21:04 -!- orudge changed the topic of #tempire to: Transport Empire discussion :: www.tt-forums.net :: FRD meeting [050205, 1900 UTC] :: Agenda: http://users.tt-forums.net/hyronymus/Agenda.htm
21:04 < jfs> maybe also put "meeting started"
21:04 < Hyronymus> and your pilow, jfs?
21:04 < prencher> damned poker prevents me from making coffee
21:04 -!- orudge changed the topic of #tempire to: Transport Empire discussion :: www.tt-forums.net :: FRD meeting started :: Agenda: http://users.tt-forums.net/hyronymus/Agenda.htm
21:04 < jfs> it's supposed to be :P
21:04 < Hyronymus> indeed
21:05 < Hyronymus> Zuu, the alleged minute maker is away
21:05 < Hyronymus> but I'll start checking who's here anyhow
21:05 < jfs> yep, some people have dinner right now :/
21:05 < Hyronymus> MetalDaphne, active
21:05 < Hyronymus> +?
21:05 < Hyronymus> jpl here?
21:05 < Hyronymus> Steve-?
21:05 < Hyronymus> ChrisCF?
21:05 < Hyronymus> eis_os?
21:05 < Hyronymus> geez, we're active :p
21:06 < jfs> mass-highlight: MetalDaphne,orudge,jpl,Steve-,ChrisCF,eis_os,GruntAFK,Mek_,prencher,weni,Zuu
21:06 < prencher> rude
21:06 < jfs> yep
21:06 < eis_os> well yes, but me is only watching...
21:06 < Hyronymus> ok
21:06 < prencher> single-highlight: jfs
21:06 < prencher> there, even.
21:06 < Hyronymus> I'm here
21:06 <+jpl> gaaahhhh
21:06  * Zuu is here now.
21:06 < Hyronymus> prencher, you on wtach only?
21:06 < prencher> most likely
21:06 < Hyronymus> ok
21:06 <@orudge> Ditto
21:07 < Hyronymus> weni, you also
21:07 < weni> I think so
21:07 < Hyronymus> ok
21:07 < weni> maybe I say something from time to time
21:07 < Hyronymus> if any of you change minds just talk
21:07 < Hyronymus> Zuu, you've been reading up?
21:07 < jfs> remember to follow the ~ convention
21:07 < Zuu> But ask for your speach first.
21:07 < Zuu> ~
21:07 < Hyronymus> don't steal my lines, jfs
21:07 < Hyronymus> ok
21:08 < Hyronymus> no reply from MetalDaphne, jpl, ChrisCF and GruntAFK sofar
21:08 < Hyronymus> and Mek_
21:08 < Hyronymus> eis_os, ori, prencher and weni think they'll only watch
21:08 <+Steve-> I'm here now
21:08 < Hyronymus> *orudge
21:09 < Hyronymus> Steve- is in
21:09 <+Steve-> mmmm rushed indian
21:09 < Hyronymus> missing: Hellfire, Arathorn, uzurpator
21:09 < Hyronymus> pjaytycy
21:09 < Hyronymus> that's not good
21:10 <+jpl> Hyronymus: grab your eyes and look at here.
21:10 < Hyronymus> shall we start without them?~
21:10 < eis_os> (well if someone wants to know how TTD does something, feel free to ask)
21:10  * Hyronymus wiped his glasses (should do)
21:10 < Hyronymus> first a small rule to try to avoid confusion
21:11 <+Steve-> Steve is always right.
21:11 < Hyronymus> try to wait with speaking up until the previous speaker put a ~
21:11 <+Steve-> ~
21:11 < Hyronymus> so what Steve- just did was wrong~
21:11 < Zuu> Hyronymus: can I say something?~
21:11 < Hyronymus> always nice to have live examples~
21:11 < Hyronymus> yes~
21:11 <+Steve-> No ~
21:12 <+Steve-> aww ~
21:12 < Zuu> I think we should have some order about who shpuld speek and so at this meeting.~
21:12 < Hyronymus> you had anything perticalar in mind, Zuu?~
21:12 -!- mode/#tempire [+o Hyronymus] by orudge
21:12 <@orudge> Opping Hyronymus for administrative duties~
21:13 < Zuu> Ask you for speek, and you put speekers in a list, and pick the top one when the line is open.~
21:13 <@Hyronymus> if that's fine with the others
21:13 <@Hyronymus> ~
21:13 <+Steve-> We going in extra agenda order? ~
21:13 <@Hyronymus> no, we will stick to the agenda~
21:14 <+Steve-> *exact
21:14 <@Hyronymus> and I'm not willing to wait any longer for the others
21:14 < Zuu> We can try witout, but if it gets messy, use my suggestion.~
21:14 <@Hyronymus> I hope that's ok with the others too~
21:14 <+Steve-> If the person at the top of the list doesn't want to speak, it's easier to just let the people that do want to speak ~
21:14 <@Hyronymus> I will, Zuu~
21:15 < Zuu> Steve-: shall we try witout first?~
21:15 <@Hyronymus> as you can see we start with
21:15 <@Hyronymus>  1. [FRDF] Scenarios
21:15 <@Hyronymus> ~
21:15 <@Hyronymus> after reading the summary, who wants to talk first?~
21:16 < jfs> it seems to me we have reached an agreement on the form for scenarios, in the discussion on the forum ~
21:16 <@Hyronymus> yes, i have the same impression
21:16 < Zuu> The only question is if we shall have campaigns~
21:16 <@Hyronymus> it's more about what campaigns should be like
21:17 <@Hyronymus> I would like some of them
21:17 <@Hyronymus> but can't we add campaigns later
21:17 <@Hyronymus> based on yhe secanrio options?~
21:17 <+Steve-> brb
21:17 < jfs> after the suggestion for single-map campaigns, i'm against having multi-map campaigns ~
21:18 <@Hyronymus> anyone else?~
21:18 < weni> I agree, 'campaigns' is feature that can be added later~
21:18  * Zuu was baout to say the same as weni.~
21:18 < jfs> being able to add it later should mean
21:19 <@Hyronymus> any programmer here think skipping campaigns now would lead to a disaster once the DD is written?~
21:19 < jfs> that the format for specifying objectives and triggers on a map should be extensible without breaking old scenarios ~
21:19 <@Hyronymus> so it's better to have them in from the start?!
21:19 <@Hyronymus> ~
21:20 < jfs> i think it would be best to at least specify a general format for how they should be implemented
21:20 < jfs> but maybe leave the exact specification out in the beginning
21:20 < jfs> and
21:21 < jfs> single-map scenarios where you just expand on a single network does sound more exciting than having multiple maps where your previous progress is basically cleared, once you complete one scenario
21:21 < jfs> so some kind of general language for specifying triggers and actions in a scenario would be a good thing to have
21:21 < jfs> and it would give a great amount of freedom
21:21 < jfs> ~
21:22 < weni> campaign is a few scenarios linked together with some extra info like ending year of first is the begining year of next~
21:22  * ChrisCF finishes reading the scrollback
21:22 <@Hyronymus> so we better get a detailed idea on the scenario triggers and such?~
21:22 < ChrisCF> Personally, I like the idea where in a campaign, the outcome on a scenario decides which map you go to next.
21:23 < ChrisCF> but it shouldn't be the only means of play
21:23 <@Hyronymus> no, I agree
21:23 <@Hyronymus> let's get to scenarios again~
21:23 < Zuu> just add an action: play scenario $HOME/te/scenario/beta.scenario~
21:24 < jfs> having campaigns would mean that the scripts for a scenario should be able to access some kind of global dataspace to read/write variables to~
21:24 <+Steve-> (back, had to let bro use pc)
21:25 <@Hyronymus> aka a database, jfs?~
21:25 <@orudge> BRB
21:25 -!- orudge [orudge@orudge.users.quakenet.org] has quit [Quit]
21:25 < jfs> yes, some kind of database, actually~
21:25 < ChrisCF> jfs: Only if you want to add features like "If you destroyed the quarry in map 3, no slate industry in map 10"
21:26 < jfs> no it could be generalised
21:26 <+Steve-> I think any campaign based system's maps should be freely avaliable to play seperately. I see a Campaign as something not everyone would like, so shouldn't be forced to play maps ~
21:26 < jfs> (you done?)
21:26 -!- orudge [orudge@orudge.users.quakenet.org] has joined #tempire
21:26 -!- mode/#tempire [+o orudge] by L
21:26 < ChrisCF> ~
21:26 < jfs> every scenario has an "avaliability-script" that's called to check whether the scenario may be played at this point
21:27 < jfs> notmal scenarios just return "true" and that's it
21:27 < jfs> while campaign-scenarios can check the registry for its campaign for which conditions are fulfilled
21:27 < jfs> and if the right conditions are met, be available
21:27 < jfs> and so on ~
21:27 < ChrisCF> I suppose we could also have a map displayed on game startup which always returns "false" as well ~
21:28 < jfs> yes~
21:28 < Zuu> another way: pack next scenario in the scenario file, and when the scenario is completed, the contained scenarios are unpacked.~
21:28 <+Steve-> You'd put the startup map in a diff folder anyway ~
21:28 < jfs> but this is almost getting into implementation details, i suggest leaving scenarios/campaigns here, and discuss it in detail at a later point~
21:29 <+Steve-> Can we discard multiplayer campaigns at this point though? ~
21:29 < Zuu> I think so~
21:29 <+Steve-> I really don't think they'll work ~
21:29 < jfs> multi-map campaigns would be very hard to implement for multiplayer, so drop it~
21:29 <@Hyronymus> but if we think about the DD, isn't there something more we need to know about scenarios/campaigns/freeplay (sandbox)?~
21:29 < jfs> but single-map missions could work for multiplayer~
21:30 <+Steve-> Have a freeplay (any map, set your own rules) and Sandbox (freeplay + infinite cash) ~
21:30 < ChrisCF> Indeed, I think that a map having different objectives for multiplayer play might work
21:30  * Hyronymus thinks so too~
21:30 <@Hyronymus> first voting coming up
21:30 < ChrisCF> e.g. "Get x% market share, or be 2x value of next competitor"
21:30 <+Steve-> THose modes don't really detract from gameplay, only offer more options ~
21:30 < ChrisCF> ~
21:30 <@Hyronymus> should we have multiplayer campaigns?~
21:30 < prencher> if multimap campaigns were to be supported, you could have some setting triggers in each map that supports a given campaign, and have the engine trigger those based on previous progress (sorry if this is a repeat or not possible with the current scenario model) ~
21:30 <+Steve-> No ~
21:31 < jfs> let's define something here, the words "campaign", "mission" and "scenario"
21:31 <@Hyronymus> no, not yet jfs
21:31 < jfs> ok ^^ ~
21:31 <@Hyronymus> or wait
21:31 <@Hyronymus> my mistake :D~
21:31 < ChrisCF> We need to define them, so we're all talking about the same things
21:31 < jfs> scenario:
21:31 <@Hyronymus> please :$~
21:31 < jfs> a single map with an associated script
21:31 < ChrisCF> otherwise we have people using the same words for different things, and we get confused
21:32 < jfs> with some information about what is allowed and what is not
21:32 < jfs> mission:
21:32 < jfs> a scenario with a script built in such a way, that there are several chained objectives; once one objective is complete, another is received
21:32 < jfs> and the way of solving one objective may influence what other objectives are given
21:32 -!- eis_os [~user@xdsl-84-44-153-48.netcologne.de] has left #tempire []
21:32 -!- pjaytycy [~pjaytycy@dD5772E4A.access.telenet.be] has joined #tempire
21:33 < jfs> a mission always takes place on just one map
21:33 < jfs> campaign:
21:33 < jfs> several scenarios in one package
21:33 <+Steve-> ^^ Several missions?
21:33 < jfs> initially, only one scenario is available
21:34 < jfs> after completing whatever objectives that scenario has, a new scenario becomes available
21:34 < jfs> a campaign has a campaign-wide "registry" containing information global for all scenarios
21:34 < ChrisCF> Might it be worth noting that the scenario refers to the combination of map + script, since we could always make the map available for normal play with different objectives before the campaign scenario has been unlocked? ~
21:35 < jfs> and the way of completing one scenario may influence other scenarios
21:35 < jfs> any objections? ~
21:35 <@Hyronymus> yes
21:35 <+Steve-> Agreed with chriss ~
21:35 <@Hyronymus> about scenarios: multiple objetives need to be in~
21:35 < prencher> how about having an overall campaign script that manages progress, and lets it retrieve info on the played scenarios? - if you save some stats about the scenario once finished, the campaign script can then decide based on this what to do next~
21:35 -!- GruntAFK is now known as Grunt
21:35 < prencher> rather than a database as such~
21:36 <@Hyronymus> what's easier/better?~
21:36 < ChrisCF> prencher: That's more-or-less the difference between having one script per level or one script for the compaign as a whole
21:36 < ChrisCF> since we deal with the maps separately
21:36 < jfs> the individual scenarios still need to be able to store some kind of state information~
21:36 < prencher> ChrisCF: you would have a per scenario script as well as campaign script
21:36 < Grunt> That would still raise the issue of a player losing some of their hard work during the campaign...~
21:36 < ChrisCF> s/deal/should\ deal
21:36 <+Steve-> map script makes more sense ~
21:36 <@Hyronymus> don't we need 2 scripts then: per mapbut also a global one?~
21:37 < jfs> i think having a global script will just complicate things~
21:37 <@Hyronymus> ok
21:37  * Zuu agrees with jfs.
