n-ice.org OpenTTD Forum
Administration => New Server Proposals => Topic started by: alex879ro on December 10, 2013, 06:49:08 pm
-
As you all know, this time has come. My idea is as following:
-Changing server 7 to temperate will:
1. Leave S3 as the only desert CV that we got ( a good idea since it is mostly an empty server except for a few games a day when it reaches 5-7 player)
2. Give us the opportunity to improve a very old server and possibly to come up with a better gameplay for it (temperate is more recommended for small servers since it has a lot of trains and industries)
However, I must agree with Imus: Server 7 is our smallest server (about 1h) and it would be better to remain this way. So I ask all of you, if you want to propose scenarios which we can discuss for server 7 on temperate landscape. I hope we will be able to make the change during the week-end if Batt agrees too and if there are enough oppinions.
The fixed parameters: Small to Medium Map
Goal that would last max 1h-1h30
A first idea that I`d want to try would be NO PERFORMANCE. This should allow us to test if performance is driving our new players away or not.
Thank You.
-
Yeah Alex, you are now the one-and-only enemy and imus "kill" you ;D I didn´t dare to talk about changing server 7 after i had read something on forum, but i agree to do it because server is often in idle.
> 1. players - which played long time ago - missed the old 40mil. desert server also..... but this is another topic...
> 2. let´s do it, but don´t forget to cancel the vehicle-limits. what is the new goal ... 40mil .. more or less ??? and sure we can try to use your option "no performance"
cya Chucky
-
First things first:
ALEX HOW DARE YOU TOUCH S7 ... I KILL YOU!!!!!
with that being said, here's my constructive criticism:
I like the idea of no performance, making the goal of this server a race for CV (similar to population on CB servers). I do still feel that it should be a contest of money making lines (so goal not too high). No idea what a good number would be though. Maybe we should try to get some good players to achieve the highest CV in 30 minutes (invite solo/constructor/... ?) to get an idea of what is possible, then set the goal slightly higher so that the average player would need just under 1 hour to finish it. (current s7 games took me about 24 minutes, record times are 20 I think?)
No vehicle limit (or vehicles high enough to simulate this as it's technically impossible to have no limit) seems a good idea as well.
I do suggest to set up a script to figure out CV cheating (purchasing several vehicles in depot just for the CV) so that this can't be abused and we don't have to check the logs for each game just to find the cheaters ...
Other option that would be interesting but not sure if possible:
set the goal to bank balance instead of CV and disable transferring money. This makes it a true contest of profitability on your first trains and the only way to "cheat" is by selling/destroying everything you own to get a refund ... which is a really risky strategy with only a small benefit.
suggestions for the settings:
goal limit able to reach in less than: 30mins for fast players, 1hour for mediocre players, over 1 hour only for newbies who don't really understand the game.
starting with monorail: (no need to wait for ages for that first ka-ching!)
map size: 512x512 (some people think this is tiny already, we're not aiming for big networks here remember?)
vehicle limit: 500 (won't be reached anyway, so it's virtually infinite) (no ships tho)
noise limit: euhm, no planes?
town size: preferably rather small, since pax is too profitable (current records on s7 are all with pax trains for this reason)
ps Chucky:
I don't have anything against changing s7. My main issue was that the originial discussion was about changing it to something longer because mini games (1 hour or less) were not popular enough (with biased statistics, ask me about this if you're interested, I don't want to start a fight about that here). Changing s7 to something more interesting with still a short goal is not really a problem ^.^
-
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.
Further: not including perf. in the goal might be nice, but there are 2 things I wonder:
- the scoring for players with low perf. will be quite low, because it is a big part of the calculation (afaik)?
- Are there really problems with perf? Yeah I know some players have difficulty with ending the games in high perf goals (700 and up) But reaching 350 or so is seldom a problem. It also increases diversity and creativity because delivering different cargoes is an easy way to score some perf points. (nothing to loose by trying though...)
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.
-
You're absolutely right about the performance making a big difference in score. And true it does make for some more interesting strategies than just abuse that one most profitable resource in the game (being pax or, if all towns are tiny, coal).
But I have the same feeling as alex that the perf. hinders the new players a lot. Leaving it out of the goal is a good idea but this does require a different scoring system as it makes no sense.
Besides that I also feel that the performance doesn't really fit the goal on this tiny server.
For me a normal (big) game has 3 phases:
- build a quick money maker
- build a big network connecting all major hotspots on the map (think of 2 way oil)
- optimise the network and/or upgrade to newer trains
It is only in step 3 that you truly focus on getting that performance (remove trains running on loss, connect that missing resource etc...).
