Thoughts on the public service player in network mode

Topic: Thoughts on the public service player in network mode (Read 24935 times) previous topic - next topic

Thoughts on the public service player in network mode

January 11, 2009, 01:12:20 am

In some of the previous discussions on the network mode that I see that Prissi is steadily developing, there has been some suggestion that one player would, in effect, act as a sort of referee, and play as the public service player. The advantage of such a system is that it enables a degree of sophistication and balance in gameplay not otherwise possible without a great deal of complicated AI coding. The disadvantage is that being the referee for a simulation game that lasts for hours upon hours is probably not a great deal of fun: it would be like playing Monopoly as the bank.

A possible solution is this: if the public service player had goals of her/his own, the game could be just as fun for the public service player as for the other players, albeit in a rather different way. The public service player could, in effect, play as the government, and have as its objective, not the running of a commercially successful transportation company, but of the provision of good quality transport to all of the Simucitizens of Simunation. If, for example, there were some world statistics (on, for example, average traffic congestion, the quality of service of various transport routes, the proportion of p****engers who are able to get to their destinations, the proportion of goods delivered in industries, the growth of towns, the proportion of mail delivered, and so forth), the public service player's goal would simply be to maximise the relevant statistical indices. Perhaps there could also be a "satisfaction rating" from towns and industries, based on things such as the proportion of p****engers who can get to their preferred destinations, the proportion of mail delivered, the congestion level, etc. (i.e., a composite statistic). Coding the statistics should be relatively straightforward in itself, and that alone would suffice to give the public service player a real sense of purpose.

Whether the public service player should have any other tools at her/his disposal, and whether there should be any additional simulation mechanics for the public service player, is a matter for further discussion. One matter that springs to mind is financing. Other than the starting pot of money, how would the public service player be financed? What should the consequences of a deficit be? One possible model that should not be too hard to code is to give the public service player a larger starting amount than the ordinary players, and add a regular fixed stipend to represent the government's transportation department's budget. If the department is in deficit by over a certain amount, it would not be able to purchase any new capital items until the deficit is cleared. That is the simplest model. A more sophisticated approach would be to allow players to adjust a tax rate: the higher the rate, the more revenue that the public service player receives, but the slower that towns and industries grow (too high, and they might even shrink), and transport companies would also have to give over a proportion of their profits in taxes. Another model (which could be used as well as or instead of the tax model) is to allow the public service player (optionally) to charge the non-public service players for using public infrastructure. This could either be coded directly, or left for players to arrange amongst themselves, simply coding a system whereby the public service player can decide which players may use any given stop/piece of infrastructure, and a system whereby players may transfer money between themselves either in single amounts or regular instalments as they please (which would have the happy side effect of facilitating all kinds of arrangements between different players, whether public service or not, too). Finally, the satisfaction rating might be used to adjust the public service player's budget: the higher the satisfaction, the higher the budget - to a point.

The next issue is what, if any, level of control over the world in general that the public service player, as government, should have. This would require particularly careful consideration, as it would have a considerable effect on gameplay and balance. The public service player would not be in competition with the transport companies directly, since it cannot run its own vehicles, but its aims might often conflict with those of the other players. That, of course, is part of what would make the game enjoyable, but the public service player cannot be given too much power over the other players, or else the game may be rather less fun for those other players. Giving the public service player some tools to enforce certain policies, however, might add an extra dimension to the gameplay (although should probably be able to be turned off before a game starts for those who would not want to play that way). Such tools could include: (1) the ability to exclude particular players (or all but particular players) from building in certain defined areas of the map; (2) the ability to prevent particular players (or all but particular players) from running vehicles in certain parts of the map; and (3) the ability to prohibit some or all players from running obsolete vehicles, either at all, or in certain areas, or into public service owned stations. No doubt others could think of more in due course. The benefit of those relatively simple tools is that they could be used to enforce all manner of policies (such as "if company B doesn't improve its services between town X and town Y, then we'll give a monopoly on serving town Y to company A").

