You are Here:

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - imus

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8
16
Complaints / Re: Forum behavour
« on: December 23, 2013, 07:04:17 pm »
Well from what I understood is that Alex had a difficult time expressing what he means exactly in the way he intends to do so.
I'm putting this all in the language barrier so I tend to ignore everything negative and try to find out what he is trying to say which is why I usually don't care about any unintended insults or whatever.

I do see how people can misinterpret most of the things and think of them a lot worse then their intention. So for me nothing really bad happened except a misunderstanding :)

Also apology accepted from my part. ^.^ I hope Andreas can come to the same conclusion

17
New Server Proposals / Re: CHANGING SERVER 7
« on: December 23, 2013, 06:04:23 pm »
agreed with beul that #6 and #8 are not an option. (maybe #8 is an idea for s8). (#6 would turn it in a pax server which is why I specifically asked to lower all town settings)

#5 does not really fit the play style. I liked the smaller networks with more connections that people were building on our new s7.

#2 is what I proposed already.
#1 might be a good addition to that if the start is still too slow. same for adding planes.

no idea what effects #7 would have.


And fine i'll test the current goal with eRail first and see if that works. If the slow start is solved it might actually be okay ^.^

18
New Server Proposals / Re: Changing Server 8
« on: December 23, 2013, 08:50:41 am »
You got me interested as well Myhorta. Explanation required =D

19
New Server Proposals / Re: CHANGING SERVER 7
« on: December 23, 2013, 08:46:29 am »
TL;DR: Reduce the goal if it is needed to finish the game in 45 minutes or less for better players.


Ever since we started the server 7 change, about 60% of your proposals were to reduce the goal. Let me give you a few examples :P

That's because my intention was always to be able to finish this server in UNDER 1 hour, even for a mediocre player that tries really hard. Your goal was TOO DAMN HIGH! :p
Right now we no longer have a "micro" server. Which was my 1 and only reason NOT TO CHANGE S7 remember? I only agreed with a change if the goal was still SMALL. Not just tiny compared to the billion goal servers. Just small in itself.


You suggested adding planes yesterday...but today ....you misteriously forgot about it :P
I did not forget about it and you can still introduces a small amount of planes (max 10) but that's only a minor adjustment. I'm talking about a big change in feeling here (monorail vs no monorail). Well, you agreed on that point so on to the next one =D

I know that the old s7 had 3 MIL goal...but that`s why it had lost it`s players...because in order to reach 3 MIL, you`d simply sit in front of the computer waiting for the 10 (size 5) trains to make enough runs so you could reach the goal, or place more effort in the max 20 trucks that you were allowed to have.

True you had to wait for the game to finish but the main issue was the train limit. Now that we removed the train limit you jumped from 3M to 25M (after a lot of complaints from me). That's still 8X the goal where the first 10 trains are kept the same.
No player can make up for that 8X with just building new trains faster. Even my proposed goal of 15M is 5X larger than the original to make up for the boost from more trains.

Want I want to say is that "I`m pretty darn sure that we can find some other solution to make the server end faster then reducing the goal". You suggested adding planes yesterday...but today ....you misteriously forgot about it :P . Therefore, from now on....I`ll ignore every suggestion that contains the words "reduce the goal" or "set the goal to <a lower value then 25 MIL> ". We can add more vehicles....look into the finances....make bigger cities....add more industries....there are hundreds of solutions ...other then reducing the goal.

Tip....even a small server with maglev and a 30 MIL goal would still be a small server and be finishable in less then 1 hour (without reducing the goal) :P

So please...no more reducing the goal :)

This is what I said:

Adjust the goal accordingly so that better players (me?) can finish the game in at most 45 minutes.
Exact number to be tested, I suggest starting with 15M goal

Now read that again, it says "adjust goal accordingly". If that means reducing the goal than it means reducing the goal, simple as that. Sure you can make a lot of CV with maglev but I just proposed the total opposit, going from mono to eRail.
My idea is to find settings that are fun to play and then adjust the goal so that it can be reached in UNDER 1 HOUR.

P.S : Something that I remembered. Tonight I tested the server and a player who started with electric rails, made a lot more then I did in the beginning. So, don`t forget that even if Electric Rails have 50 km/h less speed limit, the number of trains is very high so you can compensate. And also electric rails are faster...so you might end up finishing the server faster then you`d do with monorail which is quite expensive and hard to start with. That`s kinda the feeling that I was left with after tonight`s game.

If this is true than adjusting the goal can also mean keeping it the same and I have no problem with that. But this needs to be tested first like I said. (sadly I did not have time to test eRail yet).