21:37 < ChrisCF> If we separate map from script, we can always have the first thing in the script having the meaning "use map foo.land"
21:37 < prencher> the campaign one would interact with the scenario output stats, lying on top of the scenarios, that way the scenarios need no info on being part of a campaign other than if the content requires it~
21:37 <+Steve-> i think we need both
21:37 < ChrisCF> prencher: but the scenarios are invariably part of the campaign
21:37 <+Steve-> After you do a mission, with the map script controlling it, the capaign script takes over to load the next map
21:37 < pjaytycy> We just need some kind of container to group the scenario's that belong to one campaign. There is no real need for a script for that. ~
21:38 <+Steve-> Then it'd much easier to edit the structure of a campaign
21:38 < prencher> ChrisCF: the scenarios dont need to know that.
21:38 <@Hyronymus> ok, so no global script since it'snot really needed
21:38 <+Steve-> ~
21:38 <+Steve-> Is this thing on?
21:38 <@Hyronymus> that means we only need scripts per map~
21:38 < ChrisCF> prencher: perhaps we're confusing teh meaning of the term "scenario" in this conext?
21:38 < prencher> oh sorry, yeah i meant a mission
21:38 <+Steve-> And can we go back to the mission definition?
21:39 <+Steve-> *capaign defintion
21:39 <+Steve-> Shouldn't it be several missions, rather than scenarios?
21:39 < ChrisCF> Let's try this one:
21:39 < jfs> PLEASE remeber to use ~ and RESPECT it :/ ~
21:39 <@Hyronymus> can we please wait for eachother to finihs, Steve-, ChrisCF~
21:40 <+Steve-> Oh, so i do exist? :/ ~
21:40 <@Hyronymus> again, now nmore tidy please
21:40 < ChrisCF> objective: something that you need to do
21:40 <@Hyronymus> do we need scripts per map, yes or no
21:40 <@Hyronymus> ~
21:40 < jfs> i think ChrisCF is writing something so quiet please :) ~
21:41 <+Steve-> Per map: Of course ~
21:41 < ChrisCF> map: a landscape on which play can happen
21:41 < ChrisCF> scenario: a script referencing a map and defining several objectives
21:42 < ChrisCF> i.e. not containing map data, just a reference to "use map XYZ" or something
21:43 < ChrisCF> campaign: a series of scenarios, which might be linear or branching
21:43 < ChrisCF> This make sense? ~
21:43 <+Steve-> Yes ~
21:43 < jfs> it does~
21:43 <+Steve-> The defintion of mission isn't really needed ~
21:43 <@Hyronymus> yes~
21:43 < Grunt> Indeed. ~
21:43 < Grunt> That raises a question:
21:43 < Grunt> Does the starting year belong in the map, or in the scenario?~
21:43 < jfs> idea:
21:43 <+Steve-> Scenario ~
21:44 < jfs> a default is stored in the map, but i can optionally be overridden by a script~
21:44 <@Hyronymus> scenario~
21:44 < pjaytycy> scenario :-)
21:44 < pjaytycy> ~
21:44  * Hyronymus agrees with jfs~
21:44 < prencher> k then, based on that; my suggestion: a campaign contains an overall campaign script; each scenario has an input and output ability; the campaign script inputs data based on output of previous scenarios and in this way decides how the campaign plays out.~
21:44 < ChrisCF> In each campaign, the scenarios are in that campaign only, since there would be another version of the scenario for another campaign, or freeplay.#
21:44 <@Hyronymus> first prencher's part
21:44 < ChrisCF> ~
21:44 <@Hyronymus> who agrees?~
21:44 <+Steve-> Aye ~
21:45 < Grunt> Aye. ~
21:45  * Hyronymus agrees too~
21:45 < prencher> in this manenr the scenarios need no knowledge of being part of a campaign and can easily be used for multiple campaigns if needed~
21:45 < Zuu> on what?
21:45 < Zuu> ~
21:45 <@Hyronymus> on:  k then, based on that; my suggestion: a campaign contains an overall campaign script; each scenario has an input and output ability; the campaign script inputs data based on output of previous scenarios and in this way decides how the campaign plays out.~
21:45 <+Steve-> On what prencher just said ~
21:46 <@Hyronymus> what is your opinionm, pjaytycy~
21:46 < pjaytycy> ok, but we don't need to discuss each and eveything so much in detail do we?
21:46 < Zuu> I agree.~
21:46 <@Hyronymus> not for me;)~
21:46 <+Steve-> Evenutally, yes ~
21:46 < ChrisCF> Can I point out at this point that there seems to be a breakout meeting on #tycoon
21:46 < jfs> yes i think most of this discussion can be left until after we have a DD, it's too detailed for the DD, imo ~
21:46 <+Steve-> As i said before, noway of getting everything done in one meeting ~
21:47 <@Hyronymus> listen, we're going bye the agenda
21:47 <@Hyronymus> each topic will have it's own structure ok
21:47 <+Steve-> Ignore the #tycoon discussion. If they can't talk here, we don't need to hear it. ~
21:47 <@Hyronymus> I'm not a magician, noone is soI can't say how this meeting will go
21:47 <@Hyronymus> and please ingnore all irrelevant stuff~
21:48 <@Hyronymus> now what ChrisCF wrote:In each campaign, the scenarios are in that campaign only, since there would be another version of the scenario for another campaign, or freeplay.
21:48 <@Hyronymus> do we agree on that~?
21:48 <@Hyronymus> ~
21:48 <+Steve-> Aye ~
21:48  * Hyronymus does too~
21:48 <+Steve-> But it raises a question:
21:48 <@Hyronymus> go ahead~
21:48 < pjaytycy> isn't that contradictory to wah prencher said ?~
21:49 <+Steve-> Are scenarios stored as maps + a bit, or just a bit with reference to the map? WOuld save on space when your using it several times ~
21:49 -!- Aankhen`` [pockled@dialpool-210-214-97-195.maa.sify.net] has joined #tempire
21:49 < Grunt> Steve-: The latter.
21:49 < Grunt> ~
21:49 < ChrisCF> Hopefully, in this case, the scenario scripts will be small, since they only *reference* the map, as opposed to *containing* them
21:49 < jfs> it seems to me it conflicts with prencher's suggestion; chris wants scenarios to be specific to campaigns, while prencher wants scenarios to be separate from campaigns~
21:49 < Grunt> jfs: there can be two types of scenarios: one referenced from campaigns and one standalone.
21:49 <@Hyronymus> indeed
21:50 <+Steve-> MAPS are seperate, SCENARIOS not? As scenarios need the special objectives. ~
21:50 < Grunt> The scenario files for campaigns could even be built directly into the campaign file, one supposes.~
21:50 <@Hyronymus> like in RRT2~
21:50 < ChrisCF> For the most part, if your scenarios are not fairly specific to the campaign, then they're not really useful in a campaign. ~
21:50 < Zuu> or just create a campaign with one scenario.~
21:50 < prencher> not having scenarios be dependent on the campaign seems more flexible from my point of view, and that way a scenario can easily play out in several campaigns and standalone~
21:50 < Grunt> I like Zuu's idea.~
21:50 < jfs> i object to having campaign-shared scenarios, because it would be easy to just copy the script from someone else and reuse the map ~
21:50 < pjaytycy> jfs, would that be bad? ~
21:50 < ChrisCF> prencher: I fail to see where that could be usefil, other than in a small number of cases
21:51 <@Hyronymus> ok, slow down
21:51 < ChrisCF> and the proposals on the table put forward a simple enough work-around (i.e. copy the script and change some values). ~
21:51 <@Hyronymus> ~
21:51 < prencher> not to rain on the parade but such discussion is really better suited for a mailing list~
21:51 <+Steve-> Or forum? ~
21:52 < jfs> can we save this discussion for a later time? i think we have already discussed all we need to know to be able to write a DD~
21:52 < Grunt> Or forum. ~
21:52 < jfs> i suggest moving on in the agenda~
21:52 <@Hyronymus> geez, wasn''t that why the topics were created, Steve-?~
21:52 < Grunt> I agree with jfs. ~
21:52  * pjaytycy agrees with jfs.
21:52  * Zuu agrees with jfs
21:52 < Zuu> ~
21:52 <+Steve-> I agree
21:52 < prencher> forums dont split the same way a mailling list does, you cant just fork into sub threads easily~
21:52 <+Steve-> Not sure what Hyr means though ~
21:52 < Grunt> Let's move on, then... ~
21:52 <@Hyronymus> let me ask one thing though
21:52 < ChrisCF> prencher: Neither do most people's email clients, nor their habits.
21:53 < ChrisCF> ~
21:53 < prencher> (well flat forums anyway)
21:53 <@Hyronymus> before me move on
21:53 <@Hyronymus> order plz
21:53 < prencher> anyways, yeah, done ranting on that.
21:53 <@Hyronymus> if we don't decide on scenarios now, what does that mean for the DD?!
21:53 <+Steve-> I thought we had decided, what's the problem? ~
21:53 < pjaytycy> Hyronymus, I think we do agree~
21:54 < Zuu> That.. who is going to sumarize?~
21:54 < jfs> whoever will write the DD will decide how much detail scenarios/campaigns must be described in, and if it's not good enough it will be changed ~
21:54 < jfs> i think we have already gone into too much detail~
21:54 <@Hyronymus> ok, next topic then~
21:55 <@Hyronymus> 2. [FRDF] Weather~
21:55 <+Steve-> Drop it ~
21:55 -!- Hellfire667 [~s500882@195.240.128.92] has joined #tempire
21:55 < jfs> drop it~
21:55 < Zuu> Drop it~
21:55 < Hellfire667> Good evening
21:55 < Grunt> Drop it.  Needless complication. ~
21:55 < Hellfire667> LOL... Drop what?
21:55 <@Hyronymus> 2. [FRDF] Weather
21:55 <+Steve-> You.
21:55 <+Steve-> :) ~
21:55 < Hellfire667> ok.
21:55 < ChrisCF> Other than a "disaster" which might cause problems, e.g. "ice on tracks", drop it. ~
21:55 <@Hyronymus> ok, one thing else then
21:55 -!- mode/#tempire [+o Hellfire667] by L
21:55 < jfs> how about
21:55 <@Hyronymus> local variatons
21:56 -!- Hellfire667 was kicked from #tempire by Hellfire667 [Dropped]
21:56 -!- Hellfire667 [~s500882@195.240.128.92] has joined #tempire
21:56 -!- mode/#tempire [+o Hellfire667] by L
21:56 <@Hyronymus> hang on jfs
21:56 < jfs> my spatial climate differences?
21:56 <@Hyronymus> that are local variations right?
21:56 < jfs> ~
21:56 <@Hyronymus> ~
21:56 <+Steve-> *spatial? ~
21:56 <@Hellfire667> I vote to drop the weather.
21:56 <@Hyronymus> no ~ Hellfire667?~
21:56 -!- mode/#tempire [+o ChrisCF] by L
21:57 <+Steve-> Someone talk ~
21:57 <@Hyronymus> jfs, briefly describe spatial climate difference~
21:57 < Aankhen``> What's with the ~? ~
21:57 < jfs> ok
21:58 <+Steve-> End your rant with ~ so poeple know your done -> ~
21:58 < Aankhen``> Oh, okay.  Like Over and Out? ~
21:58 < jfs> some maps may span large geographic areas
21:58 < jfs> like a map of europe
21:58 < Grunt> Aankhen``: yes. Now let jfs speak. ;) ~
21:58 < jfs> obviously, the climate is different in northern norway and southern italy
21:59 < jfs> so some things like what industries are present, the snow line and such should vary over the map
21:59 < jfs> that's basically it~
21:59 <@Hyronymus> sounds reasonable
21:59 <@Hyronymus> who has objections?~
21:59 < pjaytycy> well, jfs, that's up to the mapmakers to design their maps that way :-) ~
22:00 <@Hyronymus> pjaytycy, we need to supply the possoibilties first~
22:00 < jfs> how about when new industries spawn?
22:00 < jfs> they also have to take that into account
22:00 <+Steve-> I agree ~
22:00 < jfs> and how about randomly generated maps?
