Started by DrSuperGood, October 11, 2016, 12:52:34 AM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
QuoteTo combat this fund checks are being added to many of the tools
QuoteHopefully "-freeplay" players still can use those tools even when in great debt?
QuoteI still find treeless maps boring, so manually adding a few trees is more beautiful. Maybe instead forbidding tree creation on your maps, decoupling tree planting and tree removal cost could forbid planting trees just by making them too expensive while removal was still possible.
QuoteOne could perhaps forbid players other than the public player from planting trees in a network game? Transport companies do not usually plant trees, after all.
Quote from: DrSuperGood on October 11, 2016, 12:52:34 AMThe complexity trees add has been a bane for server owners for some time due to increased map transfer times.
Quote from: DrSuperGood on October 11, 2016, 12:52:34 AMThe make public tool can be very useful in server games for making or rebuilding public ways which are useful for other players to use but not used by the responsible company.
Quote from: DrSuperGood on October 11, 2016, 12:52:34 AMThe tool error string translation constants are being placed in string constants. This is for maintainability as otherwise the same string constant ends up declared in multiple locations so is hard to change and can be error prone with typos or copy mistakes.
Quote from: DrSuperGood on October 11, 2016, 12:52:34 AMI plan to apply my last JIT2 revision at some stage after updating it for compatibility before going on to see if the problems with JIT2 can be ironed out. I also intend to hack around with more of the tools, revising code and adding fund checks. I am open to suggestions for minor things as well.
QuoteNo. The tool is called make_stop_public. It should only work for it's original purpose to create public interchange stations. The ability to use it on ways, etc. seems an oversight and should be completely removed to eliminate the exploit of players ending up with no maintenance costs. If necessary, a second tool to create public ways etc could be created, but must be disable-able for a sane multiplayer game.
QuoteRelated issue: when a player exploits a shell company to make all the ways public, and the shell goes bankrupt, the ways end up owned by 'null' instead of the public player, hence tolls don't even apply! Nice to fix that too...
QuoteAlso, changes of this magnitude to game mechanics should ideally have a patch posted for comments first.
QuoteAgain, such a change should IMHO have had some discussion first... makes it harder to read as you now have to find the string defined somewhere other than where it is used to see what it actually says.
QuoteI.E. your change to the make_stop_public tooltip breaks (orphans) all existing translations. Also, the base.tab file wasn't updated with the new text.
QuoteI know I'm still negligent at getting to it. If it only affected JIT2, then go ahead. But it affects electricity overall in JIT0/1 as well, and there was just something in the changes that gives me a gut feeling of being wrong. I'll get there...
Quote from: DrSuperGood on October 13, 2016, 02:12:58 AMI tested it in game and translations appeared to still be working. I was not aware of the base.tab file, will look into it.
Quote from: DrSuperGood on October 11, 2016, 12:52:34 AMThe cost of the make public tool was unclear, lacked the ability to be configured and seemingly random. This has been changed so that it now costs a configurable number of months of maintenance (default 60 or 5 years of operation) which is then transferred to the public player. Public player takes ownership of ways for free. As mentioned above it also gets fund checked hence setting the configuration to something ludicrous such as 36,000 months (3000 years) could in theory make its use impractical/impossible.
QuoteThis seems like a good start but 5 years of opperrating cost is not alot if a player is gone use a massive tunnel for a 100 years. And if you are gone set the cost to 100 years it might be to expansive to share a (train) station where it is needed when a new player is starting. I should rather see a way to have the player that build the shared object to keep paying opperrating cost.you would still be able to get around the opperrating cost by bankrupting companies unless everything shared is removed when a company goes bankrupt.I'm wondering if this idea could work?
QuoteYou could just adopt the system in Experimental, where ways and stops can be made public (nationalised) only by the public player, but players can connect their lines and give each other permission to run on each others' lines and stop at each other's stops.
QuoteThis is becoming a tangle of different topics, but I think that if a stop is made public, which means the player no longer has to pay for its upkeep, then the players should have to pay to use it.
Quote from: DrSuperGood on October 13, 2016, 03:40:27 PMAs a counter example of why the experimental system is bad. In the server of the last release, players made a lot of rails and cannals everywhere which had to be bridged over. Since they owned those bridges and roads it meant that only they could upgrade them. Since the bridges used lacked the weight loading for cars the result was a mess of islands that could not be driven between by cars despite there being a ton of bridges. If these were made public and could be modified by the players then the player who wanted to use a connection could personally upgrade the required bridges without having to beg the other company to do so and then waiting several days for a response.
QuoteAlternatively some kind of taxation system could be used where players have to pay for the public player maintenance based on the fraction of total transported.
QuoteExperimental has been changed since the last large online game to allow players to alter roads built on map generation, which are now null player rather than public player, but makes them all public rights of way, meaning that they can only be upgraded (not downgraded), anything that they are upgraded with will also be a public right of way (and thus passable by any player's vehicle), and can only be removed if a short diversionary route (which, on deletion of the original way, becomes a public right of way itself) be provided. This also works for rivers. This effectively deals with the issue so far as roads and rivers created on map generation are concerned.
QuoteDue to the lack of sufficient artificial intelligence, it seems clear to me that someone must take on the role of the public player to provide the common infrastructure. Realistically, this would be pretty much all intercity roads. Depending on era, it would also include airports, stations and bus terminals. Whether such realism makes for good game play, especially for the one playing the public player, is a good question.
