I don't want to get into an edit war, but it seems incredibly silly dictating rules for all multiplayer play. You don't see the creators of Age of Empires saying 'Thou shalt not hide thy villagers in the trees'. Rules are set on a server-by-server basis and should not be dictated from a centralised point. At most, these 'rules' should be strong suggestions highlighting why they should be followed - this would best come under the title etiquette. It's up to the server controller whether they are law or not. docman 02:36, 20 Apr 2005 (CEST)
- No discussion for over 30 hours - reverting to multiplayer etiquette. docman 09:05, 21 Apr 2005 (CEST)
I was given clearance by the devs at #openttd to make this the RULES. because soon we are having a centralised login/banning system in place, I am reverting these to what they were meant to be, and thats the rules. Thats the CentralisedAuthentication by the way. Born Acorn 16:36, 3rd August BST
Follow the rules set down by the server owner. These may include no 'industry stealing' where one player starts a more competitive route than another.
Can someone explain this a little more? Starting a more competitive route just sounds like... competition. Am I missing something here? 184.108.40.206 23:52, 22 May 2005 (CEST)
- I think it makes sense as a server rule. If you allow fierce competetive undercutting, the game may degrade into nothing but undercutting, or worse, getting revenge on a company that undercut you. Putting in the rule 'no industry stealing' limits the competition to finding better industries, better networks, genrally doing better in the game in friendly competition. --220.127.116.11 11:02, 23 May 2005 (CEST)
- In my opinion 'industry stealing' is a word created by people who can't play such a game and complain that some better player has better and competitive route. There are always advertisements, there is a statue to build, even exclusive transport rights - if someone can't stand *better* players on the multiplayer game, welcome to singleplayer with dumb bots --Meush 11:15, 5 Aug 2005 (CET)
- I myself think that the industry stealing would be alot aleviated by including the smooth economy patch from the MiniIN (the one where the industry gradualy increases/decreases production when fully used/unused), and provide a more relaxed gameplay. --AtzaMan 14:50, 3 Apr 2007 (CET)
- Have the personal view that no-one owns a factory, farm, coal mie etc, and therefore if a competitor is supplying raw meterials to a factory which is producting hundereds of crates of goods and not transporting the goods themselves then I would see no problem transporting it and taking the money myself. Doing this, however, leaves the risk that the competitor stops taking materials to that factory and leaving you with a worthless branch line. Basically, If it's there you can use it. It encourages competition for goods from a factory and engourages a better service. I admit, I WILL *steal* goods if no-one is already transporting from that factory/oil refinery/sawmill. One last thing: It's only a game. Don't go psycho if someone takes goods that dont actually belong to you. Flaming Welcome. Tb2571989 12:09, 29 April 2008 (CEST)
exclusive transport rights and buying land is frowned upon?
Its a bit silly really, after all this is a game simulating being business tycoon, it seems like protectionism to me. Transport Tycoon says "laissez faire" capitalism to me, not regulation. Anyway- I agree with the previous guy who says it should be up to the server operators to set there own rules. To those server operators who want to run a protectionist socialist model, they will not gain my custom- not that they will care.
- It may have changed since you posted this, but it says buying stakes in a town you are nowhere near is rude.
- This is something that occured in our multiplayer game last night, one guy got bored and just bought transport rights on everyone else's best routes even though he was nowhere near them. I am of the opinion this should be enforced in the game code - no local authority would be insane enough to sell exclusive transport rights to a company that isn't even offering any transport. Now, if two people have routes in a town that is a whole different ball game.
CA and creating new users
Well, the text says "In the future, the CentralisedAuthentication feature will allow people breaking the following rules to be banned for good"
But how can you prevent the offender for signung up again with another ID with CA?
There are no details about how CA accounts would be created, but I assume anybody could create them ...
Bilbo 22:21, 18 July 2007 (CEST)