Don't allow stops/stations on certain ways and bridges

[Fabio]

This request has 2 reasons behind:
1) graphics: some bridges and elevated rely heavily on front images (which are displayed on top of stations, and this is very fine for other bridges), but being less than a full tile wide have display problems.
2) gameplay: certain ways (e.g. motorways/autobahn) might forbid stops on the right-of-way, preferring side areas where to place stops.

My main concern is 1), but also the other point might be interesting to explore.

I suggest a new parameter in dat files of every way & bridge:

Code Select Expand


allow_stops=1 (default) | 0


When it is set to 0, it will be forbidden to place a stop/station on that way/bridge.

Of course, ways with stops could be upgraded/downgraded to one not allowing stops, but this is IMHO a smaller concern, which could be either ignored or solved by forbidding up/down-grade of the tiles with a stop to a different way which doesn't allow them.

[kierongreen]

Interesting idea, relatively easy to code, and can certainly see some uses for it. On the otherhand is it another behaviour that might be confusing for new players?

[greenling]

Fabio & Kierongreen
That it no good idea and it make new bugs.

[Fabio]

On the otherhand is it another behaviour that might be confusing for new players?

IMHO this should depend on having an intelligently written/translated error message when 1) trying to build a station where forbidded; or 2) trying to upgrade a way where forbidden because of existing stops.
E.g. 1) "This way %s doesn't allow the construction of a stop on it." 2) "Impossible to build the way %1 because of a pre-existing stop."

That it no good idea and it make new bugs.

greenling,
this is a problem I want to avoid:

A player placing stations as in the photo would think of a bug!
First of all I want to prevent this from happening, after that if it can enhance the gameplay is just better.

[ӔO]

I think it's a good idea, but how do you convey this info to the user?


in some regions, building train stations on bridges was common, because the land was cheaper atop the river, rather than on firm ground. Normally, bridges containing stations will be built with the extra structure and weight in mind, so the type of design used will be very specific. e.g. you won't see truss type bridges used for this purpose. More commonly it will be arch or beam.

[VS]

I believe a somewhat universal indicator would be full tile width, since that is graphically more or less required for believable stations.

But I share Kieron's concern about player confusion...

[Fabio]

I believe a somewhat universal indicator would be full tile width...

Exactly my point

Beside these few bridges, all the other in my new set will be 1 tile wide and station-proof.

[mEGa]

I agree with first Fabio's idea. it's very uggly.
Maybe apply new parameter as Fabio suggested and create bridge only for elevated stations. In particular I think about elevated way of metropolitan... at this time, we have to take bridges of classical railway because we haven't special elevated way for this.

[ӔO]

I guess you could add words like: Wide, Narrow, Versatile, Table or Decked.

or even Versatile deck?

[greenling]

All
I Think that the parameter: allow_stops=1 (default) | 0 make the player and the pakfile devloper confusion.
The best way too remove this problem it we make extra brigde for Stations.
Edit: I self have somtime many problems with the new parameters in the manufacture of new Pakfiles.

[prissi]

The problem is rather, that it must be know at bridge building. Getting the error message at station building times, could only say: You should have used another bridge. Not very helpful; especially since there may be none. One the other hand, only few player know and use this feature.

[greenling]

*removed*

Moderator note: please don't abuse text formatting (bold, CAPS LOCK and font size) when it is not necessary. And you do not need to quote your whole post that is right above, which is visible for everyone, it was unnecessary.
~IgorEliezer

[ӔO]

A second thought.

How difficult would it be to change the bridge image underneath the station tile?

[Sarlock]

I'm of the general opinion that for many things like this, it's better to allow the player freedom to make odd looking combinations and choose to remove them for aesthetic reasons than to restrict their use in the first place (which creates potential bugs, conflicts with old .paks, confusion, etc).

[greenling]

Sarlock
yes it gives many old addons they that make problems.

[paichtis]

We now have underground only stops.
Could we also have bridge only stops ?

In other words we could see the problem the other way around : restrict which stops can go on bridges. Not sure if it would solve the graphical problems but it would sure be much less confusing for players.

[sdog]

I'm of the general opinion that for many things like this, it's better to allow the player freedom to make odd looking combinations and choose to remove them for aesthetic reasons than to restrict their use in the first place (which creates potential bugs, conflicts with old .paks, confusion, etc).

Exactly my point.

Perhaps the player has a way to integrate it well into his system, or someone builds a station that perfectly fits into bridges.

It is obviously ugly, let the players decide not to do so instead of prohibiting it.

[Fabio]

It makes sense.
I'm used to see the artists point of view and I prefer to ban what I can't make look right (e.g. the bridges committed today look great with stations but those don't...)

[ӔO]

how about changing the images of the bridge below a station tile?

[sdog]

This would also look a bit wonky. Just imagine the girders would suddenly dissapear. One would have to change the tiles next to the station tile too. There are bridges that work very well with stations, i don't see any need to do something at all.

[greenling]

All
I will look what for bridges what for width have!
But that need time.