give the advantage in eg to those that work to take cities to the top of the ranks

  • why is it that cities who scrape into the top ten have the biggest advantage in end game over those cities that actually work and level there cities to the top spots in the regular game and then have no benefit from it they work the hardest to take there cities to the top then get screwed over in the eg by the game mechanics that says the lower ranked cities get to haul less its time travian changed the mechanics of the game to benefit the top cities not the bottom

  • I agree with you 100%

    It seems to me that the idea was a balancing act, the top cities get to start first, but the lower cites have to haul less to make up for lost time. While in theory it sounds good, but after experiencing it several times I agree with you it is very unbalanced with cities around 5th-7th having the best starting position.

    My suggested solution, is to keep it very close to it is now, but instead of basing the tonnage to be hauled off of city level, base it off of city rank. i.e Rank 1 will always haul 200k, rank two will always haul 192k, rank three 186k ... etc . Regardless of city level. This would make starting in the top 3 a much more fair position, and would reward the cities with the most efficient and organized haulers, while still allowing the current shotgun start.

    A second solution would be to make all ten cities haul the same amount of goods, still start them in a timed fashion, but as EG progresses, every recalc the WT goes up by 5 seconds. So after recalc hour 1 its WT+5, recalc 2 its WT + 10, recalc 3 = WT =15 ....etc etc by recalc 6 the best wait time ANY player could get on ANY facility is 30 seconds. This would make the top spots much more desirable AND add a more strategic element to the saving/use of instant dispatch vouchers.

  • I agree with these 2 members. It seems like toward the end game cities start slowing down to drop to 5th or lower place. That slows down the game and makes it boring. A simple solution would be this:

    City finishing 10th has to haul the most tons of each good, then incrementally lower the tonnage by maybe 1,000 tons for each place higher. That way 10th place hauls, say, 200,000 tons, 9th 199,00, 8th 198,000 etc till the number one city only has to haul 191,000. Something similar to that should be implemented to make it worth more to finish first, and thus make the game more interesting and competitive.

  • Why not simply go back to a 1 h head start per rank and level instead of the 30 min now, as it used to be? If the top city start at level 46 and the 10th city starts at level 36, that would put 19 h between their starts. Which is still not impossible to catch up - even back then many cities prefered starting between rank 8 - 10 over starting first, so I still don't understand why this has been changed at all -, but it doesn't make getting into the EG with a low level so much preferable as it is now.

    Of course people will argue now that things shouldn't be changed, because they love their low level strategy, and it is a nice strategy indeed. But while it is fun in the EG, it makes the city part of the game during the regular game even duller than it is anyway, when latest from era 5 on all relevant cities go into level avoiding mode.

  • Hello to all, the main problem is starting from the fact, that anyone can playendgame in each city he likes, even HE HAS NOT WORK for this city.So the first change that mechanics must cjange is to add a kind of penalty for the players they are freelance.....and i dont mean single players, but every players belongs to an asso with more than 3persons, then automatically must took a penalty in the prestige he is trying to stole from the ppl they are working for the prosperity of a city......the spirit of cooperating for the growing of a city must be awarded and not the freelanceing-gypsing style of playing.....if it would be a penalty, decreasing prestige on gypsy players then the tons doesn t mind....if someone knows that he will not receive at the endgame 1000prestige(for example) but only 200, even he s the first in the carriers rank, then he will think seriously works for one, or two (max) cities...UNTILL thne, we can only stay in the back, looking the gypsies driving srcap , broking loading times during the endgames...and be the winners...thanks for reading that.........

  • I totally agree to the idea to let people who level a city to megacity get the full benefit of it.
    Or, maybe we can have a server without an endgame. Simply after the end of the server, the city with the highest rank wins the server.
    Less problems, easier to programm.

  • I agree with the players above. We as citydrivers do all the work so it is fair if we also get the benefits for our hard work and not the prestigeplayers. Give those prestigeplayers their own endgame in one city so they leave us alone

  • start thinking seriously for a "ZONE" far is going a player from his original city, then the prestige is reducing at a percentage....he will have the right to change home city only 2 times, and the final choice must be till the end of era 5.....if his home city is "A" and coneccted to city"F", (6 cities away) then he will loose a percentage of 50% of prestige from city F (in case the home city is A, if he has change home city with another one, for example he choose city D, then he will loosing equally from city A city B etc), anyway, this is only a model, an idea, you are the mechanics..........

