n-ice.org OpenTTD Forum
Administration => Suggestions => Topic started by: Andreas on May 17, 2013, 04:24:24 pm
-
The way I expressed myself might have given the wrong impression about the aim and status of the poll. Therefore I am posting an update to clarify:
The aim of this poll is to see how many players support the idea of a change of the current rule. I wanted to get an insight in this, since I have noticed an increase in the amount of players that are discussing stealing/competition. Also all ideas on how this can be implemented and your opinions are welcomed.
The previous poll was not closed because I considered it a done deal. It was done because I realised the concept of the poll with 4 vote options was not right to begin with.
For a start, there was no possible outcome that could create clarity on the matter. Also 2 options were not practical.
- No competition on secondary is a rule that a majority of players are against
- Only compete if you also deliver has too many loopholes (like bringing 1 truck and taking 10 trains) and would be too hard too judge, for both players and admins.
That was the reason for starting the new poll. This poll will run till the end of May.
If the outcome suggests a large part of the community (admins and players) would like something to change, We can discuss the options of how to implement an advantage for funding industries (be it all or just secondary, be it a claimed area or just a sign)
If we can reach something that is feasable in both gameplay and technical terms it can be tested, but no sooner. Both player, opertor and admin agreement is needed (and some coding).
My suggestion for the moment would be: Let the a game script check for the funding of secondary industries. (similar to the way achievements work now) If a company funds a industry place a sign with: Private industry, funded by [Company name] (similar to the signs is city builder.) I think that this will be fairly easy to implement, since both the code that checks for industries and the code to place signs already exist.
Off course this is only 1 possibility. All other suggestions are also welcomed
I am sorry if I might have created the suggestion that I want to force a change of the rules or interpret the poll only for my own biased idea.
The original post can be found here for who is interested. http://www.n-ice.org/openttd/forum/index.php?topic=379.0 (http://www.n-ice.org/openttd/forum/index.php?topic=379.0) This updated suggestion has been done after talking to other admins and opperators.
P.s. I have also altered the vote options. If you wish to change your vote click on 'remove vote' at the top of the screen and then vote for your new choice.
-
man, at least read before you reply...
Details about how much industries can be private and if this will be done using a protected area or simply by placing a sign indicating the ownership and other details can be discussed if the outcome of the poll requires it.
And I can change it to no competition on secondary and I can tell you the outcome: the rule will stay the same. Also secondary industries are relatively cheap, so I think this will help players that don't like competition at all as well.
-
Hmm, I'm kinda undecided about this one. I agree that I disliked people stealing my wood on server 3 when I tried that one. Then again, I was the first one to steal the wood some games before, so I knew it was fair game.
Also for me it would depend on what kind of industry we're talking about. The wood on server 3 makes a huge difference and is only possible if someone funds it, so I feel it should be private (or at least the first year/ 2 years after funding) but I don't see why a funded factory would be any different from a regular factory for example. So that should have free competition.
I really don't know about this one =D
Guess I'll go with owning funded industries cause I can tell that many people could get really upset over a wood scenario like that.
Extra: owning a funded industry with a sign might give some problems with people not seeing signs at the start, but would also increase the amount of players actually seeing the signs of other companies once this rule becomes used more often. But as said before, these are problems for later.
-
I would like for funded industries to be private. It kills the fun when on server 3 you fund a bunch of lumber mills just to see someone almost instantly building a station near them before they even started producing resources. Most of the time I have no problems with competing for resources but in lumber mill case it is slightly frustrating, especially if you are winning by big margin and someone just slows you down.
-
I would like for funded industries to be private. It kills the fun when on server 3 you fund a bunch of lumber mills just to see someone almost instantly building a station near them before they even started producing resources. Most of the time I have no problems with competing for resources but in lumber mill case it is slightly frustrating, especially if you are winning by big margin and someone just slows you down.
yes hurt, but do u play alone? NO, we play together ;) " pssst, it's secret I'll tell u i love slowdown another players :-X " if founded industry become private how can I win if Ilate to join server ;D
-
If you make funded industries private you:
a) no longer have a competition server
b) you 99% guarantee the first person who builds a funded industry wins the game.
People funding even 6 months or a year later have no chance.