A further issue to consider is the role of the public service player in providing non-public transport infrastructure (specifically, roads between towns for use by private cars, and electricity). Currently, the public service AI (as I understand it) slowly builds power stations and substations accross the map. That could be part of the job of the human public service player in network mode (electricity contributing to the growth of towns and industrial output, both of which would be indices of success for the player). Roads for use by private cars is a trickier proposition. Firstly, it would require the implementation of my competition with private cars patch, documented here. Secondly, it would require an extension of that patch such that private cars actively check to see whether there is a route to where they want to go before a car trip is generated. Thirdly, it might even require the traffic density on inter-town roads to be evaluated, so that there is an incentive to upgrade roads (and a linked incentive to the p****engers to take a good road instead of the player's transport, whereas they would have taken the player's transport instead of the bad road). That might be fairly tricky to code, but would be most rewarding to play if it were done. The public service player would then have the difficult (but very interesting!) decision as to whether to build lots of private roads to connect all the towns and cities so that they can grow well even if they are not connected by player transport (but risk undermining the viability of transport companies in the process - which may then have to be bailed out or subsidised with public funds, or alternatively make large cutbacks to their services). People's preference for using private cars could be reflected in the satisfaction index that the public service player would be incentiveised to maximise, making it a very interesting tradeoff indeed. Congestion would also have to be taken into account.

So, between balancing the budget, expanding the electricity supply network (perhaps growing towns could require more electricity such that they will not get their full electricity growth bonus unless they are supplied with enough), deciding how interventionist to be with players' transport (and if deciding to be interventionist, managing the interventions), and managing the inter-city road network, the public service player would have plenty to do, and plenty of reward (in terms of the metrics) for doing it right. It could also provide a fascinating microcosm in which to experiment with different philosophies of governance, and to see whether, at least in the Simutrans world, a l****iez-faire approach works better or worse than an interventionist one.

Re: Thoughts on the public service player in network mode

Reply #1 – January 11, 2009, 03:21:03 am

Seems like Simutrans has virtually infinite possibilities. I like this!

-Taxing simucitizens.
Taxing as being Transport/Industry-Minister means, public player is getting enough income to sustain basic road/infra. and
the fund for new development. Currently, we have different maintenance cost for road/rail types and the difference is big among the road cl****.
Maybe high density building should require to be facing more high grade road which require high maintenance. (but this high garade city road (50km/h max)does not necessary means more capacity or max speed on same one tile, but in term of public service quality) This because high density means more tax payed. But if high density is allowed with same city road, the "profit" might be too big.
Thus making "High grade city road with high maintenance" prerequisite for higher density building will be needed in order to balance the income/maintenance cost, unless other solution appears.

I support this because I suppose some portion of simutrans player are also the city builder game player.

Re: Thoughts on the public service player in network mode

Reply #2 – January 11, 2009, 06:30:04 am

I see Public Service as:
1) Administrator of multiplayer: admit, exclude players, decide when conflicts arise, etc.
2) A way for different players' networks to interconnect if they want (connect to the public network)
3) The one to decide the growth of cities, the placement of factories, the building of new streets...
4) Can build infrastructure but not vehicles or lines
5) Can help players to carry services to some not-so-attractive places, ****uming some costs. For instance, by flattening terrain, building a bridge/tunnel...
6) The participation of this player can be less intense (once in a while)

I agree that considering Public Service's money can make the game more attractive to the player. The income can come from:
1) Use of public infrastructure roads, stations by players (to compensate for their maintenance cost)
2) Income got from factory production (taxes). This way, at the beginning, there would be less money and, when economy goes up, more.

BTW, as roads constructed by normal players can be used by other players, the latter should pay the former as well for use. So that building a good railway or road can be a good business by itself.

But we're at the border of a city simulation game. Is ST one of those?

Re: Thoughts on the public service player in network mode

Reply #3 – January 11, 2009, 07:18:38 am

You are going to include infrastructures (for example: gas pipelines, oil pipelines, water pipelines, ST public service electric cables, above ground and/or underground) as well into ST like in the city building games?

