Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Mentioned it before the release and a few days ago… this is really necessary!
It would save so much frustration, actually being able to build what you have in mind. Laying tracks contains too many pitfalls to NOT have a planning feature.
(If you are willing to accept butt-ugly or unrealistic tracks, then of course it is less of an issue)Fully agree with OP.Just want to add that an undo button is also necessary. Simply having a free bulldoze is not sufficient though (but would be easily implemented, I know), especially concerning the terrain alterations which it would not undo by simply making bulldozing free.
Loading a savegame would still be preferable over reverting the terrain manually.I mainly want to bump the planning tool and undo option mentioned here. The method of laying tracks is way too simplistic for the complex nature of the terrain.
I just spend two hours trying to lay down a hilly track unsuccessfully (I want it done right, I take the money-making goal seriously). I think I spend even more time reloading the save game than actually building tracks.
Although on easy mode the money is not a problem, on medium and hard we (at least I) don’t want to spend 5 mil for a track that in the end costs 1 mil to build. Reloading a save game every 30 seconds due to a tricky piece of track is also not my idea of spending my sunday morning.
Currently it’s more of a chore, while it could be very fun without these annoyances.The contour lines are not really helpful either. It only shows the large differences of height you can easily spot by yourself, while all the shallow valleys and hills are not shown. I would rather see an additional overlay; For example a colour gradient could do very nicely to show any height differences of some significant degree. The contour lines could be used to plot a strategic route with some waypoints (Just an icon, easy to implement and makes it much more comfortable from zoomed in horizontal angles), while the gradient overlay could be used while laying tracks to chart the best course through the actual (smaller) hills.
Maybe for some people, the harder it is the more fun it is. But I don’t want it to be hard because the tools are limited, I want it to be hard because the task is difficult. Currently when you see the best route to take your train, it is still hard to actually make the route happen.
Summary:
Current method of making a track is like making an exam (determining the best route), but using the pencil is for some reason harder than the exam itself.
For me the (metaphorical) exam is the fun part, and should be hard to solve, but the arbitrary difficulty of the pencil is getting me extremely frustrated.
(let’s just say for sake of argument that it is a fun exam:P)@ Agarwel
I actually have the same issue with busses right now. The game is acting real smart with assigning each line one side of the road. However my lines are linear, so one of the passes the busses require a loop to get to their assigned side…
For the trains I wish there would be a way to declare platforms ‘excess’. So that you can have fixed platforms for lines (that you can choose) but in the case of express lines or freight these can be freely picked by these lines.
Would keep the advantages of both. Additionally you can have rail that is used for through traffic, but in a jam can be used to handle the excess of trains at the station.
This also seems to be messing with bus stops. I have two bus lines set up like this
Station – Stop A – Stop B – Stop C
——————— Stop DThe first bus line goes from Station to C and the other goes to D. A is just a simple road. The weird thing is; One bus line is assigned one side of the road, while the second line is assigned the other side of the road.
To the game this makes sense, as both lines have their own platform (in circle lines it is actually working fine like this)… bad thing is that on one of the passes they first have to make a loop to get on their assigned platform.I made a screen but steamcloud is once again giving me trouble… will upload it when it allows me to.
@ higgins
I am not correct, but you do say you mean sim behaviour (how they choose to go somewhere) as I described… weird.
Matrix has some nice points though to explain them. Can you make at least a screenshot to show your case?Are they still on their way from the depot?
I had this yesterday when adding a train. The line changes platform. The reason behind this is that the train coming from the depot can only reach that platform from the depot. When it went past the station it reverted back to the ‘default’ line.
Hence I think that you have the same situation, the game changes platform as some trains cannot reach the designated platform (so it changes platforms to give the new trains a waypoint) from their current (!) position. Wait for all trains to get on the correct location and it should revert back.
So… your question is more about sim behaviour than economics, how the sims choose where they go and how? When do they choose a train and is it possible to force them by train by removing the road (or do they stop their job and get a job within the city or become jobless)?Is that correct?
Do the numbers of the cities change? More jobless people, less people (you removed some buildings), new intercity road, etc. When you follow the persons traveling by train (and compare them to a person followed by bus), is there a hiccup along the way you missed? What are their travel times?
How easy would it be to have three different types of goods that city industries need?
I dislike the ‘all systems create goods’ model, as it is too easy. I would rather have oil -> plastics, Steel mill -> metals, Farms -> foods & ingredients.I don’t really fancy lots of different industries (FIRS of OpenTTD was way too much for me), but having one oil well sufficient for all the goods in a city is just too unrealistic for me.
Is that easy to mod in the game? Not sure how it would impact demand and growth and whether it needs lots of changes..
It is almost identical to how it worked in OpenTTD. So they probably went with the function most players knew from there.
So it may be unintuitive, but for most it feels natural due to experience:P@ matsv201
Please check your spelling and grammar a bit. I don’t mind some mistakes (it’s a forum after all), but at least try to fix the most obvious ones before hitting ‘submit’. Use the browser spell checker if you have trouble with spelling of words to fix the worst ones. People will be more inclined to take you seriously when your spelling is better.Small mistakes like ‘realy’ are not that bad and are easily read correctly. But words like ‘zoome’ (zoom or zoomed?), ‘maintanens’ (maintenance?) and ‘anying’ (annoying?) make it very ‘anying’ to read…
@ Azrael
Well, since there are not really many people here it would be unwise to base a size on this small representation. But if indeed planes and ships and such are added in an appropriate time, then I have not much to complain about it.It’s just that often people forget that making one thing actually excludes making something else in that same timespan:P
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.
I already mentioned a planning feature a few weeks ago, but judging the response, not many people are too excited about it.. Althouhg I still don’t see how it can do any harm.
I miss such a feature with every building game I buy… how can it not be standard by now?
I really hate finding out a route will never work when I have build 99% of it…planes would not really fit, but ships would be nice. Ferries are often used and transport by ship can Be really cheap across the largest map.
related to this: are industries incorporating costs or just time like the passangers? Would be very unrealistic if it was time only. Many goods do not need to be transported very quickly, as long as the time of arrival is reliable.