22:00 < jfs> ~
22:00 <@Hyronymus> one thing first~
22:00 <+Steve-> The map maker could leave a generic climate mask on, making everything the same. Or make hot spots via a simple tool ~
22:00 <@Hyronymus> weather has been dropped, how about spatial climate varaiations?~
22:01 <+Steve-> Use em ~
22:01 < pjaytycy> Don't drop it. It's good. ~
22:01 < Zuu> I have no objections against it~
22:01 <@Hyronymus> come on, a quick yes or no~
22:01 <@Hellfire667> Yes: keep that in. ~
22:02 <@Hyronymus> ok, I'm in for it too
22:02 <+Steve-> Next! ~
22:02 <@Hyronymus> then jfs said something about industries~
22:02 <@Hyronymus> you want it discussed, jfs?~
22:02 <+Steve-> That goes with the spatical thing 
22:02 < jfs> that was just an example of what may be affected by the climate~
22:02 < Zuu> so, industries will care about climate when located.~
22:02 <+Steve-> Just saying that a farm goes in a hot spot, not a blizzard ~
22:03 <+Steve-> A vinyard for instance ~
22:03 < Grunt> That makes sense. ~
22:03 < pjaytycy> I would rather not have it restricted to climates. Just let the mapdesigner specify areas where some industries can pop up and where they can't. ~
22:03 <@Hyronymus> ok, so it's safe to move on to topic 3?~
22:03 < Grunt> I think so. ~
22:03 < Zuu> pjaytycy: you have a point~
22:03 <@Hyronymus> does it need discussion?~
22:04 <+Steve-> Who said it's restricted to climates? ~
22:04 < jfs> special climate needs like what pjaytycy suggests could be described with the scenario script or similar; that's just a possibility ~
22:04 <@Hyronymus> I think we can solve that without being too specific. I suggest the nexy topic now~
22:04 < jfs> next~
22:05 <@Hyronymus> 3. [FRDF] Dikes and water flow
22:05 <@Hyronymus> what about it~
22:05 <+Steve-> I think water should flow freely
22:05 <@Hellfire667> In the Netherlands, we call dikes "jars"... ~
22:05 < jfs> it should not be possible to do something that will flood a city~
22:05 <+Steve-> If it destroys, then fine the player. And give warnings beforehand
22:05 < Zuu> Agree with Steve~
22:06 <+Steve-> That offers the maximum flexibility with no horrible problems ~
22:06 <@Hyronymus> free flowing water, right from after map generation?~
22:06 <@Hellfire667> What if local authorities intervene? ~
22:06 <+Steve-> Obviously destroying a city would be such a big fine, it's game over ~
22:06 < Zuu> but, in muliplayer that can be a problem.~
22:06 <@Hyronymus> what can bea problem, Zuu?~
22:07 < Zuu> I earn all my mony in town A. My "friend" joins the game only to flood town A, and then quit.~
22:07 < jfs> how about this: if any terrain modification will cause water to flood in such a way that it will destroy any property owned by anyone (including your own property), disallow the modification.~
22:07 <+Steve-> That would require presistent games.. which we won't have? ~
22:07 <@Hyronymus> I believe the entire free flow is a problem
22:08 <@Hyronymus> it's unrealitsic~
22:08 <@Hyronymus> man has build dikes since the early 800's~
22:08 <+Steve-> And you could set a restriction on the maximum "damage" a flood can make ~
22:08 <@Hellfire667> Most land will lie ABOVE sealevel anyway. ~
22:08 < Zuu> I don't want RCT way of water~
22:08 <+Steve-> Hyronymus, and the men who build canals? ~
22:08 <+Steve-> I agree with jfs ~
22:08 <@Hyronymus> Steve-, canals typicaly lie below land surface~
22:08 <+Steve-> To a degree. ~
22:09 <+Steve-> I think you need to rephrase that Hyr, makes no sense ~
22:09 <@Hyronymus> you dig a canal, you dig it in the ground
22:09 -!- Hellfire667 is now known as Hellfire[Caffei
22:09 <@Hyronymus> you don't erect an earth wall and put water between it~
22:09 -!- Hellfire[Caffei is now known as Hellfire667
22:10 <+Steve-> The Manchester ship canal. I'm pretty sure they dug a ditch and let it fill up ~
22:10 <@Hyronymus> imagine you build a canal in TTD
22:10 <@Hyronymus> where is the water level
22:10 <@Hyronymus> at the height of the surroudning country?~
22:11 < jfs> idea:
22:11 < jfs> there is a mapwide ground water lever
22:11 < jfs> level*
22:11 < jfs> like in TTD
22:11 < jfs> water from that will flood freely
22:11 < jfs> additionally, there are mountain springs
22:11 < jfs> which can create rivers that will flow downwards towards the ocean
22:12 < jfs> possibly creating mountain lakes on its way
22:12 < jfs> or maybe even ending in a mountain lake
22:12 <+Steve-> Sounds good. ~
22:12 < pjaytycy> do we have a difference between navigatable and very small rivers ?~
22:12 < jfs> it's practically impossible to get water above ground water level without having a river~
22:13 <@Hyronymus> I agree with waht jfs said
22:13 <@Hyronymus> can i add to it?
22:13 <@Hyronymus> ~
22:13 <@Hellfire667> I agree too.~
22:13 < Zuu> I agree to~
22:13 < jfs> there should be a difference between water ships can navigate and water ships can't navigate~
22:13 <+Steve-> Off-topic question: How did they fill the Panama canal? ~
22:13 <@Hyronymus> If you build a canal the sides will be the buffer that prevent it from overflowing
22:14 <@Hyronymus> let these canal sides be undemoloishable~
22:14 <+Steve-> Unless you want to extend the canal ~
22:14 <@Hyronymus> yes
22:14 <@Hyronymus> ~
22:14 < jfs> (side note: a restriction in a scenario might be "players cannot modify the landscape") ~
22:15 <@Hyronymus> anyone have difficulties with the addition converning canals?~
22:15 < jfs> i do
22:15 <@Hyronymus> :(~
22:15 < jfs> it might conflict with the approach to tunnels,
22:15 < jfs> with surfaces and roofs and such
22:15 < jfs> ~
22:16 <@Hyronymus> how?~
22:16 < jfs> i just think it might be hard to implement both in a sensible way~
22:16 <@ChrisCF> We can always see that you need a given height above the canal surface available for navigation, and disallow construbtion over canals, or disallow canals where there is already construction above it
22:16 <@Hyronymus> does it pay off to dive into the canal specs now?~
22:17 < pjaytycy> no~
22:17 <@Hellfire667> no~
22:17 <@ChrisCF> ~
22:17 < jfs> nO~
22:17 <@Hyronymus> ok, then we go with what jfs proposed about water levels and move on~
22:17 <@Hyronymus> agreed?~~
22:18 <+Steve-> Yep ~
22:18  * Hellfire667 agrees ~
22:18 < Zuu> a scetch is comeing.. about an issue..~
22:18 <@Hyronymus> how long, Zuu?~
22:18 < jfs> (brb, getting some snacks)~
22:19 <@Hyronymus> I suggest we get back to the skects after 4. [FRDF] Map slopes
22:19 <@Hyronymus> not much about map slopes
22:19 < Zuu> on TT forums now.~
22:19 <@Hyronymus> but more about 5. [FRDF] Steepness of slopes
22:19 <@Hyronymus> shall we combine 4 and 5?~
22:19 <@Hellfire667> yes, please.~
22:20 <@Hyronymus> because I think we should decide how steep the max is and from that find a solution
22:20 <@Hyronymus> so the suggestions were: 5-6% for trains as max steepness. Anyone opposed?~
22:20 < jfs> http://www.tt-forums.net//files/b_187.jpeg for that sketch
22:20 <@Hellfire667> Not me. I'm for a max of about 5-6% for trains.~
22:20 < jfs> ~
22:20 <+Steve-> I don't know enough to disagree ~
22:21 <@Hyronymus> anyone else?~
22:21 <@Hellfire667> Can I say something about map slopes?~
22:21 <@ChrisCF> I'm not sure about that.  Perhaps we should reserve setting limits until we can actually do some simulations?
22:21 <@Hyronymus> Hellfire667, sure~
22:21 -!- Zuu [~Zuu@h121n4c2o1028.bredband.skanova.com] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out]
22:22 <@Hyronymus> hang on ChrisCF, you're next~
22:22 <@ChrisCF> e.g. a HST set with one car out can't do those slopes, but some engines are capable of pulling heavy cargoes over steeper.
22:22 <@ChrisCF> ~
22:22 <@Hellfire667> OT: Poor Zuu... (ChrisCF can go first. I still have to type my comment :)  )~
22:22 <@Hyronymus> ChrisCF already said what he wanted
22:22 <@ChrisCF> 20:22 <@ChrisCF> ~
22:22 <@Hyronymus> he has a point~
22:22 <@Hellfire667> Ok.
22:22 <@Hellfire667> My comment:
22:23 <+Steve-> I think it'd best to generalise max slopes, rather than have settings for each engine ~
22:23 <@Hellfire667> I think we should allow *on the map* every possible slope, defined by the difference in height of the corners of the map tiles.
22:23  * pjaytycy agrees with Hellfire
22:23 <+Steve-> You presume a tile is just 4 points ~
22:23 < jfs> agree there~
22:24 <@Hyronymus> wait for the ~ please
22:24 <@Hellfire667> Then, when building tracks, we show the user, i.e. by coloring tiles red, which tiles (s)he can build on, given the track type and possible "accessories".~
22:24 -!- prencher [prencher@home.prencher.dk] has left #tempire []
22:25  * Hyronymus agrees with Hellfire667
22:25 <@Hellfire667> So the red tiles would be too steep to build on.~
22:25 <@Hyronymus> can we mix that with ChrisCF's sugesrtion to wait with setting exct values?!
22:25 <@Hellfire667> Absolutely.~
22:25 <+Steve-> I agree with the idea, but the way of representing it could change ~
22:25 <@ChrisCF> My thought: we don't have a limited setting per engine, we just include it in the stats for people to decide.  That way, we just run them on the tracks they've built, and if they can't get up, they can 't get up
22:26 <@Hyronymus> anyone inf favour of ChrisCF's idea?~
22:26 <+Steve-> I don't understand it
22:26 <+Steve-> Limited setting? ~
22:26 <@ChrisCF> e.g. the stats for a HST might say "Max slope: 6% (4% with loss of power)" (set manually), but the physics data for the engine will decide if it can get up a given slope or not.
22:26 <@Hyronymus> specifying the max willbe 5-6% etc, Steve-~
22:26 <+Steve-> And i don't want situations where trains get stuck, this was covered on the forums ~
22:27 <@ChrisCF> If we find a level of slope where none of the engines we have can climb it, we set that as a general cap. But only when we've tested it and are happy that it's too steep for anything to climb. ~
22:27 <@Hyronymus> ok
22:27 <@Hyronymus> anyone else agrees?~
22:27 <+Steve-> I think it's too messy ~
22:28 <@ChrisCF> Steve-: Why is it messy to not set an absolute limit?
22:28 <@ChrisCF> ~
22:28  * pjaytycy agrees with chris and steve
22:28 <@Hellfire667> I think we need larger slopes.~
22:28 <+Steve-> If the game knows trains can't get up the slope, why must the player still try it out first? ~
22:28 <@Hellfire667> It's a scale issue.~
22:28 <@ChrisCF> Because it doesn't know it can't get up there until it's tried. ~
22:28 <@Hellfire667> 6% is way to small for in a game.~
22:28 -!- Zuu [~Zuu@h110n11c1o1028.bredband.skanova.com] has joined #tempire
22:28 <@Hyronymus> ok
22:29 <+Steve-> COurse it does, it must know the gradient of a line it makes ~
22:29 < jfs> this is basically turning into a realism issue~
22:29 <+Steve-> Simple vectors. ~
22:29  * Zuu is sorry, my connection went down. :(~
22:29 <@Hyronymus> this is beyond our scope now~
22:29 < jfs> we may have to sacrifice some realism to get a more playable game~
22:29 <+Steve-> I agree with Hellfire there ~
22:29 <@Hellfire667> Imagine tiles of 100 pixels (Which is huge). Then a 6% incline means that the slope raises 6 pixels per tile...~
22:29 < Zuu> Can some one tell me where you are plz~
22:29 <@ChrisCF> Steve-: The game knows how steep a given slope is.  It can't decide which stock can and can't get up there when building.
22:29 <@Hellfire667> Zuu: were still at the slope discussion.~
22:29 <@Hyronymus> point 4 and 5, Zuu
22:30 < pjaytycy> @hellfire : the vertical game scale can be different than the horizontal game scale
22:30 <@ChrisCF> It will know from the physics data of a given set of stock whether it can get up a slope that it's trying, but only when it tries.  We can't have the game test your train against every bit of line in the game when you build it. ~
22:30 <@Hyronymus> really for the last time: who is in favour of not setting a clear mxi on slopes
22:30 <@Hyronymus> ~
22:30 <+Steve-> That's only a problem if we have lots of lots of max gradients ~
22:30 <@Hyronymus> *a clear max~
22:31 <+Steve-> I think a maximum should be set. With the user clearly setting the type of train that is running on the track, so the game knows what maximum to set. ~
22:31 <@Hyronymus> common, I'm not gonna ask it a 4th tim~
22:31  * Hellfire667 is not in favour: keep it simple. Restrict the user, even though it's just a little bit.~
22:31 <@Hyronymus> pjaytycy?~
22:31  * Zuu is neither in favour.~
22:31 < jfs> to make the game more playable, i think we need to allow larger slopes than realistic, and to set some fixed max, as well as have all vehicles always be able to travel any slope, but at great penalty~
22:31 <@ChrisCF> If we set an absolute maximum, it should only be where we know everything or nothing can get up it.  We can't have a situation where some things get stuck below the maximum and others can go right past it.  So, I am also not in favour of a fixed maximum. ~
22:31 <@Hyronymus> if noone is in favour we need a solotion
22:32 < pjaytycy> I am in favour of a max. when building the line, and letting all trains run atleast at 1 kph on all tracks
22:32 < pjaytycy> ~
22:32 <@Hyronymus> now ChrisCF gave one a few times and nobody said if he liked it~
22:32 < Zuu> jfs, that can be done by scale heght diffrent than horizontal.~
22:32 <+Steve-> Yes, trains should never get stuck. Just move really slow. But that's only in condition of being over-weight ~
22:32 <@Hyronymus> *sighs*
22:33 <@Hyronymus> ok, we're moving on *only* stating we want a max to be set
22:33 <@Hyronymus> Fine with me
22:33 <+Steve-> I gave a solution? ~
22:33 <@Hyronymus> ~
22:33 <@Hyronymus> Steve-: yes, but noone responds~
22:33 < jfs> i will always go for the most playable solution even if it's unrealistic~
22:33 < jfs> so i'm against chris' suggestion~
22:34 <+Steve-> I am too ~
22:34 <@Hyronymus> FINAL ATTEMPT
22:34 <@Hyronymus> everybody stay quiet~
22:34 <@ChrisCF> Hyronymus: As I say, I would only agree to a fixed max on track slope when we know that either everything is capable of steeper, or nothing is capable of steeper.