$:-\$

Will it have an offline mode, as well? $:-\$

BTW, will all of this be included in the next stable, if you don't mind me asking? $:-\$

P.S. More industries have to be created for the infrastructure things to be added to the game, IMHO (In My
Humble Opinion). Also this issue arises for realism purposes. $:-\$

Re: Thoughts on the public service player in network mode

Reply #4 – January 11, 2009, 12:32:06 pm

Why should anyone really play as public service? I consider it simply as a tool. It's there because everything needs an owner, and there are non-player objects like industries and so on. So if you want to tamper with them, you must switch to the dummy owner. As it is a kind of cheating, in competitive games this should be restricted only to a possibly neutral side. Which in turn offers the possibility of stacking all other administrative tools onto this pseudo-player, too.

Nothing says this side must be controlled all the time. Simply log in when something must be done, log out after it's done.

Re: Thoughts on the public service player in network mode

Reply #5 – January 11, 2009, 12:56:40 pm

VS,

that is one approach, certainly, but is it not better to take the opportunity given by having a public service player and open interesting new gameplay avenues with it? The approach that I suggested above grows naturally out of the original idea of having a public service player as a logistical necessity - certainly, in a multilpayer game, there will have to be some regulation of the use of the public service tools, and there would be great advantage to having a public service player always at hand (if the public service player is not always at hand, what happens when a problem or conflict arises?). If it is beneficial to have a public service player, but the role of public service player is an uninteresting one, the most obvious solution is to make the role more interesting.

Nobody would have to use the additional features suggested above even if they were implemented, and a public service player would still be free to be no more than an administrator or a referee; but those tools enable the public service player to do so much more, and make playing the public service player worthwhile in itself. It would be awful if the network mode that Prissi is spending such a long time and great effort writing went seldom used because few people had any interest in refereeing multiplayer games. To answer the original question, "why should anyone really play as public service?" - because, with the features that I suggested in the original post, doing so could potentially be just as fun as playing as an ordinary player, albeit in a different way.

Emaxectranspoorte,

electricity infrastructure is already a feature of Simutrans. I was not suggesting adding other features such as water and gas.

Re: Thoughts on the public service player in network mode

Reply #6 – January 11, 2009, 03:25:36 pm

In the past many suggestions concerning city manipulation etc. were rejected on grounds of Simutrans being a game focused on transport. Condensed into as few words as possible, simutrans is not simcity.

Just saying...

Re: Thoughts on the public service player in network mode

Reply #7 – January 11, 2009, 03:39:40 pm

Quote from: VS – on January 11, 2009, 03:25:36 pm

In the past many suggestions concerning city manipulation etc. were rejected on grounds of Simutrans being a game focused on transport. Condensed into as few words as possible, simutrans is not simcity.

Just saying...

I realise what Simutrans is and is not; but adding a network multiplayer function adds additional challenges and opportunities. As stated above, there needs to be a public service player. As stated above, if being the public service player is uninteresting, few people will want to be the public service player. As stated above, it would be bad if it is difficult to use the multiplayer mode because few people are interested in being the public service player.

The original post outlined a number of straightforward ways of giving the public service player an interesting job to do, and one which will enhance the overall gameplay, and open exciting new possibilities. I do not consider that the jobs specified in the original post are ones confined to, or even focussed on, city management. They are suggestions aimed at dealing specifically with transport networks. The public service player should not be considered the mayor of a city, but rather a minister of transport, whose task is to see that the Simunation is well served with transport links. That does not turn Simutrans into Sim City; just into a richer, deeper Simutrans. As stated in the original post,

"The public service player could, in effect, play as the government, and have as its objective, not the running of a commercially successful transportation company, but of the provision of good quality transport to all of the Simucitizens of Simunation."

In any event, given that I suggested that the additional tools be optional, anyone who disliked that style of play could simply turn the options off. It is evident, however, that there are at least some people who like the idea, and would rather play with the options turned on.

Re: Thoughts on the public service player in network mode

Reply #8 – January 11, 2009, 04:33:11 pm

Probably someone will go crazy and try to kill me...

1. About overpowered public service

I think the current public service is too much overpowerded because such player can build an infinite infrastructure, waste money and run on unlimited and deep debt. I think, for everything should have limits.

