Topic: more thoughts on multiplayer

[asaphxiix]

I could think of non-code ways to cope with many of the problems, such a plurality of smaller games (in the number of players at least), some constantly running for the hard-cores addicts with no pause, and some running on schedules maybe, this way players can choose games that run on good and fixed hours for them (according to time-zone/frequency/etc.), and not be worried about missing out on the action. However, to enjoy so much diversity, we would probably need more players than we have now

Still it would be nice to have many games that run at different times (or even concurrently) - it will also provide the diversity desired for the most extensive testing possible, and make things less hectic than they are now in the game.

I wish I would finish rebalancing pak64 already... but the work of balancing is endless, isn't it? When I finish, we can try some of that.

[jamespetts]

It would indeed be worthwhile having different Simutrans-Experimental servers to cater for a variety of tastes. I am not sure about scheduling, however, as this might inconvenience people on different schedules or in different time zones. Many people are in the UK, some are in North America, others are in central Europe - what schedule would work for everyone?

[asaphxiix]

some servers will be run in NA hours, some EU, Far East etc.. Some will be only weekends, some every night, some every Monday and Thursday and second Friday...

Again, this will probably be more plausible if there are substantially more active players (so we don't get 10 servers with one player each), but perhaps such options may even attract more players, and even in the current state of affairs and even after reducing convoy numbers as said, I think we could still benefit from even a twofold division, to having two games running, say, for 8 players each, perhaps using some registration mechanism for matchmaking purposes. It may turn out to be too problematic, but still worth a shot I think.

I think this could be a good direction for standard as well.

[jamespetts]

It would be a great pity, I think, if players from North America were forced to use a different server to players from Europe; I'd rather not have to do that. I prefer a system where the server is running whenever somebody is connected to it, but where time runs so slowly that people can afford to dip in and out. I also take the view that the size of people's networks should probably be proportionate to the amount of available time that they have to service them, and that the game ought to be balanced to allow people to leave at least smaller networks alone for some time with bursts of activity in between.

One thing that I am hoping will help move towards this end is implementation of the planned cost of capital feature: players who want a larger network will have to borrow more money than those who want a smaller network, and will therefore have to build and maintain a larger network in order to keep up with the loan repayments.

[jamespetts]

I am just about to push a change to my 10.x branch which will prevent refunds being charged to any player who is currently overdrawn. This is intended to mitigate the problems caused in online games when one player joins its passenger network to another player's, greatly increasing demand on the second player's: this would often lead to inadequate capacity and therefore refund situations in the second player's network, which could lead to insolvency and liquidation if the issue was not addressed. This was a particular problem with unattended players.

Since the idea of the refund mechanism was mainly to prevent an exploit whereby players could generate large quantities of profit with an incomplete transport network, limiting this to non-overdrawn players does not interfere with that original objective.

The result of this is intended to be that players will be able more safely to leave their networks unattended for longer periods of time, which ought to enable players to take a more relaxed approach to the game.

I should be interested in people's views on this matter, and on any other aspect of the game balance that might be altered to enable players to take a more relaxed approach to the game. What do people think, for example, of the bits per month setting? Currently, at 21 for Pak128.Britain-Ex 0.8.4, it is rather slow. I suspect that it might be a bit too slow if it were any higher, but do people think that it might be worthwhile having it even higher, say at 22, which would result in each month taking twice as long as at present?

[asaphxiix]

i wouldn't like it to be any slower than that. I liked the 20 setting, but 21 is ok too. does doubling game month time mean doubling real time as well?

[greenling]

Hello
I Play in singleplayer modus with bits per month setting from 24.

[ӔO]

Currently, I think you get something like 1 in game year per real day?

Something like 6 to 8 months per day would not be bad.

[jamespetts]

Unfortunately, one can only modify the timings by either doubling or halving them - six months per day is achievable by halving the rate (22 rather than 21 bits per month), but I suspect that that might be a bit slow for some.

What do people think about the refunds thing?