[Poll] Competition on secondary industries

[Andreas]

The way I expressed myself might have given the wrong impression about the aim and status of the poll. Therefore I am posting an update to clarify:

The aim of this poll is to see how many players support the idea of a change of the current rule. I wanted to get an insight in this, since I have noticed an increase in the amount of players that are discussing stealing/competition. Also all ideas on how this can be implemented and your opinions are welcomed.

The previous poll was not closed because I considered it a done deal. It was done because I realised the concept of the poll with 4 vote options was not right to begin with.
For a start, there was no possible outcome that could create clarity on the matter. Also 2 options were not practical.
-   No competition on secondary is a rule that a majority of players are against
-   Only compete if you also deliver has too many loopholes (like bringing 1 truck and taking 10 trains) and would be too hard too judge, for both players and admins.

That was the reason for starting the new poll. This poll will run till the end of May.

If the outcome suggests a large part of the community (admins and players) would like something to change, We can discuss the options of how to implement an advantage for funding industries (be it all or just secondary, be it a claimed area or just a sign)
If we can reach something that is feasable in both gameplay and technical terms it can be tested, but no sooner. Both player, opertor and admin agreement is needed (and some coding).

My suggestion for the moment would be: Let the a game script check for the funding of secondary industries. (similar to the way achievements work now) If a company funds a industry place a sign with: Private industry, funded by [Company name] (similar to the signs is city builder.) I think that this will be fairly easy to implement, since both the code that checks for industries and the code to place signs already exist.

Off course this is only 1 possibility. All other suggestions are also welcomed

I am sorry if I might have created the suggestion that I want to force a change of the rules or interpret the poll only for my own biased idea.

The original post can be found here for who is interested. http://www.n-ice.org/openttd/forum/index.php?topic=379.0 This updated suggestion has been done after talking to other admins and opperators.

P.s. I have also altered the vote options. If you wish to change your vote click on 'remove vote' at the top of the screen and then vote for your new choice.

[Andreas]

man, at least read before you reply...

Details about how much industries can be private and if this will be done using a protected area or simply by placing a sign indicating the ownership and other details can be discussed if the outcome of the poll requires it. 

And I can change it to no competition on secondary and I can tell you the outcome: the rule will stay the same. Also secondary industries are relatively cheap, so I think this will help players that don't like competition at all as well.

[imus]

Hmm, I'm kinda undecided about this one. I agree that I disliked people stealing my wood on server 3 when I tried that one. Then again, I was the first one to steal the wood some games before, so I knew it was fair game.

Also for me it would depend on what kind of industry we're talking about. The wood on server 3 makes a huge difference and is only possible if someone funds it, so I feel it should be private (or at least the first year/ 2 years after funding) but I don't see why a funded factory would be any different from a regular factory for example. So that should have free competition.

I really don't know about this one =D

Guess I'll go with owning funded industries cause I can tell that many people could get really upset over a wood scenario like that.

Extra: owning a funded industry with a sign might give some problems with people not seeing signs at the start, but would also increase the amount of players actually seeing the signs of other companies once this rule becomes used more often. But as said before, these are problems for later.

[Sweety]

I would like for funded industries to be private. It kills the fun when on server 3 you fund a bunch of lumber mills just to see someone almost instantly building a station near them before they even started producing resources. Most of the time I have no problems with competing for resources but in lumber mill case it is slightly frustrating, especially if you are winning by big margin and someone just slows you down.

[kris indonesia]

I would like for funded industries to be private. It kills the fun when on server 3 you fund a bunch of lumber mills just to see someone almost instantly building a station near them before they even started producing resources. Most of the time I have no problems with competing for resources but in lumber mill case it is slightly frustrating, especially if you are winning by big margin and someone just slows you down.

yes hurt, but do u play alone? NO, we play together  " pssst, it's secret I'll tell u i love slowdown another players  " if founded industry become private how can I win if Ilate to join server 

[al]

If you make funded industries private you:

a) no longer have a competition server
b) you 99% guarantee the first person who builds a funded industry wins the game.

People funding even 6 months or a year later have no chance.

In the case of server 3 the funded industry is always lumber. There is nothing to supply so the first person to get one has the wood and then makes another fortune off the goods. On a quality competition server (as it is now) you balance the risk of funding it with the possibility that someone quickly notices and then competes with you. It's your choice to make. You can hold off and wait for someone else to fund or take the risk of doing it yourself. The fact most people fund as soon as it's feasible, despite competitors, shows it's not exactly a bad deal.

The fact that it "slows down" the winner is precisely the point sometimes as it equals more points on the scoreboard.

Changing this rule would mean, particularly on server 3, that the game is guaranteed won at around the 2-3 year mark (or sooner) by the first person who builds a few lucrative passenger routes between the top population cities and saves up for lumber mills which are cheap.

Edit: Just on server 3 now. Took under 2 years to get enough free cash to fund a lumber mill. Game over.

[Andreas]

I agree the lumber mills could be a bit of a problem.
For other industries I don't think the effect is that bad. Primary industries are quite expensive, so take a long time to pay back. Factories and such are not that big of an advantage. Yes I agree the point of competition is slowing the other player down for some part. Maybe it is worth to exclude the lumber mill (if the private suggestion is implemented) But such details can always be discussed at the end of the poll

[al]

I agree the lumber mills could be a bit of a problem.
For other industries I don't think the effect is that bad. Primary industries are quite expensive, so take a long time to pay back. Factories and such are not that big of an advantage. Yes I agree the point of competition is slowing the other player down for some part. Maybe it is worth to exclude the lumber mill (if the private suggestion is implemented) But such details can always be discussed at the end of the poll

Alternative is to make the lumber mill as expensive as primary industries (if possible)

[Andreas]

Alternative is to make the lumber mill as expensive as primary industries (if possible)
[/quote]

It sure is possible, but that can't be done with a Game script, it needs a newgrf. And to put a newgrf on all servers is probably not a good idea, since some players don't like it...

