Speed bonus as true bonus

[Spike]

In the german forum Dwachs explained:

Nein, der Bonus kann auch negativ sein, also ein Malus, wenn man zu langsame Fahrzeuge benutzt. Man bekommt aber mindestens 12.8% vom Warenpreis bezahlt. Der Malus fuehrt also nicht dazu, dass man negative Einkuenfte bekommt.

Transgoogle:

No, the bonus can be negative, so a penalty if you used to slow vehicles. You get paid but at least 12.8% of the merchandise price. The penalty leads not mean that you get negative income.

This clears up a thing that I obviously had misunderstood since a long time - Prissi had told me there will never be a negative bonus, but I interpeted it this way, that it never will reduce the base fee for a good (= always at least 100% payment). Now reading that it can go down to 12.8% of the standard fee, I want to issue a change request for a new option that I want to use in pak48.Excentrique:

I want the bonus to be a true bonus. Transports always yield a payment fee of 100% of the official value, plus the defined bonus for extra speedy delivery. But never less than 100% of the base transport fee.

I also understand now why Frank set the speed bonus to zero in pak.German - and I feel compelled to do this for pak48.Excentrique too, while the transport income can drop below 100% for slow vehicles. I don't want penalties. I want it to be a bonus. (And if memory serves me right, this was my original intention when I introduced the speed bonus, but maybe I did it wrong that time).

[Zeno]

Actually that means slowest vehicles will be forced to have lower running costs, in order to be able to stand such low incomes (below 100%). That makes sense in terms of balance, as well as realism (I wouldn't pay a standard price for a snail-train ticket, you know). But its true that makes the game thougher.

[Spike]

I wouldn't pay a standard price for a snail-train ticket, you know.

That's why the bonus is goods dependent. Passengers pay like 100% bonus for faster transport above the base fee, but if I order coal for next winter in spring, I do not care if the coal comes in 1 months or 4, just before the winter. So coal will have only 10% or 0% bonus.

And I do only ask for an option that is as easy to implement as a single if-else statement for the bonus calculation plus the overhead for any sort of config option (which we have plenty already, so that can't be that bad).

You can further use the old scheme for pak128 if it makes sense there. I'm not trying to take something away from you or force you to rebalance your set. I just have different ideas for my set.

Edit:

Stupid reasoning of mine - coal would not suffer from the value drop to 12,8% if it has bonus 0, just the passengers would. I still think such a drastic drop is too much, even a snail coach must at least support the driver and maintenance with the income, and so there is a natural lower limit regardless of speed - about the drivers wage plus some maintenance.

[VS]

Zeno -> incomes below 100% already are a reality.

BTW, I would like to at least test the non-malus behaviour, too.

[Spike]

To avoid a new "if" in the code, we just could configure the lower limit, which seems to be 12.8% now - so one set can have 12.8%, the other 50% and yet another can have 100%. Seems better than to switch just between 12.8% and 100% by config.

[VS]

Hm. Would this go into settings_t, or umgebung_t ?

[prissi]

That could be very easily added. However, a major complain from Frank has gone meanwhile: The speedbonus depends on the maximum achievable speed, i.e. considereing all speedlimits of track/catenary as well as the attainable speed at the current load. Thus an ICE on tram track would not get any additional speedbonus.

While pak64 is balanced, that indeed lower vehicles get along with lower income (actually no vehicle reahces ever the bottom within it lifetime anyway), I think you suggestion would just add a lot of freedom to pak-set author.

This goes into setting, as this must be the same on netowrkgames ...

[Zeno]

Zeno -> incomes below 100% already are a reality.

I know! Thus my comment... maybe I didn't explain properly: I meant this way pakset authors are forced to balance the vehicles more accurately, and slowest vehicles will have lower RC than before (which is ok for me!), as long as the bonus can be negative (below 100%)

[VS]

Oops, then I'm wrong... Anyway, I'm playing with this option, so far only running into some unknowns...

[Spike]

Looking forward to test this in the next release

[VS]

Prissi was faster!