Messages

16

Ban/Unban Requests / Re: Kwissy is a cheat

« on: December 26, 2013, 03:36:35 pm »

First of all, I need to finish mine. After checking the logs, I haven`t found any incriminating situations EXCEPT of course for the cheating on server 8 for which Kwissy has already been punished (4000 points deduction and 2 weeks of ban). Therefore, I have no other choice , but to conclude that Kwissy hasn`t cheated after that situation.

Conclusion is according to the stored information in the database. I did not consider that an even more deep investigation is required.

17

New Server Proposals / Re: CHANGING SERVER 7

« on: December 24, 2013, 01:08:08 pm »

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

18

New Server Proposals / Re: CHANGING SERVER 7

« on: December 24, 2013, 01:41:24 am »

#5 can be done with raising the lake and water option. This may mean that your ilustrious highness might accept it 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.

19

Complaints / Re: Forum behavour

« on: December 23, 2013, 06:14:39 pm »

2nd part of the reply

    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?!

Yes, because I wasn`t being sarcastic....I consider it to be a little ironic perhaps...but not sarcastic. And in nowhere near enough for your reaction. I tried to read your oppinions but I simply had no idea of what you were referring too because I have different criterias of appreciating "low" "high" so, my intention with that comment was to ask you to re-write your oppinions...and not "disregard them" as I saw a bit earlier in your comment.

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.

This type of tone is only for people that know me....and with who I`ve had more then a few conversation. This is not for people which I don`t know. Also...the ironic tone was mostly directed on imus, with who those kind of jokes and ironies are normal, but since you both wrote the same way, I adapted it to both. Those types of comments do not mean anything. They reflect a state in which I`m partially amused of how could this happen. They mean no disregard, no casting blames. It was absolutely no blames. I was tired , tried to read your comments...and my head was turning in "low" values and "high" values.

I know this maybe off-topic, but these are the ways in which I discuss with Imus. I hope that by seeing them, maybe you can understand why I chose to reply in that way.

In channel OpenTTD:
[19:43] *** imus (~imus@94-224-82-251.access.telenet.be) joined
[19:43] *** ChanServ sets channel #openttd mode +o imus
[19:44] <@imus> hi alex =D
[19:44] <~alex879ro> oh no
[19:44] <~alex879ro> hi imus =D
[19:44] <~alex879ro> oh no
[19:44] <~alex879ro> hi imus =D
[19:44] <@imus> oh, wrong chat XD
[19:44] <~alex879ro> doesn`t matter

After moving to channel OpenTTD.Chat

[19:44] <@imus> hi alex (in right chat) =D
[19:44] <@imus> lol
[19:45] <~alex879ro> hi imus (in the right chat) =D
[19:45] <@imus> XD

This is irony. Totally different from sarcasm. He knows that I hate him flashing my name everytime he joins. But he does it and I take it with amusement. I don`t think any less of him for doing it. We`re both amusing of the type of salute that imus uses

    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

I did not ask for them...that`s true...but in your first answers, you told me that you gave me specific answers, but I failed to see them.

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.

Understood

    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?

Understood

    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.

So actually, all that, including this:

-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.
Also...I`m not a fan of testing a server a million times before implementation because it wastes a lot of time which I don`t have and can be done much simpler. I doubt that testing server configurations everytime you want to update the settings of a server is something that anybody would want to do.

    - 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.

Irony; joke with irony; Ironic joke - a way in which to express something that doesn`t please you, but in a funny...showing that even if it dis-pleases you, it doesn`t upset you so you`re willing to let the owner of the idea to correct his idea and tell it again. (Done between friends, people who know each other for some time)

Sarcasm: Superior way of treating someone that you consider to be less man than you...or stupider then you. It also goes into association with ignorance. Usable with persons that you do not want to take contact with, but you`re forced to . (Done between different people who regretably meet where one of them (usually the stupidest) tries to prove that he`s superior....so the other treats him with sarcasm)

    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!

Bothering someone even if there are official ways to contact the admin team is considered impolite. This is what I tried to describe here. I simply tried to ignore that outburst, but afterwards you ask me to be polite. Sorry, but in my oppinion an ironic reply is quite polite....while bothering someone with my own personal problems in the forum with him  is not so polite (My oppinion)

[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?

I honestly think that here you`re entering a world that you do not know, but you consider that seeing a mere fragment of it describes the whole situation.
But since you brought it up, I can offer you the required explanation.

Chucky has been telling both me and Der_Herr about his idea for scoring. Der_Herr has a lot of activities to do and doesn`t always have the time to reply. In that day, both of them were online and Der_Herr replied to me and asked me to test something. Since I didn`t have anytime, but we were in a time crisis because Der_Herr was leaving on vacation till the end of the year, I considered more important to contact Chucky and to ask him to do a test since he insisted a lot about his algorythm. Afterwards there was some bad communication between them (formula was different at chucky then at der_herr) so I asked him to msg it to him. This was an important situation, otherwise the new scoring would not have been implemented until January 1st. I wasn`t polite there and I know it, but I considered it is ok to do it sincer that was an emergency to correlate both Chucky and Der_Herr for the scoring that both of them developed. As a result , after this , they talked on their own and the scoring was implemented and tested.