In the case of server 3 the funded industry is always lumber. There is nothing to supply so the first person to get one has the wood and then makes another fortune off the goods. On a quality competition server (as it is now) you balance the risk of funding it with the possibility that someone quickly notices and then competes with you. It's your choice to make. You can hold off and wait for someone else to fund or take the risk of doing it yourself. The fact most people fund as soon as it's feasible, despite competitors, shows it's not exactly a bad deal.
The fact that it "slows down" the winner is precisely the point sometimes as it equals more points on the scoreboard.
Changing this rule would mean, particularly on server 3, that the game is guaranteed won at around the 2-3 year mark (or sooner) by the first person who builds a few lucrative passenger routes between the top population cities and saves up for lumber mills which are cheap.
Edit: Just on server 3 now. Took under 2 years to get enough free cash to fund a lumber mill. Game over.
-
I agree the lumber mills could be a bit of a problem.
For other industries I don't think the effect is that bad. Primary industries are quite expensive, so take a long time to pay back. Factories and such are not that big of an advantage. Yes I agree the point of competition is slowing the other player down for some part. Maybe it is worth to exclude the lumber mill (if the private suggestion is implemented) But such details can always be discussed at the end of the poll
-
I agree the lumber mills could be a bit of a problem.
For other industries I don't think the effect is that bad. Primary industries are quite expensive, so take a long time to pay back. Factories and such are not that big of an advantage. Yes I agree the point of competition is slowing the other player down for some part. Maybe it is worth to exclude the lumber mill (if the private suggestion is implemented) But such details can always be discussed at the end of the poll
Alternative is to make the lumber mill as expensive as primary industries (if possible)
-
Alternative is to make the lumber mill as expensive as primary industries (if possible)
[/quote]
It sure is possible, but that can't be done with a Game script, it needs a newgrf. And to put a newgrf on all servers is probably not a good idea, since some players don't like it...
-
oh no... but my suggestion: it could be alternative to have transfer rights at the first 2 years for the founder only.
-
1. I agree with competition but it is normal that founded industries should be private .
In reality when you build a factory no one comes to make profit on your production without paying.
2. Founded cities should be even "more" private since you pay a much larger amount to found it.
3. Stealing goods for example IS NO COMPETITION it is JUST STEALING.... people work hard to build goods networks and lazy players just come and STEAL.
Think about it, these are 3 strong logical points of view.
-
1. I agree with competition but it is normal that founded industries should be private .
In reality when you build a factory no one comes to make profit on your production without paying.
In reality you don't really "fund" a factory. You either buy shares from that factory and can make a profit of that if the factory makes profit, doesn't matter how it does that. Or you give a loan to that factory and will then receive an interest after some time. Both cases don't care how the factory delivers it's goods. Another thing would be to sponsor a factory and this would be similar to using advertisements. The factory still has the choice which company to use for the goods transport, but will have a preference for you (except if another company is significantly better).
2. Founded cities should be even "more" private since you pay a much larger amount to found it.
It's not because you pay for the foundations of a city that you actually "own" that city. I do agree that it would be more logical that you would get a bonus over other players. Maybe you should automatically start with your company statue in that city when you fund one? This way, if you compete with another company that uses the same trains, you would still get more pax/mail.
3. Stealing goods for example IS NO COMPETITION it is JUST STEALING.... people work hard to build goods networks and lazy players just come and STEAL.
Building a station next to a factory that is already delivering to another company and thus giving that factory a choice who to use for the goods transport is competition. Sending your trains to another company's station taking the goods would be stealing, but this is impossible anyway.
My overall conclusion: Competition should be possible for everything, but if you fund something (city/industry) you should receive a bonus to your station rating. This way you still get some advantage when investing into something. Don't know if it's possible to script this, or if this would mean changing the source code in the client.
-
1. I agree with competition but it is normal that founded industries should be private .
In reality when you build a factory no one comes to make profit on your production without paying.
In reality you don't really "fund" a factory. You either buy shares from that factory and can make a profit of that if the factory makes profit, doesn't matter how it does that. Or you give a loan to that factory and will then receive an interest after some time. Both cases don't care how the factory delivers it's goods. Another thing would be to sponsor a factory and this would be similar to using advertisements. The factory still has the choice which company to use for the goods transport, but will have a preference for you (except if another company is significantly better).