22:34 <@ChrisCF> otherwise you lose the value of having different stock available. ~
22:34 <@Hyronymus> this is the proposal:
22:34 <@Hyronymus> no train ever gets stuck on steep track
22:35 <@Hyronymus> slopes in TE will be steeper than normal because of the visual part
22:35 <@Hyronymus> agreed?~
22:35 <+Steve-> AGreed
22:35 <+Steve-> ~~
22:35 < jfs> yes
22:35 <@ChrisCF> Agree on both points. ~
22:35  * Hellfire667 agrees.~
22:35 < jfs> ~
22:35 < pjaytycy> yes~
22:36 < Zuu> visual parts only?~
22:36 <@Hyronymus> now was that so hard
22:36 <@ChrisCF> Slopes must be seen to be sloping. ~
22:36 <@Hyronymus> next point
22:36 < jfs> (and some vehicle models will be better at climbing slopes than other models)~
22:36 <@Hyronymus> no, Zuu's sketch
22:36 <@Hyronymus> zuu, what about your sketch?~
22:36 < Zuu> about water.
22:36 < jfs> the url was: http://www.tt-forums.net//files/b_187.jpeg
22:36 < Zuu> if you remove the wall. I suggest that 
22:36 <@Hyronymus> without the // between net and files~
22:37 -!- weni [~weni@xdsl-1121.wroclaw.dialog.net.pl] has quit [Ping timeout]
22:37 <@Hyronymus> too violent and too insecure what will happend IMO~
22:37 <@Hyronymus> I rather see you can't remove the wall unless you backed it up with a newly dug canal~
22:38 <+Steve-> Hyr, are you not going to let Zuu speak?
22:38 <@Hellfire667> OT: The link also works with two //. No need to change that :) ~
22:38 -!- Zuu [~Zuu@h110n11c1o1028.bredband.skanova.com] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out]
22:38 <@Hyronymus> oh, my mistake. Sorry Zuu, thx Steve-~
22:38 <+Steve-> Nevermind :x
22:38 <@Hellfire667> Oh no... :( ~
22:38 <@ChrisCF> The problem here is deciding how much water actually flows past the wall.
22:38 <@Hyronymus> that's 1 of the problems
22:38 <+Steve-> I don't understand what's happening in the 3rd bit of the sketch ~
22:39 <@Hyronymus> but with Zuuaway we move on
22:39 <@Hyronymus> ~
22:39  * pjaytycy will be away untill 22:25...  
22:39 <@ChrisCF> It could be on a scale similar to the tsunami we saw recently, or it could be a couple of bucketfuls which seep away.
22:39 <@ChrisCF> ~
22:39 < jfs> with
22:39 <@Hyronymus> 6. [FRDF] Zones~
22:39 <@Hellfire667> The water should move slowly, to give the player a chance to take countermeasures. ~
22:39 < jfs> my suggestion where water always has a source (either the ocean or a mountain spring)
22:39 <@Hellfire667> ok.~
22:39 <+Steve-> Drop em ~
22:39 <@Hellfire667> Drop zones. ~
22:39 <@Hyronymus> I say drop zones too~
22:39 < jfs> there will theoretically be infinite amounts of water~
22:39 <+Steve-> Although:
22:39 < jfs> and drop zones~
22:40 <@Hyronymus> Steve-?~
22:40 <+Steve-> Towns may have building patterns, Players don't need to know
22:40 <+Steve-> ~
22:40 <@ChrisCF> Wait while I read the topic.
22:40 <@Hellfire667> Zuu also said "drop it" in the topic.~
22:40 <@Hyronymus> yes, waiting for ChrisCF~
22:41 <@ChrisCF> Other than perhaps deciding based on what's around the building lot in deciding what goes there, drop it for player purposes.
22:41 -!- weni [~weni@xdsl-1121.wroclaw.dialog.net.pl] has joined #tempire
22:41 <@Hellfire667> Well then. For your reading pleasure, here's uzurpator's opinion:
22:41 <@Hellfire667> Zones are uber-lewt coolness.
22:41 <@Hellfire667> They stay and that's final!
22:41 <@Hellfire667> ~
22:41 <@Hyronymus> but he's the only one
22:42 <@Hyronymus> so I'm afraid they're being dropped
22:42 <+Steve-> And he's obviously joking. ~
22:42 <@ChrisCF> The town doesn't want to put smoky factories next to houses, but the player doesn't need to concern themselves with that. ~
22:42 <@Hellfire667> Or he was drunk.~
22:42 <@Hyronymus> yes, I asked for more (negatvive) replies~
22:42 <@Hellfire667> ChrisCF -> I agree.~
22:42 <@Hyronymus> next point then: 7. [FRDF] Player owned industries~
22:42 <+Steve-> No ~
22:42 <@Hyronymus> hang on
22:42 <@Hyronymus> we already said we won't do it~
22:43 <@Hyronymus> although jfs constructed it as an option  in his scheme~
22:43 <@Hyronymus> I suggest we all read the latest developments there~
22:43 <+Steve-> Ok, the options ~
22:43 <@ChrisCF> Industries own transport links, not the other way around.  If we go for it, it's player ownership, not company ownership.  Unless we separate player and company, drop it. ~
22:44 <@Hyronymus>    1. Players can own industries
22:44 <@Hyronymus>    2. Players can buy/sell goods
22:44 <@Hyronymus>    3. Industries make contracts between each other, and players must follow those
22:44 <@Hyronymus>    4. Industries have favoured destinations for their goods
22:44 <@Hyronymus>    5. Players can fund new industries
22:44 <@Hyronymus>    6. Players can fund already existing industries
22:44 <@Hyronymus>    7. Industries will pay for their goods transported to any destination
22:44 <@Hyronymus>    8. Secondary industries have a max. output per time unit
22:44 <@Hyronymus> please vote now~
22:44 <+Steve-> Why did you change the letters to numbers? Now i have to redo my vote :/ ~
22:44 <@Hyronymus> mIRC did~
22:44 <@Hellfire667> I'm in favour of 1,4,5,7,8 ~
22:44 <@ChrisCF> 348
22:44 < jfs> i'm against: 1 2 3 5 6 8; for: 4 7
22:44 -!- Zuu [~Zuu@h110n11c1o1028.bredband.skanova.com] has joined #tempire
22:45 < jfs> or well, neutral about 5
22:45 <@Hyronymus> 145
22:45 <+Steve-> 4,5  Possibly: 3, 8
22:45 <@ChrisCF> 2 we can't do (at least, not without a futures speculation plugin, which is beyond our scope)
22:45 < Zuu> Hi agin.~
22:45 <@Hyronymus> wb Zuu
22:45 <@ChrisCF> 3 is needed to create routes for players
22:45 <+Steve-> ChrisCF, well some people are insistant on 2 for some reason. ~
22:45 <@ChrisCF> 4 goes some way to stop the player having total control over the landscape (too much control is a Bad Thing)
22:46 < jfs> note: 3 and 4 are meant to be exclusive ~
22:46 <+Steve-> But i think my argument on time mattering in transporting, making buy/sell innappropiate. ~
22:46 <@Hyronymus> quiet plz
22:46 <@Hyronymus> Zuu, which ones do you prefer?~
22:47 <+Steve-> (You might want to pm him the options)
22:47 <+Steve-> ~
22:47 <@Hellfire667> I already did.~
22:47 <@Hyronymus> I did, Steve-~
22:47 <@Hyronymus> lol~
22:47 <+Steve-> Good good ~
22:48 <@Hyronymus> 47 from Zuu
22:48 <+Steve-> Lets just say: 4 is in
22:48 <@Hyronymus> 58 perhaps
22:48 <+Steve-> Everyone said it ~
22:48 <@Hyronymus> yes, thx Steve- ;). 4 is in~
22:49 <+Steve-> And if 3 and 4 are exclusive, 3 isn't in. ~  MMM logic
22:49 <@Hyronymus> 5 too I believe, but only with an addition for me~
22:49 < jfs> and 3 is out? (industries decide where goods goes and if players want to transport anything, they follow that)
22:49 <@Hellfire667> Two people voted for 1, so I guess that one's out.~
22:49 <@ChrisCF> No, 3 needs to stay.
22:49 < jfs> 3 and 4 are exclusive
22:49 <@ChrisCF> 3 and 4 by their wording aren't exclusive.
22:49 <@Hyronymus> my not to 5: important note: E if players can ask local authorities to fund a new industry
22:49 <@Hyronymus> ~
22:49 < jfs> they are meant to be
22:49 < jfs> ~
22:49 <+Steve-> 3 and 4 are basically the same thing.
22:49 <+Steve-> ~
22:50 <@Hyronymus> stop it~
22:50 <@Hyronymus> I wrote something
22:50 <@Hyronymus> what about it~
22:50 <@ChrisCF> and I haven't said "~" yet.
22:50 <@Hyronymus> sorry~
22:50 <@ChrisCF> 1 can't really stay, because it's the wrong way around.  Industry usually owns some of its transport links, not vice versa.
22:51 <@ChrisCF> 2 is impractical, and might allow teleporting if not treated carefully.
22:51 <@ChrisCF> 3 is an option for "premium" options, where you get bonuses for operating these.
22:51 <+Steve-> Wait.
22:51 <+Steve-> Shouldn't we do them one at a time?
22:51 < jfs> Steve- STFU~
22:51 <+Steve-> Rather than one person giving info at once?
22:51 <+Steve-> ~
22:51 <@ChrisCF> 4 is about as loose as we can reasonably make the supply/demand without putting too much power in the hands of the player.
22:52 <@Hyronymus> if only peoplelistened we could~
22:52 <@Hyronymus> ChrisCF, we can all read and we already voted~
22:52 <@Hyronymus> I'm more into just counting the votes now
22:52 <@Hyronymus> noone choose 1 so that;s a drop
22:52 -!- mode/#tempire [-vv jpl Steve-] by Hellfire667
22:53 -!- mode/#tempire [+v Steve-] by L
22:53 <@Hyronymus> 2 wasn't a choise by anyone either
22:53 <@Hyronymus> also a drop
22:53 <@ChrisCF> 5 needs to be controlled, 6 is out, 7 has to be out, and 8 has to be in
22:53 <@Hyronymus> 3 was my suggestion but I favour jfs's above mine
22:53 -!- mode/#tempire [-v Steve-] by Hellfire667
22:53 <@ChrisCF> So in summary, +3458 -1267
22:53 <@Hyronymus> so anyone in favour of 3, reconsider 4 plz~
22:53 <@Hyronymus> no, I want to drop 3~
22:54 <@Hyronymus> 4 offers the same but in a more refined way, ChrisCF
22:54  * Aankhen`` goes to sleep.
22:54 <@Hyronymus> more freedom to the players~
22:54 <@ChrisCF> 4 is fine, as long as we have some element of contacts for bonus, and that some destinations you can't go to.
22:54 -!- Aankhen`` [pockled@dialpool-210-214-97-195.maa.sify.net] has quit [Quit: Life is a constant battle to fight off maturity [Time wasted online: 7hrs 36mins 13secs]]
22:54 <@Hyronymus> should be an option
22:54 <@Hyronymus> ~
22:54 <@ChrisCF> We don't want more freedom for players, we want less.  Too much control is part of what makes TTD too easy.
22:55 <@ChrisCF> ~
22:55 <@Hyronymus> about 5:
22:55 < jfs> 4 is exactly "some destinations are acceptable and some give bonus"~
22:55 <@Hellfire667> I also prefer the word "Favour" in option 4 over 3.~
22:55 <@Hyronymus> 5 only if players can ask local authorities to fund a new industry
22:55 < jfs> 3 is "only one specific destination is acceptable"
22:55 <@Hyronymus> ~
22:55 < jfs> ~
22:55 <@Hyronymus> ssst
22:55 <@Hyronymus> I wasn't done~
22:55 <@Hyronymus> 5: only if players can ask local authorities to fund a new industry
22:55 <@ChrisCF> jfs: we need to add "some are acceptable" to 4, though. ~
22:55 <@Hyronymus> can we live with that~
22:56 <@Hyronymus> I personally don;t like building industry myself
22:56 <@ChrisCF> On 5, that's my feeling too.  Perhaps players can only fund industries where the local authority allows the option.
22:56 < Steve-> COmment on 5:
22:56 <@Hyronymus> I think the LA should build industry on a companies request~
22:56 <@ChrisCF> so your options might be "Advertising, statue, roadworks, co-fund steel works"
22:56 < Steve-> Nevermind
22:56 <@ChrisCF> ~
22:56 < Steve-> ~
22:56 <@Hyronymus> 6 is a drop
22:56 < jfs> the player shouldn't have any control over exactly where an industry is built~
22:57 <@Hyronymus> 7 is a drop
22:57 <@Hyronymus> 8 is a drop~
22:57 <@Hyronymus> too few votes (sorry Zuu)~
22:57 < jpl> where did my voice go?
22:57 < jfs> 8 is more realistic but may make the game less playable, imo~
22:57 <@Hyronymus> a sidenote: please behave and wait for the ~
22:57 -!- mode/#tempire [+v Steve-] by L
22:57 <@ChrisCF> jfs: My answer to that is that if a player wants a steel mill, he can only fund it with local authorities that are looking attract a steel mill. ~
22:57 <@Hyronymus> or I'm switching to higher modes~
22:58 <@ChrisCF> 8 is not and can never be a drop.
