| 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.
He had the time to gain experience so he has a whole different understanding of the game. Unfortunately, you cannot flood the world with OpenTTD knowledge ^^
I was trying to give imus an idea about the commands...I checked s9, and right after that you entered I didn`t notice that, so beeing sooo sure of myself cause I knew I checked before, I tested the command. And the result was totally un-expected but at least it`s worth to enrich this topic:)))
. And the finalle came when I showed you the command being very confident that the server is empty:))
Altough, we solve a problem and reach another:P You don`t like water:))If you ask a question, be prepared to listen to the answer, even if it does not come in the exact way you want.
You don't have to follow the suggestions, heck you do not even have to ask to begin with
First if all, of you read what I say in stead of what you think I mean, I agree with you.yeah really agree!
Secondly, as I have repeated to my own boredom by now, what you asked and what you wanted were 2 different things. You asked for scenarios while what you expected were settings. This in itself is no problem at all. The way you react to it thoug is. In stead saying: please provide settings for your suggestions, you start being sarcastic and saying that we are 'discussing the meaning of life'.
Despite that, I tell you that I do not appreciate your tone, and summarize what has been said earlier. You then go ahead and reply with: 'was that so hard'!
Seriously?!
I perfectly well understood your irony, and I thought it was misplaced. With arguments I pointed out why, and even took the trouble of translating our opinions into settings for you. The only part that could be considered aggressive about my first reply to your irony was calling you to lazy to read. That was not called for, but neither was your irony. The reason I get irritated with you (note irritated, not aggressive) is your condescending tone, and tendency to put the blame on others or other circumstances.
Further more the reason for my reply was not that I was 1 of the people it was directed to. If you recall correctly I allso pointed out another topic in which you were condescending in which I had no part. Being negative for no reason does not only insult the people taking part in a discussion, but allso all people reading it and considering to reply or not.
Now correct me if I may, but what part of your first post were specific answers, because I still don`t see that part.
Once again, you did not ask for settings, and secondly read my reply #6 again
Quote
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.
At no single point in time did I say that most of the settings were defined. What I did say was that if you only want to tweak individual settings it is better to just mock up a server and test and adjust till you are satisfied. What I was trying to point out is that settings cannot be regarded individually, you have to view them in context, which is why determining the outlines before coming to specific settings is a good strategy. there is no need to tell me that there are different possibilities. I allready know that.
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?
My point was, and still is that a 30 million goal server can be a medium goal as well. Steamer world already takes 3 hours, with some adjustments, still leaving the goal at 30 mln I can make it last 6 hours for an average player, THAT is my point, just a goal in cash says nothing.
Quote
Tip: A hilly map would increase difficulty, but if you go with a large loan and monorail or maglev trains , it compensates.
And here you exactly illustrate what I already said: settings influence each other, and have to be viewed in context. That is why shouting just some settings and then making that into a server has a really low chance of achieving what you would like to achieve. It is the same as me saying that with doubling train speed you can double the goal and still do it in more or less the same time. So what are you trying to prove here? Or is this just to show that you understand some game mechanics as well?
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
I did not say you have to do that. If you want settings, ask for settings, not for scenarios. If you do not have the time, mood, or whatever for it, ask, and you might just get help. I am more than willing to mock up a game, play around with settings and provide you with a complete config file, and I am quite sure I am not the only one.
-goal: TEST IT: one 30minute game with the settings you want to use for the server will tell all you need to know.ment that in fact , you`d do a test for me and tell me the result? Then why write it like this "TEST IT" ? Hard to believe this was your original intention....but ok.
- 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.
So what? What part of what I said inhibits other players of expressing their opinions? And joke or not, there were other ways you could have chosen to express yourself. Now, you call it a joke, a while ago it was irony, I call it sarcasm. Still don't see what this has to do with other opinions.
This having been said, I consider that maybe behaving a little more polite and understanding this would be more proper.
Pleas explain what I did that was not polite or understanding? I did not demand anything from you, except that you behave polite. And as I have pointed out a few times earlier: please stop accusing people of stuff you do yourself aswell!
