There is the starter pack and era packs too which can give you a good boost too. Also during endgame it might be vital to boost at least your olympuses and need some gold for that.
I think the idea of the change is very good. However I think it was slightly too much.
It used to be that the consumption was multiplied with $sqrt(#players)$. In the new system, effectively, it is multiplied with $#players$. Why? Simple: The consumption rate is still multiplied with $sqrt(#players)$, but now also the demand/stock is multiplied with that same factor. Hence the absolute consumption (#tons eaten by the city) is multiplied (effectively) by $#players$. At Fast Track this made it at some point impossible to close goods, because the consumption was simply too high. When the consumption dropped, we started closing some goods again.
The question ofcourse is: what is fair? I don't think a linear relation between the number of players and consumption is good. Since bigger cities will always have more inactive players than smaller cities. However I do think the demand should depend on #players (otherwise the big cities close stuff within 15 min and consumption is 0). So I would propose to do something like the following during the EG:
consumption rate ~ #players^(0.33)
demand ~ #players^(0.33)
consumption rate ~ #players^(0.25)
demand ~ #players^(0.5)
or whatever other powers, but one should make sure the sum of the two powers is strictly less than 1.
Another thought I had is to redefine what "active" means during EG. A 3 day timeout is way to long for EG, maybe one should redefine that to something like 12h during EG or so.
Though, the ones looking carefully will notice there is a WT, pax and track worker during EG
Writing a pathfinder is easy, but one needs the data...
Fast Forward servers need you to login more often, so the cap shouldn't become an issue. But... if it does become an issue and the cap needs to be higher, where would you set it?
I was simply asking a for the reason. For me there is no reason the make it any higher from a login perspective. Don't know for other players. A cap of 100 implies (assuming plus) that one needs to login every 10h. If that is intended I am fine with it.
As being the video record holder: I have completely finished era 5 at Fast track. It took me the era pack, 1 set of coins, plus account, and few thousand videos. Also notice that I have 100 RP in the lab at era change.
Though one question from my side: normal speed has 40 RP cap in the lab, express 80 RP. Why does 4x only have 100 RP cap? that is only 2.5x not 3.5x or 4x?
Just did a quick comparison between "Holstentor" and "arc the triomph" I didn't notice much (if any) difference in performance here. Maybe due to the fact I didn't build many tracks. I did notice that the html version takes up much much more RAM than flash. This could cause the performance decrease for some ppl.
Seamonkey browser (probably latest version)
Fedora linux 31
i7-7700HQ CPU @ 2.80GHz × 8
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
8 GB RAM (+ Much more SWAP which didn't got used)
I did noticed the html game is much smoother in chrome than in seamonkey. However I can't run flash anymore in chrome. So in that respect: I can run the html smoother than flash on my system.
About exactly my opinion too...
If just either the resource cap, or the sell fee was there, it would still be fun AND we wouldn't be able to get millions of coins. Since as socroima said (however one should note there are 5 resources and it take two hours to get 1 coin per resource): we are limited to 5*100/2=250 coin wins per hour: fine.
When there just would be a sell fee, we could still try to get a 2 flip, but there is always the risk to lose coins with the trade.
I do have a question about # 13. I gat to 65 minutes minimum. The 5 minute walker takes the torch back 2x:
25 + 5, 20 + 5, & 10 = 65 minutes. I don't see how it is possible to get them all across the bridge in 60 minutes?
There is a quicker way though: let the 5 and 10 min walk first, then the 5min guy goes back (15 min passed), now the 20 and 25 min walk (40min passed) and the 10min guy goes back (50min passed), finally the 5 and 10min guy walk. So we get to the other side in 60min.
There is hardly a way to tell what "the best" option is, since how good is "low" durability compared to "average" or "high". Furthermore how can I compare quality and price and punctuality? Isn't that comparing apples with pears?
Moreover there could be many more criteria: consider that one company offers to deliver the components tomorrow, while another can only deliver then in a couple years time. In this case I wouldn't even consider the second company in my "purchasing plan for the upcoming year"...
Anyway "A way" to decide comes down to the following:
"Swiss" metal and "General Machines" have the same punctuality, so we can ignore that for now. "Swiss" is more expensive, but has greater quality than "General", since quality is more important than price, we choose "Swiss" over "General". The same holds when comparing "Swiss" with "Mega", on top of that "Swiss" has better punctuality than "Mega" thus we certainly choose "Swiss" over "Mega". Hence "Swiss metal" is the prefered company.
First of all notice that (for an observer standing on a platform) the jupiter takes 620/300=2h 4min to reach Hicksburg.
Option 1 would take a total time of 6h 4minto reach Hicksburg, thus the passengers will miss their connection in Hicksburg (we only have 5h 30min), thus the costs will add up to $38 000.
Option 2 would cost a total of $16 000 (as half their ticket price is $8000), however now some passengers might be stuck in Stroudford...
Option 3 would take 3h 34min to reach Hicksburg, thus passengers will be able to change at Hicksburg. The costs are now $12 000, plus some reimbursement for the delay.
Option 4 would take us in 620/300/.4=5h 10min to Hicksburg, thus passengers will be in time to catch their connection. The cost will only be some reimbursement for the delay, but this will be less than $8000 , since the delay is smaller than in option 1.
It should be clear that option 4 is preferred.
Q6: 10 rotations anti-clockwise
Q8: 20cm (assuming pulleys are fixed)
Q9: still A (assuming there is no friction)
Q10: Less than 5 cm
Addendum 2: looking carefully at the previous addendum, I created a paradox, suppose the observer would actually take (a very little more than) 30min to reach the switch. Then for the observer would see a collision, but the trains won't... absurd.
The solution to this paradox is that I assumed that in the frame of each train, the observer starts running at the same time as the trains are 140/γ km apart. However simultaneity is not conserved between different frames, thus the observer would then start running and see the trains 140km apart at different times.
Let us first look at the trains: using non-relativistic mechanics we see that from one train's perspective the other train is moving in with a speed of 160+120=280km/h. Hence the distance to the other train (140km) with be covered in exactly 30min. The supervisor needs to run 6.3km at a speed of 14km/h, thus takes 6.3/14=0.45h=27min. Since 27<30, the supervisor can pull the switch before he sees the trains collide.
We only need to hope the switch is in the right place...
Addendum: when considering the relativistic case, in the frame of the switch, the switch will be pulled in 27min (same calculation).
In the frame of each train, the speed of the other train moving in, is slightly smaller than 280km/h (it is (120+160)/(1+120*160/c^2), where c^2 is the speed of light).
In the frame of a train the distance to be covered will be shortened by a factor γ (which is different for both trains), so for the train the collision happens a factor γ earlier than for the switch. However the clock in each trains is running slower than the clock in the switch, by the same factor γ. So a train sees the switch being pulled earlier by a factor γ than the switch sees it.
We conclude that both trains see the switch being pulled earlier than they "see" collision happen, in fact relativity will help avoid the collision.
PS: γ=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), where v is the speed of the train and c the speed of light
There clearly are 24 differences though...
Supplying a factory with a wait time problem only increases the problem: your supplies lower the WT for the people hauling wrongly, hence they will actually haul more tons, thus increase the occupancy rate and thus drive up the WT. Also notice that any supply vanishes within minutes when a good is called.
The things one could do with a career like this (except just doing the upgrades), is putting it the offline (if any and possible), haul some $$ in another city or just park it.
I have proposed it earlier in another thread: instead of having 15/30 days an account can be sat for, have 15/30 (or whatever number) days a sitter can sit for an account. Meaning when the 15/30 days run out, the player can simply set a new sitter who can sit for another period.