Difference between revisions of "Terraforming"
From #openttdcoop wiki
(Grammer corrections) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
| − | Terraforming is a difficult thing in #openttdcoop games. Sometimes we try to build our networks as realistic as possible | + | Terraforming is a difficult thing in #openttdcoop games. Sometimes we try to build our networks as realistic as possible while making minimalistic changes to the landscape, instead using the existing geography of the mountains and valleys. In other games we flatted everything due to the most effective network construction like massive stations with big and fast entrances. Both ways of playing are in their own way interesting and therefore you should all styles of terraforming defined in this article. |
| − | Before a game starts a !network plan will be created | + | Before a game starts a !network plan will be created; things like train length, network layout, and the kind of game will be discussed and finally planned. One part of this discussion is the style of 'terraforming' that will be used (if I miss something here, please add it). |
=== Terraforming doesn't matter: === | === Terraforming doesn't matter: === | ||
| − | In this | + | In this style you can feel free to flatten the landscape to fit your needs. |
=== Coop-Terraforming === | === Coop-Terraforming === | ||
| − | If playing with | + | If playing with Coop-Terraforming a lot of landscaping can be done if it is needed for our network. The aesthetics of the network plays a role, but the functionality of the design is the most important thing. In fact it is more important to provide a network (with all its buildings: Hubs, Entrances, Exits, LB and so on) which has a high capacity/no jams instead of having an eye-candy like network. Either way you should keep the aesthetics of the network in mind. This is the most used terraforming style on our servers; if nothing else is written or discussed, this style is implied. |
[[Image:Coop_terraforming.png|left|thumb|200px|Correct Terraforming]] | [[Image:Coop_terraforming.png|left|thumb|200px|Correct Terraforming]] | ||
[[Image:Wrong_terraforming.png|left|thumb|200px|This was too extreme.]] | [[Image:Wrong_terraforming.png|left|thumb|200px|This was too extreme.]] | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
=== Low-Terraforming === | === Low-Terraforming === | ||
| − | This is often misunderstood and people | + | This terraforming style is often misunderstood and people mistake it for No-Terraforming. This style is the effective reversal to Coop-Terraforming. The network layout will be created according to the given landscape. You should use the existing mountains and valleys and create eye-candy tracks. The use of tunnels is quite important, because in reality trains often use tunnels instead of going over a mountain. |
| − | The | + | The aesthetics of the network is more important than the capacity and speed of the network. |
| + | ([[MemberZone:Archive#gameid_08|Werkloze Desyncs, Inc.]]) | ||
=== No-Terraforming === | === No-Terraforming === | ||
Revision as of 20:59, 11 August 2007
Terraforming is a difficult thing in #openttdcoop games. Sometimes we try to build our networks as realistic as possible while making minimalistic changes to the landscape, instead using the existing geography of the mountains and valleys. In other games we flatted everything due to the most effective network construction like massive stations with big and fast entrances. Both ways of playing are in their own way interesting and therefore you should all styles of terraforming defined in this article.
Before a game starts a !network plan will be created; things like train length, network layout, and the kind of game will be discussed and finally planned. One part of this discussion is the style of 'terraforming' that will be used (if I miss something here, please add it).
Terraforming doesn't matter:
In this style you can feel free to flatten the landscape to fit your needs.
Coop-Terraforming
If playing with Coop-Terraforming a lot of landscaping can be done if it is needed for our network. The aesthetics of the network plays a role, but the functionality of the design is the most important thing. In fact it is more important to provide a network (with all its buildings: Hubs, Entrances, Exits, LB and so on) which has a high capacity/no jams instead of having an eye-candy like network. Either way you should keep the aesthetics of the network in mind. This is the most used terraforming style on our servers; if nothing else is written or discussed, this style is implied.
Low-Terraforming
This terraforming style is often misunderstood and people mistake it for No-Terraforming. This style is the effective reversal to Coop-Terraforming. The network layout will be created according to the given landscape. You should use the existing mountains and valleys and create eye-candy tracks. The use of tunnels is quite important, because in reality trains often use tunnels instead of going over a mountain. The aesthetics of the network is more important than the capacity and speed of the network. (Werkloze Desyncs, Inc.)
No-Terraforming
This is not possible, is it? We have to try it on Public Server. ;)