Besides, what is wrong with trying with a goal that is a bit too low first and then increase it if needed instead of setting it too big first and have me complain about it constantly?

I'll keep complaining about the goal as long as I cannot finish the game in less than 45 minutes if I really try (if I just play casually it can take longer if you want). This is because I am at least 2 times if not 3 times as fast as the mediocre to bad players.
If it takes me 45 minutes, it will take them 2 hours or more, so it does not fit the intentions of this server.

Proof of concept: the game before mine took 3 hours where the player went afk after building 25 trains. I too had built 25 trains in my first game and tried to win faster with building over 40 in the next (CV "cheat" attempt). Didn't make much difference. So no, we do not have to change other settings to be able to reach your arbitrary goal faster, it's better to change the goal to fit the fun settings (note these settings are still available for adjusting to better fit the intention of the server).


ps: sorry for wall of text ^.^

pps: @Alex, I should have time after dinner till about 10.30 or 11 O'clock.

20
New Server Proposals / Re: CHANGING SERVER 7
« on: December 22, 2013, 07:02:14 pm »
The current settings need some changes.

Problem number 1:
It took me 52 minutes with a pretty decent network (I expected somewhere between 30 ~ 45 minutes). The game before mine was 3 hours long, where the player went AFK after 25 trains. I think that 25 trains is a decent looking network for this server but waiting 2 more hours to reach the goals is just too much :p

Second problem:
During my games I've seen players start with a monorail network that looked cool but wasn't really that profitable. Since you can only afford 1 monorail train at the start you have to wait a really long time just to be able to do anything.


Suggested solution:
Starting year changed to 1985 as suggested by beul to play with electric trains instead which should at least reduce the second problem a lot.

Adjust the goal accordingly so that better players (me?) can finish the game in at most 45 minutes. This would prevent newbies (our target audience) from just waiting afk till the game is finally over because they got tired of building ....
Exact number to be tested, I suggest starting with 15M goal.

ps: not sure if possible, but scoring shouldn't get that much lower than it is now :p

21
New Server Proposals / Re: Changing Server 8
« on: December 22, 2013, 05:08:28 pm »
Since we have no more players interested in long goals I suggest putting s7 back =D

now seriously, I got no experience with long goals or super long goals. For me they're all boring as hell since you're just watching the numbers go up most of the time without doing anything -.- It might be fun for a game to see just how much CV you CAN get if you only play long enough but there's nothing really keeping you hooked besides just big numbers ...

I'll leave the discussion about big servers for players who do like them :)

22
Complaints / Re: No points scored on Server 2
« on: December 20, 2013, 07:17:23 pm »
well, the usual time is expected to be between 30 mins and 1 hour and you get an extra penalty for sharing the company. So it's not impossible to not get points anymore after 2 hours. Maybe someone else can confirm this?

Other option would be a fault in the scoring and/or someone disabling it (or it was not up yet with the upgrade?).

23
New Server Proposals / Re: new s7 exact settings
« on: December 18, 2013, 07:47:22 am »


<insert actual settings here>

24
New Server Proposals / Re: CHANGING SERVER 7
« on: December 17, 2013, 03:19:04 pm »
Now that we're back to the original discussion:

I agree with Chucky that map size should be small but 256x256 is really tiny =D We had 256x512 on old k6 (if I remember correctly) and me vs cossack kinda saturated that on 20 minutes or less. So having more than 2 players is too much on there :p (correct this is I'm wrong tho ^.^)

I suggest we currently set goal to 30M and 0 perf. unless if the other thread points to a better solution. (So please don't discuss this here anymore).

I prefer quicker trains than steamer as it's really not so fun to just wait for your first trains to arrive -.- In that aspect monorail was fun to start with. I'm open for changes on this setting but avoid maglev (it's just overkill).

See Beul's collection of other settings for the rest :)

25
New Server Proposals / Re: CHANGING SERVER 7
« on: December 17, 2013, 03:09:28 pm »
Alright guys, I tried my best to get this thread back on track :)

The scoring discussion is now moved to this thread.

I suggest we now use this thread with vague parameters to point out what the basic idea should be. That way we can try to find the right intentions for the settings without worrying about what the exact values fit those intentions. Posting settings that you know are required is still a good idea tho :) For example: map size 256x256.

I also created a new thread for the exact settings that we're going to use later on.