For me, the goal of this server should be to only focus on the first step and a mini version of step 2.
So I would love to see the settings I suggested with a race for cash instead of CV. The scoring should also reflect this so it would be awesome if we could adapt the CB scoring to use cash instead of population solving most of the big issues with the current scoring/goals/feel about the map.
Even better option (I think) is to measure quarterly income instead of cash so that it would be interesting to keep building until the end (whereas just cash gets counterproductive at some point).
-
People....that`s why I love you !!!! I ask about suggestions and you start discussing theories of life :))
Please use quantitative answers like:
Goal: 40 mil
Map Size: ....
And so on. Stop discussing public rephorma here :P " A server should be smaller, because the monorail would bring a lot of cash"
I`m waiting for the proposals :)
-
To summarize (it's all in the previous posts):
-map size 512x512
-starting date: after mono introduction: 2005 should be fine)
-town size small
-no planes
-vehicle limit: Imus and chucky think large (500trains) I think low (25-30trains)
-no cv
-no money transfer
-goal: TEST IT: one 30minute game with the settings you want to use for the server will tell all you need to know.
also Imus asked you if it was possible to set the goal for bank balance or income in stead of cv?
I aditionally suggest:
-no of towns low (they tend to clog small maps quite easily)
-no of industries medium
-low water quantity
-flat terrain
don't forget:
-disable possibility of exclusive transport rights
-disable road reconstruction
You want numbers but different settings influence each other, so if you use a different set of configurations, you have to test it at least once to know what the goal should be in order to make a +/- 1hour goal:
example: double train speed: goal should almost be doubled
towns larger than 2,5k: goal wil be reached about 1/3 faster
higher construction cost? starting up takes about 1-2 years more (which is 15 mins or so as you know)
So yeah, in order to make useful suggestions there is a need to discuss aspects influencing each other.
There is another way to go: just mock up a server, let some experience players have a round or 2 and then adjust it accordingly.
As I already made clear by now, you can't just expect to get some numbers and settings posted here and expect to have a server that the criteria and is fun to play.
Modified to keep the discussion on topic
-
Was it so hard? Personally, when I said only the climate is decided and the duration, there are a million posibilities. Let me give you a few examples:
Steamer World(server9) is also a small temperate server
Asphalt King (only with trucks) was also a small server
We could do a server called "Top of the Hill" where all the map would be a hill. You can juggle a lot with settings, that`s why I wanted to see some oppinions expressed in numbers. Based on those, I`ll try to form an oppinion and implement them. The idea "if you double the train speed, you need to double the goal" is just theoretical speach, that`s what I ment by rephorma. It`s like they discuss it in the parliament.
I simply needed oppinions on what settings would be the favourite of each of the ones who answer this post. But oppinions expressed in numbers.
Also, a small server could be one with 1024 x 1024.....if it can be finished in 1.5 hours max, map size doesn`t matter.
-
Saying that doubling train speed should double the goal is not "theoretical speach like they use in parliament" it is an example to make it clear you cannot just take the most heard setting, jam them together and call them a scenario!
As you point out yourself steamer server has a low goal, but is in no way a short server.
Even if the goal can be reached in 1.5 hour max the map size DOES matter using: such a large map would result in only long lines, and next to no networking. That does not have to be a bad thing but it *does* matter.
Modified to keep the thread on topic
-
1st: @andreas: i´m not thinking large ;)
2nd: i´m lazy so i grab a picture and here my suggestion:
no air and look at pic., rest as the other servers.
i would prefer a small server, because it would be uninteresting for the players from server 5 and 8. further is a great network needed to win - not station #a with long line to #b and waiting until it is finished. so on this small place it would be funny with 4-5 players at same time. 1960 is also great to play with old locos.
-
In order to end this argument orderly, please post your reply if you want, then after 24 hours , please delete or change all the replies that contain non-topic comments. I will do the same in order to make this topic to the point. (EDIT: working on this :) ~ Imus)
@ Imus: Oppinion understood :) Especially the following part: ALEX HOW DARE YOU TOUCH S7 ... I KILL YOU!!!!!
But in order to do that, you`d have to come to the OpenTTD channel :P So I`m safe for a while.
@Chucky : Oppinion understood
-
Re Server #7. I like it and I play it often. Here are 6 points you may like to consider , please delete them if you think they aren't relevant.
1/. Its short and finishes quickly so statistically it may have more games/ players on it than it appears.
2/. Small servers don't need a fast download speed so that players with a small download speed can play them. (Think of 95% of the people in the world who are struggling along on ADSL)
3/. Its used by newbies because its small and its title says 1 hr. (they would find its less threatening than something taking 6 or more hours)
4/. Not transferring money is a good idea. Possibly could be used on other servers or at least limit the amount.