22:58 < jfs> ChrisCF i just meant it shouldn't be like in TTD where you click "i want a steel mill inside this 10x10 area"~
22:58 -!- mode/#tempire [+v jpl] by L
22:58 <@Hyronymus> only 2 for 8~
22:59 <@ChrisCF> 8 has to stay, simply for the economy to be remotely viable. ~
22:59 <+Steve-> 8 is fine either way for me. I think it'll add a nice thing to the game ~
22:59 < jfs> idea: leave 8 as a reality/difficulty option that can be enabled/disabled in-game ~
22:59 <@Hyronymus> I see 8 as oppressive
22:59 <+Steve-> Note on 8:
22:59 <@Hyronymus> just when you're doing fine 8 kick in~
23:00 <@Hyronymus> Steve-m WAIT FOR THE ~
23:00 <@ChrisCF> Of course, IRL, factories may take on or lay off staff, so I see no problem with the limit going up or down.
23:00 <+Steve-> If it is in, make sure you apply my system of the industries expanding themselves. Or it's defiently too restrive ~
23:00 <+Steve-> SOrry, i started typing before i saw your comment ~
23:00 <+jpl> I'd prefer 4. then 7 and 8 would depend on skill level set for game.
23:00 <@ChrisCF> but we shouldn't have an industry that can suddenly increase its production tenfold because you're supplying it with that much. ~
23:01 <+jpl> ~
23:01 <@Hyronymus> proposal: 8 is as a difficulty setting~
23:01 < jfs> yes 7 and 8 might indeed work quite well as difficulty settings for the game; they make the game easier/harder ~
23:01 -!- Zuu [~Zuu@h110n11c1o1028.bredband.skanova.com] has quit [Ping timeout]
23:01 <+Steve-> I'm fine with 8 being difficulty based. ~
23:01 < jfs> i'm for both 7 and 8 if they are difficulty settings ~
23:02 <+Steve-> Can someone explain what 7 means? ~
23:02 <@Hyronymus> proposal: 7 & 8 are a difficulty setting~
23:02 <@Hellfire667> 7 and 8 as difficulty settings are ok to me.~
23:02 <@ChrisCF> 7 seems a little moot to me, since they don't pay to have their goods transported, they pay to have goods transported to them. ~
23:02 < jfs> 7 is basically like in TTD, transport anywhere and you get paid~
23:02 <+Steve-> Oh, 7 is a yes then ~
23:02 <@ChrisCF> 7 takes us down the road ot Too Much Control again.
23:03 <@Hyronymus> so 4578 is it then>
23:03 <@Hyronymus> ~
23:03 <+Steve-> Agree: 4578 ~
23:03 < jfs> 7 is what people will want in a Sandbox game~
23:03 <@ChrisCF> 458.  We can't have 7, even as an easy option.
23:03 <@ChrisCF> If it is used, it is strictly sandbox-mode only.
23:03 <@Hyronymus> Hellfire667?~
23:03 <+Steve-> I agree with the sandbox comment too ~
23:03 <@Hyronymus> read up ChrisCF, it was suggested as a difficulty setting~
23:03 <@Hellfire667> I say 4578 it is, where 7 and 8 are difficulty settings. ~
23:04 <@Hyronymus> sandbox mode is a difficulty setting imo~
23:04 <@ChrisCF> Though it can be disabled in sandbox mode, so people can practice with sensible industrial transport. ~
23:04 <@Hyronymus> fine with me
23:04 <@Hyronymus> next point
23:04 < jfs> next~
23:04 <@Hyronymus> 8. [FRDF] Depots
23:04 <@Hyronymus> nothing to discuss
23:04 <@Hyronymus> ~
23:04 <+Steve-> Agreed, see topic ~
23:05 <@Hellfire667> Ok. Next.~
23:05 <@Hyronymus> I'll add some new sketches next week thoguh~
23:05 <@Hyronymus> 9. [FRDF] Who builds airports?
23:05 <@Hellfire667> I'd like to add a remark on the meeting sofar.~
23:05 <@Hyronymus> again a list:A   Local authorities initiate, construct and own airports (problem: how to deal with cities that don't initiate at all?)
23:05 -!- Hyronymus [borgirc-nl@Hyronymus.users.quakenet.org] has quit [Excess Flood]
23:05 <+Steve-> lol
23:05 -!- Hyronymus [borgirc-nl@Hyronymus.users.quakenet.org] has joined #tempire
23:05 < jfs> gah :/
23:06 < jfs> Hyronymus enable flood control will you? :) ~
23:06 <@ChrisCF> Paste your lists a bit at a time. ~
23:06 <@Hellfire667> Go ahead, Hyr. I'm after you.~
23:06 < Hyronymus> anand I have flood protection on :p
23:06 -!- Zuu [~Zuu@h105n1c1o1028.bredband.skanova.com] has joined #tempire
23:06 < Hyronymus> please make your choice :p~
23:06 <+Steve-> Wait Hyr, post the like to the post itself :)
23:06 < jfs> Zuu, we're on Airports now ~
23:06  * Zuu is back again.. :(~
23:06 <+Steve-> http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?p=245443#245443
23:06 <+Steve-> ~
23:06 < Hyronymus> thx Steve- ;)
23:06 < Hyronymus> ~
23:07  * Zuu = A or C~
23:07 <+Steve-> A, although i hope people read the comments in the thread too ~
23:07 < Hyronymus> A or C for me too know~
23:07 < jfs> A or C ~
23:08 <+Steve-> C actually seems to be what i though A meant ~
23:08 <@ChrisCF> I'm thinking (before looking at the list) that we can go the same way as industries.  If the council want one, the player can fund one if they want.
23:08 <@ChrisCF> ACD and possibly G
23:08 -!- mode/#tempire [+o Hyronymus] by Hellfire667
23:08 <+Steve-> Not completely fund. Just let a hand.. and get a reward. ~
23:08 <@ChrisCF> though G as an option
23:08 <+Steve-> ChrisCF, you can only choose 1! ~
23:08 <@ChrisCF> Says who?
23:08 <@Hyronymus> yes, choose one this time~
23:08 <@Hyronymus> I just did~
23:09 <@Hyronymus> you too Hellfire667~
23:09 < Zuu> I see no problem with choosing more than one.~
23:09 <+Steve-> Can i just clear something up?
23:09 <@Hyronymus> yes Steve-~
23:09 <@Hellfire667> I say G.. TT/Loco style.~
23:09 <+Steve-> Are we saying these options are just for towns, and allowing players to have more freedom on non-town airports?
23:09 < jfs> H is the TT style~
23:09 <+Steve-> ~
23:10 <@Hellfire667> No wait..~
23:10 <@Hellfire667> I say H... ~
23:10 <@Hyronymus> Steve-: no, also for non-town regions if it's up to me. Good point~
23:10 <@ChrisCF> Steve-: Where would you have "non-town" airports?
23:11 < Zuu> Hyronymus: you mean this vote is for all airports???~
23:11 <+Steve-> Cargo. ~
23:11 <@ChrisCF> ~
23:11 <@Hyronymus> Zuu, yes~
23:11 <@ChrisCF> When would you transport cargo by air?
23:11 < Zuu> Then can I chang my vote?~
23:11 <+Steve-> Why not? ~
23:11 <@Hyronymus> sure Zuu~
23:11 <@ChrisCF> I don't believe we're going for intercontinental freight just yet.
23:11 <@Hellfire667> ChrisCF: if it has to be transported fast, i.e. Mail or Food or Livestock.~
23:11 <+Steve-> Why not? ~
23:11 < jfs> yes actually non-town airstrips aren't very realistic ~
23:12  * Hyronymus embraces jfs~
23:12 <+Steve-> We broke realism several times already, why not now? ~
23:12 < Zuu> H~
23:12 <@Hyronymus> because we hit the limit~
23:12 <@ChrisCF> mail travels by rail, as do livestock and food
23:12 <@Hyronymus> don't start other discussions~
23:12 <@Hyronymus> only vote
23:12 <@Hyronymus> hurry ChrisCF~
23:12 <+Steve-> jfs, you said yourself you'd prefer playability over realism. Isn't building your own airports somewhere (but not everywhere) more playable?
23:12 <+Steve-> ~
23:12 <@ChrisCF> we can always add a heavy penalty for slow transit of those goods, so we don't need airstrips in the middle of nowhere
23:13 <@ChrisCF> ~
23:13 < Zuu> allthroght Iprefere that town airports are A or C.~
23:13 <@Hyronymus> VOTING ONLY~
23:13 <+Steve-> My re-vote:  A in towns, H for rest ~
23:13 <@ChrisCF> I think we need to allow A and C
23:13 <@Hyronymus> ok
23:13 < jfs> i'll stick to plain C now, public airports co-funded by one or more companies and the LA ~
23:13 <@ChrisCF> if a town wants the airport badly enough, it can build it itself after
23:13 <@Hyronymus> I go c too~
23:14 < jfs> ok A and C can indeed co-exist~
23:14 < Zuu> C for towns. But enable players to build cargo airports.~
23:14 <@ChrisCF> with C, you can set up your options early.  With A, you might not want to jump in, but if the town wants an air connection, it can build for one
23:14 <@Hyronymus> Zuu has a solution there I think
23:14 <@Hyronymus> ~
23:15 <@Hyronymus> proposal:
23:15  * pjaytycy is back
23:15 <@Hyronymus> A for cities and C for 'air strips outside city LA range'~
23:15 <@Hellfire667> Two types of airports.. Hmm. That _could_ work.~
23:15 <+Steve-> No? C for cities too ~
23:16 <@ChrisCF> I see C as requiring LA approval anyway
23:16 <+Steve-> Just A if the city gets really big and demands an airport ~
23:16 <@ChrisCF> with the right options, C becomes an equivalent to PFI. ~
23:16 <@Hyronymus> proposal #2: a mix for A and C for cities, C for outside~
23:16 < jfs> i'm with prop. 2 ~
23:17 <+Steve-> Outside of cities, i don't see why the LA should own my cargo airports. H ~
23:17 <@ChrisCF> C outside seems sane, only it won't be the town councils but whoever owns the land, e.g. industries. ~
23:17 < jfs> good point, ChrisCF ~
23:17 <@Hyronymus> or the province/state/count(ry)~
23:17 <+Steve-> Ok, that makes more sense. I've been considering LA as a town ~
23:17 <+Steve-> An industry can own the airport though. ~
23:17 < jfs> (but in the end it doesn't matter who owns a public airport, all that matters is that it isn't you) ~
23:17 <@Hyronymus> not necessarily Steve-~
23:18 <@Hyronymus> votes on proposal #2 please~
23:18 <@ChrisCF> Where there is government, e.g. the county council extended right up the meet the next one, then they do it.  In their absence for widely-spread towns, landowners first. ~
23:18  * Hyronymus is for
23:18  * Zuu is for.
23:18 <+Steve-> Agree on Prop 2.. i think ~
23:18 < jfs> for
23:18 < jfs> ~
23:18 <@Hyronymus> that's very nice!~
23:18 <+Steve-> As long as i get my cargo airports one way or another! ~
23:18 <@ChrisCF> Which is proposal 2 again?
23:18 <+Steve-> <@Hyronymus> proposal #2: a mix for A and C for cities, C for outside~
23:19 <@Hyronymus> thx~
23:19 <@ChrisCF> Sounds good to me.  "For". ~
23:19 <+Steve-> np ~
23:19 <@Hellfire667> I can live with that. But I still vote H. ;) ~
23:19 <@Hellfire667> So: "For"~
23:19  * Steve- changes to against just to annoy everything ~
23:19 <@ChrisCF> I believe that you should only own the airport outright if nobody else owns the land. ~
23:19 <@Hyronymus> now Hellfire667 had a remark about the meeting~
23:20 <@Hellfire667> Wow! You remembered!
23:20 <@Hyronymus> I'm 27 not 72~
23:20 <@Hellfire667> Okay. I think the meeting is hindered by a lot of "cross talking".
23:20 <@Hellfire667> (and notice the absence of ~ ) ;)
23:21 <@Hellfire667> So I'd like to ask all of you to take better care of typing "~"'s and looking for them.
23:21 <@Hellfire667> Also, I think we can have better discussions that way.
23:22 <@Hellfire667> If someone is typing a lot, like me :), but is going away from the topic, the chair, in this meeting Hyronymus, should interrupt them.
23:22 <@Hyronymus> ok
23:22 <@Hellfire667> I'm done now. Comments? ~
23:22 <@Hyronymus> 10. [FRDF] How to decide how many wagons you can have in a train~
23:22 <+Steve-> Wait hyr
23:22 < jfs> i have a comment ~
23:22 <@Hyronymus> ok~
23:22 <+Steve-> I have a suggestion ~
23:22 <@Hyronymus> steve first~
23:22 <@ChrisCF> An unavoidable problem is people starting at the same time, thinking they have open air. ~
23:22 <@Hellfire667> ChrisCF: agreed. But we have a chair for that problem.~
23:23 <+Steve-> If we want to intterupt and give a comment, we could say ">" or similar. Then Hyr can say the person's name, so they know they can speak ~
23:23 <@Hyronymus> let's try that Steve-~
23:23 <+Steve-> >
23:23 <@Hyronymus> go ahed Steve-
23:23 <+Steve-> Next! :D ~
23:23 <@Hyronymus> 10. [FRDF] How to decide how many wagons you can have in a train~
23:23 <@ChrisCF> >
23:23 < jfs> we should have different ways if indicating "i have a comment on what's being said now" and "i have something to say unrelated to what's being said now" ~
23:23 < jfs> i said i had a comment Hyronymus...... ~
23:24 <@Hyronymus> lol, sorry
23:24 <@Hyronymus> ~
23:24 <@orudge> BRB
23:24 -!- orudge [orudge@orudge.users.quakenet.org] has quit [Read error: EOF from client]
23:24 <@Hyronymus> I have one too as a result~
23:25 < jfs> well go on ~.~
23:25 < Zuu> >n = related to discusiion Now. >u = unrelated comment~
23:25 <@Hyronymus> no, unrelated goes through the cahir first~
23:25 <+Steve-> >
23:25 <@Hyronymus> Steve-?~
23:25 <+Steve-> Why do we need unreleated comments? ~
23:25 -!- orudge [orudge@orudge.users.quakenet.org] has joined #tempire
23:25 -!- mode/#tempire [+o orudge] by L
23:25 <@ChrisCF> 21:23 <@ChrisCF> >
23:26 <@Hyronymus> we don't and that;s why they go to the chairman~
23:26 <@Hyronymus> ChrisCF~
23:26 <@Hellfire667> >
23:26 <@ChrisCF> Do we need one for "related comment retracted", in case what you were about to say has just been said?
