September 3, 2014 at 14:44 #4192BerryParticipant
Spreading hate? How are we spreading hate?
Stop playing the victim card here, it definitly doesnt work.
We stated reasons why we think boats and planes wouldn’t fit in the game, while you were basicly just saying ‘I want trains and if you don’t than that’s your problem’…
Give us a few reasons why you think it’d be a good idea for the developpers to put a lot of work into making boats and planes instead. It’s not like they can just make a bunch of 3D moels and call it a day. Theyll need to do research, make animations, change the economy and probably a lot of other things, so don’t just say that ‘planes and boats would be a good idea’, but actually come up with a few arguments as of why you think the devs should put a lot of time into adding them.September 3, 2014 at 14:45 #4194theurosParticipant
If the planes/ships would be implemented like I suggested it.. this wouldn’t break any realism and shouldn’t be to hard to implement.September 3, 2014 at 15:00 #4195Jonathan078NLParticipant
I.m.o. it’s 50/50 for me.
If the dev’s will say “We’re gonna implement ships and planes” Then I say yessss! If they say it’s gonna unbalance the game, It won’t fit Train Fever. The maps are too small. It will make the game more unrealistic. It’s not on our ToDo list or whatever then I’m fine with that too.
For me it’s most important that if planes and ships are on the ToDo list, then I wish and hope the dev’s will do this as good as they can and make sure it will enrich Train Fever instead of demolish it. I trust the dev’s 100% to make this decision, which is not up to anybody in this thread.September 3, 2014 at 15:05 #4196
I agree with your suggestions theuros… I suggested much the same. I think having airports and shipping ports treated as industries/destinations, rather than as “stations” for your own planes and ships, would make a lot of sense within the scope of Train Fever. I’m all for that as a future development.
From a pure flavour point of view, it would be really nice to have small propeller aircraft, helicopters, tourist boats/sailing boats, etc, etc… but I fear that most of those things would only really make sense as flavour elements – they wouldn’t meaningfully contribute to a mass-transit or cargo transport network. Commuter boats and canal barges could have some meaningful utility, but even then I think it would be fairly niche, and so it would be understandable if it wasn’t an important focus for the developers.September 3, 2014 at 19:09 #4237RustyrocketsParticipant
Well , at this point , I would like to remind everybody that , this is a video game ,and video games are not meant to be real. their existence is based on imaginations and creativity and I am pretty certain that Devs will find some sort of creative approach to introduce the content that is highly demanded by a huge fan base and make sure that some people who want to play just with trains and trucks , can play without any of thier realism destroyed.
for someone complianing that you need a 500 km area for planes , you should realise that these high speed trains , and vast networks of trains don’t exist in 16 km area in realism, the tens of big cities don’t exist in a 16 km area . so please stop baseless discussions of how planes will destroy the realism.September 3, 2014 at 19:58 #4244
Again with “Please stop talking”. Why? In what way does it harm you any more to read a constructive discussion on the matter than it harms me if they implement planes and ships?
Just because you don’t agree with one side of what’s being discussed, doesn’t mean you have any right to silence a discussion. Try being open-minded rather than just shutting out anything that doesn’t reiterate what you’ve already decided you want.
I know full well that the game isn’t a slavishly accurate model of reality, and I’m not suggesting that any addition to it needs to be. All I’m suggesting is that going by my own personal taste, I don’t feel that planes and cargo ships fit the feel of the game as it is currently. My personal feeling was always that planes didn’t fit terribly well even in Transport Tycoon, as they just ended up feeling like a rather one-dimensional game element next to train and road travel, and looked rather preposterous once you got a fleet of concorde buzzing around like a swarm of jittery bees. It felt a little out of place to me in a game that largely threw away the slightest notion of physical accuracy, and was pretty majorly abstract for the sake of gameplay. If it didn’t feel particularly well there, I can only imagine it would feel even more out of place in Train Fever, which for all that it isn’t a perfectly realistic simulation, is undeniably a lot closer to reality than Transport Tycoon ever attempted to be.
That’s my feeling on the matter. I don’t ask you to stop baseless discussion of a feature that I personally feel wouldn’t be a constructive use of the developers’ time, because I entirely respect your right to engage in this discussion. Feel free to carry on. (But perhaps try to shift your discussion over to debating how such a feature might be best implemented, rather than focusing on shutting up anyone else who attempts to do so)September 3, 2014 at 20:21 #4246
The ones who oppose ships and airplanes don’t want the devs to add both, but we, who like both, want them to add both.
But in contrary to us, you don’t lose anything, if the devs implement ships and planes, because you just can stick to trains and trucks, if you don’t like ships and planes.
Thats why I strongly dislike this “I think, it shouldn’t be implemented”-argument, because it is in its nature a pure optional feature. It would bring us fun and you would lose nothing but you opposed to this are the whole time saying “Don’t implement it” without imho reasonable reasons. We even created concepts and you seem to just don’t read them, thats just annoying as hell.
I think, it’s a good idea to implement because:
1) It adds to the enjoyability of the game for us, who want ships and airplanes in the game.
2) It wouldn’t touch the gaming experience of those, who don’t like ships and/or planes, they just can ignore both and stick to trains and trucks, without harm.
Even now you can, if you want, ignore trains and only build logistical networks with busses and trucks and still make money. It would be entirely the same for ships and planes, you can ignore both and you would still have the Train Fever, you like.
