[RFD] Sharing of infrastructure

[Zuu]

This have been brought up in the discussions about airports, but I think it has to be discussed more generally.

Opponent's track and stations can be used, but with a fee. This fee can be set by the opponent. Stations can also be owned by local authorities. For these, the same conditions hold as for opponent's tracks and stations. This will also add the possibility for third parties to use tracks and stations for long distance travel, which will generate extra income for using the network and stations. However, if the network is too crowded and travel times are too high, the third parties will go away.

Noone have taken up this in thier lists on the FRD discussions page.


Permissions per station basis: I think that the owner of the infrastructure should have control over who is using it. Perhaps in the GUI there should exist a tab where you can set permissions for it.

Permissions for infastructure like stations:

• bool Automaticly allow other companies to use this station.
• bool Ask me when a company wants to use this station.
• bool Deny non-trusted companies.

As usal Deny have higest priority.

Alternative: Maybe we should not set permissions per station basis, but have one or several policies that can be created / costomized at a global scope, and each station have a refference to one of these policies.

Some one might say to much micromannagement, but if you would get a popup message for each request from another company you would be distrubed regulary.

Tracks: For stations and buildings that you have not to far many we can probably afford to have a short int for permission policies, but for tracks it is probably to consuming to store a policy for each section. But having only one global policy for each transport sort is probably not enoght flexible.

Maybe the player can either set deny, ask or allow as default for the whole map, and then select regions for overriding this policy.

[Steve]

I don't really want other companies using my stations and tracks. I am only for it in airports, as that doesn't really have much room for sabotage and it stops the 'too many airports in a single town' problem.

[Hyronymus]

Steve, we aren't designing this game for you alone. I have a gut feeling that the majority of TTD players would like such feature in TTD even! Does anybody know how RRT deals with this option? I don't believe RRT bans non-trustable companies and I personally don't see that as a solution. The real solution is to agree with an opponent on track usage against a fixed fee. A variable fee whould end up in bargaining, distracting TE from the core business. If you (additionally) want to use a station too you should agree upon it with the AI too. Some extended thoughts of the fee calculation:

Track fees: Each piece of track used by your trains on another company's track costs $ I(nothing more, nothing less)
Station fees: Each visit to a station of another company costs $ * # ($ = price, # = amount of passengers)

Needless to say but this is calculated PER TRAIN indivdually.

[SHADOW-XIII]

a player = any player

=STATIONS=========================================================

well ... there should be an options:

this can be global aswell can be also turnable on/off for each station to:
[_tick_] allow sharing my stations
_[_tick_] player 1
_[_tick_] player 2
_.... ... rest players

and whenever a player requests sharing a window appear with asking confirmation ... window should include small view of area of requested station and what vehicle types to include .... also that window should include a tick [_tick_] always accept sharing for this player [_list_how_long_] for [_veh_type_]

[_tick_] is tick
[_list_how_long_] decides how long we want to make sharing permanent for the player, examples: X Months, X Years, Forever
[_veh_type_] is for which vehicles (list with ticks for every vehicle type, all ticks marked = all vehicles allowed)

=ROADS/RAILS=======================================================

other way is for sharing tracks & roads, yes sharing them to
it should be possible to turn off sharing anysquare I would like to but htis can be too much effort ... so and first stage think abou sharing all tracks/roads or none ... in later stages of game that can develop to more complex sharing

=INDUSTRIES========================================================

no sharing industries in my opinion, however option that a (certain/all) player can pickup cargo from YOURs industry should be. of course he you get paid for what he has taken,
if we decide that all cargos ends at for example cities then we can make a player selling to your industries, this should be quiet automatically way, where player can set up price, and monthly amount of cargo that the industry will accept from anyone ...

=PRICES===========================================================

as for roads/rails prices should be stedy ... player decide price an other player agress or not or tries to force his price ... price should be steady as long as players decide to share (+inflation), the aggrement should also include how max trains/roads we allowed monthly

as for stations this should also be quiet steady + money depending of amount of transfered cargo at this station by this player

[Hyronymus]

You're being far to complicated IMO, Shadow. But besides from that, what's the use of allowing the AI on your stations/tracks by just putting a tick in a box? I think this sharing feature isn't something you want switched on as a standard setting but really only after an agreement. And I really disagree that the player sets prices, it gets too complicated then. Just imagine what you'll do if the AI won't let you on its track.

[SHADOW-XIII]

yes, I agree that it is complicated ... but do not think about AI in TTD standards ... think about AI (nearly) as human player ...
so AI will be able to ask (if needed) player for using his tracks/roads ... prices will be just simple way to pay for that ... those ticks will only made those sharing things simpler and put in more automatically way

look at this:
Company (can be AI, if it will have good IQ) wants to use your station, or use some part of your roads/rails. So he/it sends an agreement where you see what he wants, and his suggest price and time how long it will be working (minimum time, can be expanded) ... you decide to bid price a bit, he agrees and done, he can use the thing he wanted

[Hyronymus]

To me the AI only has to send in a request with the time he wants to use the station/track and 'my CFO' will do the arithmetics.