23:26 <+Steve-> <
23:26 <+Steve-> :)
23:26 <@Hyronymus> type a capital R~
23:26 < jfs> i suggest a character other than > because it easily blends in with the default <nick> thing in mirc :/ ~
23:26 <@Hellfire667> <
23:27 <@Hellfire667> or R
23:27 <@ChrisCF> so > for "comment requested" and < for "scratch that, it's just been said"
23:27 <@Hyronymus> no, R is for related comment retracted
23:27 <@Hyronymus> I suggest ! for a break~
23:27 <@ChrisCF> or, better still, -> and <-  ~
23:27 <@Hyronymus> listen to me, plz~
23:27 <@Hyronymus> R is for related comment retracted
23:27 <@Hyronymus> ! for a break~
23:27 <@Hellfire667> What's wrong with "I have a comment.~"?  ~
23:28 <+Steve-> A break? AFK? ~
23:28 < Zuu> retracted =?~
23:28 <@Hyronymus> withdrawn Zuu~
23:28 <@ChrisCF> Zuu: You made a request to say something.  Someone said it already, now you don't need to say it any more, so you retract the request :)
23:28 <@Hyronymus>  and breaking in in someones speach~
23:28 <@Hyronymus> can we move on now~
23:28 <+Steve-> > is easier. That's why i chose it. Near to ~ too. ~
23:29 <@ChrisCF> I still think we should be consistent, and use > < or some construction thereof.  (No ~ yet)
23:29 <+Steve-> But, yes, move on.
23:29 <@Hellfire667> Move on.~
23:29 < jfs> ok, so do we use -> for "i have a comment" ? ~
23:29 < jfs> and after that move on~
23:29 <@Hyronymus> ChrisCF is still typing~
23:29 <@ChrisCF> -> looks good, since it doesn't clash with the nick thing, and <- for the opposite seems logical.
23:29 <@Hyronymus> fine with me
23:30 <@Hellfire667> Fine. -> and <- it is. NEXT! :P ~
23:30 <@ChrisCF> This with ! for "if I might interrupt" looks rather nice. ~
23:30 <@Hyronymus> can we then obey this from now on?~
23:30 < pjaytycy> yes ~
23:30 < jfs> ->
23:30 <+Steve-> Agreed ~
23:30 <@ChrisCF> !
23:30 <@Hyronymus> jfs?!
23:30 <@Hyronymus> ~
23:30 <@ChrisCF> Incidentally, these are called "points of order".  ~
23:30 < jfs> i'll maybe try to write a script for mIRC that might help a bit during meeting, to keep track of who's speaking
23:30 < jfs> i'll work on it after this meeting, tomorrow probably ~
23:30 <@Hyronymus> that would be great~
23:31 <+Steve-> ->
23:31 <@Hyronymus> imortant syuff, Steve-?~
23:31 <+Steve-> NEXT!! ~
23:31 <@Hellfire667> ! <ChrisCF> !
23:31 <@Hellfire667> ~
23:31 <@Hyronymus> ChrisCF~
23:32 <@ChrisCF> I already said it.  Brining discussion about how the meeting is conducted is called raising a "point of order". ~
23:32 <@ChrisCF> ~
23:32 <@Hyronymus> ok
23:32 <@Hyronymus> 10. [FRDF] How to decide how many wagons you can have in a train
23:32 <@Hyronymus> ~
23:32 <@Hyronymus> anyone?~
23:32 <@ChrisCF> I'm thinking the same as slopes here.
23:32 <@ChrisCF> Let the physics decide, though perhaps we can "test" a train before letting it run. ~
23:32 <+Steve-> ->
23:32 <@Hyronymus> Steve-
23:33 < jfs> ->
23:33 <@Hyronymus> and then jfs~
23:33 <+Steve-> I think you should allow the user to build what he likes. But warn that the train will move slowly. And always make sure it can go 1 kph
23:33 <+Steve-> Even if it's not realistic, it should never stop ~
23:33 <@Hellfire667> ->
23:33 <@Hyronymus> jfs first~
23:33 < jfs> ChrisCF, by "test" do you mean something like having a ghost-train running a route? ~
23:34 <@Hyronymus> let ChrisCF answer~
23:34 <@ChrisCF> No, just a quick simulation to see if a train will at least start off, using the physics data of the engine and whatever it's pulling. ~
23:35 <@Hyronymus> Hellfire667?~
23:35 <@Hellfire667> I was thinking along the lines of the "red tiles" I mentioned earlier. But it's OT, so: <- ~
23:36 <@Hyronymus> jfs, more to say perhaps?~
23:36 < jfs> no~
23:36 <@Hyronymus> ok, the conslusion then:
23:36 < jfs> though
23:36 <@Hyronymus> go ahead~
23:36 < jfs> i think something like actually having a ghost-train run the route could be good
23:37 < jfs> it will show how fast it will run at various sections
23:37 -!- Zuu [~Zuu@h105n1c1o1028.bredband.skanova.com] has quit [Ping timeout]
23:37 <@ChrisCF> ! Would be time-consuming though.
23:37 <+Steve-> ->
23:37 < jfs> and it being ghost, it won't interfere with existing traffic
23:37 < jfs> ~
23:37 <@Hyronymus> Steve-~
23:37 <+Steve-> You may build the train before you set the route. And routes may not always be the same if we have a good route finder
23:37 <+Steve-> If there is a breakdown, things could be rerouted.
23:37 <+Steve-> ~
23:38 <@Hyronymus> that's not possible
23:38 <@Hyronymus> the depot conslusion prevents that~
23:38 < pjaytycy> Care to explain that Hyr ?~
23:38 <@ChrisCF> seconded. ~
23:38 <@Hyronymus> sure
23:39 <@Hyronymus> you can't build a train if the route isn't build yet
23:39 <@Hyronymus> a depot can only be built on an connected route
23:39 <+Steve-> ->
23:39 <@ChrisCF> Ah, I think you misunderstood what Steve said.
23:39 <@Hyronymus> yes?~
23:39 <@ChrisCF> ~
23:39 <+Steve-> That's not what i meant
23:39 <+Steve-> I meant, before you set where the trains go, you make the train. You'd have to go back to building the train. Although not a big problem ~
23:40 <@Hyronymus> ok
23:40 <@ChrisCF> Steve-: This is the slopes thing, not the train building thing.
23:40 <+Steve-> This is wagons? ~
23:40 -!- Zuu [~Zuu@h241n7c1o1028.bredband.skanova.com] has joined #tempire
23:41 <@Hyronymus> I can only see then that we agree on not letting trains come to a standstill but always leave them running at 1km/h at least~
23:41 <@ChrisCF> The train testing is only to make sure that your train will actually be able to start, and that you're not sticking 20 full Mk3s behind a low-powered shunting loco.  Nothing to do with whether it'll finish the route. ~
23:41 <@Hyronymus> did my summary fit then?~
23:41 <+Steve-> I agree on your summary. ~
23:41 <@ChrisCF> That's where the "slow to a crawl (and hopefully more than just 1km/h) comes in". ~
23:41  * Zuu is verry irritated. Internet worked fine whole day, but not on the meeting :(~
23:42 <@Hyronymus> you just got the summary though Zuu. What say you?~
23:42 <@Hyronymus> and Hellfire667, jfs?~
23:42 <@Hyronymus> pjaytycy too of course~
23:42 < jfs> ->
23:42 <@Hellfire667> I agree with the 1km/h at least part. The "testing the train" on whether it will start is probably good too. 
23:43 <@Hyronymus> jfs~
23:43 <@Hellfire667> But why can't we just set a maximum weight it can pull?~
23:43 < pjaytycy> iI agree on hyr's summary ~
23:43 < pjaytycy> I'm not sure about the "testing the train" part~
23:43 <+Steve-> ->
23:43 < jfs> as long as there is a way to assess whether a train can run its route, and a train will always be able to move no matter what, i'm fine ~
23:43 < Zuu> I agree with the 1km/h at least part. ~
23:43 <@Hyronymus> I agree with the addition from jfs. Steve-?~
23:44 <+Steve-> COuld we make the test into: Watch it in real time, or just let the game run through and give a report? ~
23:44 < jfs> can run its route reasonably * ~
23:44 <@ChrisCF> jfs: that is something which takes etiher too much computation, or too much real time.
23:44 < jfs> ChrisCF:
23:44 <@Hyronymus> Steve-, how about a warning if the engine is overstrained~
23:44 <@Hyronymus> jfs and ChrisCF, the rules plz!!!~
23:45 <@ChrisCF> Hey, I've got the stick :p
23:45 <+Steve-> Yes, the report will show such things. I'm just saying you should get test results, without having to watch it all. Note, the game could pause for convienience. ~
23:45 <@Hyronymus> ok, my error. ChrisCF~
23:45 <@Hyronymus> remark noted btw Steve- ;)~
23:46 <@Hyronymus> nothing more ChrisCF?~
23:46 <@ChrisCF> The "test" I mentioned is to see if it's overstrained before you start it.  Any sort of running the whole thing over the entire route not only requires that you have specific track available to test on, ...
23:47 <@ChrisCF> but that you either can afford to pause the game to test it or run it along the whole route in ghost mode visible to the player in the same timescale as everything else.
23:48 <@ChrisCF> If the route is long time-wise, I don't really want to wait forever for the train to test the route only to find out it can't get all the way, especially when it's making no money.
23:48 <@Hyronymus> ->
23:48 < pjaytycy> ->
23:49 <@ChrisCF> ~
23:49 < jfs> ->
23:49 <@ChrisCF> (sorry)
23:49 <@Hyronymus> ok, /me first
23:49 <@Hellfire667> Hyr, you first.~
23:49 <@Hellfire667> :P~
23:49 <@Hyronymus> if you have a track between station a and b, why not let the train depot check which trains can take that trak?~
23:50 < pjaytycy> ->->
23:50 <@Hyronymus> great need, pjaytycy~
23:50 < pjaytycy> no, comment on a comment ...
23:50 -!- Zuu [~Zuu@h241n7c1o1028.bredband.skanova.com] has quit [Ping timeout]
23:50 <@Hyronymus> ok~
23:51 <@Hyronymus> your turn :p~
23:51 <@ChrisCF> because you'd have to check all possible combinations of engine and stock. ~
23:51 <@Hyronymus> pjaytycy was, ChrisCF~
23:51 < pjaytycy> There are way too much possibilities to check with your suggestion Hyr (what Chris said)
23:51 < pjaytycy> ~
23:51 <@Hyronymus> ->
23:52 <@Hyronymus> Perhaps not, you can take an average loadout~
23:52 <@Hyronymus> or just the heaviest~
23:52 <@Hyronymus> ! MB used a formula to define the load a train can hull IRC
23:52 <+Steve-> <jfs> ->
23:52 <@Hyronymus> ~
23:52 <@Hyronymus> jfs~
23:52 < jfs> anything the player can use to decide whether the train is a reasonable choice or not is fine with me. no accurate simulations required. just something like in RRT1/2/3 with a chart displaying max speed at various loads and slopes is fine for this actual train, and shouldn't require too many calculations unless i'm badly mistaken ~
23:53 < jfs> uh that became a bit messed up in sentence structure :P ~
23:53 <@Hyronymus> ok, going too detailed I sense
23:54 <@Hyronymus> can we live with the fact that a good measutring devide needs more thinking?~
23:54 < jfs> fine~
23:54 <@Hellfire667> I can.~
23:54 <@Hyronymus> pjaytycy amd Steve-?
