You are Here:
this SHOULDN'T happen

Author (Read 29357 times)

this SHOULDN'T happen
« on: September 04, 2012, 02:05:14 am »
 

ST2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 223
    Posts
  • Karma: 2
    • View Profile
keeping in mind "multiple_industry_per_town" value, if "found_town" enabled (doesn't matter if with 1 or 2) this will happen...
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/48606680/Selection312917475.png
Since it's not the 1st time similar problems happen... there's 2 options:
1 - make admins investigate who created towns/industries not respecting the rules (or to see if all from 1 player or some other one that make it to create a unwanted rule break by other player) - PS: check all possibilities above here...
2 - Disable totally "found_town" value... (and I'll spread this suggestion to all n-ice servers)

Asking for player opinions... only! Think well on your answers: 1-can give reset/ban; 2-can give a harder game!
Side note: to the player that made it... think well on the answer too: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/48606680/Selection313048781.png (for now he has escaped with a severe warning to don't repeat it

In this particular game, since the "rule break" player was the only online: me, alex879ro and batt agreed on a server restart! For now "cough cough "Aberwyvern" cough cough", as I said, he's escaped only with some warnings!" (a simple !rules 4 explains it all)

Edit: forgot to ask: please... other suggestions are welcome, since fundamented :)   BUT I'll vote on disable "found_town"  ;)
PS: before answer... read openttd cfg options... here
« Last Edit: September 04, 2012, 02:13:57 am by ST2 »
 

Re: Reposted
« Reply #1 on: September 04, 2012, 10:49:10 am »
 

ST2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 223
    Posts
  • Karma: 2
    • View Profile
scumbag brain... always mixing up simple ideias  :-[
the only suggestion is: disable the possibility of creating towns to prevent "industry farm" creations
what do you think?

the other post was only some $#%&$# caused by "#$$@£§%#. Fixed on the ##@$% level
 

Re: this SHOULDN'T happen
« Reply #2 on: September 04, 2012, 03:19:35 pm »
 

ZeroIncome

  • Newbie
  • *
  • 42
    Posts
  • Karma: 4
    • View Profile
What is wrong in this picture? I checked the detailed rules and as far as I can see he has 1 station too many. Is that it?

I don't agree with disabling founding a new town, since it takes a dynamic out of the game... Also you said he was the only one on the server. Could it be that he was just having some fun since he was playing alone?
Seems a bit of an overreaction to change server settings over such an isolated event.

I think it would be good to make it clear to players that just because they fund an industry doesn't mean they OWN the industry and should still allow for competition of it's resources. This is the only problem with the current mentality as far as I've seen.

^ This is all in reference to screenshot 1, screenshot 2 is just blocking.
 

Re: this SHOULDN'T happen
« Reply #3 on: September 04, 2012, 04:06:48 pm »
 

Geert

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 179
    Posts
  • Karma: 12
    • View Profile
i dont think you have to change the rules for 1 or 2 players that breake them once in a while.
 

Re: this SHOULDN'T happen
« Reply #4 on: September 04, 2012, 04:21:45 pm »
 

Aberwyvern

  • Newbie
  • *
  • 3
    Posts
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
Hello I enjoy playing on the n-ice servers and i never meant to brake any rules, therefore i carefully read them when i started to play here a few weeks ago. But i was very surprised by the reaction that i got from the admin alex879ro, who refused to listen to my arguments, and simply said I was in violation of rule four, and then finished the conversation with the sentence "the rules are clear END OF DISCUSSION" before calling a restart of the server. But i beg to differ, after the restart i talked to Batt, another admin, who listened and  explained his interpretation of rule four, by making signs on the map, and i must say it is not very clear from the rules listed on the website that it meant what he explained.

Rule four states:
" Occupy at maximum 50% of the space around an industry/town. "

The phrase "of the space around" is where the misunderstanding lies, by Batts demonstration I am lead to believe it means the area in which, if a station is placed, it will cover the industry/town, in other words, it is the cover area of a potential station. My original understanding of the phrase was the area consisting of the tiles around it  My reasoning is as follows:
In rule four, the phrase used to describe the cover area of a station is different from the cover area, and i therefore thought the area that was implied was another area than the cover area, since the wording is different. This could of course be interpreted in both (or possibly other?) ways. But the part that is the most deceptive about the rule is that the proper term cover area is used in rule three:

" Don't build stations or station parts that serve the sole purpose of increasing the coverage area "

There therefore exist two references to the same area, but using two different wordings, which i would say is unnecessarily confusing, and it is what lead by to think that they were two different areas, and i would suggest that either the same term is used in both rules, preferably using cover area, or that the non existing difference between them is explained on the page containing the detailed rules, which currently just uses both terms, as the page with the regular rules.