26
New Server Proposals / new s7 exact settings
« on: December 17, 2013, 03:04:44 pm »
This thread is used to get quick access to the wanted settings for the new s7.
The next post will exist of only those settings so it's easy to copy paste them in a config later on (I hope).
Feel free to reply later with needed changes, I'll then remove (or edit) your reply and perform the changes in the next pos (if they're good enough ;))

27
New Server Proposals / Remove later
« on: December 17, 2013, 02:48:04 pm »
I'm posting this solely in case I removed too much while getting the other thread back on track :) It will be removed later once everything seems fine again.

original from alex:
Beul, I will ask you a simple question: Do you want to be banned from the forum? I hope that you will stop turning every topic where both of us comment into an argument.

Reasons:
1:
Quote
There is absolutely no need for your sarcasm, comparing us to your corrupt parliament, or using grand words that do not even exist!

From what I know remarks based on nationalist purposes are not so good in the forum. I could speak out my oppinions about Netherlands, but that would be off-topic, so please talk without insulting.

2: All you did here was to argue. I ask for oppinions to see what you want and instead of that, the topic becomes the following for you:
Quote
I agree that town size should be quite low, especially if you decide to start with monorail. I can guarantee that if you don't, the result will be all pax, and maybe a few 2-way coal lines.

Town size low? What does that mean? Are you being specific or am I blind and not seeing the values?

3:
Quote
Further: not including perf. in the goal might be nice, but there are 2 things I wonder:

No offence, but if you really want me to point out the things that I do not consider proper about your comments: Your wonderings are not part of this topic. This topic was created to discuss the future changes of server 7. The decision to try it without performance was already taken. Why? because of multiple reasons. If you are so curious, I can create a topic to explain my decision or an announcement.

4:
Quote
On the other hand I think a lower train limit will increase the effect of it being a contest of money making lines stimulating to choose your lines well. At the same time it will prevent mass cv cheating by buying trains, without the need of aditional measures.

Was this another specific example of what train size should be? Or just you wondering about certain aspects of the game.

5:
Quote
You don't have to follow the suggestions, heck you do not even have to ask to begin with.
This is not up to you to decide. This is my decision and I do not need advice regarding it, thank you!


I took your comment and answered with a smile on my face before your agressive comments. And that remark was nothing but irony. I wasn`t shouting or insulting. Yet again, you do not seem to understand the irony.
What bothers me the most is the agressive way you answer whenever you think that you`re attacked or that someone is making you seem a lower man then you consider yourself to be. This wasn`t the case, I can assure you, but yet again, you felt attacked.

Now correct me if I may, but what part of your first post were specific answers, because I still don`t see that part.

For my references for small servers: I wrote a few examples of the EXISTING servers which are considered small to prove that there can be more then one option about how to juggle a server . You told me that by saying "small server", I already define most of the settings. Those existing or past servers prove that I don`t define most of the settings. 
I don`t know how you group the servers but a 30 mil goal is small server. By small servers, we are discussing about completion time nevertheless. Would you compare server 9 to server 4? Or even better, to server 5?

Tip: A hilly map would increase difficulty, but if you go with a large loan and monorail or maglev trains , it compensates.

Another aspect: Me looking for your answers in the previous posts. Maybe you don`t want to consider 2 things:
- it maybe very hard for people to stay and look for the standard settings and then to compensate them with the" aditional settings" because they simply do not have the time or the mood for that
- maybe I wanted to hear a full oppinion from everybody. That is why I suggested it in an ironic way with the emot-icons properly placed to clearly show that it was a joke. A joke that you didn`t quite understand.

In the end, a last aspect:
Quote
If you ask a question, be prepared to listen to the answer, even if it does not come in the exact way you want.
. This is exactly what I told you. Unfortunately, compared to other people , I cannot quit from n-ice whenever I don`t have the necesary time to be here. I have to make time or at least to balance it up. So, as I told you this morning:

You come after a few days absence (probably having some free time) and "alex879ro, I answered your post" ; " alex879ro, there is someone destroying road vehicles on server 5. Oops, it was on BTPro, srry." . If you do have free time, it doesn`t necesary mean that others do too. You don`t see me messaging you everytime I answer a post. Also, if every player would come and flash my name everytime something happens, I and probably any admin would go nuts.  For me and Der_Herr it is especially hard. When an admin is missing, there is someone here most of the times. But for operators, that is not happening. If both me and Der_Herr wouldn`t be here, nobody would be here to replace us. If I wouldn`t be here, the changing of the servers would not happen or it would but extremely slow. If Der_Herr wouldn`t be here, we would have no new coding, no new scoring implemented.
This having been said, I consider that maybe behaving a little more polite and understanding this would be more proper. I tried to talk to you politely and to pretend that your outbursts do not exist, but it seems this is not possible.




later on: (TODO might need to put these in the thread about scoring)
I know Beul made a good point, but his agressiveness based on nothing is what bothers me and it has deviated us from the initial goal of the topic.

