Started by moblet, January 31, 2011, 12:14:21 PM
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Quote from: moblet on January 31, 2011, 12:14:21 PMIs the speedbonus there for any other purpose?
Quote from: moblet on January 31, 2011, 12:14:21 PMI don't think that an approach of "code the game, and afterwards let balancing be entirely the pakset developers' problem" can work.
Quote from: moblet on January 31, 2011, 12:14:21 PMit seems to me unlikely to produce a game where it is possible to balance paksets across 300 years of growth and technology.
Quote from: Hajo on January 31, 2011, 12:32:49 PMtickets for faster trains are more expensive in real life too, express cargo costs more
Quote from: HajoThere was only one team until pak128 came into existence....The timeline was not part of the initial game design.
Quote from: HajoSo maybe we have such a case here, that nowadays it seems to be expected that 300 year of evolution are possible with the game, but the game started with a totally static design (no time dependent changes at all), and it might still not fit well together.
QuoteThe spreadsheet is designed to explore what happens if there is a linear, time-based revenue decay for a trip. For example, the attached revenue.jpg is a plot of trip revenue vs distance based on three linear parameters: $/km revenue and operating cost, and linear decay of trip revenue with journey time. Each line represents a different average speed for the trip. (Such a revenue decay cannot simply be transplanted in place of the speedbonus as, for one, it has implications for trip generation.)
Quote from: prissi on January 31, 2011, 03:57:11 PMThe timeline dependent speed bonus is only used to award the use of newer engines and change the "ideal" engine. With constant timeline, the ideal engine for a certain relation (constant transportation assumed) would be always the same. Something like "people prefer new vehicles".
Quote from: prissiMaybe there is a misunderstanding. The linear decaying profit make the slower vehicle even less proftiable.
Quote from: prissiThe infrastructure needed for fast vehicles is really expensive. This is an important part when balancing a pak set
Quote from: prissiIn pak64, the fastest vehicles are the one with the lowest number of passengers. That way the fastest is not the most profitable on short lines with high demand, especially if the infrastructure is made expensive.
Quotebut what should a pakset developer do if they want high speed, high capacity vehicles?
Quote from: prissi on January 31, 2011, 03:57:11 PMMaybe there is a misunderstanding. The linear decaying profit make the slower vehicle even less proftiable. (And not to mention: The infrastructure needed for fast vehicles is really expensive. This is an important part when balancing a pak set.)
Quote from: moblet on January 31, 2011, 02:04:10 PMThe catch in Simutrans is that revenue is a flat $/km regardless of the trip distance, so the revenue dynamics aren't the same as the real world. The real world $/km for a 3km urban bus trip and a trans-oceanic flight are very different. That can be compensated for in the sim either by adopting a non-linear trip revenue curve or adjusting the pakset (I would first try to
QuoteThis is again a problematic point because you actually don't need any (expensive/fast) infrastructure to get the speedbonus as the actual driven speed is of no importance. The speedbonus for a highspeed train travelling 50km/h on sandtrack rails is the same as for a train really using 300km/h.
Quote from: prissi on February 02, 2011, 09:12:35 AMNo but then your train will not transport as many passengers. WIth 55km/h only one eightth of 450km/h tracks. THus the total revenue over time would be also only one eightth. Ergo: YOu could use cheaper to operate slow train also.
Quote from: prissi on February 02, 2011, 10:50:27 AMThe speed bonus is relative. This 10% speed increase gives the same bonus, not 10 kmh. And if you do not like speed bonus, then just define it as zero.
Quote from: prissi on February 02, 2011, 09:12:35 AMThis is just the equivalent of round(value/3000.0) to avoid rounding errors. THe maximum change in income this get is 0.01cr. I fail to see how shorter busstop can improve this.
QuoteSetting pay_for_total_distance = 1 or 2 equalized the reduction
Quote from: prissi on February 02, 2011, 09:09:06 PMSince vehicles in simutrans have to travel manhatten distance (dependign on diagonal multiplier) using euklidian distance will even require a more straight way and make pak set balancing even more difficult ...
Quote from: prissi on February 04, 2011, 10:36:27 AMSince vehcile prices are mostly not affecting creditability in standard. I was thinking that the resale value of a vehicle is decreased by say 30% as soon as it was running once. Thus buying very expensive vehicles with very little mony will leave to bankrupsy while misclicking in the depot and resale is still possible. This gives also a much higher incentive for buying cheap stuff.
Quote from: Hajo on January 31, 2011, 12:32:49 PMA very long time there was no split between program developers and pak set developers. There was only one team until pak128 came into existence. So there was no such intention or thought initially. (I agree that balancing is an issue of coding and data design matters)....The timeline was not part of the initial game design...all time-dynamic features that we see nowadays were built onto a game core that was not designed for that.