5/. I don't think the difference between a cash goal or a cv goal would make much difference.
6/. No Perf. would be a good idea for newbies who haven't got that far yet. (maybe have a very low perf of 100 or so)
7/. The goal could be set higher- maybe double and also the number of vehicles,
Gopher
-
@Gopher :
1) The new server will finish in the same time as the current one....possibly 10-20 minutes more
2,3 - answered at 1)
4) That`s a very good idea Gopher and we will disable money transfer or indeed limit it to an amount of 50k if possible
5) We do not have a cash goal currently. It`s not in the xShunter settings...therefore cannot be used. Or...perhaps I didn`t understood what you referring to....maybe you can explain this point...what does "cash goal" mean..
6) That is indeed what I had in mind. No performance or 100 perf
7) Again....what I had in mind...dunno if double...depends on the settings
Very good idea: Limit or disable money transfers.
@imus: Not possible....not included in the xShunter goal unfortunately. We only have CV,Perf and CB currently. It was included in the new scoring that xOR started working on, but don`t know the current state of it. (EDIT: no longer relevant, also removed derailed part :) ~ Imus)
-
Maybe someone with forum permisions (alex?/imus?/chucky?)could spit the topic after reply #14 or so to get this thread back on the real s7 toppic and keep the scoring discussion in another topic?
-
Alright guys, I tried my best to get this thread back on track :)
The scoring discussion is now moved to this thread (http://www.n-ice.org/openttd/forum/index.php?topic=496.0).
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 (http://www.n-ice.org/openttd/forum/index.php?topic=498.0) for the exact settings that we're going to use later on.
-
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 :)
-
I have tried a few different combination of map size and town/industry settings the results were as follows:
- 256x256: no of towns and industries are too low for 3 or more players even when no of industries and no of towns are set to high. If you make those settings higher than high, the map becomes too crowded. I liked the idea, but unfortunately I am afraid it won't work.
- 256x512: when both industries and town number are set to high, the industry numbers are still a bit low but might be doable (+/-20 of each type)
- 512x512: both towns and industries set to normal results in about 30 industries per type. Of course the map is a little less crowded than with the previous 2 settings
In conclusion: I think both 256x512 high and 512x512 could work and I have no particular preference for 1 of the 2.
I also did some tests with city factor and city size multiplier. Conclusion: the city size multiplier should imo be set to 1. Yes this means that there is no inital difference between towns and cities. The reason is that setting it even as low as 2 results in towns with more than 5k population at start and a lot at 3 or 4k. In combination with fast trains, that means that it will be hard for any other resource to compete with that...
The amount of towns that become cities is less important imo because there will not be a lot of time to grow them anyway.
About the starting date:
I agree with Imus that maglev would be overkill for such a small map. Also in a short goal I think rail changes (from e-rail to mono) are unwanted and should be avoided. I also think start date and restart time should be chosen in such a way to prevent the availability of much faster trains if you wait for a later date, and are still able to finish the game.
The game is intended to last a maximum of 1,5 hours, that means that a reset time of 2hours should be reasonable. This comes down to a little less than 9 years on average. Giving some extra time, a game span of about 10 years seems reasonable. I would recommend a game duration of 1985-1995. This would mean that the T.I.M is available throughout the game and the asiastar gets introduced only 3 years before game end.
If the majority would prefer mono though i would recommend a starting date of about 2010 so that the milenium Z1 is available throughout the game without the possibility of maglev introduction.
Ps. After looking at a 512x512 map, I don't think it is needed to disable aircraft, because city size is quite low anyway and distances not large. This would mean that planes will not make a lot of money compared to trains anyway.
Ps. thanks Imus for cleaning it up :)
PPs. I also fully agree that steamers/early diesels should be avoided, we allready have steamer server for that.
-
.. and i thought we talk about a small server for newbies. :P
-
Still think it is, but if there are only 10 industries and 1 good player and 1 newb are playing, I can quite acurately predict who will get the most resources. ;)
-
@Andreas Good Point of view. And very good way of expressing it :)
-
The description of server7 is not right: in the page where you select the server and also when you arrive in the server it says the goal is 3 million but its 35 million.
I have only played it once so far but its fun to play a small server like that.http://www.n-ice.org/openttd/forum/Smileys/default/smiley.gif
In regard to Alex's reply #14 regarding the comment I previously made about a "cash goal"being little different from a cv goal; it was my response to Imus's suggestion in his reply #4
-
Understood. I spotted the mistake the too and corrected it. :) Thank You for reporting it
-
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
-
Imus, I agree with changing the starting year to 1985, but NOT with reducing the goal.
