level.
So if you played large map or pak.128, it was impossible to avoid overcrowded stations even if you played well.

Offline yoshi

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 133
  • PAK128.Japan Maintainer
    • pak128.Japan
  • Languages: JA
Re: Passenger/Mail Accumulation: Penalty?
« Reply #8 on: December 05, 2008, 01:01:30 PM »
Simutrans is not a puzzle game. But it's a transportation game. In the real life, passengers do choose mode of transportation partly by comfortability. Therefore it's a good idea to have some sort of implementation which reflects passengers' wills. Of course I don't intend to say everything has to be the same as in the real life.

Offline z9999

  • Devotees (Inactive)
  • *
  • Posts: 848
Re: Passenger/Mail Accumulation: Penalty?
« Reply #9 on: December 05, 2008, 02:45:59 PM »
Simutrans is not a puzzle game. But it's a transportation game.

Then, try to transport all of them.  ;)
This is your quotas and challenge.

Offline yoshi

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 133
  • PAK128.Japan Maintainer
    • pak128.Japan
  • Languages: JA
Re: Passenger/Mail Accumulation: Penalty?
« Reply #10 on: December 05, 2008, 03:14:38 PM »
This is your quotas and challenge.

Of course, I do, because this is one of the goals of Simutrans, at least for me. I'm not saying I enjoy looking at overcrowded stations.

My point is, this is a game. Therefore something could go wrong. And if something goes wrong, there should be some kind of penalty. This is how many games work.

Offline whoami

  • Devotees (Inactive)
  • *
  • Posts: 693
Re: Passenger/Mail Accumulation: Penalty?
« Reply #11 on: December 06, 2008, 01:51:24 AM »
(If I read correctly, none here came up with this approach in this topic:)
If a station is too crowded, don't route P/M/G over it. Thus, alternate routes will be tried, and P/M generation will fail if there are no transfer stations that are not too full (=> less revenue for feeder lines). This could be combined with a probability of using an overcrowded station, depending on the level of over-utilization.

Variant: depending on the over-utilization of the, add a routing malus (artificially increase transfer count by 1 or more or even a fraction of 1). But this will hardly have an effect unless max_transfers is set to a really strict value (e.g. 4).

Increasing the size of a station to higher levels wouldn't help the player escape this, because lack of transport capacity would make them overflow in any case.

Offline wipi35

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 250
  • Imagination is more important than knowledge
  • Languages: NL,EN,GE,FR
Re: Passenger/Mail Accumulation: Penalty?
« Reply #12 on: December 06, 2008, 11:05:17 AM »
If a station is too crowded, don't route P/M/G over it. Thus, alternate routes will be tried, and P/M generation will fail if there are no transfer stations that are not too full (=> less revenue for feeder lines). This could be combined with a probability of using an overcrowded station, depending on the level of over-utilization.

That's a very good suggestion!  Avoiding overcrowded stations is one of my most important challenges of the game and I support the idea that there must be some kind of a penalty.

Offline VS

  • Senior Plumber (Devotee)
  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 4855
  • Vladimír Slávik
    • VS's Simutrans site
  • Languages: CS,EN
Re: Passenger/Mail Accumulation: Penalty?
« Reply #13 on: December 06, 2008, 11:11:59 AM »
I like this one, too!

Let's hear what is wrong with it…

Offline z9999

  • Devotees (Inactive)
  • *
  • Posts: 848
Re: Passenger/Mail Accumulation: Penalty?
« Reply #14 on: December 06, 2008, 12:42:37 PM »
Goods don't save their routes. They know only next station and final destination.
And routes are often recalculated.
- when arrived next(via) station
- new month
- added new line or modified line
As a result, imho, they often repeat back and forth on the same way.

"Overcrowded" is a sign of a problem. reducing goods or avoiding station don't solve the problem itself and hidden the problem.
And penalty affects nothing to players. They do well without overcrowded goods or money.

Of course, I don't like the situation which 10,000 people waiting at bus stop, but this is a little different thing, I thought.

Offline whoami

  • Devotees (Inactive)
  • *
  • Posts: 693
Re: Passenger/Mail Accumulation: Penalty?
« Reply #15 on: December 07, 2008, 03:23:21 AM »
Goods don't save their routes.
I implied that the decision of P/M generation (same for hand-over of goods to the transport company) would depend on intermediate stations being full, so the check would only be done once for a goods packet (not every time something arrives at a station). Including the check at the routes' recalculation would be an option.

Either way, the check for a single packet should be something very fast like "if (stop->full_level > acceptable_level_randomized) break;". Marking stops as full (full_level=>1) and other prepation steps have to happen outside of the routing algorithm. Randomization, if desired, could be simulated by something like "repeatedly iterate i from a to b", with an increment for every n goods packets to be (re-)routed.

