31.07.2011, Roman: Einleitender Inhalt wegen rechtlichen Bedenken entfernt

Hinweis in eigener Sache: Bekanntermassen werden die Sitzungen des Politbüros aus verständlichen Gründen in einer nicht jedermann verständlichen "Geheimsprache" abgewickelt. Da uns wegen des Wochenendes leider kein Übersetzer zur Verfügung steht bitten wir den Abdruck im originalen Wortlaut für diesmal zu entschuldigen.

Gruß
Michael

Zitat:[...]

09:25 <Eddi|zuHause> planetmaker: you cannot force grf authors.
09:26 <@planetmaker> yes, one cannot. That's why I *argue* for people to use a quasi standard
09:26 <@Alberth> except by changing the newgrf specs

[...]

09:40 <Rubidium> planetmaker: just use the per-newgrf price scaling I just proposed
09:40 <Pikka> by doubling or halving all costs? it's hardly a subtle "rebalancing" feature...
09:40 <@planetmaker> Rubidium: on the openttd-side?
09:40 <@Alberth> perhaps *require* a cost grf to be loaded?
09:40 <Rubidium> planetmaker: yep
09:40 <Rubidium> like the palette setting
09:41 <@planetmaker> yes, that's the only alternative. And I'm quite tempted to go that way.
09:41 <Rubidium> (but not queryable by the NewGRF)

[...]

09:49 <@planetmaker> And that's exactly why I argue for a *common* base cost reference
09:49 <@planetmaker> and not every grf defining its own idea how general price and running cost levels should be
09:49 <Pikka> the latter seems much more user-friendly to me
09:49 <Pikka> if grfs can run out-of-the-box as their author intended

[...]

10:03 <@planetmaker> yeah. But indeed. The only conclusion I can draw is "implement openttd-side a per-newgrf base cost config", "implement a per-newgrf basecost preset"
10:03 <@planetmaker> and possibly a switch of "ignore all base cost commands in newgrfs"
10:03 <@planetmaker> to make the thing easier to configure

[...]

10:17 <@planetmaker> No, I don't. But what are the options, if every newgrf tries to introduce its own idea of how an economy should work?
10:17 <@planetmaker> the only option then, if newgrfs aren't "nice" is "ignore their idea and use a globally defined one"
10:17 <@Alberth> s/introduce/force/ imho
10:18 <Pikka> the option is "accept the possibility that newgrfs aren't '"nice"'.
10:18 <@planetmaker> they aren't. And you argue - as it comes accross - "I don't want to be nice"
10:19 <Pikka> most grf authors are interested in improving the gameplay experience, and most grfs work together at least as balancedly as the default vehicles do (how balanced are the default vehicles really, across different transport modes?)

[...]

10:31 <Eddi|zuHause> are you still discussing this?
10:31 <Pikka> apparently we are
10:31 <Eddi|zuHause> i told you it's going nowhere...
10:31 <@planetmaker> Eddi|zuHause: if you don't intend to be constructive, can you shut up?

[...]

10:41 <Pikka> I've put a lot of effort into making sure that players /do/ have a good gaming experience from my newgrfs, and the fact that a lot of authors /don't/, or have a different idea of what a good gaming experience is, is no reason to detract from my work
10:42 <Pikka> yes planetmaker, but I maintain that the base cost values provided in the grfs are the /only/ valid ones for those grfs

[...]

10:44 <@planetmaker> a vehicle grf is not an economy grf. Forcing a certain economy doesn't work as it can be overridden with some effort - but it forces players dismay
10:45 <Pikka> well, my grfs are a work of art, and they are what they are and are imo best appreciated whole. so my response to krinn's argument is if he doesn't like it, he doesn't have to use it, I don't mind.
10:45 <Pikka> the stats are as important a part of the grf as the graphics.
10:46 <@planetmaker> well then. Sacrifice the usability in a heterogenous environment on grounds of "my way"

[...]

10:52 <Pikka> if different grf authors have different ideas about costs, I think that should be respected. and if they want to get together and make their sets compatible, that's an issue for them
10:52 <Pikka> newgrfs really /are/ modifications to the game after all, they're not necessarily just pretty graphics

[...]

10:56 <Pikka> the basecost is no less an integral part of the set balancing than the internal costs of the vehicles
10:57 <@planetmaker> no, it's not. It's part of the economy. And it's that part of the newgrfs which make it impossible for newgrfs to live peacefully alongside eachother
10:57 <Pikka> they live peacefully alongside each other just fine
10:57 <@planetmaker> it's that part which shoots the players foot if the wants to use tow same vehicle-type newgrfs
10:57 <Pikka> no it isn't
10:58 <Pikka> my set is balanced how I saw fit, author B's set is balanced how he saw fit.
10:58 <@planetmaker> of course. the player cannot reasonably use them both as they often grossly disagree about general cost levels
10:58 <Pikka> well, that's your perception, it's not an error in either grf
10:58 <@planetmaker> and it's the player playing. So HE should set an economy how he sees fit.
10:59 <@planetmaker> as such it's an error in the grf specs. yes
10:59 <@planetmaker> rubidium is right all the time No other solution than make grfs blind and mouth-gagged
11:00 <Pikka> it's an error in the grf specs to allow an author to specify the stats of a vehicle? hmm.

[...]

11:02 <@planetmaker> it's about where and how to exert control over how the player plays the game
11:02 <@planetmaker> and vehicles should not control economy nor sabotage it
11:02 <Pikka> yes, and I'll say again, in my opinion the only valid level of "general costs" for my grfs is the one specified in the grf
11:02 <Pikka> and other grf authors may feel the same
11:02 <Pikka> my grfs should not impose on theirs, nor theirs on mine.

[...]