[2013-12-14 15:41:12] <@alex879ro> unfortunately i got no spare time today to test it, so I asked Chucky
[2013-12-14 15:41:12] <@Der_Herr> oh ok
[2013-12-14 15:41:20] <@Der_Herr> no problem
[2013-12-14 15:41:20] <@alex879ro> chucky, what did you propose
[2013-12-14 15:41:22] <@alex879ro> more exactly
[2013-12-14 15:41:28] <@alex879ro> maybe der_herr can change it now
[2013-12-14 15:41:31] <@alex879ro> so you can do a test
[2013-12-14 15:41:35] <@Der_Herr> just someone test it, and then we can roll it out at least to the cb servers
[2013-12-14 15:42:09] <@alex879ro> that`s what i intend too
[2013-12-14 15:42:13] <@alex879ro> chucky chucky chucky
[2013-12-14 15:42:16] <@Chucky> yes
[2013-12-14 15:42:27] <@alex879ro> can you msg the formula to der_herr in private?
In order not to derail that topic I moved my reply here. I will edit my replies in the other topics this afternoon.
In my point of view two topics with you recently turned into an argument because you disregard opinions of others because of the persons expressing them. You say that you move on, yet you keep referencing to things from the past. What motivates people to start a discussion does not influence the value of their arguments.
Since you start taking my posts apart and out of context to turn them into accusations, I will answer each of them for you to place them back in context.
I went to far with including "your corrupt" indeed. On the other hand, at that point you have reacted quite sarcastic to my contributions twice allready!
Here you seem to fail to note the difference between arguing and discussing in a constructive way. Let me explain:
Imus suggests something, and I agree with that, at this point, you have the opinion of 2 individuals that agree with each-other. Additionally I give a reason for my opinion, which is generally considered as positive in a constructive discussion. Since the whole purpose of your topic was to gather opinions and discussing possibilities, I would expect you to be pleased. Apparently you are not, and you see this as something to attack me about. Please explain why...
To begin with: maybe I should have said: city size, my mistake there I did not have a config file available at the time I wrote that, neither was the wiki an option because I was typing from my phone. The setting I meant was city size. You could have asked me what I meant in stead of calling it public rephorma (sill no clue what that means) and disregarding it.
As for what low means: since the setting is between 1 and 10, 5 would be considered medium, and 2 or 3 low. Setting it to 1 would be a bit harsh, because there would be no initial difference between towns and cities.
Besides that, in your first post you ask for scenarios not settings. I have searched the definition of a scenario for you: An outline or model of an expected or supposed sequence of events
To explain: a scenario would be something like the following: Server with a small, flat map, with some water, late starting date for monorail, low population, high initial loan, and a high density of industries.
The settings to realize that scenario would be something like: map size between 512 and 256, terrain type flat or verry flat, sea level low, starting date 2010 and so on.
If it were settings you wanted, you should have asked for them. Also it is hard to predict the outcome of the combination of settings, because of that I think a scenario is more useful than settings because you have a global idea of the goal and can adjust the settings to achieve that goal. If you would have asked for a config file I would have been willing to mock up a game and hand you the config. It is hard to discuss the bigger outlines that way though.
Yes please, I would like it if you would point it out to me, because I see nothing improper here. I do not say that it is a bad thing to disable the perf. part. All I did was express things you might not have considered. You could have sufficed with an answer like: yes I did hear people complain about it, or: no I do not have specific examples, but I think that it might be the case, and I want to test it.
About the scoring part you could have said: I do not consider that important at this time of developing the server, or: we are changeing the system anyway, or you could have ignored it alltogether. It is your right not to answer, or to answer in any way you like, just as it is my proper right to ask. If you go through all the reactions again, at no point I demand an answer, or even mention the fact that you did not answer, because I respect the fact that you do not consider it part of the discussion. That does not however mean that it is in any way improper for me to ask. In adition, I am not the only one that had doubts about that aspect, as you could have seen from the reactions of Imus.
Last but not least: you are not the one to start about staying on topic in a discussion. I remember a recent case in which you did not like that somebody posted an answer to your question in a different topic to stay on topic. Expecting people to do something you fail to do yourself is not a good point. (and also an argument I have recently seen you use against a player)
What is wrong with this? Imus said that he would like it to be a contest of money making lines, and we discuss about what train number goes together with that goal. This is actually an illustration of the difference between scenarios and settings. Imus thinks train numbers should be 'unlimited' (500 is virtually unlimited in a small server) I think they should be 'limited'. You have to agree, with arguments, on the setting being limited or unlimited, before you can decide the specific number. If imus just went ahead and said 500 in stead of explaining and I said 25 the same way, nobody would understand the reasons for that, and therefor could not react to that in a constructive way.
As I said, agree or disagree. I honestly fail to see the way this is an example, reason or justification for threatening me with a forum ban for turning things into an argument!