I did this for a specific purpose, not because Chucky didn`t answer to me, but because they already tried to talk themselves, but when one was here , the other one wasn`t. I knew the whole story...so when I saw them both there, i tried to connect them. I would have helped too, but they caught me with an important project in a moment when I didn`t have time.

In order not to derail that topic I moved my reply here. I will edit my replies in the other topics this afternoon.

I understood and agreed

Sorry if there are some odd phrases, but this reply is way too big to correct the spelling.

20

Complaints / Re: Forum behavour

« on: December 23, 2013, 06:14:21 pm »

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 am moving on..... but this doesn`t mean I`m not looking at behaviours in the past and comparing them with the current ones. This isn`t "Taking posts apart". This is a normal way of debating....refering to what you actually say.

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!

I guess this is what also angered me and made me ask you about the ban. I never insult someone about the  things that he is born with (Defects of country in which he lives ; Body defects; parent defects) because he can`t change those as much as he would wish. I wish I could change Romania into being a better country....but I can admit to myself that I can`t. I can`t fight a war alone.

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...

I agree with this. Here you are right and I apologise for my behaviour. It was indeed a comment of agreeing and I took it the wrong way.

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, I do agree that I asked for a scenario. But my comment of discussing public rephorma was ment to be taken in a funny way. From it, I wanted you to understand that I`m requesting for you to re-write your suggestions with numbers so I can understand what you`re talking about.
Example: Low population: I can understand that as 2500-4000 population. Imus can understand it 500 to 1000 and so on. Everybody has different value of "low" this is why i posted that comment. If I would have disregarded your oppinion, I would have just said so like I told to imus in the topic about server 7: From now on, I won`t take into consideration any proposal that has "reduce the goal" in it. The purpose of that comment ment that I want to see numbers in order to understand your oppinions and not at all that I`ll disregard them

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)

In this comment, I was really annoyed by another phrase in your answer that said that I do not have to take your oppinions into consideration. I`m not some kid that asks because he has nothing to do and then he just goes and does whatever he wants. I ask because I can get valuable oppinions from those threads. Also...I gave importance to Imus`s oppinions because this was his favourite server and I hope it will still be. I actually configured the server with him that evening and I tried to comply to as much of his oppinions as I could. So your oppinions do count. You shouldn`t treat it so harsh as to "you can ignore our oppinions" . Perhaps I can do that...perhaps it would save time, but in the end, the players are the ones who play mostly on these server, not me.
Reasons for taking performance out:
1: The new players have a really hard time with it (Everybody says it, but most of us ignore the importance of new players) OpenTTD players go through a cycle. A lot of the players stop playing it for a while. This is what it happened to me too when I was a simple player. After a while, they re-become interested. Most of them forget or stop getting informed on what the rules mean and on what performance means. Personally, I agree mostly on BTPRO`s oppinion : Cheating can be stopped with admins, not by limiting the whole game with performance. And I also consider performance to be the reason why a lot of the new players went to BTPRO. I wanted to try this for a long time, but unfortunately, the majority was against it. Now we shall see the results
2: We do not have nowhere near as much explanation for performance as we should have and also, we got players who don`t even bother to login. What we can say about those? If they don`t even login, how can we expect them to understand what performance is? Until OpenTTD can introduce a proper way to advertise the Communities, we simply cannot even post a link because nobody can copy it in the modern way. They have to write it. So we simply cannot give them access to enough information for them to understand what performance is.
3: CV is a goal that represents the amount of transportation systems that was built by a player. Performance does not. For performance a players must get out of the normal OpenTTD rythm and build something extra (reaching all the cargos) and so on. This is an extra effort that it is very little rewarded.
4: Even if the Performance criteria was attached to the xShunter package, I don`t know about any other community implementing it then us which makes me ask specific questions. Why did all the others chose to remain to CV only?
5: Performance has been implemented for about a year or even more. During all this time, we never had a counter-test. To have 1 server without it to see if indeed this is what influences the players to quit or at least not play till the end. During all this time, we have added performance to every server which , in my oppinion was a mistake.

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!

It wasn`t. You replied to me with a lot of anger that you were being specific, and I simply asked you if that is an example of being specific.

21

Complaints / Re: No points scored on Server 2

« on: December 23, 2013, 04:45:55 pm »

Chucky......talk to me baby... Any idea why this is happening?

22

New Server Proposals / Re: CHANGING SERVER 7

« on: December 23, 2013, 12:54:56 pm »

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)

23

New Server Proposals / Re: CHANGING SERVER 7

« on: December 23, 2013, 02:38:11 am »

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

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.

