CHANGING SERVER 7

[alex879ro]

As you all know, this time has come. My idea is as following:
-Changing server 7 to temperate will:

1. Leave S3 as the only desert CV that we got ( a good idea since it is mostly an empty server except for a few games a day when it reaches 5-7 player)
2. Give us the opportunity to improve a very old server and possibly to come up with a better gameplay for it (temperate is more recommended for small servers since it has a lot of trains and industries)

However, I must agree with Imus: Server 7 is our smallest server (about 1h) and it would be better to remain this way. So I ask all of you, if you want to propose scenarios which we can discuss for server 7 on temperate landscape. I hope we will be able to make the change during the week-end if Batt agrees too and if there are enough oppinions.

The fixed parameters: Small to Medium  Map
Goal that would last max 1h-1h30

A first idea that I`d want to try would be NO PERFORMANCE. This should allow us to test if performance is driving our new players away or not.

Thank You.

[Chucky]

Yeah Alex, you are now the one-and-only enemy and imus "kill" you    I didn´t dare to talk about changing server 7 after i had read something on forum, but i agree to do it because server is often in idle.

> 1. players - which played long time ago - missed the old 40mil. desert server also..... but this is another topic...
> 2.  let´s do it, but don´t forget to cancel the vehicle-limits.  what is the new goal ... 40mil .. more or less and sure we can try to use your option "no performance"

cya Chucky

[imus]

First things first:
ALEX HOW DARE YOU TOUCH S7 ... I KILL YOU!!!!!

with that being said, here's my constructive criticism:
I like the idea of no performance, making the goal of this server a race for CV (similar to population on CB servers). I do still feel that it should be a contest of money making lines (so goal not too high). No idea what a good number would be though. Maybe we should try to get some good players to achieve the highest CV in 30 minutes (invite solo/constructor/... ?) to get an idea of what is possible, then set the goal slightly higher so that the average player would need just under 1 hour to finish it. (current s7 games took me about 24 minutes, record times are 20 I think?)

No vehicle limit (or vehicles high enough to simulate this as it's technically impossible to have no limit) seems a good idea as well.
I do suggest to set up a script to figure out CV cheating (purchasing several vehicles in depot just for the CV) so that this can't be abused and we don't have to check the logs for each game just to find the cheaters ...

Other option that would be interesting but not sure if possible:
set the goal to bank balance instead of CV and disable transferring money. This makes it a true contest of profitability on your first trains and the only way to "cheat" is by selling/destroying everything you own to get a refund ... which is a really risky strategy with only a small benefit.

suggestions for the settings:
goal limit able to reach in less than: 30mins for fast players, 1hour for mediocre players, over 1 hour only for newbies who don't really understand the game.
starting with monorail: (no need to wait for ages for that first ka-ching!)
map size: 512x512 (some people think this is tiny already, we're not aiming for big networks here remember?)
vehicle limit: 500 (won't be reached anyway, so it's virtually infinite) (no ships tho)
noise limit: euhm, no planes?
town size: preferably rather small, since pax is too profitable (current records on s7 are all with pax trains for this reason)

ps Chucky:
I don't have anything against changing s7. My main issue was that the originial discussion was about changing it to something longer because mini games (1 hour or less) were not popular enough (with biased statistics, ask me about this if you're interested, I don't want to start a fight about that here). Changing s7 to something more interesting with still a short goal is not really a problem ^.^

[Andreas]

I agree that town size should be quite low, especially if you decide to start with monorail. I can guarantee that if you don't, the result will be all pax, and maybe a few 2-way coal lines.

Further: not including perf. in the goal might be nice, but there are 2 things I wonder:
- the scoring for players with low perf. will be quite low, because it is a big part of the calculation (afaik)?
- Are there really problems with perf?  Yeah I know some players have difficulty with ending the games in high perf goals (700 and up) But reaching 350 or so is seldom a problem. It also increases diversity and creativity because delivering different cargoes is an easy way to score some perf points. (nothing to loose by trying though...)

On the other hand I think a lower train limit will increase the effect of it being a contest of money making lines stimulating to choose your lines well. At the same time it will prevent mass cv cheating by buying trains, without the need of aditional measures.

[imus]

You're absolutely right about the performance making a big difference in score. And true it does make for some more interesting strategies than just abuse that one most profitable resource in the game (being pax or, if all towns are tiny, coal).

But I have the same feeling as alex that the perf. hinders the new players a lot. Leaving it out of the goal is a good idea but this does require a different scoring system as it makes no sense.

Besides that I also feel that the performance doesn't really fit the goal on this tiny server.
For me a normal (big) game has 3 phases:

• build a quick money maker
• build a big network connecting all major hotspots on the map (think of 2 way oil)
• optimise the network and/or upgrade to newer trains

It is only in step 3 that you truly focus on getting that performance (remove trains running on loss, connect that missing resource etc...).
For me, the goal of this server should be to only focus on the first step and a mini version of step 2.

So I would love to see the settings I suggested with a race for cash instead of CV. The scoring should also reflect this so it would be awesome if we could adapt the CB scoring to use cash instead of population solving most of the big issues with the current scoring/goals/feel about the map.

Even better option (I think) is to measure quarterly income instead of cash so that it would be interesting to keep building until the end (whereas just cash gets counterproductive at some point).

[alex879ro]

People....that`s why I love you !!!! I ask about suggestions and you start discussing theories of life

Please use quantitative answers like:

Goal: 40 mil
Map Size: ....

