http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?p=960643#p960643 schrieb:Why balance against default vehicles?

- People use more than one set
- Every set author has his or her own idea of what "the best" cost structure should be like
- Every player has also his or her own idea of what price levels should be like
- Base cost newgrfs allow to set *globally* the cost levels of vehicle types, but NOT re-balance sets against eachother. This is especially visible in the road vehicles domain, but increasingly also with trainsets.

Personally I like to draw the conclusion that 'best practise' is
- without any parameters balance against default vehicles, both purchase and running costs
- with parameter allow to set different purchase and running cost levels

- maybe add a parameter for alternate cost schemes, if you want to do it really different.
- if you want to do it fancy, add some auto-detection of preferred other NewGRFs and tie that to an additional parameter 'auto-config costs'

Zitat:»» 13:58:17 < andythenorth> I think it's a misfeature
»» 13:58:29 < Pikka> what's a misfeature?
»» 13:58:51 < andythenorth> cost multiplier parameters on newgrfs

Zitat:»» 14:34:38 <@planetmaker> But what it IMHO means is to take the default prices as a guide for default price levels
»» 14:34:55 < Pikka> what if we think the default prices are rubbish?
»» 14:35:17 <@planetmaker> global price levels are easily changed by a global base cost newgrf

Zitat:»» 15:01:53 <@planetmaker> But if you have a good suggestion, Pikka, on how to make it for average Joe easy to use arbitrary vehicle newgrfs along eachother - always welcome
»» 15:01:53 <@planetmaker> I just know nothing better than bugging everyone to add these two parameters
»» 15:01:53 <@planetmaker> (or to add in the openttd-side per-newgrf config capability - but that'd be... somewhat insane, too

Zitat:»» 15:13:57 < Pikka> it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to "balance" my concorde against the default concorde, whille maintaining sensible prices at the lower end
»» 15:13:58 < Rubidium> andythenorth: and does it count when bits of said NewGRF have their origin in openttd[dw].grf?
»» 15:14:02 <@planetmaker> I'd only argue to adjust the "average" plane to match the "average" default plane
»» 15:14:09 < andythenorth>
»» 15:14:13 <@planetmaker> more cannot be asked.

Zitat:»» 15:21:07 < Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: how about you pick a handful of known grfs, and then make the parameters like "Running costs: {x2 (eGRVTS)|x1 (HOVS)|x1/2 (GermanRV)}"?
»» 15:21:17 < Rubidium> the whole payment is wrong
»» 15:21:45 <@planetmaker> Eddi|zuHause: that might be a guide. But what do you choose, if you have heqs, germanRV and egrvts
»» 15:21:51 < krinn> it as sense if you intend to play fun and not realistic, and fun is primary goal of openttd
»» 15:22:01 < krinn> (for me)
»» 15:22:14 < Eddi|zuHause> planetmaker: that's the players fault.
»» 15:22:55 <@planetmaker> Eddi|zuHause: but that's the point. It must not be
»» 15:23:01 <@planetmaker> the grfs should just play along
»» 15:23:09 < Rubidium> e.g. short trips shouldn't make busses totally profitless, and long trips shouldn't be massive profit makers
»» 15:23:33 < Eddi|zuHause> planetmaker: that is impossible to achieve.

Zitat:»» 15:33:23 <@planetmaker> But pretty please tell me how I shall play a European scenario with Dutch, German and UK trains?
»» 15:33:33 <@planetmaker> I can't. It will be fucked relative costs
»» 15:33:36 <@Alberth> Pikka: it happens much earlier. I only loaded the dutch train set, and the one engine costs 228,000, while default vehicles are around 20,000
»» 15:34:10 <@planetmaker> The argument "only crazy people mix newgrfs" is not an argument
»» 15:34:23 <@planetmaker> people generally do that. And many have a good reason for their choice
»» 15:34:42 <@planetmaker> so the argument is "how can in general the fun be enhanced"
»» 15:36:57 <@planetmaker> Pikka: I'm not arguing the *relative* balance of your costs

Zitat:»» 15:39:15 <@planetmaker> So what's the pain in changing the base costs in a "Pikka interesting costs" grf?
»» 15:39:26 < Pikka> because no-one will use it
»» 15:39:52 <@planetmaker> With this separation of "interesting cost levels" into a separate newgrf you'd also gain the additonal benefit, that'd you'd be able to rebalance ALL your newgrfs at the same time
»» 15:39:59 <@planetmaker> to another interesting economy
»» 15:40:11 <@planetmaker> Oh, I'm very much sure people would use it, if it came from you
»» 15:40:21 <@planetmaker> call it pikka economy
»» 15:40:24 < Rubidium> planetmaker: just use the per-newgrf price scaling I just proposed
»» 15:40:30 < Pikka> by doubling or halving all costs? it's hardly a subtle "rebalancing" feature...
»» 15:40:36 <@planetmaker> Rubidium: on the openttd-side?
»» 15:40:42 <@Alberth> perhaps *require* a cost grf to be loaded?
»» 15:40:47 < Rubidium> planetmaker: yep
»» 15:40:58 < Rubidium> like the palette setting
»» 15:41:02 <@planetmaker> yes, that's the only alternative. And I'm quite tempted to go that way.
»» 15:41:10 < Rubidium> (but not queryable by the NewGRF)
»» 15:41:15 <@planetmaker> But I first want(ed) to try and see whether that's necessary
»» 15:42:09 <@Alberth> Pikka: so the cost setting is not fine grained enough. that is a separate issue from balancing sets against each other
»» 15:42:20 <@planetmaker> And it'd not solve the issue that it then still would be a pain to configure things
»» 15:42:28 <@planetmaker> It'd add yet another layer of settings
»» 15:42:51 < Pikka> balancing sets against each other is not an achievable feature, though
»» 15:42:52 * Alberth thinks stuff should be removed instead of added
»» 15:43:33 <@planetmaker> I'm only talking about rough price levels. Not a nice game balance as I'd expect to see when coherently designed to work along eachother
»» 15:43:45 <@Alberth> Pikka: sure you can, but you need to agree on how you balance
»» 15:44:08 < Pikka> yes Alberth
»» 15:44:10 < Pikka> and we don't