Exp9.11 Balancing

[AvG]

Running Exp9.11
Adapted heightmap of Holland, 773*904 tiles, 250m/tile, startyear 1830 (0 towns, 0 industries, 16 attractions , some rivers (should also have been 0))
Adapted bits_per_month to 24. (In a big scenario you need a lot of time to study and make plans. If necessary one can speed up 100*)
Started with one town Amsterdam of 3478 inh (should be 200K, but due to low level buildings not possible)
While running, adding towns via Public player. Size related to Amsterdam.
Starting money: 50.000 Cr

After 5 months of playing:
- 12 rail-connected towns
- Monthly operating profit 178.000 Cr !!!!
- Towngrowth: Amsterdam 3478 > 4866, Alkmaar 593 > 1028
- Huge amounts of passengers. (Amsterdam passengers 180K, transported 110K)
- Refunds neglectible.
- Inf.Maintenance 50.000/month !!! Please make them switchable.

Conclusion: Needs a lot of balancing. I am working on that.

[jamespetts]

AvG,

first of all - what pakset are you using? Secondly - it would help to see a saved game. Thirdly - what do you mean by "please make them switchable"? Fourthly - I know that balancing is needed, but I have to implement the balance critical features first, or else balancing will not be possible (it will either be too hard at the beginning of the game, or too easy later, the latter of which is your difficulty).

[inkelyad]

In a big scenario you need a lot of time to study and make plans. If necessary one can speed up 100*
...
- Inf.Maintenance 50.000/month !!! Please make them switchable.

I don't understand.

No matter what bits_per_month you are using:
In 1 real-time hour convoys will make same number of loops->same profit.
In 1 real-time hour you will have same maintenance.

[AvG]

James, inkelyad,
Using Exp9.11 in comb with the latest Pak-file you get when using Exp9.11-complete.

An example:
Simple busstop. Price: 21,25Cr. Maint; 2,5Cr at 18 bits/m.
This is the standard Exp-setting. I don't like this speed. Often you have not enough time to implement something or the next is already there.
So I want more time. >> Bits_per_month 24
Same Simple busstop. Price: 21,25Cr. Maint; 160Cr at 24 bits/m
Or to put this in words: The maintenance-cost of an object worth 21,25 is 8* its value.
The maintenance-cost is increased by a factor 160/2,5=64
If it would be possible to switch that factor to 1 I, and maybe lots of others, would be very gratefull.
If it is done via the settings-menu a restart is not necessary.
AvG

[inkelyad]

Most logical way is to rebalance pak for longer month.

If we switch off maintenance scaling, then for big bits_per_month (vehicles can make a lot of loops)  maintenance cost will be too small comparing to profit.

[jamespetts]

For pakset balancing purposes, some consideration will have to be given to the optimum bits per month setting, especially in the context of multiplayer games. The net tool, I understand, allows the server to be scheduled to run at certain times of the day only, which is a sensible thing to do, as people are unlikely to play at certain times of day, and it is better that time is not passing in the game when nobody is playing it.

Once a schedule is set up that works the best for the people likely to be wanting to play it, we can then check what bits per month setting is optimum for that number of hours per week: we need to consider how many game years should pass every real life week on an online server.

[AvG]

And that is exactly what I am working on.
AvG

[dustNbone]

Hmmm restricting the server to certain times of day only works if everyone involved is in the same time zone.  Something to consider.  Running only when players are active seems like a potential solution, will just make the amount of time passing per day a little unpredictable, but that's not a big deal.  I do like the idea of a handicap system which allows players who are struggling to get a revenue subsidy, while highly successful players maybe pay this subsidy?

[jamespetts]

dustNbone,

there may be something to be said for checking players' timezones before setting the schedules - it may still be possible, if all players are either in Europe or North America, for example, to set certain core hours that work for everyone. Running the game only when players are active would require significant changes to the networking code that I don't think that I would know how to achieve; I had requested this feature for Standard, but Prissi's response was that the playing times would be too unpredictable and that online time can be scheduled to set hours using the net tool.

As to the handicap system - I do not think that a handicap, per se, is expedient, as Simutrans is a transport simulation game, not golf: a subsidy paid to unprofitable companies merely because they are unprofitable would not have any real life parallel nor achieve anything worthwhile in the Simutrans economy. What might be worthwhile is allowing the public service player to (1) collect taxes both from players and from towns (the latter reducing the growth rate of the towns proportionate to the tax rate); and (2) make arbitrary one-off or monthly payments to individual companies. The public service player could then act as the state, and subsidise services if and in so far as it is expedient to do so having regard to the transportational usefulness of the subsidised undertaking. The success of the public service player might well be measured by the regional population growth over the course of the whole game (representing, I suppose, economic growth), whereas the individual players' success would be determined by their bank balances. This set of changes, however, is rather a pipe dream for the time being, as there are a great many balance critical features that must be added first.

[ӔO]

In real life, there are competition/antitrust laws which keep businesses from forming or holding a monopoly in many parts of the world.
I'm not too familiar with those laws.

From a gaming perspective, it is possible to compete with a player that is doing very well by working together with another player or two. However, it's also possible to run others out of business if two strong players team up and pick off the others one by one.

Going back to the real life competition laws, one way to achieve a smaller company is to start up a subsidiary. These days, it's usually something to do with luxury. For in-game use, one might aim for having a very high average speed or comfort for the entire fleet or breaking up the empire into smaller sectors.