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
1: When the goal was proposed, I proposed 40 MIL, after talking to you, we reduced it to 35 MIL
2: After you tested the server, you asked for reducing the goal . I said ok...but not lower then 30 MIL. We ended up reducing it to 25 MIL
Now you want reducing it to 15 MIL? I can propose a better solution: Let`s place goal 0 on this server. Waiiit...no...I hope that negative goals are not possible here. :P
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. Also...if you got time tomorrow, I would like to talk to you (no need to get the hopes high...it`s not about 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 :) 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.
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.
-
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.
-
Imus, it is exactly what I said....since the old s7 LOST it`s players becauase u simply couldn`t do anything without limitation, why do you think I`d want to go back to that goal ? So don`t compare that the current goal is XX times bigger then the previous ones.
25 MIL is the normal MICRO GOAL. Check out BTPRO ....they got SMALL GOALS at 150 MIL and MICRO GOALS at 25 MIL. The rest ....is adaptable through the settings.
To that proposal "Why not start with a smaller goal, then adjust it" . Answer : HELL NO!!! If i would do that, you and me both know that I wouldn`t have the physical strength to convince you to raise the goal:P . It `s easier to defend what I already got then to try to conquer your stubborness. :)
I played the game myself too. The problem is that monorail itself costs a lot. I lost 10-15 minutes only until I could 2 trains and 2 rails. This was the only part that did not seem fun. In order to make you reach YOUR DESIRED DURATION, I consider that the alternative options are powerfull enough to get you there. And NO! Reducing the goal is not an alternative option.
Valid options : 1: Increasing the loan (would compensate for the slow start of the monorail
2: Switching to electric Rails (needs to be tested if electric rails means slower trains...less income...or simply cheaper trains....faster development)
3: Adding planes
4: Increasing Industry Density a bit (You have a higher production to transport)
5: Increasing the map a bit (512 x 1024) ... like the old s7 had
6: Increasing town settings a bit
7: Messing with the Economy parameters a bit and seeing if we can obtain smaller costs
8: Switching to Maglev trains (which are also fun...but expensive....so that needs to be tested too)
-
try any option you want as long as it is not #6 or #8 :p
-
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 ^.^
-
#5 can be done with raising the lake and water option. This may mean that your ilustrious highness might accept it :P Altough, we solve a problem and reach another:P You don`t like water:))
#2 and #1 would be 2 good options.
#7 could be taken as a reserve solution and lowering the goal would be the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the lastof the lastof the last of the last of the last of the lastof the lastof the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the lastof the lastof the lastof the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the lastof the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last of the last solution that I would consider. Also, not to 15 MIL, but to 22 MIL....after to 20 MIL....to see what is the required value.
-
I myself can work around water if needed but newbies tend to build long bridges which is expensive and has a huge signal gap (so inefficient for sending more trains over the same network). That's why I really don't like water except on hard servers.
Planes I just figured out are also not the best idea for newbies. You either have to enable big airports (no noise concern) which makes it REALLY REALLY easy to abuse their huge catchment area, send 1 plane between airports and you're already within our rules of "using" them. I rather not try to explain why certain cases are abuse and others are not -.-
If you don't disable noise concern people use the big airplanes on small airports because NOWHERE in the game does it say which airplanes are small ones. You have to know this from the openttd wiki about planes. So I no longer consider this an option on this server.
If you can reduce some of the costs in the economy it would indeed make this server easier but I have this feeling that it would make newbies feel bad if they switch to other servers because those seem harder for no direct reason o.O (rather not touch those except on hard servers). If you really want you can try to reduce the loan interest (goes well in combination with #1).
increasing map size (#5) or density of industries (#4) would promote a less interesting play style. They seem fine as they are now (so don't touch those anymore just to keep the goal the same, if you think of a good reason I can reopen these for discussion :p)
Only remaining options are thus #1 and #2. I'll try e-Rail soon to see if #2 is enough or if the increased loan is a needed help for newbies as well. (feel free to increase loan to € 1M if you like to give an easy start).
Once those are set to a good value the only remaining thing to do is adjust the goal :p But we'll discuss that once the other parameters are set ^.^
ps: If you set the goal too low and I'm able to finish the game in under 39min (3 years?) when really trying, you're free to increase it as well to better fit that timing ofc :) So no need to be too afraid of lowering the goal ...
-
Airplane cachment zone can be solved through one problem my dear imus: station size is 7x7 ....it is the exact size as a standard airport(not the small one), so once you placed an airport, you can`t add anymore stations :)