23:54 <+Steve-> I live on! ~
23:54 <+Steve-> (yes) ~
23:54 <@ChrisCF> Sounds good.  I have ways of thinking about how we can do this, but never mind. ~
23:54 <+Steve-> Post on forums? ~
23:55 <@Hyronymus> ChrisCF, please post them on the forums~
23:55 < pjaytycy> ok ~
23:55 <@Hellfire667> ! http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?t=13019
23:55 <@Hyronymus> next point: 11. [FRDF] Load/unload orders
23:55 <+Steve-> ->
23:55 -!- Zuu [~Zuu@h60n11c1o1028.bredband.skanova.com] has joined #tempire
23:55 <@Hyronymus> Steve-~
23:56 <+Steve-> I don't care as long as it's simple to use. ~
23:56 <@Hellfire667> ->
23:56 <@Hyronymus> same goes for me. Hellfire667~
23:56 <@Hellfire667> I agree with Steve.~
23:56 < jfs> ->
23:56  * Zuu is back. (Factory reseted my modem, to get ride of my agryness._~
23:56  * pjaytycy congratulates zuu ~
23:56 <@Hellfire667> Go ahead, jfs.~
23:56 <@Hyronymus> enough, jfs~
23:56 < jfs> i agree it should be easy to make simple load/unload orders, but there should be an option to make sophisitcated schemes if the player wants to ~
23:56 <@Hyronymus> stop playing me, Hellfire667 ;)~
23:57 <@Hyronymus> ->
23:57 <@Hyronymus> those things don't bite jfs~
23:57 < pjaytycy> ->
23:57 <@Hyronymus> pjaytycy~
23:58 < pjaytycy> I agree with jfs, but I don't think it would be good to go into too much detail here now. We agree on the use of it, the details should not be discussed at this meeting now. ~
23:58 < Zuu> it =?~
23:58 <@Hyronymus> 11. [FRDF] Load/unload orders
23:59 <@Hyronymus> ~
23:59 <@Hyronymus> safe to move on?~
23:59 <@Hellfire667> I think so.~
23:59 <@Hyronymus> ok
23:59 <@Hyronymus> 12. [FRDF] Train propulsion
23:59 <@Hellfire667> ->
23:59 <@Hyronymus> we all agreed on the basics
23:59 <@Hyronymus> only discussion about refueling
23:59 <@Hyronymus> hel~
00:00 <@Hyronymus> *Hellfire667~
00:00 <@Hellfire667> I think we should only include refueling iff sand and oil levels are also included. And an empty train should not stop but move very slowly.~
00:00 <+Steve-> ->
00:00 <@Hyronymus> Steve-~
00:01 <@Hyronymus> ->
00:01 <@ChrisCF> ->
00:01 <+Steve-> I don't like the idea of sand and oil being included. I don't know how they are used in trains. I don't care now you mention it. Would be off trying to organise my routes around it. ~
00:01 <+Steve-> *odd
00:01 <@ChrisCF> !
00:01 <@Hyronymus> go ChrisCF~
00:01 <@ChrisCF> Sand is for preventing wheel slip
00:02 <@Hyronymus> only the ! though~
00:02 <@ChrisCF> Oil for smooth running of the engine, amongst others.
00:02 <@ChrisCF> ~
00:02 <@Hyronymus> ok, I agree with Hellfire667 suggestion. ChrisCF~
00:02 <+Steve-> ->
00:02 <@ChrisCF> (the -> still stands :)
00:02 <@Hellfire667> !
00:03 <@Hyronymus> no, that was my ->, you are ChrisCF~
00:03 <@ChrisCF> I know - just reminding you that I've still got a -> waiting
00:03 <+Steve-> Then say it! ~ 
00:04 <@ChrisCF> In general, I think we should drop the idea of carrying fuel, and assume that the weight of a loco includes the fuel it would normally carry, and just leave it as that.
00:04 <@Hellfire667> ->
00:04 <@ChrisCF> That way, we don't have to worry about changing the weight depending on current fuel load.
00:04 < pjaytycy> ChrisCF, I don't think anybody was thinking of doing it so detailed ~
00:05 <@ChrisCF> After all, if we know that 1kg of fuel has been used, we need to have weight data on the loco which is at that resolution ~
00:05 <@Hyronymus> Steve- first, then Hellfire667's !~
00:05 <+Steve-> ->>
00:05 <+Steve-> Would the sand and oil stop the train running if they ran out?
00:05 <@Hyronymus> !
00:05 < pjaytycy> -> (answer to steve)
00:05 <+Steve-> And we're not talking about weights of fuels.. rather than the train would run out of fuel and be stuck ~
00:05 <@Hyronymus> it would get dangerous but not sopt it~
00:05 < jfs> ! this is turning into a mess again! ~
00:05 <@Hyronymus> ok order
00:05 <@Hyronymus> Hellfire667, what was your !
00:05 <@Hyronymus> ~
00:06 <@Hellfire667> My !: was that my suggestion was not intended to express preference for or against fuel levels, oil and sand. ~
00:06 <@Hyronymus> ok, point taken
00:07 <@Hyronymus> then it was Steve-'s turn but he already spoke so pjaytycy~
00:07 <@Hellfire667> NO
00:07 <@Hellfire667> My -> still stands :)
00:07 <@Hellfire667> ~
00:07 <@Hyronymus> sorry, pjaytycy is typing now~
00:07 <@ChrisCF> but it hasn't come up yet :P
00:07 <@ChrisCF> ~
00:08 <@Hyronymus> ! at least I think pjaytycy is typing~
00:08 < pjaytycy> yes i AM
00:08 < pjaytycy> it's answer to steve:  without sand => train goes slower uphill, without oil => train goes slower in general
00:09 < pjaytycy> without oil => open for discussion~
00:09 < pjaytycy> * fuel that is
00:09 <@Hyronymus> ok, Hellfire667~
00:09 <@Hellfire667> I agree with Chris: drop fuel levels. ~
00:09 <@Hellfire667> (Had that pre-typed on my clipboard 8) ~
00:09 <@Hyronymus> I can live with no fuel levels too~
00:10 <@Hyronymus> but oil and sand are in?~
00:10 <+Steve-> No! ~
00:10 < Zuu> ! I can live without fuel too~
00:10 <+Steve-> ! Fuel more important than oil or sand
00:10 <@Hellfire667> I can live without oil and sand too. In fact. I'm in favour of dropping them.~
00:10 < jfs> ! fuel not required, and sand/oil can be dropped as well ~
00:10 <@Hyronymus> dropping fuel, oil and sand?~
00:11 <@ChrisCF> ->
00:11 <@Hyronymus> DON'T ABUSE THE ! TO SQUEEZE IN A REPLY
00:11 <@Hyronymus> ChrisCF~
00:11 <@ChrisCF> If anything, the function that low sand/oil would bring is covered by a general reliability score.
00:12 < pjaytycy> ->
00:12 < jfs> ->
00:12 <@ChrisCF> The further you go between service points, the more you wear it down.  So we can drop specific oil/sand damage. ~
00:12 <@Hyronymus> pjaytycy~
00:12 < pjaytycy> Sand is different, because it only drops and is needed when the train climb up hills.
00:13 < pjaytycy> oil can be considered part of the general reliabillity ~
00:13 <@ChrisCF> What's the "right to reply" code?
00:13 <@Hyronymus> jfs~
00:13 < jfs> perhaps reliability level could/should also affect speed? ~
00:13 <@Hyronymus> ->
00:13 <@Hellfire667> ->
00:13 <@Hyronymus> no, you can driv fast with unreliable trains~
00:14 <@Hyronymus> ChrisCF, /msg me
00:14 <@Hyronymus> Hellfire667~
00:14 <@ChrisCF> ~
00:15 <@ChrisCF> er, I mean "->"
00:15 <@Hellfire667> I have a question: are we making a sequel to Railroad Tycoon or to Transport Tycoon? We're going way too much into the RRT-style micromanagement in my opinion. There's more to TT and TE than trains ;). ~
00:15 <@Hyronymus> ChrisCF~
00:15 <+Steve-> !
00:16 <@ChrisCF> We could always assume that a lower reliability score impacts on a engine's ability to perform at its peak (whether it's the engine in a loco, or in a truck, plane, etc.). ...
00:16 <@ChrisCF> so that either the speed comes down, or the acceleration is less, etc. ~
00:16 <@Hellfire667> ->
00:16 < Zuu> ->
00:17 <@Hyronymus> Steve-, your !~
00:17 <+Steve-> It's the sequel to neither. This is just a good transport game. Copying others only dilutes the TEmpire Gaming Experience. ~
00:17 <@Hyronymus> Hellfire667~
00:17 <@Hyronymus> ! round it up a bit please~
00:17 <+jpl> trains that broke drop speed to eg. 50 km/h.
00:17 <+jpl> ~
00:18 <@Hellfire667> I can agree with ChrisCF's most recent suggestion. Can we vote for this one? ~
00:18 < Zuu> ->
00:18 <@ChrisCF> Note that this doesn't cover "breakdown" behaviour, only normal running.  I also move for a vote. ~
00:18 <@Hyronymus> zuu first~
00:18 < Zuu> ChrisCF: Isn't it enoght that vehicles breakdown easier when they have less reliability level
00:18 < Zuu> ~
00:19 <@Hyronymus> well,let's vote: We could always assume that a lower reliability score impacts on a engine's ability to perform at its peak (whether it's the engine in a loco, or in a truck, plane, etc.). ...
00:19 <@Hyronymus> [23:17:04] <@ChrisCF> so that either the speed comes down, or the acceleration is less, etc. 
00:19  * Hellfire667 votes in favour. ~
00:19 <@Hyronymus> I'm against, it takes too much calculation to determine how much it should decay~
00:19 <@ChrisCF> Not at all
00:19 <+Steve-> Against ->
00:19 < Zuu> I'm aginst~
00:20 <@Hyronymus> pjaytycy~
00:20 <@ChrisCF> Can we get reasons against, so we can see where people are going with this one? ~
00:20 <@Hyronymus> ->
00:20 < jfs> ! i might be going to bed soon, have to prepare for getting up 7 am on tuesday ~
00:20 <@ChrisCF> <OT>Sleeping for 72 hours, then? </OT>
00:21 < pjaytycy> I want unreliable loco's at full speed. ~
00:21 <@Hyronymus> reduced reliability takes down the engine and then you would also make the engine do less because it's dropping reliabilty?~
00:21 <@ChrisCF> Well, yes.
00:21 <@Hyronymus> ->
00:21 <@ChrisCF> You obviously don't drive. ;)
00:21 <@ChrisCF> ~
00:21 < Zuu> ->
00:21 <+Steve-> <-
00:22 <@Hyronymus> they had highly unreliable diesels here in the Netherlands. But when they did work they worked well. Zuu~
00:22 <+Steve-> For (as long as it's slight)
00:22 <+jpl> Pendolino-effect :-) ~
00:22 < Zuu> How will trains with bad reliability mannage hills?~
00:22 <@ChrisCF> Over time, with more service, a train becomes more reliable.
00:22 <@Hyronymus> !
00:22 <@ChrisCF> until it gets to a point where it's old and battered.
00:23 < pjaytycy> ->
00:23 <@ChrisCF> ~
00:23 <@Hyronymus> how about making it an extra difficulty setting~
00:23 <@Hyronymus> pjaytycy~
00:23 <@Hellfire667> ->
00:23 <@ChrisCF> !
00:23 <+Steve-> For prop 2 ~
00:23 <@ChrisCF> That means we'd have to go and implement both options, and make sure that both work at all times, which would be a lot of work. ~
00:23 <@Hellfire667> <-
00:23 <+Steve-> !
00:23 < pjaytycy> @ChrisCF : I don't get why you are now reversing the reliabillity and servicing thing. Over time the reliabillity of a train should drop, not rise. ~
00:23 <@Hyronymus> pjaytycy has the stick~
00:24 <@Hyronymus> Steve-~
00:24 <@ChrisCF> !
00:24 <@Hyronymus> wait ChrisCF~
00:24 <+Steve-> Having it turned off means nothing special happens, so theres no coding. Your still just coding how much speed it loses when it'd turned on. ~
00:24 <@Hyronymus> Hellfire667~
00:24 <@Hyronymus> nm
00:24 <@Hyronymus> withdrawn
00:24 <@Hyronymus> ChrisCF~
00:26 <@ChrisCF> When a new model enters service, its reliability is moderate.  That goes up over time as it is serviced regularly.  Only when it's really old and battered does it start to lose more each service than it regains.  At least, I hope that's how it works, otherwise we end up with a situation like in Loco. ~
00:26 <@Hyronymus> ok, proposal #2again
00:26 <@Hyronymus> how about making it an extra difficulty setting~
00:26 <@Hyronymus> and now everyones vote plz~
00:27 <+Steve-> For. ~
00:27  * Hellfire667 is indifferent.~
00:27  * Hyronymus is for~
00:27 <+Steve-> ->
00:27  * Hyronymus writes Hellfire667: for ;)~
00:27 < jfs> i'm indifferent/haven't followed the discussion properly ~
00:27 <+Steve-> <->
00:27 <@Hyronymus> Steve-~
00:27 <+Steve-> Umm, unsure what to say
00:27  * Zuu is for,
00:27 < Zuu> ~
00:27  * pjaytycy looking for prop # 2 ....
00:27 <+Steve-> I kinda dislike ChrisCF's proposed system.. although it makes a bit of sense
00:27 <+Steve-> ~
00:28 < jfs> -> (OT)
00:28 <@ChrisCF> I am for it, but not as an option to be turned on/off. ~
00:28 <@Hellfire667> ! Pjaytycy: <Hyronymus> how about making it an extra difficulty setting ~
00:28 <@Hyronymus> thx
00:28 <@Hyronymus> ~
00:28 <@ChrisCF> Ah, so are we voting on my proposal or yours?
00:29 <@Hyronymus> on mine, ChrisCF~
00:29 <@Hyronymus> read what I type~
00:29 <@ChrisCF> I move for a vote reset, since some people might have been confused over what they're voting for.
00:29 < pjaytycy> for clarity, repeat proposal expicitly before each vote please ~
00:29 <@Hyronymus> they wouldn't if they pay attention~
00:29 <@Hyronymus> [23:26:58] <@Hyronymus> ok, proposal #2again
00:29 <@Hyronymus> [23:27:04] <@Hyronymus> how about making it an extra difficulty setting~
00:29 <@Hyronymus> [23:27:12] <@Hyronymus> and now everyones vote plz~
00:29 <@ChrisCF> Perhaps it might help to not refer to "proposal 2" all the time.  How many "proposal 2"s have we had? }
00:29  * Zuu agrees with ChrisCF~
00:29 <@Hyronymus> there you go, for the 3rd time~
00:30 <@ChrisCF> That still looks to me like you might be proposing a 3rd thing in that question
00:30 <+Steve-> For ~
00:30 <@ChrisCF> or that your question is about proposal 2.