That is the fantastic thing about optional stuff: You can turn it off, if you don’t like it.
3) Would depict a more realistic way of modern day logistic networks, they’re closely interlinked nowadays, for example: Hamburg, the biggest harbor in Germany, is so popular because of it’s many logistical connections by rail and road.
4) Maybe the strongest reason: It adds possibilities to support the devs. I’m not a dreamer, I know, that they don’t do this for butter and bread only. If they also implement Ships and Planes, they’ll have more possibilities to add vehicles in DLC’s. In the end this even can contribute to a very good sequel of this game in a few years from now on.
So, as we talk about pure optional stuff here all the time, I feel it as atleast spreading a bad mood, if you post the whole time “Don’t implement it” with various reasons, that are not valid because you can set planes and ships aside, noone is putting a pistol against your head and forcing you too build planes and ships, if it gets implemented.
Just turn it off if you don’t like and if you like it, enjoy it and everyone is happy.
What is so difficult about understanding this?September 3, 2014 at 21:05 #4263
I’m not posting “Don’t implement it”… I’m posting “I don’t think it would work very well if it were implemented in a particular way, and could use some serious consideration as to how best to fit it into the theme and feel of the game”
Given that the developers’ time is presumably limited, and that features such as these would require significant development, then if they chose to implement this they would be doing so to the exclusion of something else, something that might serve to expand the game in a better way.
Either way, seeing as both possibilities are entirely academic at this point, as they haven’t actually asked anybody for their input on what they should focus future development on, then we all stand to gain or lose just about nothing as of this moment. I’m not denying you your beloved planes and ships just by engaging in a discussion about them.September 3, 2014 at 21:21 #4271
The devs time isn’t unlimited, thats true, but not that like they only do things to one certain date and afterwards they stop developing, so their time isn’t that hard limited as you think.
Also, I think you must have an idea of your own, which you fear, might be pushed aside by planes and ships.
I can’t imagine, what would be that big in the game mechanics, that would require as much time to implement to improve further railways and trucks as ships and planes.
Maybe adding 100 new locomotives in one single DLC or something like that, I don’t have a clue, so I’m curious, what you’re thinking off.September 3, 2014 at 22:15 #4292
About the only idea I’d like to see is something like an engineering mode, where you can plan out and tweak an entire route before committing to build the project, and maybe then a system whereby the route takes time and resources to actually build.
I don’t bother suggesting it though, as I’m fairly sure not many people are going to care much for the idea, and I don’t think it’s likely the developers will ever go down that route.
Outside of that, I’m not particularly interested in additional vehicles or such. I would sooner they carried on fleshing out the existing game systems, filled out the map generation with more interesting features, and maybe worked in some new terrain types.
I’m not really concerned what they add, provided it enhances the game, so I like to talk over what I think will and won’t do that.
I’m interested in this particular topic as I actually think the idea of having international airports and shipping ports would be a great addition to the game, and I’d like to see a discussion develop over how best that might work (as implemented badly, it could be pretty boring and throwaway, while I feel it has the potential to be a really engaging and unique feature if it was handled well).September 4, 2014 at 20:21 #4581TTDFEVERParticipant
I also would like to see Planes added in a DLC.September 4, 2014 at 21:24 #4605NivveParticipant
I think some people miss the point that a small team (any team, but especially a small team) has a restricted amount of time available.
Yes we can simply ignore the ‘ship and planes’ dlc and stick to trains. However it does come at a cost, opportunity cost. Instead of having ships and planes they could have nation packs or graphical flavour (churches and other landmarks) or intricate industry schemes or even additional gameplay elements.
If only a few people want planes and ships, it would be a waste of their resources to actually make them, as they could make more of us happy with different dlcs.
So hence I would generally leave them out and have more general stuff in that is useful for the majority of players.
Additionally it’s better for Urban Games as a business decision, but that’s a different point altogether.
September 5, 2014 at 00:33 #4637
- This reply was modified 7 years, 11 months ago by Nivve.
Imho, what I read, the portion of players, that wants planes and/or ships seems rather big to me, so we don’t talk about a minority request here.
But as I said, I’m aware of the fact, that a little dev team made this title and that they take more time to integrate things than bigger dev teams.
Thats why I wrote some posts earlier, that I wan’t these two things for the intermediate future, when more important features got adressed like some gameplay additions, that are missed like scenarios, more sorts of switches, optimization, map generation options & variety, multiplayer.
These are things, that are bigger and should be dealt with in the near to intermediate future, after that, things like planes and ships should be adressed, although I think, we, who want them, don’t have a problem, when they make nation packs and more objects for the world first 😉September 5, 2014 at 02:20 #4648TylerEParticipant
Important feature additions IMO:
Hybrids statations….it’s very anti-prototypical to have seperate goods stations most of the time….allow us to build a single station with, say, 3 passenger platforms and 1 frieght platform.
FREE STATION PLACEMENT….don’t force us to attach to an existing road to angle the station…let us use mouse wheel or something like that.
“Dove taill”/compound junctions…. see image:September 5, 2014 at 03:02 #4653
I’m against hybrid stations, in RL you’ll never see a cargo train unloading its freight at a main central station, not even on a different, secluded platform.
You already can turn stations freely in terrain with no straits, press N to turn it counterclockwise and M to turn it clockwise.
But your suggestions towards more switches are good, I agree with you in that point.
- The forum ‘General Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.