Furthermore, the rule I was told my building around the town of "Aberwyvern" is also rule four, that states in the first part:

" Don't block other players. Reserving land to keep others out of a place is also considered blocking, as is placing obstructions in front of where others are currently building. "

Since, as you mentioned, I was alone on the server, I could not possibly have been in violation of rule four. firstly because there were no other players to block, secondly: there was plenty of room inside the rails and signs, so it can not be considered keeping others out, I believe that most OTTD players who looks at the way the roads are placed, that the ring was in place to contain and steer the growth of the city, not to keep outsiders out (since the town had only 772 inhabitants at the time of your screenshot, the transport of the passengers, mail and goods to the city, would only have caused it to grow faster, and since my station was already in place, and so close to the city center, i would benefit from this).

Another thing that bothers me about rule four, is that the limit at 50 %, seems to have been quite arbitrarily chosen, since something as common as a four row station with a bend at the beginning, goes over this limit:


The unconnected rail tiles outline the cover area of the coal mine

Whether or not players should be allowed to build industries close to each other as I did, is up for discussion, I think it should have been in a post by itself (perhaps in the suggestions section), and not together with references to the player that did it, since it is currently not against the rules, there is no reason to write a rant about me because i make a legal move, that you think should be illegal.

But to start the discussion I will make some arguments for keeping the current system of allowing players to fund towns and build industries close to each other:

It does not harm other players, they might make money off it as well, since competition is allowed
It is an investment just as any other in the game, and it takes quite a while to breakeven:


This is a graph from the same game that your screenshots are from, and it shows the high cost of funding both towns and industries, and it also shows that there are not huge sums to be made from this, since the company value only rises slightly faster after each investment, and for this reason, this practice is markedly different from other "tricks" such as building very long trains entirely out of locomotives to get your company value up.

I hope you will have some use of my suggestions.
 

Re: this SHOULDN'T happen
« Reply #5 on: September 04, 2012, 06:20:31 pm »
 

Geert

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 179
    Posts
  • Karma: 12
    • View Profile
i have used tactics like this in the past. (never used blocking signs and never build more then 4 industries around a station)
i stopped with it for several reasons,

1 -> Alex competed me for every industrie I build on that map and that was very anoying (but in the end I still won :P )
2 -> After some discussions about my city building I  tried never to be in the discussion area again (i hate to discus i prefer to spend my time playing)
3 -> the most important point, I learned to win this game without any problems without making industries and towns. (I only use it when i try out new tactics, or if I want to hit the 1 billion a year barrier)

 

Re: this SHOULDN'T happen
« Reply #6 on: September 05, 2012, 05:43:05 am »
 

ST2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 223
    Posts
  • Karma: 2
    • View Profile
Well, I'll try to make this simple as possible :P
before I start to enumerate my points, I must say that be the only player in a online server don't give the right at ANY player to bend the rules...
now... to the point:
1 - ANY industry/town not acessible to other player it's blocking a industry/town... no doubt on that;
2 - Question to Aberwyvern: Was that respected here?;
3 - I was checking servers ingame and my 1st question was: "[2012-09-04 01:24:28] <+OTTD-5> 572 (Spectator): do you know that you CAN't block industries OR towns?" That triggered alex879ro and batt to enter ingame...;
4 - I've agreeded on this [2012-09-04 01:29:59] <+OTTD-5> 4£3x879r0 (Spectator): thus....i am sorry but we cannot let you get your points;
5 - Some minutes after: [2012-09-04 01:33:40] <+OTTD-5> Aberwyvern (Yellow): tell me where im blocking industries??? (explained on my point #1 and questioned on #2);
6 - 3 admins ingame and we all voted on this decision: [2012-09-04 01:34:11] <+OTTD-5> Admin ST2 (Account 'ST2') has requested to restart the server with a new map. (the damage was already done, that's why I've agreeded on stated in #4);
7 - I took my body to sleep, probably alex879ro too, Batt since in a diff timezone, kept himself online and explained the things for you (wich are kinda simple and understandable in detailed rules page), but he stayed! (probably gf calling for him on the bed :D);
8 - Aberwyvern, as I said... "you've escaped with a severe warning" because I saw your actions and I think that you'll try to respect the rules in future games. This guts make me post a "agressive message" at start, including your nick/screenshots to have a reaction from you. (PS: you're not banned/tempbanned - that says something on fair admins judgement, right?) (ST2 logs between [2012-09-04 01:20:52] and [2012-09-04 01:24:19]).

Now...  time to read Aberwyvern's post and answer it:
9 -  All english doubts created around what is "cover area" (you named it), "station coverage area" (that we actually use) and "station catchment area" as stated here, it's only one firework to divert attention;
10 - in ANY place on rules industry areas are mentioned (to deliver or to take cargo - it differs among industry types) - so your this screenshot... is some more firework (as all other lines of text to defend the points #9 and #10)
11 - Aberwyvern, your suggestions gave us some ideias... for that, Thank You! We always try to improve and the forum is a fair way to make that way sucessfull. :)

Meanwhile, some new ideias are being studied and tested... (thank you Der_Herr :)
 

Re: this SHOULDN'T happen
« Reply #7 on: September 05, 2012, 12:38:41 pm »
 

ZeroIncome

  • Newbie
  • *
  • 42
    Posts
  • Karma: 4
    • View Profile
Thank you Der_Herr for posting on the forum so we can all discuss it... Not.