Nonsense...
the best way to put it in words----Found it--- pay it--- make profit from it
2. Founded cities should be even "more" private since you pay a much larger amount to found it.
It's not because you pay for the foundations of a city that you actually "own" that city. I do agree that it would be more logical that you would get a bonus over other players. Maybe you should automatically start with your company statue in that city when you fund one? This way, if you compete with another company that uses the same trains, you would still get more pax/mail.
Again nonsense...
Found it--- pay it--- make profit from it
3. Stealing goods for example IS NO COMPETITION it is JUST STEALING.... people work hard to build goods networks and lazy players just come and STEAL.
Building a station next to a factory that is already delivering to another company and thus giving that factory a choice who to use for the goods transport is competition. Sending your trains to another company's station taking the goods would be stealing, but this is impossible anyway.
Your greatest nonsense so far...
People work hours for an efficient rail that delivers raw materials to a factory for example that produces goods. So it is as clear as daylight that who delivers the materials should also use the goods
If this is not stealing than prisons should be half empty.
Case 1 = work, make money--- Case 2 = steal, make money (how much simpler do you need me to say it?)
-
You kind off forgot to finish that last sentence.
I partly agree with you in the way that if you invest in an industry (funding it, transporting the primary (and usually less affording) materieals, etc...) you should get more out of it then the "fair" competition as it is now. That's why I suggest some sort of bonus/penalty system that gives other players for example a 10% penalty to their station rating. So you still got an advantage when funding while maintaining the competitive aspect of the game.
I disagree with you in the way that we're still playing on competitive servers. In the original game, the AI did the same thing to you, so I'm assuming that this is the way the game was intended to be played. This is why I tried to explain the difference between "stealing" and "competing" a little better. Why else would the entire station rating system be used in the first place? (note for city builder games it's a bit different, since losing a part of your goods/food/... actually stops you from progressing until you can set up a new network)
This is MY opinion and I'm just trying to make it clear here.
If you got any other arguments you're welcome to discuss them here. Just calling everything I say "nonsense" won't help anymore. Looking at the poll results, it seems like 8/18 disagree with your logic.
Since the other 10/18 do agree to go against the current rule, it's likely that something should change, but for me, the difference is not significant enough to now just change it to complete owning of funded industries.
-
Hello all,
just a litle post to give my point of view.
Competition on everything make game more interesting as it let you the choice to fund or not if you aim at winning.
In my point of view if you private industry or city , the only way for winning a game , will be funding. So no need anymore to create a map , just put enough fund to each player to buy an industry and big flat world and every one just build a big straight railways and game over.
For those who argue that when people take goods on secondary industry where they do not deliver anything is not fair, think that if you do deliver you will make money on primary goods and on the secondary goods , so you will still make more money.
and after all remember that what make n-ice server interesting , it is this competition . They are full of server were you can "private" everything, so do we wanted to play on a server or on a N-ICE server?
-
Katnomad, I mostly agree but your examples are a bit too extreme, so people will miss the point completely :p.
Some people prefer the competitive part in the way that you should build an equally good network for primaries (you can "steal" those) and transport these to your own factory/... But as you stated, there are other servers that play with those rules, if that's really what you want, why not play on those servers instead.
About your secondary industry example. What if you funded a lumber mill? It's a primary recourse so you don't get more money out of it than someone who's competing with you for it, even though you actually payed to get it there in the first place. That's why I would prefer a penalty/bonus system on funded industries, while maintaining the competitive play style of n-ice servers.
-
I would prefer a penalty/bonus system on funded industries, while maintaining the competitive play style of n-ice servers.
I like this penalty/bonus thing.. but i'm sure it would be hard to implement.. may be it would need a new grf that awards the penalty/bonus based on the dates in which the stations were built..
-
Imus, i was a bit angry yesterday...that is why i gave those straight answers.
I joined n-ice for: competition, the balance on servers, the fact that it is not easy to win, the intelligent scoring.... etc.
However, DO NOT mistake competition with stealing.
-
Imus i am against the principe that you can "own" city or industry.
I do myself sometimes fund industry (lumber mill include ) and if i do it it is because behind i already have the network going well to absorb it. An if somebody have time to come to compet on it no problem for me. I f i m good enough i should be in advance on him , and will still make more money out of it than him. if not he is better than me , GG to him/her.