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 . 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)

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.

24

New Server Proposals / Re: Changing Server 8

« on: December 23, 2013, 02:28:57 am »

turnover goals? I don`t remember them What were they?

25

New Server Proposals / Re: Changing Server 8

« on: December 22, 2013, 05:46:06 pm »

You can also propose another type of goal. I mean except a server that was already changed because it had lost its players. It`s nothing out of the ordinary....goals must be refreshed from time to time..

26

New Server Proposals / Changing Server 8

« on: December 22, 2013, 04:35:56 pm »

From what I have noticed in the past few weeks, since Naz and the other typical long goal players stopped appearing, server 8 was left quite deserted. What also bothers is that in fact server 8 is a more simple copy of server 5. While it had players, there was no point in changing it, but since this has changed, I don`t want to waste resources on an empty server.

When I think about server 8 , I think about Geert and his love for long desert goals. Therefore I propose to convert S8 into a sister of server 5 but on Desert. We can discuss this proposal, or you may propose other types of goals and discuss those too. Please state your oppinion.

Also, I would like your proposals to also contain numerical examples so we know what we`re talking about. In case we decide to change s8 to a desert long goal, only the goal would be a fixed parameter (between 15 BIL and 20 BIL). The other parameters can be discussed.

Thank You

27

New Server Proposals / Re: changing server 7 scoring discussion

« on: December 22, 2013, 04:31:13 pm »

I repeat: CB server takes into account only 1 value : time.  I dunno if Der_Herr added another value, but I`m talking about the first version of the CB scoring.

Population (starting or reached ) wasn`t taken into account.

The idea of cheating the CV can be solved by increasing the goal. If you see that they cheat 5% of the goal, you increase the goal with 5% and problem is solved. You get the same amount of points for a slightly bigger goal. Unfortunately, it also affects the other players. It is still a work in progress...

My oppinion is that the CB scoring would work fine in CV too with the same variable : time

Current goal would be : 25 MIL and 0 perf

Personally I don`t see the difference if you add 100 performance (which is achievable by everybody) or do not add it all. The players still reach 100 performance so it is the same thing.

28

New Server Proposals / Re: CHANGING SERVER 7

« on: December 21, 2013, 01:32:37 pm »

Understood. I spotted the mistake the too and corrected it. Thank You for reporting it

29

New Server Proposals / Re: CHANGING SERVER 7

« on: December 20, 2013, 09:39:47 pm »

@Andreas Good Point of view. And very good way of expressing it

30

New Server Proposals / Re: changing server 7 scoring discussion

« on: December 17, 2013, 01:57:38 am »

Personally, I agree and disagree with making the scoring public or not.

We got 1 succesfull case on either side, but both of them can be interpreted because they don`t follow the same standard

CV scoring - a lot of variables - private scoring (we don`t know all the parameters for it) - direct parameters (which can be cheated)
CB scoring - 1 variable * - public for admins and players (except the physical formula) - indirect parameter (which can`t be cheated)

* - i`m talking about the original version. Right now we maybe testing with more parameters...that`s what I remember. But it is way too late here to check now. But a good example, since the original scoring is still operational as we speak.

About CV goal Imus....that`s what I`m thinking. I delayed it a week so we could have more time to understand our oppinions. But it is nevertheless what I was thinking:

30-40 mil goal for S7 (now 40 mil seems a bit too much when thinking about it:)  ) and reducing S3 from 150 mil to 100 mil (players complained that they want a smaller goal, but there are also some new players on it, so I want to push it to the middle of both sides)

About the current scoring parameter....we can only find that out after monitoring the server after the change. I hope we can reset the highscores of the server (after saving them ofc) and we can start with a fresh list

@Beul I understand your pov, altough I wish to make 1 thing straight. From what I know (I maybe wrong) , performance is not "counted" but considered. Performance can also drop your score , if a certain level is not met. I remember seeing the formula once, but didn`t check. That`s what I remember from my games.

For example 2 games, each with a CV that earns you 400 points, but with different performance levels, one can have 470 points, the other one 340 points.
That`s what I remember. It may also be the reason why it is not considered dangerous. Also, the time parameter is considered.

When you talk about CV, scoring more cv would only get you points.
When talking about CV and performance , scoring more performance can also drop you the points , or earn you less points if the time parameter is higher.

All I said are memories, so don`t take them as granted. I tried to maybe help with a clue in how the performance is considered.

If it comes to personal oppinions, I think our CB scoring that Der_Herr developed is way more clean and efficient compared to the CV scoring. It also depends on one parameter which is very hard to cheat : time . I remember we tried to do that for the CV scoring when it was developed, but we were concerned in getting a more realistic result (2 games with the same amount of time and the same number of trains , but different scoring for them)

Now, after testing the CB scoring, we obtained that with 1 parameter only.