Support

Embargos to combat destructive players.

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Embargos to combat destructive players.

      So for anyone playing the Europe version it's obvious there is a bunch of players who are always willing to be destructive, and just be in the way of others, even if there is no benefit to themselves.
      When this is brought up on these forum there is always the single-player crowd yelling "BUUUH but... but... they are going for personal prestige!"
      Nope. The majority of these players are those who never bother replying to any message, have small station buildings, haul with the worst engine choices, and yet still push city- levels when they shouldn't, and destroy waiting times in endgames etc.
      In order to change this I would like to propose some simple fixes to enable teams to stand up for themselves.

      Mayor embargo
      Allow mayors to select up to 50 players who do not receive any credits for delivering to the city. Instead all credits are donated to the local landmark or to other landmakrs in the region if it is full, or lost if they are all full.

      Association Embargo
      Allow each association to list up to 50 individual players who get 30 minutes added to waiting times in each industry they visit. Embargoed players who take goods from an industry owned by the association also lose 1% of maintenance on the engine each time they pick up goods.

      Endgame embargos
      Mayor: Select up to 50 individuals who cannot pick up any good in any industry the geographically belongs to the city.
      Association: Select up to 50 players who can not pick up any good in any industry where they have majority.

      This would shift the balance from always being on the side of the destructive players to the side of the productive players.
    • It is not up to you to tell others what they do is constructive or deconstructive because that is subjective.And i like the word embargo just as much as you do,but no thanks to all of it.


      While their should be some accountability,we cannot have mayors or presidents decide anything in that regard.All that does is increase people creating multiple accounts to vote for themself or plain bullying to pester people that they don't like.Unlikely merrit of players will have anything to do with anything in the end.


      My suggestion to combat noobs or saboteurs :

      - More rival spots,maybe with a longer cooldown(48 hours in example).
      - Rival spots for players without a asso/corp.

      And a big important one that works on many levels :

      - Waiting time needs to buffed big time.Like they actually should have a impact.This,as a added bonus next to rival spots/non majorities meaning something,will also increase the pool of used engines; Less Bread&Butter!!.And when you want to prevent a accidental city level up/solo saboteur leveling the city up all it takes is to increase occupancy and decrease stocks on some rg's. <--- Sounds like a game i used to play...Also had trains...And also named Railnation....Wtf what happend :D
    • [Edit : this was a reply to now removed post.]

      Replyer rendition of now removed screenshot convo with some creative liberty:


      Player x(the bully) : i will kill all your trains and bases


      Original reply :

      He can only do what you can do to him.



      Good you covered his name though,naming&shaming is not allowed.You could ask for help in global chat of your server,naming&shaming doesn't apply there and maybe there is a dedicated anti-bully on your server.In that case also write to support that your anti-bully bodyguard needs tools to do his job :D

      The post was edited 1 time, last by ﻉ√ٱﺎ ﻉ√ﻉ: Quoted post removed,editted my reply like a pro. ().

    • Thank you for the ideas, and good points.

      I just forwarded the wish for associations to have more rival spots than 1, and also the option to mark 1 player as a rival even without an association.

      I know how it feels when other players aren't collaborating, but just as in real life, that's part of the game. All players and associations have met players who follow only their own agendas, and my tip is: find another way to work together. It may need a set of completely new skills - expecting or demanding a certain playing style is fruitless. What can you give or promise to make it worth it to follow your lead?

      Always good to remember that no player has power over another. The question is, should you change your approach if you can't change the player :thumbup:
    • Samisu wrote:

      I know how it feels when other players aren't collaborating, but just as in real life, that's part of the game. All players and associations have met players who follow only their own agendas, and my tip is: find another way to work together. It may need a set of completely new skills - expecting or demanding a certain playing style is fruitless. What can you give or promise to make it worth it to follow your lead?