Sandulescu when you fund you do it with all the understanding of the rules , so you accept the fact that people can also take profit of it. The problem is that actually most of the time in the game i have seen you, you do not follow the rule and private city you fund ,doing that on purpose . So before tellling us to not mistake competition and stealing , you should accept to be yourself a competitor and try to follow rules as they are , if you are good enough you should be able to win as being the first on the city you still have advantage on anybody on it.
ALl , so i repeat myself , if you fund a city or industry with actual rules it is because you think that even if someone comes to compet on it you think that it will give you an advantage to win or for your personal goal in the game ( not all play for being the first on a single game) . But again it is my point of view and that is one of the reason that make n-ice server so nice for me. it is not because you have a good network and a good income that you are sure to win ,you must keep following all way long the game is on.
Sandulescu do not take bad what i said please , it is just that i feel you just play a way that it is not the spirit of the server . You are a good player making nice railway network , and i understand your point point of view but i do not share it that is all.
but still i am a simple user as you and not better than other (and for sure not the best player )
-
oooohhh it's a tie! how will this end? 8)
-
Thank you for the explanation about the real intention behind this poll. It really did feel like a big change was coming. I do agree that it has caused more unrest then you intended.
For me, it doesn't really matter if the rule passes or not. I would just follow the rules and try to have as much fun as possible anyway, even tho I have a preference for full competition.
Too bad the penalty/bonus system is probably hard to do as I think lots of people would like this idea.
@katnomad: sorry for misinterpreting your opinion first. I must have mixed it with that of some other people.
@Sandulescu: the competition/stealing debate is getting a bit off topic, I believe your interpretation of these two might be a bit off. If you want to start a real discussion about how to interpret both words in the context of N-ice games, I suggest you start a new forum topic so both of us, and other players can join in on what it truly means.
-
The way I expressed myself might have given the wrong impression about the aim and status of the poll. Therefore I am posting an update to clarify:
The aim of this poll is to see how many players support the idea of a change of the current rule. I wanted to get an insight in this, since I have noticed an increase in the amount of players that are discussing stealing/competition. Also all ideas on how this can be implemented and your opinions are welcomed.
The previous poll was not closed because I considered it a done deal. It was done because I realised the concept of the poll with 4 vote options was not right to begin with.
For a start, there was no possible outcome that could create clarity on the matter. Also 2 options were not practical.
- No competition on secondary is a rule that a majority of players are against
- Only compete if you also deliver has too many loopholes (like bringing 1 truck and taking 10 trains) and would be too hard too judge, for both players and admins.
That was the reason for starting the new poll. This poll will run till the end of May.
If the outcome suggests a large part of the community (admins and players) would like something to change, We can discuss the options of how to implement an advantage for funding industries (be it all or just secondary, be it a claimed area or just a sign)
If we can reach something that is feasable in both gameplay and technical terms it can be tested, but no sooner. Both player, opertor and admin agreement is needed (and some coding).
My suggestion for the moment would be: Let the a game script check for the funding of secondary industries. (similar to the way achievements work now) If a company funds a industry place a sign with: Private industry, funded by [Company name] (similar to the signs is city builder.) I think that this will be fairly easy to implement, since both the code that checks for industries and the code to place signs already exist.
Off course this is only 1 possibility. All other suggestions are also welcomed
I am sorry if I might have created the suggestion that I want to force a change of the rules or interpret the poll only for my own biased idea.
The original post can be found here for who is interested. http://www.n-ice.org/openttd/forum/index.php?topic=379.0 (http://www.n-ice.org/openttd/forum/index.php?topic=379.0) This updated suggestion has been done after talking to other admins and opperators.
P.s. I have also altered the vote options. If you wish to change your vote click on 'remove vote' at the top of the screen and then vote for your new choice.
-
After discussing with Beul , I understand that this is a step we must consider. Players must decide (again due to critics since the last time when we held a vote...a year ago) if they want competition on n-ice servers or they want to change this. Also any new oppinions are welcomed (phesable ones ofc ^^)
In the case that there won`t be a clear majority we will find the 3rd option so everybody could be happy.
So far I can say that I vote for a change but I`m still 1 member. We will monitor this poll and the result will be discussed in the admin council.
The best you can do to make your oppinon more and more visible is to vote in bigger numbers :)
Also, for those of you who thought that your oppinions do not count: You are terribly wrong about it. Even if a specific change won`t be implemented because of a technical reason, the admin team acts according to what they know that players want.