00:30 <@Hyronymus> ok, skip voting, next subject
00:30  * pjaytycy agrees with chris
00:30 <@Hyronymus> this takes too long~
00:30 <@Hyronymus> we decide on the forums~
00:30 <@Hyronymus> 13. [FRDF] Computer players
00:30 <@Hyronymus> ~
00:31 <@ChrisCF> Er, no.
00:31 < jfs> ->
00:31 <@Hyronymus> jfs~
00:31 < jfs> i'm going to bed now... since there aren't many left in the meeting, can i suggest saving all RFD and the rest for the next meeting, and having that in just one week? ~
00:31 <@ChrisCF> Backpedal that until we're done.
00:31 <@Hyronymus> I'm for saving it for next week~
00:31 <+Steve-> Four.
00:31  * Zuu agrees.
00:31 <@Hyronymus> but jfs, can you do your best on a tool in the mean time?~
00:32 < jfs> the meeting-script? sure~
00:32 <@Hyronymus> great
00:32 <@Hyronymus> having hotkeys would be nice
00:32 <@Hyronymus> for muting peeps and such;0~
00:32 <@Hyronymus> *;)~
00:32 <+Steve-> Make a bot
00:32 <@ChrisCF> Continuing with the point of order, assuming the chair doesn't just ignore it
00:32  * Hellfire667 slaps L around a bit with a large trout
00:32 <+Steve-> We do everything algorithicly
00:33 <@Hyronymus> hang on ChrisCF~
00:33 <+Steve-> ->
00:33 <@Hyronymus> how about you posting a more comprehensive suggestion on the forum, ChrisCF
00:33 <@Hyronymus> we then discuss this next week but skip the fuel issue~
00:33 <@ChrisCF> of the PoO? or the reliability thing?
00:34 <@Hyronymus> reliability of course~
00:34 <@ChrisCF> ok
00:34 < jfs> g'night~
00:34 <@Hyronymus> night jfs~
00:34 <@ChrisCF> Continuing on the point of order then?
00:34 <@Hyronymus> hang on
00:34 <@Hyronymus> Steve-~
00:34 <+Steve-> I think ->, <-, ! have been a great success! Cept for when people like Chriss ignore them =), and i'll post a thread about what they all mean for people who weren't here today ~
00:34 <@Hyronymus> ok~
00:34 < Zuu> ->
00:35 <@Hyronymus> Zuu?~
00:35 < Zuu> Ithink they should be added to the meeting rules on the wiki.~
00:35 <@Hyronymus> ok~
00:35 <@Hellfire667> ->
00:35 <@Hyronymus> now where you want to continue with, ChrisCF?~
00:35 <@Hyronymus> hang on hellboy~
00:35 <+Steve-> There are meeting rules on the wiki?
00:35 <@ChrisCF> Simply that every vote is opened with the statement we are voting for or against.
00:36 <@ChrisCF> Not a reference to it, or a summary of it, and nothing after it.
00:36 <@ChrisCF> The exact proposal.
00:36 <@ChrisCF> Example:
00:36 <@Hyronymus> ~! ChrisCF, I do/did that most of the time but CERTAIN people type through it
00:36 <@Hyronymus> ~
00:36 <@ChrisCF> for the last vote ...
00:37 <@ChrisCF> "Proposal: make the reliability system a difficulty option."  Vote now:
00:37 <@ChrisCF> as opposed to cryptic references to "proposal 2", where your statement after it might be the proposal, or it might be a modification to proposal 2, which isn't clear. ~
00:38 <@Hyronymus> ChrisCF, I loose my patience too sometimes
00:38 <+Steve-> ->
00:38 <@Hyronymus> so when I have to type something for the 3rd time I get a little lazy
00:38 <@Hyronymus> Steve-~
00:38 <@ChrisCF> I move that we vote on the proposal "Votes should be opened with a clear statement of what people are voting for." ~
00:38 <@Hellfire667> :'(
00:38 <+Steve-> ChrisCF, can i recommend you read the screen between lines. You tend to not care when people try and stop you typing and just go on and on... ~
00:39 <@Hyronymus> I suggest we vote on the proposal ChrisCF refered too~
00:39  * Hyronymus is for
00:39  * pjaytycy is for ~
00:39  * Hellfire667 is for
00:39 <@Hellfire667> ->
00:39 <@Hellfire667> ->
00:39 <+Steve-> 4
00:39 <@Hyronymus> Hellfire667~
00:39 <@Hellfire667> YAY!
00:40 <@Hellfire667> Ok. First comment:
00:40 <@Hellfire667> The chair sometimes forgets the order of ->'s. 
00:40 <@Hellfire667> Second comment (on Computer players):
00:41 <@Hellfire667> The part in the FRD on computer players is three sentences long, of which the third is completely useless. I suggest to change the FRDF into a RFD. ~
00:41 <@Hyronymus> Hellfire made a proposal
00:41 <@Hyronymus> can we vote on the proposal he made a 23:40:51?~
00:42  * Hellfire667 is for by default.~
00:42 <+Steve-> ->
00:42  * pjaytycy reads the part in the FRD ~
00:42 <@Hyronymus> Steve-~
00:42 <+Steve-> What does FRDF mean? ~
00:42 <@ChrisCF> PRobably not, because my timestamp hasn't reached that yet :)P
00:42 <+Steve-> ->
00:42 <@Hyronymus> FRD Finalizing Steve-~
00:43 <+Steve-> Will you please make ChrisCF follow the posting rules. ~
00:43 -!- Zuu [~Zuu@h60n11c1o1028.bredband.skanova.com] has quit [Ping timeout]
00:43 <@ChrisCF> Steve-: There was a ~, I take that to mean open air. ~
00:43 <@Hyronymus> ! if someone can give me chanlev options:p~
00:43 <+Steve-> ->
00:43 -!- mode/#tempire [-o ChrisCF] by Hellfire667
00:43 <@Hyronymus> Steve-~
00:43 -!- mode/#tempire [+m] by Hellfire667
00:43 <+Steve-> Why does MetalDaphne have owner with the L when he isn't even in the meetings? ~
00:43 -!- mode/#tempire [+o ChrisCF] by L
00:43 <@Hellfire667> ... and Chris was quiet for a few seconds...
00:44 -!- mode/#tempire [-m] by Hellfire667
00:44 <@Hyronymus> his time scheme is tight~
00:44 <@Hyronymus> let me end the meeting first
00:44 <@Hellfire667> !
00:44 <@Hyronymus> I propose this meeting will continue, next week at 1900 UTC~
00:44 <@Hyronymus> Hellfire667~
00:45 <@Hellfire667> Can we first finish the vote on my suggestion? ~
00:45 <+Steve-> Against ~
00:45 <@Hyronymus> yes, we can if people are willing to vote~
00:45 <+Steve-> 1930 ~
00:45 <@ChrisCF> I'm happy with either time.  Next week, the Wales match is in the afternoon. ~
00:46 <@Hyronymus> reading sure is difficult...
00:46 <@Hyronymus> Steve-, you prefer 1930 UTC
00:46 <@Hyronymus> objections?~
00:46  * pjaytycy won't be here next week (skiing).  Not that I said much this time...
00:46 <+Steve-> Leaves time for fooding ~
00:47 <@ChrisCF> No objection, as already stated. ~
00:47 <+Steve-> Spam ~
00:47 <@Hyronymus> no objections to 1930 UTC means it's decided
00:47 <@Hyronymus> one more thing:
00:47 <@Hyronymus> COMMIT YOURSELF AND BE ON TIME
00:47 <@Hyronymus> or tell in advance you *might* drop in later
00:48 <@Hyronymus> I'll switch on MSN for convenience next time~
00:48 <@ChrisCF> Hellfire667: I would happily vote on your proposal, if a certain chair would put the vote properly.  ~
00:48 <@Hellfire667> Sorry... I forgot that it was 1900 this time.
00:48 <@Hellfire667> ~
00:48 <+Steve-> I thought it was 2000 Sunday until someone mentioned it :D ~
00:49 <@Hyronymus> and as a chair I decide Hellfire667 posts his vote request on the forums~
00:49 <@Hyronymus> dictatorship rules from time to time~
00:49 -!- Zuu [~Zuu@h71n9c1o1028.bredband.skanova.com] has joined #tempire
00:49 <@ChrisCF> I move that to be an abuse of position :P ~
00:49 -!- mode/#tempire [+smru] by ChrisCF
00:49 <@Hyronymus> sue me~
00:49 <@ChrisCF> ...
00:49 <@Hellfire667> Actually... I already changed it... Call it "abuse of moderator rights" if you want. :P ~
00:50 -!- mode/#tempire [-smru] by ChrisCF
00:50 <@Hyronymus> who can be minute man next week?~
00:50  * pjaytycy won't be at the meeting next week
00:50 < Zuu> is next mmeting = saturday?~
00:50 <@Hellfire667> Shit.. I wanted to say: "It's PJay's turn." ~
00:51 <@Hyronymus> I guess or is sunday better?~
00:51 <+Steve-> Better for me
00:51 < Zuu> ! I think Saturday is better~
00:51 <@Hyronymus> I want to vote on next meeting being on next saturday or next sunday~
00:52 < pjaytycy> I abstain ~
00:52  * Hyronymus prefers sunday so he can prepare well~
00:52 <@ChrisCF> Saturday's good for me.  I won't be visiting family for a while with the late-night radio show on a Sunday
00:52  * Hellfire667 votes sunday, with a time limit.
00:52 <@ChrisCF> and this is next week, not the week after, yes?
00:52 <@Hellfire667> (but saturday's ok too.)
00:52 <@Hellfire667> ~
00:52 <@Hyronymus> next week~
00:53 <@Hyronymus> majority seems to be for sunday, I hope thats not a problem for the saturday night life peeps~
00:53  * Zuu likes the move of the meeting to 1900 UTC. altrought 18 or eaven 17 00 would be fine~
00:53 <@Hyronymus> we just voted for 1930, Zuu~
00:53 <@ChrisCF> Sunday is OK for next week, but it will be a real problem after that
00:53 < Zuu> ->
00:53 <@Hyronymus> Zuu~
00:54 < Zuu> As long as they wont last for the whole night. As thy tend to do.~
00:54 <+Steve-> Well, it will next week
00:54 <+Steve-> Looking at the agenda ~
00:54 <@Hyronymus> we'll see
00:54 <@Hyronymus> if we all behave
00:54  * Hyronymus makes a summary
00:54 <@ChrisCF> Typically, I need to be away by 1900, possibly 1930 for my Sunday night radio slot, which starts again in 2 weeks.
00:54 <@ChrisCF> ~
00:55 <@Hyronymus> Next meeting on Sunday, 130205 @ 1930 UTC
00:55 <@Hyronymus> ~
00:55 < pjaytycy> ->
00:55 <@Hyronymus> pjaytycy~
00:55 < pjaytycy> Will discussion continue on the forum in the mean time ?
00:55 < Zuu> ->
00:56 <@Hellfire667> ->
00:56 <@ChrisCF> Zuu
00:56 < Zuu> Shall I make the minutes, or can someone who have been here a litle more do it?
00:56 < Zuu> ~
00:56 <@Hellfire667> -> ->
00:56 <@Hyronymus> Hellfire667 should lock topics with a decision!
00:57 <@Hyronymus> Zuu~
00:57 <@Hyronymus> nm
00:57 <@Hyronymus> Hellfire667~
00:57 <@Hellfire667> Two things:
00:57 <@Hyronymus> again~
00:57 <@Hellfire667> One, for PJayTycy: Yes.
00:57 <@Hellfire667> Two, for Zuu: Yes.
00:57 <@Hellfire667> :P
00:57 <@Hellfire667> Explanation:
00:57 <@Hellfire667> By making the minutes, you'll be forced to read the parts that you've missed during your offline time.
00:58 <@Hellfire667> ~
00:58 <@Hyronymus> ok, thats being said then~
00:59 <@Hyronymus> I'll update the agenda to todays accomplishments~
00:59 <@Hyronymus> AOB?~
00:59 <@Hyronymus> ok, meeting ajourned~
01:00 <+jpl> ok. ~~~
01:00 <@Hellfire667> Four hours...
01:00 <@Hyronymus> and an achy back later...
01:00 <+jpl> late night with tempire!
01:00 -!- Zuu [~Zuu@h71n9c1o1028.bredband.skanova.com] has quit [Ping timeout]
01:00 < pjaytycy> poor zuu
01:00 <@Hellfire667> Ik heb net VIER UUR vergaderd. Ik voel me als Herboren! (Cup-a-soup)
01:00 < weni> well lots of stuff have been discused
01:00 <@Hyronymus> yes
01:00 <@Hyronymus> indeed
01:01 < pjaytycy> hellfire, it's been like that every week
01:01 < pjaytycy> ~
01:01 <@Hellfire667> I know...
01:02 <@Hyronymus> I'm of guys
01:02 <@Hyronymus> I really need some rest
01:03 < pjaytycy> g'd night Hyronymus
01:03 <@Hyronymus> good night everyone
01:03 <@Hellfire667> good night Hyronymus!
01:03 < weni> g-night
01:03 <@Hyronymus> you've been a wonderful audience
01:03 <@Hyronymus> :p
01:03  * Grunt snores.
01:03 <+Steve-> identifying?