      Always good to remember that no player has power over another. The question is, should you change your approach if you can't change the player :thumbup:

      Part of the game yes; the thread is about expanding what is part of the game, to make the playing field more sensible.
      Comparing to real life doesn't seem to hold much ground, if I decide that coca-cola is an evil company and I start "Retard-drinks Inc." I can't just suddenly kill 20% of their market and production without a single customer wanting to buy my new drink. More likely Coca-cola as a much bigger company with products somebody actually wants can push me out of the market.

      There is no "following the lead" I mean some of these player will not communicate - AT ALL. Some of them only play purely out of spite and will only be taunted further by communication.
      So this is a false argument as well.

      I'm not asking for power over these players accounts, I'm asking for offensive measures for all corporations to be able to combat each other as well as players when deemed necessary. The current "rival" system is completely toothless and does next to nothing imo.
    • In a previous thread, I suggested that 'facility control' could be a many-to-one ratio. Ie, if you get control, you hold it for the level, but cannot lose it, until the facility levels up. More than one person can take control this way, if they are willing to spend money on it.

      This way, if someone logs in once a day, spends all 20 million they earned that day on a single facility (being destructive to the previous owners, and, incurring huge opportunity cost) at least you will retain your wait time discount if you were quick to invest upon leveling.

      Now, as for how this would affect rival and friendly status.. that is up for debate. Perhaps that remains the same.. the current logo 'seen' gets it, but, any corp that previously gained control, loses the benefits of rival/friendly. Then, they have to decide if it is really worth spending 20m to get that logo up.

      I think this would cut the animosity between players by 50%.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Lammy ().

    • Lammy wrote:

      This way, if someone logs in once a day, spends all 20 million they earned that day on a single facility (being destructive to the previous owners, and, incurring huge opportunity cost) at least you will retain your wait time discount if you were quick to invest upon leveling.

      Shouldn't be a problem at all for a player of your stature.Minor hickup maybe but something to laugh at,not something to worry about :P


      Anyways,in your solution how are you accountable?There already is no real way to get back at people(anymore) and at least now people can potentially have a minor impact on waiting times.The way i read your suggestion is that you want to completely remove that option as well.

      Are you sure you don't want Travian to hold your hand as well? ;)
    • Samisu wrote:

      Thank you for the ideas, and good points.

      I just forwarded the wish for associations to have more rival spots than 1, and also the option to mark 1 player as a rival even without an association.

      I know how it feels when other players aren't collaborating, but just as in real life, that's part of the game. All players and associations have met players who follow only their own agendas, and my tip is: find another way to work together. It may need a set of completely new skills - expecting or demanding a certain playing style is fruitless. What can you give or promise to make it worth it to follow your lead?

      Always good to remember that no player has power over another. The question is, should you change your approach if you can't change the player :thumbup:
      the problem is not someone who does not collaborate, some are just distracted, others do not know you etc;

      the problem is those players who take advantage of "that's part of the game" to play on purpose destructively; that on purpose they go around to look for excuses to spoil the game of others. -

      I know that happens because the internet gives the impression of being anonymous and this to someone stimulates the worst instincts, but it is not written anywhere that we should not do anything to curb their impact and that the blame may be all others, who would be unable to communicate. The possible enmity towards the single player is just a timid signal and would not solve the problem, especially in the final when more dirty farms can jeopardize the collaboration of the previous three months
    • @BryantrainZ you made a very important point that often is missed when people talk about this issue. We play a Round for 3 Months... not days ... not weeks .. but MONTHS. For mseveral players Iknow they only play during teh Winter rounds as Summer they are too busy.

      So players who disrupt teh game deleiberatly deserve teh sort of sanctions proportionate to that those in real life get.. I know a couple of players who persistantly play in a manner that is utterly selfish and removes much of teh fun for the team players confronted bythem. Hasving a means of sanctioning such players when they refuse to change behaviour would go some waytoward keeping tehfun in the game.

