You are Here:
Servers k2-k3 , k6 and beyond!

Author (Read 14795 times)

Servers k2-k3 , k6 and beyond!
« on: September 06, 2012, 01:46:33 am »
 

Kadar

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 65
    Posts
  • Karma: 4
    • View Profile
So as many of you know we have a new set of servers that start k1 and go up, so far I have k1 k4 and k5 set up (k1 has a few changes yet to be made)

I was looking for suggestions and input on what you would like to play, what type of settings what types of maps etc etc. Feel free to post any and all ideas here to be looked over.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2013, 03:06:22 pm by alex879ro »
 

Short trains
« Reply #1 on: September 06, 2012, 06:02:26 am »
 

vitalikk2005

  • Newbie
  • *
  • 22
    Posts
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
If I understand correctly the score calculation description (http://www.n-ice.org/openttd/highscorecalculation.php), the more trains a company has, the less the score. This implies that it is better to have a small number of long trains. At the same time as Sassafrass noted here: http://www.n-ice.org/openttd/forum/index.php?topic=73.0, there are some valuable and viable strategies involving high volume of short trains. But unfortunately, for some reason (?) the scoring system doesn't favour them, and therefore we don't see such systems on n-ice servers often.

In connection with the new servers being launched, may I propose the following setup:
  • long run goal (5...10 billion)
  • big map (up to 1024 or 2048)
  • short trains only (max trainlength=5...7)
  • station spread=14...20
Large stations are intended to have many small platforms for bigger loads (the usual rule about unused station parts of course applies). This setup can be combined with FIRS too, since short trains are good for distributing supplies.

And by the way, what is the justification behind encouraging small number of long trains (with score calculation)? Speaking about assessing network efficiency, i'd name a number of wagons instead of a number of trains as a factor to consider.
 

Re: Servers k2-k3 , k6 and beyond!
« Reply #2 on: September 06, 2012, 10:17:41 am »
 

dzkn

  • Newbie
  • *
  • 1
    Posts
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
I would love a 500 mill desert goal. Right now the options are 20mill or 10bill. One takes 1-2 hours and the other takes a full day.

Something where you can build a decent network and perfect it, but still finishing in 4-5 hours
 

Re: Short trains
« Reply #3 on: September 07, 2012, 11:07:20 am »
 

YorVeX

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 265
    Posts
  • Karma: 9
    • View Profile
    • n-ice.org
If I understand correctly the score calculation description (http://www.n-ice.org/openttd/highscorecalculation.php), the more trains a company has, the less the score. This implies that it is better to have a small number of long trains. At the same time as Sassafrass noted here: http://www.n-ice.org/openttd/forum/index.php?topic=73.0, there are some valuable and viable strategies involving high volume of short trains. But unfortunately, for some reason (?) the scoring system doesn't favour them, and therefore we don't see such systems on n-ice servers often.

In connection with the new servers being launched, may I propose the following setup:
  • long run goal (5...10 billion)
  • big map (up to 1024 or 2048)
  • short trains only (max trainlength=5...7)
  • station spread=14...20
Large stations are intended to have many small platforms for bigger loads (the usual rule about unused station parts of course applies). This setup can be combined with FIRS too, since short trains are good for distributing supplies.

And by the way, what is the justification behind encouraging small number of long trains (with score calculation)? Speaking about assessing network efficiency, i'd name a number of wagons instead of a number of trains as a factor to consider.

we don't explicitely favour a small number of long trains. also none of the people who thought up the score system (including me) have long trains included in their usual play style. when i was more active i even never used trains longer than 5 tiles (or 10 engines/cars), just because i personally liked this length and i just don't like to play with long trains.

we had the problem that at some point players figured they can give their company value a big boost by building lots of
unused engines, using this cheat they not only won the game but also boosted their scores. so the algorithm was modified to at least give a score penalty for each train by giving more scores for "train efficiency". the idea is that if you don't actually use the train (because it was only built for cheating) you would fully take that penalty. but if the train is generating a lot of money this will give again scores (because CV and Perf raises) compensating for the penalty. now in OpenTTD a train can make more money the longer it is, this is not a rule we have made, so as a side-effect longer trains don't only make more money but also give more score and compensate for the penalty better.
so longer trains giving you an advantage is just something that comes from the game anyway and our train efficiency penalty happens to make you benefit with longer trains as a side-effect.

now that i think you will understand better why the system is like it is you are still right that simply considering wagons could lead to a better solution for the above mentioned problem. but when we thought up the algorithm it wasn't technically possible to see the number of engines and wagons, the total number of trains per company was everything we had.

with introduction of gamescripts to OpenTTD this has changed. i haven't checked on the technical details so far but i am quite sure it would be possible now, for example we could calculate an "engines to wagons" ratio and only give a penalty when this falls below a certain limit (e.g. a player has more engines than wagons).
but we collect such ideas for a future change of the score system here so please suggest there. maybe you also have good ideas about what would be good ratios to still sanction cheaters while not penalizing "short train lovers" too much.



now that was for long-term improvements. but the score algorithm also uses a score multiplier that is different for every server, e.g. server 6 has the highest score multiplier as the landscape configuration makes getting CV and Perf harder and the scores on the server could never compete with those from other servers without that.

so your suggestion got my full support and when Kadar should create such a server i will make sure it has a high enough score multiplier so it can fully compete with long train servers about the scores you get.
however, when we got the server i'd ask you to help with doing some test games for us to find a balanced multiplier value (i don't want to overcompensate either...).
 