[jamespetts]

AEO,

I am not sure that I fully follow the gameplay implications of what you suggest - are they simply observations about how a game might pan out, or do you mean to suggest any particular features?

[ӔO]

AEO,

I am not sure that I fully follow the gameplay implications of what you suggest - are they simply observations about how a game might pan out, or do you mean to suggest any particular features?

It's mostly game play observations.

I'm not too particular about suggesting a way to 'handicap' someone who is winning by a lot, because players are far smarter than CPU/AI and shouldn't need any assistance from the game to compete with the most powerful opponent. The players should be able to sort out who to cooperate with or who to compete with on their own.


On second thought...
I guess, with the way the networked games behave, a late comer(s) could be at a significant disadvantage if one player has already connected more than 75% of the entire map. In these sorts of cases, it would be nearly impossible to compete even with multiple players working together.

Another thought: When is the game 'won'? and what should happen once someone wins?

[jamespetts]

AEO,

one doesn't really "win" or "lose" Simutrans any more than one "wins" or "loses" similar games such as Transport Tycoon or Sim City, or, indeed, any more than one "wins" or "loses" running real life transport companies. The aim is simply to be successful in one's own right, and, although it is meaningful to compare the success of one player against the success of other players (for example, by comparing cash flow, operating profit, or any other such measure) that does not mean that such a measure is a measure of the ultimate goal in playing the game.

A player joining when another player is already dominant will, just as in reality when another market actor is dominant, have a struggle to reach a position of equivalent dominance; but that is not a problem, but a feature of the game, which is intended to and does behave in a lifelike manner in this connexion. The joy from playing Simutrans comes from knowing that what one is doing is has as similar effect on the simulated environment as doing the equivalent thing would in real life as can practicably be simulated, not from achieving as high a rank amongst one's competitors as possible. A simulation game is not a sport.

[elthore]

two quick thoughts:

1) timezone based server up-time is a terrible idea, this is the internet! Players come and go at all sorts of hours from all sorts of places. If a server is not up 24/7, it will most likely not be played on.

2) unless the player with the largest company is playing like a total dbag, I think we can all get along without added helps or assists. With a large enough map, everyone can find themselves a route.

[jamespetts]

Elthore,

I agree with no. 2. As to no. 1 - that rather depends on how many people are playing and where they are from, does it not? Simutrans is not quite the same as a major commercial game. I still think that there is something to be said for a system in which the game pauses when nobody is connected, but I do not really have the expertise to develop that feature.

Incidentally - welcome to the forums!

[sdog]

Just analyse the competing network, there should be always a connection that is slow, overcrowded or goes to a hub first, build a point to point connection there and you're in business.

[ӔO]

@james
If that's the case, then IMO, there's no need for handicaps. Personally, I would like the challenge of a late start and trying to find the niche.

The only thing you might want to consider are the starting credits depending on year. Although as far as I can recall, that was already implemented and it's up to the pakset developer to use it.

[jamespetts]

AEO,

that seems sensible (and you are correct about starting money based on the year). I am considering implementing a more sophisticated means of dealing with raising capital (albeit without the extreme complexity of a stock market simulation) by using bonds: the idea behind that is that players would start with little or no "free" capital, and would have to raise funds by selling bonds; but they would have to make sure that they would be able get a good enough return on their investment in order to repay the interest over the term of the bond. This would incentivise players to borrow no more than they need/can sustainably invest, and to take into account the cost of capital when starting/expanding.

[AvG]

Most logical way is to rebalance pak for longer month.

If we switch off maintenance scaling, then for big bits_per_month (vehicles can make a lot of loops)  maintenance cost will be too small comparing to profit.

My question is now more or less invisible due to the multiplayer discussion.
I will start a new topic : Maintenance-scaling.
AvG

[zook2]

Re: Balancing - is it just me, or is it impossible to lose money with ships in 18xx? I can buy the biggest steamers for a song, and their maintenance cost is negligible.

[zook2]

BTW, because balancing still seems a big issue: if you look at my savegame, you'll see that my steamers easily make 30,000 a month, even though they're only half-full, and they cost only 200. With money like that, I don't have to worry about any other costs. I'd even say you can easily "win" every Pak128-Ex scenario by routing part of your traffic over water.

Mod note: I have split this from the topic relating to a crash when changing tram schedules and merged it here.

[ӔO]

@zook

the ships were a relatively new addition and they haven't been balanced yet.

[jamespetts]

I have been looking into the shipping situation briefly, and have found these figures. I should be most grateful if anyone could find any further information (on either steam or sailing ships).

[AvG]

Figures like these are very valuable.
With such items I am building a new Pak.
At present I do a trial in 1830. (Exp9.12)
Some figures:
- Passenger/Mail revenue 0,01 Cr/km.
- 40 k/m railtrack cost ~3200 Cr/tile(250 m)
- Passenger-factor=8
- Starting money 50.000 Cr
- bits_per_month= 24
All prices are as much as possible the same as they were in the real past.
The 1st (long) month with an investment of 20.000 Cr I had a profit of ~ 12% on a yearly basis.
My vehicles still do not have the right speed. 14* to slow. The 24-bpm is max now. Could that be altered into max 28 ?
To me it is great fun working this way.  Now you have to be carefull how to spend your money!!
AvG

[ӔO]

maybe it's possible to include a *hard* mode preset?