rubinho
67 games, 10 posts in 8 topics
Recents games ...
| Since | Scenario | Won by |
|---|---|---|
| 13 years ago |  Steam Age |
wohral with 79 points |
| 13 years ago |  Artic |
Mutant with 103 points |
| 14 years ago | Steam Age |
r3fl3x3s with 78 points |
| 14 years ago | Artic |
barcelona with 100 points |
| 14 years ago | Steam Age |
rubinho with 54 points |
| 14 years ago |  Desertic |
polskaspedycja with 99 points |
| 14 years ago | Steam Age |
martinho9000 with 92 points |
| 14 years ago | Artic |
JStaxton with 100 points |
| 14 years ago | Artic |
JStaxton with 100 points |
| 14 years ago | Steam Age |
Jedrzej with 100 points |
Recents posts ...
01/24, 2011 07:08PM
rubinho
10 posts
Posted in Bug reports, new ideas - Goaltbot Offline
Hey Guys!
Goalbot seems to be offline. A game is going on, but It will go on forever unless goalbot is reactivated.
Could you do something about this, please?
Much appreciated.
Rubinho
Goalbot seems to be offline. A game is going on, but It will go on forever unless goalbot is reactivated.
Could you do something about this, please?
Much appreciated.
Rubinho
12/19, 2010 08:13PM
rubinho
10 posts
Posted in Server Rules, Scenario details - Re:Non-uniform stations disabled - why?
I think that's a good thing. It also stops players from covering two industries too easily. Now if you want to do that, you have to build a gigantic station and pay the price.
I think it's fairer this way.
I think it's fairer this way.
12/19, 2010 04:53PM
rubinho
10 posts
Posted in Server Rules, Scenario details - Non-uniform stations disabled - why?
Hi,
I noticed today that non-uniform station building has been disabled.
Is there a reason for that?
It kind of makes in more realistic because you can't sort of build your station up a hill to reach an industry without having to go up that hill with your train. So there might be a point in that.
So was is on purpose, or is it temporary? And what do the others think?
I noticed today that non-uniform station building has been disabled.
Is there a reason for that?
It kind of makes in more realistic because you can't sort of build your station up a hill to reach an industry without having to go up that hill with your train. So there might be a point in that.
So was is on purpose, or is it temporary? And what do the others think?
12/19, 2010 04:24PM
rubinho
10 posts
Posted in Bug reports, new ideas - Re:New Skill System - complete results - How good are you?
Hi Jstaxton and Ed,
Thanks for all the work you're putting into this!
I am looking for a way to figure out how the decimal number in the skill column on the leaderboard is produced.
Can someone point me in the right direction?
Thanks for all the work you're putting into this!
I am looking for a way to figure out how the decimal number in the skill column on the leaderboard is produced.
Can someone point me in the right direction?
12/17, 2010 07:59PM
rubinho
10 posts
Posted in Server Rules, Scenario details - Re:Useless road vehicles
Yeah. I saw that too.
I think it is against the rules.
Upon a closer look I really find that there is no rules that states it directly though.
Ed, should that rule not be changed into: no one-way vehicles?
Rubinho.
I think it is against the rules.
Upon a closer look I really find that there is no rules that states it directly though.
Ed, should that rule not be changed into: no one-way vehicles?
Rubinho.
12/13, 2010 07:04PM
rubinho
10 posts
Posted in Server Rules, Scenario details - Re:Stealing secondary produce
Okay, here's my opinion on this. You are perfectly right. Stealing secondary goods is not the coolest thing in the world to do.
HOWEVER:
Firstly, It's a competition server. So generally, competition should not be stymied.
Secondly, if you provide an industry with primary goods, you profit off of that - regardless of whether or not somebody decides to transport the secondary goods produced. You could always use the resources you have to transport the secondary goods yourself.
Thirdly, even though secondary goods trade at a much higher value, the person "stealing" the goods can only profit to the extent that the player transporting the primary goods delivers. By the rules of natural competition, you would simply stop delivering goods to that industry and the "thief" is hosed.
The only problem is that if you start by supplying an industry that produces secondary goods, someone who has been playing for a while and has the financial resources can exploit you. But then again, he could do that by starting traditional competition with you too.
So all in all, I can totally see you point, but in my opinion the rule which you are calling for should not be introduced.
Generally, most players have always played in a very fair and respectful way. I have never seen anyone bending the rules in an unfair way.
No better server than this one !
Okay, here's my opinion on this. You are perfectly right. Stealing secondary goods is not the coolest thing in the world to do.
HOWEVER:
Firstly, It's a competition server. So generally, competition should not be stymied.
Secondly, if you provide an industry with primary goods, you profit off of that - regardless of whether or not somebody decides to transport the secondary goods produced. You could always use the resources you have to transport the secondary goods yourself.
Thirdly, even though secondary goods trade at a much higher value, the person "stealing" the goods can only profit to the extent that the player transporting the primary goods delivers. By the rules of natural competition, you would simply stop delivering goods to that industry and the "thief" is hosed.
The only problem is that if you start by supplying an industry that produces secondary goods, someone who has been playing for a while and has the financial resources can exploit you. But then again, he could do that by starting traditional competition with you too.
So all in all, I can totally see you point, but in my opinion the rule which you are calling for should not be introduced.
Generally, most players have always played in a very fair and respectful way. I have never seen anyone bending the rules in an unfair way.
No better server than this one !