Ofc , in order to implement such a change, admins, operators and xOR have to agree. It is a process that shapes a rule in order to make sure nobody can profit for it and ruin the games for the others. But it doesn`t mean that your oppinion won`t be heard and that it won`t be taken into consideration into all future plans.
-
I voted for owning funding industrie, because
-no more rulebreaking on rule 4
-less discussions on rule 2
-and a fair feeling also for me if you bring 10000 wood to a station and someone is ''stealing'' your goods
-
I'd like to change the rule, and here are my favorite options, from most preferred to least preferred:
1. No competition on secondary industries and also on funded primary industries
2. No competition on secondary industries
3. No competition on funded industries
4. No competition on funded secondary industries - this looks like the 2nd option in the poll, but I'm not sure because the wording is ambiguous
5. No competition on any industry
Edit: One more idea - if the vote is close to a tie, take the 2 most popular competition options, and make some servers use one option and other servers use the other one.
-
4. No competition on funded secondary industries - this looks like the 2nd option in the poll, but I'm not sure because the wording is ambiguous.
You are correct, when changeing the poll I forgot to change part of the wording for the second option. It is fixed now. Thanks for pointing it out.
As for your other options:
1: no competition on secondary means even 2 people that both like to compete on them would not be able to do so. Also if you don't like competition on your factory it would be relatively cheap to fund your own.
My first thougt was that to suggest makeing funded primary private as well. The main difficulty with that (imo) is posed by lumbermills: they are quite cheap, and can make a lot of money. Therefore, and in an attempt to improve the situation without causing too much limitations I changed the poll option to secondary. (Allso large 'farms' of primary industries in long goal servers might have a bad impact, but there might be no other way to tell than to have tested it sometime)
Unknowingly that reply kindof is a reaction to no2 and 3 as well.
As for the suggestion of different rules for different servers: It might cause confusion to players which could lead to lots of unfriendly situations based on pure misunderstanding. Therefor it should be avoided when possible.
-
The purpose of this pole is also to understand how big are the 2 groups (those that want competition and those who do not want competition).
This will server also for future server proposals and for the vision of the servers in the future.
Unfortunately ....those who do not want competition are split into more then 1 group. (Beul understood this and changed the poll).
So reaching a statistic will take some time (especially to organise the poll and to vote)
-
Think it is defferent on each server,
For instance in a city builder, "stealing" from secondary industries is very unfair, because the other player puts a lot of time in making sure that the secondary industry produces enough stuff. But in a company value game, it does matter, but than it is fair to take those goods or food. But different rules for each server off course are also very confusing. Maybe just make a difference between the city builder servers and the CV-servers.
Gigarail
-
Played another game on 3 where the wood has the biggest impact (game ends about 2-3 years after building a good wood network). Changed my strategy to first put the network down and then fund the lumber mills (duh). This made me think that if you do this, you already got a huge advantage before someone else can run away with half of your wood (too late for them to still win if you played it smart). So I agree that competition on primaries should always stay possible.
For the secondaries, there are 2 big concerns that need to be considered (just reiterating what some others have said):
1) competition on everything please! (leave rule as it is). <- my current preference.
This way you got a fair(?) way to still win from someone that started on the server earlier but is too lazy to adapt to later situations.
2) owning secondary (only funded?) industries allows you to block it since nobody else is allowed to "steal" from it anyway. This makes it a lot easier to build an efficient drop and separate pickup station next to it without people complaining about rules. Less complaining => more fun. <- I wouldn't feel bad if this rule was implemented either.
bonus on 2: someone stealing food/goods/... on city builder games can stop you completely till you are able to build a new network to compensate for the sudden drop. This leads to a lot of frustration and thus less overall fun in the game.
I think it might be feasible to consider no stealing on CB games only even though you got 2 different rules now. This is because CB games are considered different enough already. Note that ALL admins need to be fully aware of this situation to immediately clear up any confusion in case it arises, otherwise it will have a really bad impact on how players feel about a certain type. (look at the sabotation situation on CB recently).
-
well, the vote will probably be a draw ..
-
someone stealing food/goods/... on city builder games can stop you completely till you are able to build a new network to compensate for the sudden drop.
[Hint] build a factory and food processing plant inside your protected area 8)[/Hint]
-
After discussing with Beul , I understand that this is a step we must consider. Players must decide (again due to critics since the last time when we held a vote...a year ago) if they want competition on n-ice servers or they want to change this.