      It is not that these players are even good at the game. [Though their prestige score makes them think theyare] They usually fail thier personal bid for top spot as the players around them eventauly become hostile and outplay them in a similar manner to their gameplay. But that is at a cost. 1 player gets to disrupt the game for perhaps a couple of hundred others, who without that players intereferance were enjoying the game and not too bothered by teh few rogue or ignorant players who just don't know what theyare doing. Then the other players lose thie pateince and retaliate using methods theywould not normally condone never mind use.

      The ability to mark an individual player as Rival is a very good way of enhancing teh game, however, it could aslo be abused.

      So I propose that for the Chair of an Assoc to mark an individual as Rival theymust first have issued a warning PM to the player that has been ignored or contained a reply that teh the other player would continue their disruptive play.

      In order to reduce teh potentia lfor abuse the PM could be a stock message a Mayor or Chair can post out and the system would record that such a PM was sent.

      ie

      1] You are hauling against the call - please stop
      2] You are repeatedly hauling against the call
      3] You are taking majority yet not hauling the goods - please stop
      4] You have failed to respond to warnings
      5] You have broken our agreement

      I'm sure others can be thought of to add to these. By using stock warnings there is arecord of what is said that can be public. It could appear on an indiviuals Avatar if they are repeatedly offendling

      Any reply would again be a stock reply...ie ...

      1] I'm sorry I made a mistake, I have fixed it now
      2] I don't accept your accusation and will continue to paly in this manner.
      3 Your warning is a form of harrassment and I am apppealing against you. [this last one only available if more than one warning was issued by the pewrson warning ]

      Again other replies could be added.

      As I'm one of teh older players and on medication, as many are I know there are times I fail to haul in a manner which I want to haul. My team mates usually know this and know Iwil try to fix it soon so Iwouldnot need a formal warning to change my hauling. A polite PM wouldbe more than enough. So the warnings system should be a last resort.

      Because there would be a record of warnings with time stamps, Support staff would be able to see if a player was abusing teh system.

      E.g. A player has joined an Assoc and then failed to haul to the call or maintain trains - After teh players time button shows Red the Chair could issue a warning. After getting teh warning the player leaves the Assoc and deliberately plays in a hostile manner. The Chair then posts another warning and once the offending player fails to respond or denies wrong doing teh Chair instigates a sanction - possibly making that player a Rival with a 75% WT penalty

      If a player connects to a City then hauls against the call the Mayor can warn them. If the warnings fail tehn the Mayor can issue a City wide WT penalty.

      If a player is complained about by enough Mayors and Chairs a President should be able to isssue a Region wide WT penalty follwed by a Region wide Stop order than parks their trains and disallows any investment by that player.

      Such a formal warning system would reduce teh worst case rogue playing ot a level that is still disruptive but does not destroy months of effort by teh majority of players. It would allow Support staff to have minmal involvment as the record of events is recorded with what ever player settings would be needed to allow oversight

      If teh oversight system was designed to include screenshots of a players trains many of teh warnings would be accepted by the culprits. If an unwell player caused problmes too often theymight attract a lot of warnings butshould have teh option to appraoch Support staff to explain the issues as part of an appeal procedure.
    • You have great ideas and everything, but who told you the only acceptable way of playing the game was hauling like you decided to ?

      I mean, what's the point of even playing if I decide to start a round, end up in a region where the president and his friends don't know shit, and do shitty calls ? Should I just stop playing ? There are 1 or 2 great presidents out there, but there are also a few regions that are hopeless. Since players cannot change their region, like they can change city, it would be dramatic to be able to ban them from a region. They cannot just move.

      I've played both a prestige game and a region managing game. I mean, yeah, you have some people that haul to the city even though you ask them to level up the landmark, because they want the prestige. But as long as you keep your players in check, the "destructive" ones will never be an issue. Because they basically want the same thing you do, for you to win. They just want you to win without them.^^ The problems I've faced is that, sometimes, your players want the prestige as well. And when they start hauling as much as the "destructive" players, you are in big trouble. But there, the problem is not from the "destructive" players, it's YOUR players that are to blame, because they are the ones that agree to your rules.