01/24, 2010 02:07PM
rubinho
10 posts
Posted in General Discussion - Re:Is it legal?
Yeah you're right: let's wait.
I wish I knew why the server is down. It's Sunday. I want to play . . . :D
I guess they are fixing something or so. I hope it will be up again some time soon . . .
I wish I knew why the server is down. It's Sunday. I want to play . . . :D
I guess they are fixing something or so. I hope it will be up again some time soon . . .
01/24, 2010 01:29PM
rubinho
10 posts
Posted in General Discussion - Re:Is it legal?
I also think the game takes strange, unrealistic, and illegitimate turns with this feature activated and used. As far as I know it is legal, but in my opinion it should be illegal.
I never buy shares and here's why I don't think it's fair:
Consider a company that's been playing alone for three years. Let the cv be 500,000 €. Now a second company starts up. By the time the second company makes reasonable profit and gets an acceptable percentage, the other company is definitely rich enough to buy up to 75% of the weaker company. So what the player can do is stop investing cash into his/her own projects, simply buy up 75% of the company, and then benefit from the other players accomplishments. That, I think, is not fair.
It would be fair if everybody started at the same time. Then, share-buying would be but a realistic feature. (It's just like economy out there). But since players sometimes join in later, share-buying allows big companies to keep newly-started companies from growing bigger than them. And that's a probelm
Although I have never seen it done to that degree, the possibility exists, and I think we should introduce a rule that forbids share-buying.
I never buy shares and here's why I don't think it's fair:
Consider a company that's been playing alone for three years. Let the cv be 500,000 €. Now a second company starts up. By the time the second company makes reasonable profit and gets an acceptable percentage, the other company is definitely rich enough to buy up to 75% of the weaker company. So what the player can do is stop investing cash into his/her own projects, simply buy up 75% of the company, and then benefit from the other players accomplishments. That, I think, is not fair.
It would be fair if everybody started at the same time. Then, share-buying would be but a realistic feature. (It's just like economy out there). But since players sometimes join in later, share-buying allows big companies to keep newly-started companies from growing bigger than them. And that's a probelm
Although I have never seen it done to that degree, the possibility exists, and I think we should introduce a rule that forbids share-buying.
01/24, 2010 01:15PM
rubinho
10 posts
Posted in Bug reports, new ideas - Train AI / depots
I have experienced this problem to the point where it had a considerable effect on my general performance.
Many of the trains that I build don't seem to find local depots. Even though there plenty of them along the track line that the trains use. Default servicing intervals are at 150 days; I usually set them to 30 days to avoid breakdowns. But the trains do not service accordingly. What happens is that I find trains that do not service for years even though there is plenty of opportunity along their route.
My first attempt to solve this problem was to send them to the depot manually, but still: sometimes there is a depot right there, and they are technically headed for a depot, but they pass it. In other cases, there is a depot just a few squares down the track line, and when I try to toggle "go to depot," I get the "couldn't find local depot" message.
I've brought it up in online games, but other players don't seem to have that problem. Thanks to some advice from a friend of mine, I now build the track at the depots in a way that forces trains to go into the depot. But still, the train AI has a problem here, I think. And I would be interested in what's wrong there.
Any help/advice appreciated.
I have experienced this problem to the point where it had a considerable effect on my general performance.
Many of the trains that I build don't seem to find local depots. Even though there plenty of them along the track line that the trains use. Default servicing intervals are at 150 days; I usually set them to 30 days to avoid breakdowns. But the trains do not service accordingly. What happens is that I find trains that do not service for years even though there is plenty of opportunity along their route.
My first attempt to solve this problem was to send them to the depot manually, but still: sometimes there is a depot right there, and they are technically headed for a depot, but they pass it. In other cases, there is a depot just a few squares down the track line, and when I try to toggle "go to depot," I get the "couldn't find local depot" message.
I've brought it up in online games, but other players don't seem to have that problem. Thanks to some advice from a friend of mine, I now build the track at the depots in a way that forces trains to go into the depot. But still, the train AI has a problem here, I think. And I would be interested in what's wrong there.
Any help/advice appreciated.
01/24, 2010 01:04PM
rubinho
10 posts
Posted in Bug reports, new ideas - Re:Proposes on game mechanics: One-Way-Train-Check & CV-Calculation
I don't know if your observation is even true.
You might think that buying trains pushes cv. But Actually, the cash you have adds to your cv. When you buy a train worth, say, 100,000€ you have that amount less cash, but more cv in terms of vehicles value. But as the value of your vehicles decreases, because they grow older, that component of your cv decreases. Ususally, you don't see that because the train you bought starts making profit so your cv goes up, not down. So buying trains only increases the cv, if they make profit. At least, that's what I've observed. And that's the idea of the game.
Well I might be wrong. I have seen CVs go up quite drastically. And sometimes it's a mystery to me how that happens.
You might think that buying trains pushes cv. But Actually, the cash you have adds to your cv. When you buy a train worth, say, 100,000€ you have that amount less cash, but more cv in terms of vehicles value. But as the value of your vehicles decreases, because they grow older, that component of your cv decreases. Ususally, you don't see that because the train you bought starts making profit so your cv goes up, not down. So buying trains only increases the cv, if they make profit. At least, that's what I've observed. And that's the idea of the game.
Well I might be wrong. I have seen CVs go up quite drastically. And sometimes it's a mystery to me how that happens.