Quote
"Overcrowded" is a sign of a problem. reducing goods or avoiding station don't solve the problem itself and hidden the problem.
Alternate routes could help the player automatically, but can also lead to more overloaded stations (which will then be ignored, too), because the player will not expect the route to pass them. The overflowing stations, however, will be apparent to the player - the decision of ignoring the stop (for routing) should happen only for grossly overflowing stations (e.g. >=150%).

Quote
And penalty affects nothing to players. They do well without overcrowded goods or money.
Due to lowered P/M generation, the player may get less demand for feeder services. Non-overflowing parts of the network will suffer from overflowing backbones.

I think this approach requires less resources than an approach of recording waiting times at stations, to reduce revenue due to low quality of service.

Offline colonyan

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 526
  • Full and Warm
Re: Passenger/Mail Accumulation: Penalty?
« Reply #16 on: December 07, 2008, 06:12:33 PM »
Simutrans is not a puzzle game like "Tower of Hanoi" nor "15 puzzle".
It should not be a purpose of the game to avoid overcrowded stations.
This, I agree. "Overcrowded" stations should be torelated in the process of a management
of some larger maps.

But when "overcrowded" become "Out of Proportion", there should be some
balancing factor playing.
Thus I support this.
Variant: depending on the over-utilization of the, add a routing malus (artificially increase transfer count by 1 or more or even a fraction of 1). But this will hardly have an effect unless max_transfers is set to a really strict value (e.g. 4).
This seems very simple solution to halt Pss/Mil generation. Only if it can recognize how much it is overcrowded....
By the way one tile transfer bus stop with 10,000 waiting should count as 9 transfer point. :D

*charging money seems ok but it COULD make a player all the sudden in astronomical defficit quickly.....
*I also thougt of slowing down the overall map population growth by inserting a factor (x1 ~ x0.1)
  by comparing Total Map Pop. & Total of Out of station limit waiting passengers.
*Searching alternative route sounds good to but it could confuse player. Especially when map is large.

Offline gerw

  • Coder/patcher
  • *
  • Posts: 618
Re: Passenger/Mail Accumulation: Penalty?
« Reply #17 on: December 08, 2008, 09:10:35 PM »
And routes are often recalculated.
- when arrived next(via) station
- new month
- added new line or modified line
No, routes aren't recalculated each new month. I'm currently working on a caching system for the routing of goods (reduce number of waysearch for goods). But this is impossible with a dynamic routing of goods suggested in this thread.

Offline colonyan

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 526
  • Full and Warm
Re: Passenger/Mail Accumulation: Penalty?
« Reply #18 on: December 09, 2008, 03:39:33 AM »
H. Forcing all the convois serving overcrowded stations to have "no load" status except for loading the passengers/mails from the overcrowded stations. This way, convois can earn less money, the overcrowded stations won't be crowded any more, and passengers/mails will be also accumulated at other stations connected to the overcrowded stations (i.e. origins of these passengers/mails). This has also negative impact on the growth of other cities as well.

I like this idea too. Train Entering crowded station should not bring any load with it
and it can only take away from the crowded station.
This will distribute the crowded ness among the system...
Smart idea unless someone point out
,,,,   

Offline isidoro

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 1128
Re: Passenger/Mail Accumulation: Penalty?
« Reply #19 on: December 09, 2008, 05:00:50 AM »
I'm not for it.  For me, it makes more sense that no goods is loaded at origin if there is not place for it at the destination.  Nobody orders goods if he has no place to store them.

If, for each piece of goods, a route is to be recalculated based on the present occupation of stations, performance can be an issue.

Offline Roads

  • Devotees (Inactive)
  • *
  • Posts: 645
Re: Passenger/Mail Accumulation: Penalty?
« Reply #20 on: December 10, 2008, 10:49:55 PM »
Well I understand about 10% of what has been said here.  But if we are going to be penalized for passengers piling up at stations, please first tell the passengers to stop taking buses that are going in the wrong direction from their destination!  I hate it when I have citizens from a northern city stuck at some God forsaken tourist attraction in the South.  Then I have to take a special bus down to pick them up.  And you think they appreciate it?  No!  I have to hear them bitch all the way back.  That is, I assume I would but well, there's all those babies crying and other things...

BTW I'm going to stop allowing pet pigs and chickens on the buses.  If you've ever had a sow give birth while you were trying to negotiate the curves of a steep mountain road you know what I'm talking about.  The piglets were cute but for crying out loud, I'm trying to make an honest buck here.

Offline whoami

  • Devotees (Inactive)
  • *
  • Posts: 693
Re: Passenger/Mail Accumulation: Penalty?
« Reply #21 on: December 11, 2008, 02:58:46 AM »
 :D

To avoid situations like that, I recommend to make the network purely hierarchical.

Offline Roads

  • Devotees (Inactive)
  • *
  • Posts: 645
Re: Passenger/Mail Accumulation: Penalty?
« Reply #22 on: December 11, 2008, 06:59:17 AM »
Haha whoami, that's a concept I obviously have not grasped yet.  :)

After a few more trips to the boonies I'm taking a second and perhaps a third look at the way I'm doing the routing.