      I've never seen anyone playing destructively without reason. I mean, nobody plays RN because it is fun to wait an entire evening for a city to level up and then destroy Golden Hour. Usually, the ones I've seen do that held a grudge against a city. > you could probably avoid the problem altogether by talking to them earlier on.


      The real issue, I think, is that most people don't understand there are multiple ways of playing this game, and you should accept that some people don't have the same wants you have. Once you accept that some people will not abid to your rules, and let them play their game, you can actually have a dialogue with them, to find out what they are willing to do to help you, if you help them. You always can find ways to discuss. Sometimes, it takes a lot of energy, but you can always discuss. ;)
      Fr-1 Dalence
      Fr-201 Bad Wolf
    • sacroima wrote:

      I've never seen anyone playing destructively without reason. I mean, nobody plays RN because it is fun to wait an entire evening for a city to level up and then destroy Golden Hour. Usually, the ones I've seen do that held a grudge against a city. > you could probably avoid the problem altogether by talking to them earlier on.


      The real issue, I think, is that most people don't understand there are multiple ways of playing this game, and you should accept that some people don't have the same wants you have. Once you accept that some people will not abid to your rules, and let them play their game, you can actually have a dialogue with them, to find out what they are willing to do to help you, if you help them. You always can find ways to discuss. Sometimes, it takes a lot of energy, but you can always discuss. ;)
      nice the final slogan, but start from a wrong assumption; those who on purpose play against everyone, precisely because "the is not forbidden" has passed, they exist; as there are so many that at each end, even if they have never contributed to the growth of your city, come from far only to collect Prestige Points and they do not care about the appeals to bring useful goods, in fact, they have fun not to do it.

      It is not a question of different styles of play or of misunderstood people, it is that to many it does not seem true to be able to do bad guys, especially when hiding behind a monitor, and in this case they have been told that they can do it and no one will try to stop them ; that's the real problem
    • but what's the issue if someone comes from far away to collect prestige points ?

      Your goal is to level up the city right ? > You want to deliver 4 required goods. He wants prestige. The 2 goals shouldn't be one against the other, you might work together.

      The goal of the other guy is to get prestige > He will want to participate in the golden hour if it is late in the evening, otherwise just invest "a bit" in industries. Most of the time, when there are issues regarding investments, it is because a city assumes the industries are for them only. But you must invest, you must protect your industries. A prestige player will usually not invest more than 10'000$ for 1 PP, more than that, it is simply not worth it. So yeah you will encounter some prestige players that will be nice if the investments are low, and simply take a "free" second or third place with 1 click, not breaking the majority; some "less nice" players that will just say "ok, first place in this industry is 100PP, I will put 800k $ and I don't care if the majority is broken".

      That second group is maybe more difficult to talk to, but it is still possible to find some common ground. But yeah, in that case, you have to convince them, that takes a lot of efforts. And you might have to make sacrifices. But that's the point of a dialogue, both parties agreeing to change a bit their habits to reach an agreement.


      The only issue might be that a prestige player feel he doesn't need an agreement and therefore doesn't have to make any sacrifice to reach one. But that's not really true. If all of your city starts to invest a lot in industries for example, he will lose all interest in coming to your city. And the tracks will be useless > he will have lost a lot of money as well.
      Fr-1 Dalence
      Fr-201 Bad Wolf
    • @sacroima To answer your point about style of play.

      The problem is that certain rogue players [be thankfull you have not met with them for the DO exist] will deliberately destroy teh effort of a group of other players just because they can.

      When challenged if they bother ot reply it is to say they can do it if tehy want.

      Let's take your freedom of style concept to a logial conclusion... lets say changes in gameplay left a lophole where a player could take all you vouchers and Gold. Ar e yousaying that just bcauewe the mecjhanism of teh game allows it they should be free to play that way?