[Steve]

Steve, we aren't designing this game for you alone.

I was giving an opinion. I'll try not to do that again.



Why would we share industries? Players don't even own them? Any any cargo would surely go to whoever is doing the best, using the ratings. (As a percentage)

If we allow sharing of track, charging a specific price is too much of micromanagement. If you imagine a TTD network, everything is connected, so where does one price end, and another price start? And when you edit the track? I set price that rises with inflation would be more suitable, although it could be per train or per month.
If we did have it, i think it should be optional to a degree, so players can't use someone elses track without asking them. Otherwise you could find your nice new express network clogging up, and have no way of telling people to go away.

[Hyronymus]

We want your opinion, Steve but there are people out there who can't post here and might disagree with any of us . Anyhow:

Tracks:Each piece of track used by your trains on another company's track costs $ ($ is inflation-sensitive). To get a deal with the AI (or v.v.) you propose the AI the piece of track you like to use [it would be nice if you can drag a box around the track to select it]. You cannot negotiate $, it's a basecost, depending on track type and year.
Example: you want to use 20 cells of track of the AI's track between Station A (yours) and Station X (AI). It's 1947 and $ = 5,20, resulting in a contract worth 20 * 5,20 = $ 104,- per train. Deals can be made for any given time (in months).

Station fees: Each visit to a station of another company costs $ * # ($ = price ($ is inflation-sensitive), # = amount of passengers). To get a deal with the AI (or v.v.) you propose the AI station you like to use [a station list or zoom window to select would work]. You cannot negotiate $, it's a basecost, depending on station size and the year.
Example: you want to use Station X, a medium-sized passenger station It's still 1947 and $ = (5,- * 1,0) = $5,- [1,0 is station size factor]. Train 13 delivers 34 passengers to Station X resulting in a charge of 34 * 5 = $170,- for Train 13. Deals can be made for any given time (in months).

[Steve]

Well, theres not much we can do about that. I try to think what's best for Average Joe too.


I like your system, as it does allow independant networks, but there are obvious advantages to letting a competitor use parts of your network.

Some points:
Will it be better to authorise specific routes on your tracks? Example: You have a track from London to Paris, currently mainly for a passenger route, but you just set up a large goods run into London from a place off the side of the main track in Calais. Joe Empire has been allowed to use your London to Paris track and build it's own train station in Calais to collect goods, and connects it to the line it is allowed to use. It is now stealing cargo from you.. with the ratings being very similar due to using 90% of the same track, you can only expect 50% of the goods.
That brings up another point, will the competitors be able to connect to a piece of track that they pay money for, at will?
What if they are evil and stop their trains. Can you boot them off?
What if your track is quite complex, requiring waypoints to work. Will the AI be smart enough to know that?

[Hyronymus]

If the AI steels your profits you shouldn't have allowed them on your track I say. That's the risk you take when you allow them on your track. I think it's better to deny the AI (or you) to connect to other company track at will. That means that every connection to 'foreign track' should result in the 'Use foreign track menu' [to avoid accidental pop-ups just a 'Would you like to propose a track usage deal? YES/NO' would do].

Waypoints might cause some problems but how about automaticly using waypoints in given sections, both for human player and AI?

[Steve]

I think i'm actually for route specific deals.

"[Company] wishes to connect a route between [Town1] and [Town2] that will run [partly/completely] on your track, as shown below. The density of traffic has been rated as [low/medium/high/very high]. [Company Owner] agrees to pay [cost] per year for allowing usage of the shown tracks. Do you wish to sign a contract?"

Below would be shown a zoomed out, simple view of the landscape, showing where your track is used, and where it would be branched off to the other persons track. The other company would have to do a rough route sketch (straight lines, ignoring most terrain) to show a proposed route that we would make later on, as it'd be silly to make the route and THEN ask if you can join up.
The density of traffic would be mentioned by the other company, if he went over this density, he would pay a fine and then move up to the next bracket. These things could be shown on a contract status page, showing usage of routes.

In the writing of this, i thought of somethings: What if the other other company didn't make the proposed route? Then you'd have to fine them/ prevent the trains from running on your track. A LOT of things to consider though.
It may make sense to have tracks owned by towns as main, cheaper routes. Thoeretically, we could make the AI do them, or perhaps we could make them into subsidies. "Town1 wants a track to Town2" which they'd then pay you for and it'd be handled by the LAs. So then usage would be based directly on how much the LA liked you. It would offer a cheaper alternative, but it could easily become British Rail. Proceed with caution!
Oh, and they could be laid by map makers beforehand, just like airports and trees.