And so on. Stop discussing public rephorma here   " A server should be smaller, because the monorail would bring a lot of cash"
I`m waiting for the proposals

[Andreas]

To summarize (it's all in the previous posts):

-map size 512x512
-starting date: after mono introduction: 2005 should be fine)
-town size small
-no planes
-vehicle limit: Imus and chucky think large (500trains) I think low (25-30trains)
-no cv
-no money transfer
-goal: TEST IT: one 30minute game with the settings you want to use for the server will tell all you need to know.

also Imus asked you if it was possible to set the goal for bank balance or income in stead of cv?

I aditionally suggest:

-no of towns low (they tend to clog small maps quite easily)
-no of industries medium
-low water quantity
-flat terrain

don't forget:
-disable possibility of exclusive transport rights
-disable road reconstruction

You want numbers but different settings influence each other, so if you use a different set of configurations, you have to test it at least once to know what the goal should be in order to make a +/- 1hour goal:

example: double train speed: goal should almost be doubled
towns larger than 2,5k: goal wil be reached about 1/3 faster
higher construction cost? starting up takes about 1-2 years more (which is 15 mins or so as you know)

So yeah, in order to make useful suggestions there is a need to discuss aspects influencing each other.

There is another way to go: just mock up a server, let some experience players have a round or 2 and then adjust it accordingly.
As I already made clear  by now, you can't just expect to get some  numbers and settings posted here and expect to have a server that the criteria and is fun to play.

Modified to keep the discussion on topic

[alex879ro]

Was it so hard? Personally, when I said only the climate is decided and the duration, there are a million posibilities. Let me give you a few examples:

Steamer World(server9) is also a small temperate server
Asphalt King (only with trucks) was also a small server

We could do a server called "Top of the Hill" where all the map would be a hill. You can juggle a lot with settings, that`s why I wanted to see some oppinions expressed in numbers. Based on those, I`ll try to form an oppinion and implement them. The idea "if you double the train speed, you need to double the goal" is just theoretical speach, that`s what I ment by rephorma. It`s like they discuss it in the parliament.

I simply needed oppinions on what settings would  be the favourite of each of the ones who answer this post. But oppinions expressed in numbers.

Also, a small server could be one with 1024 x 1024.....if it can be finished in 1.5 hours max, map size doesn`t matter.

[Andreas]

Saying that doubling train speed should double the goal is not "theoretical speach like they use in parliament" it is an example to make it clear you cannot just take the most heard setting, jam them together and call them a scenario!

As you point out yourself steamer server has a low goal, but is in no way a short server.

Even if the goal can be reached in 1.5 hour max the map size DOES matter using: such a large map would result in only long lines, and next to no networking. That does not have to be a bad thing but it *does* matter.

Modified to keep the thread on topic

[Chucky]

1st: @andreas: i´m not thinking large

2nd: i´m lazy so i grab a picture and here my suggestion:

no air and look at pic., rest as the other servers.

i would prefer a small server, because it would be uninteresting for the players from server 5 and 8. further is a great network needed to win - not station #a  with long line to #b and waiting until it is finished. so on this small place it would be funny with 4-5 players at same time. 1960 is also great to play with old locos.

[alex879ro]

In order to end this argument orderly, please post your reply if you want, then after 24 hours , please delete or change all the replies that contain non-topic comments. I will do the same in order to make this topic to the point. (EDIT: working on this ~ Imus)

@ Imus: Oppinion understood   Especially the following part:

ALEX HOW DARE YOU TOUCH S7 ... I KILL YOU!!!!!

  But in order to do that, you`d have to come to the OpenTTD channel   So I`m safe for a while.

@Chucky : Oppinion understood

[Gopher]

Re Server #7. I like it and I play it often. Here are 6 points you may like to consider , please delete them if you think they aren't relevant.
1/. Its short and finishes quickly so statistically it may have more games/ players on it than it appears.
2/. Small servers don't need a fast download speed so that players with a small download speed can play them. (Think of 95% of the people in the world who are struggling along on ADSL)
3/. Its used by newbies because its small and its title says 1 hr. (they would find its less threatening than something taking 6 or more hours)
4/. Not transferring money is a good idea. Possibly could be used on other servers or at least limit the amount.
5/. I don't think the difference between a cash goal or a cv goal would make much difference.
6/. No Perf. would be a good idea for newbies who haven't got that far yet. (maybe have a very low perf  of 100 or so)
7/. The goal could be set higher- maybe double and also the number of vehicles,
Gopher

[alex879ro]

@Gopher :
1) The new server will finish in the same time as the current one....possibly 10-20 minutes more
2,3 - answered at 1)
4) That`s a very good idea Gopher and we will disable money transfer or indeed limit it to an amount of 50k if possible
5) We do not have a cash goal currently. It`s not in the xShunter settings...therefore cannot be used. Or...perhaps I didn`t understood what you referring to....maybe you can explain this point...what does "cash goal" mean..
6) That is indeed what I had in mind. No performance or 100 perf
7) Again....what I had in mind...dunno if double...depends on the settings

Very good idea: Limit or disable money transfers.

@imus: Not possible....not included in the xShunter goal unfortunately. We only have CV,Perf and CB currently. It was included in the new scoring that xOR started working on, but don`t know the current state of it.  (EDIT: no longer relevant, also removed derailed part ~ Imus)

[Andreas]

Maybe someone with forum permisions (alex?/imus?/chucky?)could spit the topic after reply #14 or so to get this thread back on the real s7 toppic and keep the scoring discussion in another topic?

[imus]

Alright guys, I tried my best to get this thread back on track

The scoring discussion is now moved to this thread.

I suggest we now use this thread with vague parameters to point out what the basic idea should be. That way we can try to find the right intentions for the settings without worrying about what the exact values fit those intentions. Posting settings that you know are required is still a good idea tho For example: map size 256x256.

I also created a new thread for the exact settings that we're going to use later on.