  • But those are 2 distinct topics.

    The original topic was about the balancing in the competition between the megacities in the endgame. The criticism there is that the cities which level up highly and therefore start from the top ranks, have a disadvantage against the low level megacities, because the lower basic amount to haul of each good (+ the lower consumption) is more useful than the 30 min headstart per rank and level. And even while I agree with this critic, I think one has to say that this only matters for about equally strong teams. If one city has way more active players, who follow the calls and switch their trains every hour, than the others cities, this city is going to win, no matter if they start at 1st, 10th, or somewhere in between. It's just that really active teams know that mechanic and are organized enough to make the best use of it, so their victories from the 10th rank (or even lower in SoE) just make it seem that rolling up the field from behind is the only chance of winning the city race. Just like the other way around with the opposite complaint, that no other city than the 3 top starters can win, on the servers where there is no active team that goes for a low level strategy. The main reason why this molochs win isn't their top pre-endgame ranking either, but that they got in that position simply because of superior hauling power, which also grants them the endgame victory.

    Your new topic is the prestige balancing between city haulers and prestige farmers, and here I don't agree with the critic at all. If someone is skilled and active enough to connect to a lot of ghosttowns and all megacities, and can coordinate farming them for prestige the best (that's not me at all, but I've made my peace with that), why shouldn't this player be rewarded with the most prestige? Plus I don't get the fuss city haulers make about the "unfair" prestige balancing, or even worse about others "stealing" their prestige (as if it belonged to anyone). They've decided for themselves to play - at least that round - with the goal to be a part of the winning city, so why do they even bother with things like making the most prestige? And what stops them to play for having the most prestige in the next round, or to set themselves goals that have neither to do with being the best city or having the most prestige (e.g. region/ faction victories, breaking a record, unlock certain carreer achievements...)?

  • Most interesting ^^

    I have forwarded your thoughts and ideas, but as this thread continues to thrive and the subject(s) will stay 'hot' - please do continue!

    Here's a secret tip: When you feel strongly about a change, present it as a summary where you've thought how the idea affects other parts of the game and how it actually works step by step - even if the idea is not completely ready. This way you are helping the game developers tell which ideas are just opinions and which are possible future features. From experience, this is the best way to get a desired response ;-)

    It will also help me forward your ideas as intended, as my psychic powers are quite limited :D

  • Verry interesting to read this all.
    Have to say with some parts I agree
    The players who decided to haul for the city should be rewarded for it.
    In the europe scenario theres a 100k prestige bonus for the winning region
    I would say connected to the winning city as 1 of the cities you have a x ammount of prestige (with the max of 2 cities due to transport pax), player with 3 connected cities (including the winning) a percentage of it and so on.

    Also during EndGame: it would be better that the possibility to connect an other city would be scrapped.
    The waiting time for pax should be lower at EG and also the prestige bonus for reducing waiting time during the whole game must be lowerd

    The hauling goods in tonnage should be the same
    for all cities
    Therefore all future megacities has to work for it in the 6 era s
    But reward the no1 city end era 6 & the winning megacity after endgame as a special bonus

    Overall seen the endgame is sometimes boring to play, due of waiting times and the time involved to get it all full.

  • I totally agree with the two aspects that are being discussed here....


    All Cities in end game should be required to haul the same amount of goods. The staggered start is good but City 1 should get an automatic 30 min advantage and thereafter a further 30 minutes per level higher than the next city. Each city thereafter gets a 30 minute advantage per level it is higher than the next city...

    This will also stop the current notion of Groupings of Associations "running" two cities - one that they try and level as quick as possible to ensure that they get the prestige points and cash, and the second with the aim of ensuring that it just gets into the top 10 cities, and thus the end game, and then move over to the lower ranked city for the end game - all because of the current rulings wrt the end game.....


    The allocation of prestige points for the investment in industries should be based on the amount of cash invested and on the era. Taking era 1 as the base point a person should get 1 point per 1000 invested in an industry - funds still "invested" after recalculation do not count for prestige points - thus only new investments count. As the eras progress the points received per amount of cash invested will see the base amounts increased by the era (i.e era two will see one getting 1 point per 5000 invested, era 3 will see one getting 1 point per 15000 invested, era 4 will see one getting 1 point per 25000 invested,era 5 will see one earn 1 point per 35000 invested and era 6 will see one earn 1 point per 50000 invested.

    Edited 2 times, last by DJH ().