Quote from: prissi on October 13, 2016, 08:35:21 PM@riverSince the cost check would apply to make things public, then making a massive tunnel network public will not work too.
QuoteDue to the lack of sufficient artificial intelligence, it seems clear to me that someone must take on the role of the public player to provide the common infrastructure. Realistically, this would be pretty much all intercity roads. Depending on era, it would also include airports, stations and bus terminals. Whether such realism makes for good game play, especially for the one playing the public player, is a good question.Having the public service player as an actual player, instead of some kind of super administrator, has been in my head for a while. Although I think it could bring some interesting game play decisions and could even add to servers (if he goes broke, you lose), the problem is that it would need major game play changes to implement. So for now is probably not worth thinking about.
QuoteCould you please post patches for review before doing such substantial changes?
QuoteDr. Supergood - is there any possibility that this might be related to the desyncs between Windows and Linux clients on recent builds of Experimental?
Quoter7924 compiled on linux, without any problems, connect to "regional" game OK.
Quote from: DrSuperGood on October 30, 2016, 03:22:06 PMThis change was hardly substantial though. It was mostly fixing already existing errors in the socket logic. Hence maintenance work.
QuoteThat is when I appreciate having a good set of tests verifying behavior during every build, even if I sometimes hate writing those tests in the first place and the tests take a long time.
QuoteDrSuperGood, I appreciate that you, as every developer, endeavours to fully test changes before committing. However unless these are entirely trivial (a handful of lines at most) as Ters says, there is the possibility of unintentional changes occurring. We all try to write good code, sooner or later we will all make mistakes. Bugs may happen which result in intermittent issues and peer review minimises the possibility of this.
Quote from: prissi on November 05, 2016, 11:46:26 PMPillars must by built on empty tiles or bridge building fails: Any object on a tile is "not nature" and thus not building space.
QuoteI would rather forbid bridges with pillars over houses, as these are quite often mortar bridges which could not accomodate houses;
Quotehowever there are japanese highways and special houses for these bridges. Updating such houses would certainly not welcomed.
QuoteAny object on a tile is "not nature" and thus not building space.
QuoteI see no reason why the bridge builder can not automatically remove the same kind of objects that are automatically removed when building plain ways, such as trees and (non-moving) ground objects, when building pillars. Furthermore, some ground objects, or even some trees, could co-exist with pillars that are on the edges (like the viaduct in pak64), but it might be too difficult to make a distinction between what works and what doesn't (the tiny watchtowers in pak64 "physically" fit under a bridge, but it still seem odd for them to be there).
Quote from: jamespetts on October 12, 2016, 06:14:24 PMOne could perhaps forbid players other than the public player from planting trees in a network game? Transport companies do not usually plant trees, after all.
Quote from: IgorEliezer on November 06, 2016, 04:31:25 AMUnless transport companies are fined or required to "compensate" for tree cutting, on a sort of "1 tree cut = 2 new trees planted" basis or something around these lines. But IMO it could be rather a hurdle in Simutrans.(late and odd reply, I've just found this topic today)
Quote from: DrSuperGood on November 06, 2016, 12:49:08 AMI think it might be because not all bridges were intended to have pillars originally. It makes no sense for anything to be removed under a bridge with no pillars as it is suspended in the air.
QuoteImho cityhouses should not be build under bridges on tiles with pillars (patch part 1). Not removing the pillar if a house gets removed should be submitted (patch part 2).
QuoteI think removing pillars should be forbidden. Buldings under the bridges should have limited height/level, to fit under the bridge. I think that in many cases the area under the bridge had to be cleared (demolished) during construction works, and only new small buildings were allowed to be built under the bridge later.Some bridges (viaducts) should even limit roads that are under them to be perpendicular to the bridge.
Quote from: DrSuperGood on November 06, 2016, 05:06:16 PMBut why should one be able to build over houses yet houses cannot build underneath? This is order dependent and can appear to players as inconsistent, hence the patch.
Quote from: Vladki on November 06, 2016, 04:32:56 PMI think removing pillars should be forbidden.
QuoteBuilding bridges over/through buildings with no proper height check should be 'fixed' (this would be a large patch not a small fix). Why should the program be consistent with respect to flaws?
QuoteI mostly agree, but since it is not possible to mix bridge styles without touching the ground, which might look unrealistic, I like to be able to remove the dense pillars of the high speed rail bridge/viaduct in pak64 on a single tile to let a way pass under it. These particular pillars don't combine well with anything else.
QuoteI think tall buildings under the bridges should definitely be kept:
QuoteSure there can be high buildings under very high bridge. But they cannot be higher...Ideally the limit on building height/level should match the height of the bridge above given tile.
QuoteSo I think that building bridges over any house should be forbidden, and later building small buildings underneath allowed.
QuoteWith pillars I'm split - many bridges are painted to have the pillars on tile borders and then it might be OK to have buildings at the same tile. Perhaps a dat file option where pak designer could specify if the pillar occupies the centre - thus forbidding anything (including ways), or the border - allowing ways, or even houses underneath.
QuoteThat why my suggestion: Basic correction: No houses under bridges with pillar on a tile. If there is a tile every 2nd, then you must clean that tile for building the pillar.
QuoteAdvanced: No houses for bridges within single clearance (one level for pak64/twp for pak128). And then one could determine the house height from the pak image size ...
QuoteAnd then one could determine the house height from the pak image size ...