I agree and keep my support that public service continues running without income by economic via/means, like building a transport network like other players.

Then, I propose all maintenance cost (or similar thing) of all players could be transferred to public service as income. Public service then will have a money that can be used to build infrastructure and other things as Simutrans works today. If public service starts running on "red" for 3 months, he will not be able to spend money and build anymore, until his account is "blue" again. Thus, we will have a public service with limits, fitting more in a simulation context, not in a, say, landiscape design game.

2. In an on-line multiplayer (netgame):

In a netgame, we have admin players and non-admin players. The player who opens/hosts a netgame (player0) is automatically an admin player, and other players (clients) who join him will be non-admin players (player1, player2, player3...).

Admin player is in charge of managing the netgame, as Isidoro said "admit, exclude players, decide when conflicts arise, etc.", and will be able to be public service when he thinks it is necessary. Also, admin player could make other client players admin too (by typing a command, e.g. make_admin player2). Then, public service would not act as a player, but as a "tool box" for admin players, following what I proposed in "About overpowered public service", while non-admin players will not be able to use public service features.

Re: Thoughts on the public service player in network mode

Reply #9 – January 11, 2009, 04:37:10 pm

I agree with you, Igor. I guess with your idea players can decide together for their own how much power they got. In addition, maybe protect the admin status with a PW or something similar?

Re: Thoughts on the public service player in network mode

Reply #10 – January 11, 2009, 04:41:45 pm

Quote from: IgorTekton – on January 11, 2009, 04:33:11 pm

Admin player is in charge of managing the netgame, as Isidoro said "admit, exclude players, decide when conflicts arise, etc.", and will be able to be public service when he thinks it is necessary. Also, admin player could make other client players admin too (by typing a command, e.g. make_admin player2). Then, public service would not act as a player, but as a "tool box" for admin players, following what I proposed in "About overpowered public service", while non-admin players will not be able to use public service features.

That is one way of doing it - but why do you think that there should not also be the option of doing it as I suggested? Why should that be the only way in which a public service player works, when then alternative that I propose could lead to very interesting gameplay?

Re: Thoughts on the public service player in network mode

Reply #11 – January 11, 2009, 04:57:47 pm

IgorTekton:

Quote

Then, I propose all maintenance cost (or similar thing) of all players could be transferred to public service as income.

The maintenance fee(salary and fee for building maintenance company) paid by player is going to the unsimulated part of map economy.
Thus, player will have to pay tax from its income.

Quote

Then, public service would not act as a player, but as a "tool box" for admin players, following what I proposed in "About overpowered public service", while non-admin players will not be able to use public service features.

Whould that make possibility for using "tool box" for the admin player's advantage?
For faireness purpose, it should be no hand on public service by none of player or one player taking responsibility of public service.

Little summary of what might public player might do based on Jame's original post.
-(1)Taxing citizen,industry and player == Source of income
-(2)Control over who build over where and not and use which vehicle and not. == ...

...(A)
-(3)Building inter city/city road, power plant, industry(and railroad?) == Infra for development(B)
-(4)Give incentive to serving particular city/industry for normal player == Encourage development
-(5)... am I missing some thing?

(2)I'm quite not sure why we should have (2). It might irritate a lot the player.
Yes, in real world, official control those kind of things but in game... it could be personal.. just a worry.
(3)Private car movement will have to counted as development factor. How will this work?
1&4 I see the purpose.

Another thing which could be added to the above list is the more explicit way to control in which direction city should grow.
This is to facilitate building new rail line and station in the developing city area.
Especially if one wants the city to expand to other side of the rail track.
Add little monument as "City Park" and make so that city choose to grow around the "City Park"first.
Condition could be all next 8 new building will be constructed near city park and such.

Re: Thoughts on the public service player in network mode

Reply #12 – January 11, 2009, 05:01:20 pm

Quote from: VS – on January 11, 2009, 12:32:06 pm

Why should anyone really play as public service? I consider it simply as a tool. It's there because everything needs an owner, [...]

That's not fully true, since there is a finance window of public service and public service is charged maintenance costs of its infrastructure. Some well-thought revenues would compensate those fixed costs.