This is not a matter of YES competition and NO competitin
I bet that there are only a few players that do not want competition
The far more bigger majority plays here due to competition (and for other facts that make n-ice a quality server)
I also chose to play here for competition and other things that i enumerated in my other post.
But in my opinion the "new rule" could look something like this :
1. At least an advantage for the guy that brings raw materials in to secondary industries
2. Primary founded industries should stay with full competition
3. Founded cities should be private because of:
- The high price (that can be felt hard in the early stages)
- That feeling, when you see your founded city grow in any design and shape you make it.( you will say that there is city builder for this...but there, you can not build a desired design of infrastructure and then found the city, there you must concentrate fully on the supply network.)
-
A.M. Sandulescu, I can understand what you are saying, but you must consider that the first step is a battle between those 2 groups. Altough you may not believe it, there are a lot of players that support competition. This isn`t our first vote on the matter and so far the first group (keeping competition) won each time.
Therefore the first problem is to see how many of our players want competition and how many of our players want a form of owning a industry( partial ownage, delivering cargo in order to take goods , advantages for the first player....there are a lot of possible desires but they all are in the group of people that want a change and do not want to keep the old rule)
After figuring out which is the majority (for the current rule or wanting to change it) , we can start debating all the possibilities that can be implemented.
As I said, this is important for the admins too because when implementing server proposals or introducing a new point system, we are taking into consideration what the players want.
This vote isn`t for nothing, but this rule was made a long time ago when N-ice community wasn`t what it is today. This is why more people consider that it is not good anymore. But in order to change it, we must have patience and take the right decisions (wait for the present poll to finish to give chances to more people to vote , starting to think and discussing the ideas that can be implemented, introducing a new poll to decide how the rule will be changed after the ideas have been discussed and finally implementing the change- those are examples of possible future steps altough Beul is the one who had the idea so I guess he already has a plan and some proposals)
I can understand that some players want partial competition but this will all be discussed and we will find the best solution. So far the main goal is to understand if we need to change the rule or the majority of players is still there and want the rule unchanged.
-
I agree, you make a good point of view.
Well, my guess is that the vote will be won by "leave it as it is"
-
I would say, if you don't like competition, play offline :)
-
Even if it is won by them , the numbers still matter. Cause if it is something like 51 vs 49 , it will still give us a lot to think about it. So any result that comes up will be taken into consideration. The only idea right now is just to express the votes so we can understand how many players are in each category. We might be considering even starting a special server if there few players who want change of the rule but the poll is for keeping the rule.
All options are opened. Including this vote in our strategy of adapting our servers as time passes is crucial.
So the poll is different since last when we advertised it a lot and said "ok...the biggest group wins"
-
I would say, if you don't like competition, play offline :)
I would say, if you don't read carefully someones opinion, do not comment about it.
I play here for competition.
-
I would say, if you don't like competition, play offline :)
I would say, if you don't read carefully someones opinion, do not comment about it.
I play here for competition.
Oh, I'm sorry.. this was just a general statement.. it was not meant for you personally.. I was just giving my opinion on the whole subject.
-
I see, false interpretation on my side then :)
-
The purpose of this pole is also to understand how big are the 2 groups (those that want competition and those who do not want competition).
[...]
Unfortunately ....those who do not want competition are split into more then 1 group. (Beul understood this and changed the poll).
Therefore the first problem is to see how many of our players want competition and how many of our players want a form of owning a industry( partial ownage, delivering cargo in order to take goods , advantages for the first player....there are a lot of possible desires but they all are in the group of people that want a change and do not want to keep the old rule)
After figuring out which is the majority (for the current rule or wanting to change it) , we can start debating all the possibilities that can be implemented.
[...]
So far the main goal is to understand if we need to change the rule or the majority of players is still there and want the rule unchanged.
I see a small problem here. The current poll doesn't look to me like it's asking if people want to change the competition rule or keep it the same. It looks more like it's asking if people prefer a very specific change (no competition on funded secondary industries) or the current rule. From that point of view, I think the original poll was better. This poll doesn't consolidate all the "change" options into one, it keeps one "change" option and throws away all the other ones. And that's also why I couldn't choose either of the first 2 options but took the 3rd one (I have another idea that I will post here).
