Topic: Proposal to make removing signals partially or fully refund the cost

[freddyhayward]

I don't know how realistic this is. I'm sure there are a multitude of hidden costs associated with removing signals in the real world. This proposal aims to make the game less frustrating, especially for new players.

The signalling system is very hard to understand and players will frequently make mistakes. Say a player accidentally places a signal one tile too far north. This has already cost them (for example) 2500¢. If the player wishes to move the signal one tile south, the total cost expands to 7500¢ (2500¢ to remove the signal and 2500¢ to place the new one). The player then realises they have made another mistake - they have accidentally placed a permissive block signal, when they intended to place a regular stop signal. Their total cost expands to 12500¢.

[jamespetts]

The only sensible way of doing this would be to refund only newly placed signals, which would act as an undo feature. This would require adding data to all signals about when they were built, however.

It would unbalance the game to allow players to remove any and all signals for a negative cost: in reality, installing the signal is likely to be a far more significant element of cost than the signal's parts themselves.

[freddyhayward]

The only sensible way of doing this would be to refund only newly placed signals, which would act as an undo feature. This would require adding data to all signals about when they were built, however.

It would unbalance the game to allow players to remove any and all signals for a negative cost: in reality, installing the signal is likely to be a far more significant element of cost than the signal's parts themselves.

The refund could still be partial, say half, or a tenth of the original cost.

[jamespetts]

The refund could still be partial, say half, or a tenth of the original cost.

It would probably be better to have a full refund for newly placed signals (e.g. placed within the current game month) to act as a full undo feature if one is going to do this at all.

[freddyhayward]

It would probably be better to have a full refund for newly placed signals (e.g. placed within the current game month) to act as a full undo feature if one is going to do this at all.

I don't think think a full undo is necessary. In fact, there needn't be a negative cost refund at all - the removal cost could instead be reduced to some fraction (say, 10%) or the installation cost.

[Ranran]

I think the refund amount can be referred to retire_date.
Anything past retire_date is no longer worth it.
If the Semaphore signal is removed in modern times, the removed semaphore signal will be disposed of. It is now just an antique and will never be reused. There is no refund for removal.
Signals that have not yet reached retire_date can be reused. Re-installing signal is consistent, given that even roads/railroads will be refunded for a fixed amount.
I think that it is the same as the road whether or not to collect the cost of installation. It seems that it has been collected a little.

[Freahk]

Old signals still have a significant scrap value.
I don't know if that exceeds the dismounting costs or not.