      As to poor leaders . Yes they exist. But many of teh players who take up leadership do so as they enjoy teh team play element of teh game. Whilst individual players should be allowed to play however teywant we should equally be allowed to sanction those that impose THEIR destructive playsytle on us. Ihave tried ot suggest a schemne where poor leaders or deliberate anarchic leaders will be sanctioned too.

      Since you have not experienced these players perhaps you should consider if you are in a postiion to challenge any ideas presented that would stop suych disruption.
      Idon't see any constructive critiscism from you about my suggestion.

      In my suggestion Ihave tried to empower leaders to restore a balance in the game that total freedom leaves imbalanced. For example trolls are rarley given freedom to write what theywant without it being removed or them being kicked off sites. Youmay adhere to the anarchic point of view butmost don't and youoffer no reason why we should accect anarchy without some control.
    • When the player causing all the problems is The President and new accounts keep appearing, voting for them and then becoming inactive, giving powers to Mayors won't/doesn't work, bonus on Landmark and City stay with the President and their association only options are to cheat (not my style) or leave the game after ERA 1 as many did (myself included) in the present Loch Ness round.
    • Celt wrote:

      only options are to cheat (not my style) or leave the game after ERA 1 as many did (myself included) in the present Loch Ness round.

      Well you could just keep playing and then sabotage waiting times in their endgame.They already wasted twelve weeks of your life,better make sure they wasted their twelve weeks like everybody else.That said i left that server before era2 hit aswell(Region was west).I couldn't motivate myself to wait eleven weeks to see if i could find out what region had their players start out in my region with the purpose of crushing it from the bat.

      This thread tho,Pvp is pvp,if you want something else i suggest a particular Sid Meier game with trains,eventhough the npc's look alot like "destructive" players in this game
    • Yeah.

      The folks asking for permission to tell players how to play the game is the biggest threat to this game there is.

      The first risk is that self proclaimed experts do not understand the game as well as the people they are accusing and are wrong about the details.

      The second risk is that self proclaimed experts do not understand the game as the people they are accusing of ruining the game for others. For example, I find it quite shocking to see Lammy asking for tools that would immediately be used against him far more often than he would have reason/need to use them against others.

      The third risk is that many come to worlds like this where merit has supremacy over social status for the competition. Making strategy secondary to popularity defeats the purpose. Social aspects are clearly what keeps people returning but at its heart, this game is a COMPETITION not a big Cumbya session at its best and National Socialist Rally at its worst.

      So I play nice because that is a winning strategy, but if you are pissed that I don't wait 8 hours for enough of your team to log in to create room where I can invest 3 key clicks in an industry, Git Good Noob.

      And yes, when you decide to escalate things into a war (with the controls currently available), I will fight back because I do understand the game better, and I do know that I can damage your style more than you can damage mine. Get Rekt Noob.

      And NO, I am not ruining the game for you, you were attempting and failing to ruin the game for me.

      Next time, just invest in that industry you want to call 'yours' and don't go crying to mommy. And definitely don't go picking a fight with a player who can interfere with your game if you decide to paint a big bullseye on yourself.

      As miss Live likes to dig folks who should know better, If you are making requests for these abilities, you are not as good as you think you are, and if you are as good as you think you are.... You should know you don't need it.
    • I'm a new player, and finding this all very intriguing!!! much popcorn ..nom.nom.nom
      I joined the loch ness server in Europe that people have mentioned leaving...and I joined half way through Era2. In a region where my closest 2 cities have level discrepancies between city and LM...So I am just trying to learn the ropes, amidst all this. Trying to understand why it happened, how it happened, and how to fix it..
      And so My 5cents will be very green.