[Zuu]

Mayby enter/exit points for railway tracks can be a solution. The owner creates the enter/exit points where other companies can attach thier tracks. (perhaps also with enters and exits.)

The biggest problem I see with this solution it how should a company ask another where to place exits and entrances.


---

About sabotaging. I think that it will be impossible to prevent a player from sabotaging for another. It will be a question of trust. People that don't follow common sense and sabotage for other players has to be droped from the game.

But however I think that when a train is on another players track you should not be able to stop the train. And if a train brakes down, you will have to pay a fee (chosen on beforhand by the owner of the tracks.)

[PJayTycy]

For payment, I don't really see a problem. Hyronymus' idea about payment per track-tile is a good idea, but don't make it a fixed contract or something. Just make it an autmatic payment everytime a train moves over the track.

The agreements between companies will have more problems: Which area is shared ? how many trains are allowed each year ? What train types will be allowed (speed etc...) ?

It will be annoying if somebody sends super slow trains on your track. 2 possible solutions : [a] provide a way to notice the player they should use faster engines provide a way to include some kind of minimum price in the contract.

I agree with fines if some vehicle breaks down on your tracks.

I don't really have a solution / idea for setting the shared area.

[Hyronymus]

For payment, I don't really see a problem. Hyronymus' idea about payment per track-tile is a good idea, but don't make it a fixed contract or something. Just make it an autmatic payment everytime a train moves over the track.

That was part of my suggestion

The agreements between companies will have more problems: Which area is shared ?

No, you select it or it has been selected (in case the AI asks your permission)

how many trains are allowed each year ?

Not a problem if you pay per train and forget about a maximum number of trains

What train types will be allowed (speed etc...) ?

Speed might be a problem indeed.

I agree with fines if some vehicle breaks down on your tracks.

Me too.

[Zuu]

For payment, I don't really see a problem. Hyronymus' idea about payment per track-tile is a good idea, but don't make it a fixed contract or something. Just make it an autmatic payment everytime a train moves over the track.

Afree that Hyr.s idea is probably good, maybe a time factor should be included, but then the owner would get more paid for a bussy network than a efficent.

It will be annoying if somebody sends super slow trains on your track. 2 possible solutions : [ a ] provide a way to notice the player they should use faster engines [ b ] provide a way to include some kind of minimum price in the contract.

Perhaps you should be able to specify minimum requriments for the trains that would use your network.

I agree with fines if some vehicle breaks down on your tracks.

I think I proposed it, so logically I agrees with it too.

I don't really have a solution / idea for setting the shared area.

Suggestions:
A Select recangle areas. Problem: unexact, might take to much time to look up if too many rectangles are used.
B Build enter/exit points. (forced exits and unforced exits). Problem: what if a player requests a enter point and a exit point, and then don't use them. Then the company that builds them will lose money.

For B, perhaps you might evan make it possible for the owner to set up routes from an enter to an exit that. And by forcing other companies to use them we will solve the problem with lost trains. (or at least put it at the users table.)

I think I suggest B, especially with the last pragraph, it becomes quite powerfull.

[Hyronymus]

Suggestions:
A Select recangle areas. Problem: unexact, might take to much time to look up if too many rectangles are used.
B Build enter/exit points. (forced exits and unforced exits). Problem: what if a player requests a enter point and a exit point, and then don't use them. Then the company that builds them will lose money.

Let me add a suggestion:
C Select start and end point and let the computer find the way by checking which tiles between the start and end point have railroad tracks on them.

[Zuu]

If the track owner do not build enter/exit points how are the two companies tracks connected?

Can I just make some track from my mainline to your or do you have any control over where I place my track?

A good thing with that the owner build enter/exit points is that he can place a signal between the enterpoint and his mainline track, so that you cant just send a train in to crash your competors trains.

[Zuu]

Code: Select all

- 4. [RFD] Sharing of infrastructure
                        
        * VOTE:         
                A. Keep sharing infrastructure.
                B. Drop sharing infrastructure.
                C. Go away with your poll! :P
                
                RESULT: a: 3 b: 2 c: 0          (jpls vote is included, which he casted later at the meeting)
                NOTE: 66% majority will not be reached. A vote will be held on the forum.

Perhaps you Hellfire or Chris can create a poll in this topic.

[Zuu]

Questions that are worth considering when voting:

• Who will use shared infrastructure?
• Will there be any use for it exept than in multiplayer?
• As multiplayer is not our top priority, but "building routes" did get the top score on our game focus vote, should we implement this feature that probably only will be used in multiplayer, by players?