Re: Thoughts on the public service player in network mode

Reply #13 – January 11, 2009, 05:11:23 pm

There are quite evidently a whole range of different preferences as to how public service should be handled in multiplayer mode. The best approach would seem to be to make sufficient options to accommodate all of them, or at least, as many of them as are practical. One can then decide, after substantial testing, the advantages and disadvantages of each.

Re: Thoughts on the public service player in network mode

Reply #14 – January 11, 2009, 05:12:47 pm

isidoro:

Quote

Some well-thought revenues would compensate those fixed costs.

-Tax city building maybe?

Re: Thoughts on the public service player in network mode

Reply #15 – January 11, 2009, 05:18:11 pm

I'm not so worried about if taxes would exist, modus operandi, or about means of how public service will earn money. My main points are:

1) Why public service has to get into deep debt eternally?

2) Why public service can do anything and in unlimited way?

@ jamespetts: let me get home, I'll have to read whole topic deeper before posting. Sorry.

Re: Thoughts on the public service player in network mode

Reply #16 – January 11, 2009, 09:04:35 pm

The network public player is like the root user in Unix. You would no do your work normally there, but you can do some actions here and you can change to any other player without p****word. You get the idea, I think. It is not intender for any real playing.

Re: Thoughts on the public service player in network mode

Reply #17 – January 11, 2009, 09:08:33 pm

Prissi, would it be smart to let the network public player be unprotected? Maybe a p****word or a lock after the game rules have been set (like the button Allow no player change) would maybe help players trust each other more in some multiplayer games. Everybody cheated before in a multiplayer game... everything else you said, I agree, the public player should be an exceptional part and not something every player should use all the time.

Re: Thoughts on the public service player in network mode

Reply #18 – January 11, 2009, 09:27:07 pm

There are already provisions for p****words. Those are just not enforced yet.

Re: Thoughts on the public service player in network mode

Reply #19 – January 11, 2009, 09:41:40 pm

Quote from: prissi – on January 11, 2009, 09:04:35 pm

The network public player is like the root user in Unix. You would no do your work normally there, but you can do some actions here and you can change to any other player without p****word. You get the idea, I think. It is not intender for any real playing.

That might not have been the original intention, but do you really think that that alone is sufficient reason not to take advantage of the gameplay opportunities that I identified in the original post?

Re: Thoughts on the public service player in network mode

Reply #20 – January 12, 2009, 01:47:49 am

Quote from: colonyan – on January 11, 2009, 05:12:47 pm

isidoro:-Tax city building maybe?

I like the idea of pay-per-use best. So the profit is closer to the source of deficit.

Also taxes from production of end factories, so that the public player is interested on making things easy for them to work to have money for its projects.

Re: Thoughts on the public service player in network mode

Reply #21 – January 12, 2009, 08:02:08 pm

It strikes me that all of these diverse ideas would do well to be play-tested to see how they work out in practice, although that, of course, will have to wait until the network code is done. Without play testing, it might be hard to work out which of the various ideas (about whether a playing public service could work, for instance, the different revenue models for public service, or whether it would work to have a public service player able to exercise some degree of control over the other players, as a real government would) could work well and be fun, and which of them would work poorly or cause irresolvable problems.

Re: Thoughts on the public service player in network mode

Reply #22 – June 20, 2009, 04:11:58 pm

I like it, the public player should be more like that: It could finance itself by taxes and build stuff that is not in the interest of the other players.

I'm thinking about SIB (Simutrans Investment bank) human players could ask for aid in building infrastructure (rails, airports, ports).

"Taxes and fees" and a budget to cover mc and some surplus for building new stuff and subsidies to players who build out networks to less dense areas.

The Simutrans-Experimental seems interesting I'm going to try it some day.

Re: Thoughts on the public service player in network mode

Reply #23 – November 01, 2010, 03:57:10 pm

I'm sorry if I meant too harsh, I didn't mean to despise your work, which, BTW, I appreciate so much. And, of course, I can't write a line of code, so, I guess I've to decline your invitation. Due my impossibility of getting in technical stuff, all I can do is work on ideas ans suggestion that I hope help in some way.