[Chucky]

oh no... but my suggestion:  it could be alternative to have transfer rights at the first 2 years for the founder only.

[A.M.Sandulescu]

1. I agree with competition but it is normal that founded industries should be private .
In reality when you build a factory no one comes to make profit on your production without paying.

2. Founded cities should be even "more" private since you pay a much larger amount to found it. 

3. Stealing goods for example IS NO COMPETITION it is JUST STEALING.... people work hard to build goods networks and lazy players just come and STEAL.

Think about it, these are 3 strong logical points of view.

[imus]

1. I agree with competition but it is normal that founded industries should be private .
In reality when you build a factory no one comes to make profit on your production without paying.

In reality you don't really "fund" a factory. You either buy shares from that factory and can make a profit of that if the factory makes profit, doesn't matter how it does that. Or you give a loan to that factory and will then receive an interest after some time. Both cases don't care how the factory delivers it's goods. Another thing would be to sponsor a factory and this would be similar to using advertisements. The factory still has the choice which company to use for the goods transport, but will have a preference for you (except if another company is significantly better).

2. Founded cities should be even "more" private since you pay a much larger amount to found it. 

It's not because you pay for the foundations of a city that you actually "own" that city. I do agree that it would be more logical that you would get a bonus over other players. Maybe you should automatically start with your company statue in that city when you fund one? This way, if you compete with another company that uses the same trains, you would still get more pax/mail.

3. Stealing goods for example IS NO COMPETITION it is JUST STEALING.... people work hard to build goods networks and lazy players just come and STEAL.

Building a station next to a factory that is already delivering to another company and thus giving that factory a choice who to use for the goods transport is competition. Sending your trains to another company's station taking the goods would be stealing, but this is impossible anyway.

My overall conclusion: Competition should be possible for everything, but if you fund something (city/industry) you should receive a bonus to your station rating. This way you still get some advantage when investing into something. Don't know if it's possible to script this, or if this would mean changing the source code in the client.

[A.M.Sandulescu]

1. I agree with competition but it is normal that founded industries should be private .
In reality when you build a factory no one comes to make profit on your production without paying.

In reality you don't really "fund" a factory. You either buy shares from that factory and can make a profit of that if the factory makes profit, doesn't matter how it does that. Or you give a loan to that factory and will then receive an interest after some time. Both cases don't care how the factory delivers it's goods. Another thing would be to sponsor a factory and this would be similar to using advertisements. The factory still has the choice which company to use for the goods transport, but will have a preference for you (except if another company is significantly better).

Nonsense...
the best way to put it in words----Found it--- pay it--- make profit from it

2. Founded cities should be even "more" private since you pay a much larger amount to found it. 

It's not because you pay for the foundations of a city that you actually "own" that city. I do agree that it would be more logical that you would get a bonus over other players. Maybe you should automatically start with your company statue in that city when you fund one? This way, if you compete with another company that uses the same trains, you would still get more pax/mail.

Again nonsense...
Found it--- pay it--- make profit from it

3. Stealing goods for example IS NO COMPETITION it is JUST STEALING.... people work hard to build goods networks and lazy players just come and STEAL.

Building a station next to a factory that is already delivering to another company and thus giving that factory a choice who to use for the goods transport is competition. Sending your trains to another company's station taking the goods would be stealing, but this is impossible anyway.

Your greatest nonsense so far...

People work hours for an efficient rail that delivers raw materials to a factory for example that produces goods. So it is as clear as daylight that who delivers the materials should also use the goods
If this is not stealing than prisons should be half empty.
Case 1 = work, make money--- Case 2 = steal, make money (how much simpler do you need me to say it?)

[imus]

You kind off forgot to finish that last sentence.

I partly agree with you in the way that if you invest in an industry (funding it, transporting the primary (and usually less affording) materieals, etc...) you should get more out of it then the "fair" competition as it is now. That's why I suggest some sort of bonus/penalty system that gives other players for example a 10% penalty to their station rating. So you still got an advantage when funding while maintaining the competitive aspect of the game.

I disagree with you in the way that we're still playing on competitive servers. In the original game, the AI did the same thing to you, so I'm assuming that this is the way the game was intended to be played. This is why I tried to explain the difference between "stealing" and "competing" a little better. Why else would the entire station rating system be used in the first place? (note for city builder games it's a bit different, since losing a part of your goods/food/... actually stops you from progressing until you can set up a new network)

This is MY opinion and I'm just trying to make it clear here.
If you got any other arguments you're welcome to discuss them here. Just calling everything I say "nonsense" won't help anymore. Looking at the poll results, it seems like 8/18 disagree with your logic.

Since the other 10/18 do agree to go against the current rule, it's likely that something should change, but for me, the difference is not significant enough to now just change it to complete owning of funded industries.

[katnomad]

Hello all,

just a litle post to give my point of view.

Competition on everything make game more interesting as it let you the choice to fund or not if you aim at winning.

In my point of view if you private industry or city , the only way for winning a game , will be funding. So  no need anymore to create a map , just put enough fund to each player to buy an industry and big flat world and every one just build a big straight railways and game over.

For those who argue that when people take goods on secondary industry where they do not deliver anything is not fair, think that if you do deliver you will make money on primary goods and on the secondary goods , so you will still make more money.

and after all remember that what make n-ice server interesting , it is this competition . They are full of server were you can "private" everything, so do we wanted to play on a server or on a N-ICE server?