      I agree though, that in principle, the players who get voted into positions of power should be able to use that power to block the 'dirty tactics' of players...whatever they are? .levelling cities instead of LM is the one I have seen so far..maybe there is something to do with the investments in industries? that I don't yet understand.
      How exactly to enforce penalties in the game, I have no idea, but maybe something like the suggested embargo or similar.
      i.e. Higher taxes on certain goods, so the city makes more money which they can transfer to the LM, while the players make less money shipping higher taxed goods.
      It would definitely need to be a game mechanic, as diplomacy will only get so far. There needs to be a stick, not only a carrot. So far I don't see the stick.

      with the current game mechanics, it looks to me like things will be in an endless loop of
      A "Please play like this way"
      B "No, I'll play how I want" (or ignore)
      A "Oh...but you are spoiling my fun"
      B "Well Boo-Hoo, it's the game, deal with it or leave"

      It is interesting to see comments like, (paraphrasing) "..its PvP, what do you expect". when I thought the opposite, it seems to be a team game, but there are obviously clear differences of opinion on that right from the outset.

      I'll keep on munching popcorn, and see if I can stick around until the end of a game round, to see how things pan out.
    • New

      Popcorn yum yum <3

      Some like the team play, some want to lead and control everything (or everyone), some want to go ninja, some want to be told what to do and some will do anything but listen to someone giving orders. Rail Nation has its own rules, and the whole spirit of the game would change if too much control was given to other players. If someone joins the game for fun, and his playing style starts to get warnings from others, that could take the fun out the equation.

      I remember the first game where I decided it was time to play the full round - thought I was ready and someone more experienced came and started to help me. We talked every day, I was told what to do and when, even if I wanted to try something else - this helper was always "spying" on my schedules and giving orders. He seemed like someone who knew everything about the game, but I was not having fun. Someone else had slowly started to control my game, and made me feel bad for decisions I wanted to make for myself. Yeah, such drama! Anyways, this player did not know how I would have fun, and that's kind of the point of this game? Story did get a happy ending when I learned there are other ways to play, fun ways, team ways, solo ways, just for fun or going pro. There's a big chance I would've stopped playing Rail Nation, if I had stayed in the belief that other players can control my game.

      I'm not saying anyone here is aiming to control other players, but generally speaking I believe that only through freedom can players have fun and try different playing styles. That freedom to have fun needs to stay with every player from the very first round they play.


      If you cannot find a good
      company to travel with,
      travel alone, like an elephant
      roaming the railways.
      It is better to be alone
      than to be with those who
      will hinder your acceleration.
      - Misquoted Buddha -
    • New

      @Samisu

      The question is ... is there too much freedom for the destructive players? imho there is an imbalance that allows the few to destroy the efforts of teh many.

      Pretty much in teh same way that pedestrians are not allowed to walk across motorways. They are free to hurt their own game but should they be so free to hurt others games.

      If teh games lasted 1 week I would say fair enough. But when the games last months that means 1 individual in a very quick time can destroy the efforts of many, just because THEY can control.

      It is an aspect of all social environments that people are controilled to do what others want. The rules or Terms of Serevice ar good examples. Anarchy has no place in a social game if it is allowed to take precedent. It is one factor that will almosat certainly make the game boring to me and when that happens Iwill leave it to rot. Ihave no wish to control others. The suggestion I made would actually be best if RN staff hanlded all the issues. But costs are unlikely to permnmit that. Hence my suggestion isa compromise.
    • New

      @Samisu That sounds awful Samisu, boarderline abuse even!

      I agree with what mmmcheesywaffles says, and I think you are missing the point of this suggestion post. It's not about wanting to control players. That would never work, and no-one would want to play such a game!

      I think it's more about being able to counter 'destructive behaviour', in some way. Of course you could argue what does 'destructive behaviour' mean, but experienced players know what it is.
      I gather that there are possible ways to counter this type of play, available now, I guess they aren't effective..? I'm still munching popcorn waiting to find out what they are, and apparently the experienced players are trying to suggest improvements in this realm...somehow....

      nomnomnom :D