Re: Servers k2-k3 , k6 and beyond!
« Reply #4 on: September 08, 2012, 01:27:37 am »
 

Kadar

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 65
    Posts
  • Karma: 4
    • View Profile
I would love a 500 mill desert goal. Right now the options are 20mill or 10bill. One takes 1-2 hours and the other takes a full day.

Something where you can build a decent network and perfect it, but still finishing in 4-5 hours

I set up a temporary k2 server to test this, so go ahead and give it a try, and let me know what you think :)
 

Re: Short trains
« Reply #5 on: September 08, 2012, 01:36:39 am »
 

Kadar

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 65
    Posts
  • Karma: 4
    • View Profile
now that was for long-term improvements. but the score algorithm also uses a score multiplier that is different for every server, e.g. server 6 has the highest score multiplier as the landscape configuration makes getting CV and Perf harder and the scores on the server could never compete with those from other servers without that.

so your suggestion got my full support and when Kadar should create such a server i will make sure it has a high enough score multiplier so it can fully compete with long train servers about the scores you get.
however, when we got the server i'd ask you to help with doing some test games for us to find a balanced multiplier value (i don't want to overcompensate either...).
After testing server k1 we should find out what ST2 thinks about a multiplier for that server since it is a very hard goal. Also I like the idea that vitalikk brought up for that server and we should definitely do a brainstorming session to figure out settings for it! :) Thanks for all the good ideas!!!
 

Re: Servers k2-k3 , k6 and beyond!
« Reply #6 on: September 10, 2012, 12:09:47 pm »
 

alex879ro

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 512
    Posts
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
I want to propose 2 small servers (Amazing for me since i`m a fan of big servers...isn`t it?:) )

1st server - 1900 - 1960  on a map of 512 x 512 (example)
Should be name STEAMER `s WORLD ; a goal of 50 mil ; temperate so we can have all the steam trains from Kirby Tank to SH8P
Train Limitation of 200 trains would be enough with a high industry coefficient cause map is small. I remember when server 5 was starting with Kirby Paul in 1925 , it was fun ...we were in a world were everything was so slow. We should bring up that world in a small steamer server:)
Ofc, everything except the start and end dates is just an example....I`m waiting for proposals:)
Kadar, what do you think?
 

Re: Servers k2-k3 , k6 and beyond!
« Reply #7 on: September 10, 2012, 12:13:40 pm »
 

alex879ro

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 512
    Posts
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
Second server would be "Asphalt King"
512 x 256 or 512 x 512 starting in 1985 (example) and ending in 2030(example)
Map would be formed of islands...smaller or bigger and map would be only for motorists (Trucks and Buses)
I think that a goal of 30 mil would be enough. We should have a limit of 1000 road vehicles , no trains(so no accidents could happen) ; no airplanes ; perhaps 5 ships

Map should be temperate or desert.....at choice....
Everything except the map size should be discussed....Opinions? Kadar what do you think?:)
 

Re: Servers k2-k3 , k6 and beyond!
« Reply #8 on: September 10, 2012, 04:47:31 pm »
 

ST2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 223
    Posts
  • Karma: 2
    • View Profile
personaly I like the ideias... only needs some adjustements:
STEAMER`s WORLD
 - Kirby Paul Tank is designed only in 1925  - so, my suggestion to start year (with the problem of newgrf's, 1 option is 2cc TrainSet)
 - in RV's, MPS Regal Bus designed in 1930 and all other ones beyond that year
 - should be temperate... agree

Asphalt King
 - with islands and only RV's I would make ships = 0 (because of the start advantage they give compared to any usage of RV's)
 - islands would create a fun map but have the problem of road bridges don't disappear when a company resets, and the obvious disadvantage to who build them... and where others can also use.

small suggestions to refine the overall idea :)
 

Re: Servers k2-k3 , k6 and beyond!
« Reply #9 on: September 24, 2012, 02:12:52 am »
 

Mediv

  • Newbie
  • *
  • 9
    Posts
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
Server #99 City-Builder

Played my first Test round on it,

My Feedback found only 1 major thing, and a few minor things.

MAJOR:
More primary industries for food are needed!
For 1-2 Players the current number is ok, but if like 6-7 should play  more are needed, I almost used 1/3 of the map Alone, to be able to get enough production. Maybe its also because I come from Luukland servers, which had plenty of those server running, and alot of geeks on it, they also had alot higher number of primary industry for food. :)


MINOR:
If a town has a industry almost next to it, and no water tower. A player cant build a water tower for the town, since the industry is to close.

There are cities with like 120 people, and towns with like 2000 x).