Looks like you admins once again have already decided the ultimate plan of action. Is there really a point to this thread other than calling Aberwyvern out? I must admit you had me fooled.

Also why did you restart the server instead of removing the middle station? Instead of defusing the situation you just let it escalate. But this seems to meet some kind of private agenda. (You just seem to want to remove industry/town funding)
 

Re: this SHOULDN'T happen
« Reply #8 on: September 05, 2012, 01:06:53 pm »
 

geo

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 278
    Posts
  • Karma: 20
    • View Profile
ZeroIncome, do you have any actual ideas/suggestions about the problem discussed here? If you have something against this admin team, go and state it in the complaints section, you are going off-topic.
thank you for your understanding
Don't worry, be happy :D
 

Re: this SHOULDN'T happen
« Reply #9 on: September 05, 2012, 01:15:44 pm »
 

ZeroIncome

  • Newbie
  • *
  • 42
    Posts
  • Karma: 4
    • View Profile
ZeroIncome, do you have any actual ideas/suggestions about the problem discussed here? If you have something against this admin team, go and state it in the complaints section, you are going off-topic.
thank you for your understanding

I asked what Der_Herr's idea was so we could discuss it (albeit with other words), I questioned the point of the whole discussion.

Thank you for your understanding.

(Also make a complaint about the admins to the admins  ;D)
 

Re: this SHOULDN'T happen
« Reply #10 on: September 05, 2012, 02:35:32 pm »
 

geo

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 278
    Posts
  • Karma: 20
    • View Profile
[(Also make a complaint about the admins to the admins  ;D)

sure, why not? we have someone above us, the one whom gave us the rights to be admins, ofc, if necessary, he can also take them from us if something happens.
Don't worry, be happy :D
 

Re: this SHOULDN'T happen
« Reply #11 on: September 05, 2012, 03:24:14 pm »
 

ST2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 223
    Posts
  • Karma: 2
    • View Profile
Thank you Der_Herr for posting on the forum so we can all discuss it... Not.

Looks like you admins once again have already decided the ultimate plan of action. Is there really a point to this thread other than calling Aberwyvern out? I must admit you had me fooled.

Also why did you restart the server instead of removing the middle station? Instead of defusing the situation you just let it escalate. But this seems to meet some kind of private agenda. (You just seem to want to remove industry/town funding)

ZeroIncome, I'll quote Mahatma Gandhi as a answer to you: "You must be the change you want to see in the world". And as I said some new ideias are being studied and tested, that is better than present ideas that are not applicable in practice. The ideia of this post is to find a way to prevent that similar situations happen. Now, sit comfortably in your armchair and choose the "Like", "Don't Like" or "Hate" button, instead of searching yourself too a possible solution for it (openttd.cfg is a good place to start)
« Last Edit: September 05, 2012, 03:25:48 pm by ST2 »
 

Re: this SHOULDN'T happen
« Reply #12 on: September 05, 2012, 05:32:33 pm »
 

ZeroIncome

  • Newbie
  • *
  • 42
    Posts
  • Karma: 4
    • View Profile
Why look for a solution to a non existant problem. But you are not willing to see it this way so... end of discussion I guess.

Also you all refer to be the change you want to see, but how are we supposed to do that? We aren't the ones with the administrative privileges so all we can do is "like" or "hate". But when nobody is listening I guess even that is pointless.
 

Re: this SHOULDN'T happen
« Reply #13 on: September 05, 2012, 06:54:37 pm »
 

ST2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 223
    Posts
  • Karma: 2
    • View Profile
given the possibility of players founding new towns with the intention of create "same type industry farms" leads to situations as described. And YES, is a problem and not the 1st time that happens. Sometimes is forgotten the fact that funded industries/towns AREN'T private.
Possible tweak solutions are:
1 - found_town = 0 - disable founding towns, in matter of fact the map already have enough towns to fund new industries with the but that players must found new industries in the range of available towns;
2 - raw_industry_construction = 2 (0 = none, 1 = as other industries, 2 = prospecting) - keeps the option of buying primary industries but the industry will appear in a random location on the map (are lots cheaper too)
3 - dist_local_authority - useless on industry founding
4 - Minimum Town Distance - for now only know a patch that does that :(
5 - Minimum Similar Industry Distance - I think it doesn't exist ^^
6 - industry_density - I guess only interfere with industry generation, not founding.

Suggestions are welcome... :)
Personally, I like more the #2

ZeroIncome, no one needs administrative privileges to explore openttd.cfg and formulate constructive feedback. As you saw.... there's several possibilities and not a pre-decision about it... You only need to set your brain to "constructive suggestions" mode.

Edit: duplicated word "towns" removal
« Last Edit: September 05, 2012, 09:37:40 pm by ST2 »
 

Re: this SHOULDN'T happen
« Reply #14 on: September 05, 2012, 07:54:40 pm »
 

Geert

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 179
    Posts
  • Karma: 12
    • View Profile
personaly i dont see a reason why you should change the rules!
The rules are already clear (as you explained to him)
and almost no one breaks them

but if you really want to change something please change city funding.
If you start later in the game many industries are gone so industrie funding is something many players use.