I don`t consider there is any need to worry about performance. It`s not like we`re not here. We`ll be watching the goals and see if anybody tries to cheat it. If that happens, we will correct the performance right away. Also, it is a small server so you can cheat 30-40 points max. In my oppinion it is the perfect place to start testing.

Also...one more thing you should take into consideration: I have talked with the guys at BTPro about this matter, and they limit the cheating phenomenon through their admins and sanctions. BTPro didn`t consider that having performance goal would be a idea.

28
New Server Proposals / Re: changing server 7 scoring discussion
« on: December 17, 2013, 08:16:13 am »
current CB scoring technically takes 3 parameters into account (that I know of): time taken, population reached, population started.

I'm guessing the perf. can cause a lower score if you didn't reach the goal for perf. So if you only got 50% of the perf, it may show that you only reached like 80% of the total goal. Would it work fine if we set perf. goal to 0? (which also fits in the secondary goal in my idea ^.^)

Reason why the CB scoring wont work for CV is that better trains gives a huge boost to CV gain, while town growth is constant no matter what year the game is in. So it's easy to improve the record on a server by starting at the latest possible time (maybe use an "idle" company to keep the server from resetting) and then win in record time. No way to prevent it since it's technically fair play. (note this is a problem that will be present with any type of variables besides city population exept maybe purely perf.)

ps: scoring reset is a different discussion, I might start a new thread about it just to discuss some different ideas about that =D


Current goal would be:
30M CV with 0 perf

idea is to first test if the score behaves normally with 0 perf, otherwise 100 perf could be a decent alternative.
Feel free to give your opinion about this goal, or if you can already tell why it won't work (preferably with a solution =D)

29
New Server Proposals / Re: changing server 7 scoring discussion
« on: December 16, 2013, 12:41:44 pm »
From the player perspective I fully agree with you (even if you count us admins as players as well). So the scoring explanation on the website is sufficient (but minimal) info for the player. They know the kind of things that matter but still have to figure out the correct balance to achieve it. (I missed that info at the start :()

From the developer perspective I disagree with hiding info from admins (this is different than hiding it from players). If there is a mistake in the formula it'll only be found by a player that gets an unfair advantage (and thus too late). In my opinion it could be better that we know what's going on (maybe hide the constants in the formula since they need to be tweaked anyway) and see if the 1 or 2 guys who implement the formula didn't miss anything (like what happened with the CB now).

This also includes that we could think together about what external parameters (some numbers alex for example could change) need to be included to easily balance the scores for each server.
For example:
current s7 needs a slightly higher score to be fair. We need to increase that external parameter by 20% to achieve that. The exact formula might stay the same and still hidden from everyone else if you want.
Or:
we changed a setting for the new s7 that decreases the lenght by 10 minutes, made it slightly easier and a lot more fitting overall, just reduce that 1 or 2 parameters a little and we're done with updating the score. No need for the_dude/chucky/score implementor himself to modify it right there and then.

I'll try not to annoy you guys with my opinion about hiding the score after this post except if specifically asked about it. There are advantages and disadvantages to it, it's up to you guys to decide which are more important.

30
New Server Proposals / Re: changing server 7 scoring discussion
« on: December 16, 2013, 08:47:09 am »
Basically, if I remove performance from the goal, it would still be counted through the variables in the CV, but it would not be demanded in order to finish the game.
Exactly this.

That's why I would like the goal to be just CV but have at least a mention that "performance" (although maybe indirectly through some of it's variables instead of the full number) has an effect as well.

Not 100% sure what happens if you don't add perf into the goal. Maybe set perf. to 0 in the goal? Anyway the calculation does take excess perf. into account to solve CV cheating, it's best to keep that as is since we can't use other variables.

So what I think is best:
Set goal to: 30M CV and 0 perf.
Show message similar to what I pointed out earlier.

So starters will focus solely on the CV and ask about perf. if they want to know more which sets them up nicely for our other servers :)

ps: I'm not sure how big the difference with perf. is for the server if set to 0, would like to run some tests if you implemented it some time later ^.^
for my record of 24 on s7 (which is kinda fast) someone did reach 25 in the same time by just having a bit more performance (like 50-100 more).

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8