I can imagine there are people who want to change the rule, but find the current rule better than the 2nd option (no competition on funded secondary industries).
-
You`re the first one that says that ^^ . The most popular idea from the previous poll was placed here...and also, the topic explains it...
If you`re not happy with the 2 options, you can vote for the 3rd as you did and post your idea...and it will be taken into account:)
-
I see a small problem here. The current poll doesn't look to me like it's asking if people want to change the competition rule or keep it the same. It looks more like it's asking if people prefer a very specific change (no competition on funded secondary industries) or the current rule. From that point of view, I think the original poll was better. This poll doesn't consolidate all the "change" options into one, it keeps one "change" option and throws away all the other ones. And that's also why I couldn't choose either of the first 2 options but took the 3rd one (I have another idea that I will post here).
I can imagine there are people who want to change the rule, but find the current rule better than the 2nd option (no competition on funded secondary industries).
I very well understand your point, and I have thought about it as well. I also recognize that you can't put all players that want change into one group. That was the reason I suggested a change that I thought would suit some of the wishes of players that want change without being too drastic.
I also admit I threw out the other 2 possibilities, because I do not consider them realistic atm. Offering options that have very little chance of being implemented would not make the outcome more useful IMO. Suppose the 3 change options got a majority: then 1 had to be chosen. which one? And then people would say: hey that option had only 30% of the votes! (which is understandable). If you have any suggestions you consider workable (for both the poll and about the rule) please share! Cause I started the poll, and I really would like a change for the better, but I am running out of ideas.
-
Thanks for your responses.
You`re the first one that says that ^^ .
Yes, I mainly wanted to raise the issue since nobody else mentioned it. I'm not saying the poll is useless.
I also admit I threw out the other 2 possibilities, because I do not consider them realistic atm. Offering options that have very little chance of being implemented would not make the outcome more useful IMO. Suppose the 3 change options got a majority: then 1 had to be chosen. which one? And then people would say: hey that option had only 30% of the votes! (which is understandable).
Yes that's a concern. For "which one" I'd say the one with more votes, but an even better way to do the poll would be to give a score to each option.
If you have any suggestions you consider workable (for both the poll and about the rule) please share! Cause I started the poll, and I really would like a change for the better, but I am running out of ideas.
For the poll, other than the suggestion above (which I think is too late to implement), I think the 2nd option could be rephrased as "Yes, restrict competition on some industries (most likely to be implemented: no competition on funded secondary industries)".
For the rule, I already shared my suggestions on the previous page.
-
ok, well theres a lot of reading to be done here, too much for me at least, so i'd be grateful for a couple of short answers before I cast my vote.
Is this literally only for industries that we buy ourselves?
what about power stations? they don't produce anything but if one is funded will other players still be able to use them?
will the 50% rule still apply to funded industries?
-
Is this literally only for industries that we buy ourselves?
=> yes, for this poll it is.
what about power stations? they don't produce anything but if one is funded will other players still be able to use them?
=> the problem is "stealing" goods, so I doubt anyone would complain about power stations. How often would you fund one?
will the 50% rule still apply to funded industries?
=> if fully owned, it doesn't really matter anymore, but we need to make sure not to confuse anyone. I think it will work out the same way as owning cities in CB games. You own it, you can do whatever you want in that small area around it. So in my opinion, no it does not :)
-
OK, thanks for the help, Imus. I was only hesitant because I am getting the impression this rule change is absolute but Looks like i'm gunna vote in favour of the rule change anyway although it would be nice to have some servers where the rule applies and others where it does not.
-
now that the K servers are gone we only have servers with the changed rule left. i wonder why nobody mentioned it yet, does it mean people agree with the current situation or you rather want a mixture again (as Cossack indicated).
-
From what I have seen/heard not many people have a problem with the new rule. There were no direct complaints even after the K servers were removed either. Although it is possible that some people would still prefer to have full competition, I think it's better to keep our servers like they are now to prevent any confusion about it.
Unless of course if xOR feels like programming again and wants to try to change it more to what this poll suggested instead. In that case it's still possible that we get a majority who want that change ;)
What I personally think about it: I preferred the full competition but only if all the players would agree on it, so that nobody would get mad if I would "steal" their goods ... but since this isn't the case I like the current rule more. It's simple and solves some annoying situations with the 50% rule around secondaries.