Embargos to combat destructive players.

  • You are missing the point.evi1pau1

    It is specifically asking permission to outlaw all behavior that does not adhere to the way they THINK the game should be played.

    They do not want to ban jaywalkers.

    They want to say they own the crosswalk and say that you can only use it when THEY say you can use it.

    The rules are defiend. You need to compete. They paint folks who are better than they are (read, online more, more reactive, running more cities) as wrong doers, and anarchists, when in fact, they are following the rules. They also tend to be less insulting and abusive. Try competing for 1st overall with a female avatar...you will learn how to swear in multiple languages all willing to tell you how little you know about the game in less than flattering phrasing.

    Games like this are only successful if they give a lot of players a lot of different definitions of what 'winning' means (so that we ALL can feel like special snowflakes)

    Not surprisingly, in rail nation, Most players define 'winning' as what is the easiest to accomplish: home city = winning endgame city.
    Also Not Surprisingly, in rail nation, Most players are dismissive of players who are competing for the most difficult victory condition.. Winning first overall as an individual.

    People competing for first overall are exactly the folks they want to control, and are upset that they are unable to control.
    As an additional irony, the players competing for 1st overall are working MUCH harder than the people complaining about all the ruined work of others.

  • Here's a real world example.

    I made a call in my city to have a 90 minutes of 0 wait time plus two comps. People were upset that I broke happy hour 'rule' despite the fact that happy hour would only have been 60 minutes of 0 wait time and miss two comps.

    For that decision I was called 'selfish', 'stubborn', 'a disappointment', 'a bully' and other names not fit to print.

    All this despite making a call objectively better than the 'RULE' that does not exist. this event has followed me into my current game, where one player attempted to stalk me and posted a lot of cryptic disparaging remarks about me on multiple city forums.

    But you know what there were other non--existant rules in play.
    It was 'MY' city so another rule is that my calls need to obeyed without question.
    It was 'MY' industry so my decisions on how it be used should have been followed.

    If our roles were reversed, I would have been ridiculed for not following the 90 minute call.

    It is ALL about control and not about rules or 'the greater good'

  • here are some simpler examples for which my corps have been 'rivaled' for in the past and folks would use 'embargo' for if they coul.

    • My player invested in an industry immediately after it leveled (thus breaking majority)
    • My player invested a few clicks in an industry for a competition (and broke majority)
    • My player was winning too many competitions
    • My player was 'stealing' too much city prestige
    • My player was hauling a cargo directly to the city (i.e. not chained)

    Unlike my previous example which is just too detailed, you can start a fight in almost any city forum on any American server suggesting that rivaling was either justified or not justified for any of those 'offenses"

    The first two have caused fights in my recent game. The others seem less common now since most of the top players (by individual rank and team rank) do them. Back when it was rare, like when I was Lammy before Lammy became THE Lammy I was in a game where my org was rivaled by no fewer than twenty associations at the same time and the bottom three reasons were often sited as justification.

  • @DramaMagneTSorry

    You say people would abuse an embargo system. So what?

    People already abuse the freedom they have to disrupt the plans of many other players who decide to team together. So why not have a little balance back?

    None of you defending the anarchic freedoms have given any good reason why those who don't want that type of play ruing their game should have t oput pu with it.

    I offered a suggestion that could allow balance and has protection against abuse. So quit moaning about control freaks when those players who deleiberately cause issues are controlling more a percentage of total players than they represent.themselves.

  • I'm pretty sure my answer to being embargoed would be to give me a mission on the server :

    "show people how to get a lot of money, and then invest massively on the city I was embargoed just to annoy them and make their gameplay impossible because they made mine impossible".

    And I'm quite a friendly player usually, I don't break majorities, except if I get rivaled first (jealous people... They don't get that competitions are for everyone...)

    So imagine what a non-friendly guy would do...

    Fr-201 Bad Wolf de coeur

    en pause indéterminée - away from the game until next interesting server

    Likely coming back for clash!

  • Oh, but we have explained why. You just chose to revert to insults.

    • "anarchists' are not 'destroying' your game, they are actually improving it, but you do not understand how.
    • 'anarchists' are non-existent. They are just playing a different game than you. The only truly destructive actions I have seen in game are people reacting to the wanabe dictators.
    • 'anarchists' are not being destructive, they are choosing to compete in a game about competition, and you are asking to eliminate competition. (in real world terms, you are the corporations whining to the government asking for the right to establish your own tariffs and bans because you are unable to compete)
    • Finally, there are a lot more 'anarchists' than you think. Killing off the 'anarchists' would likely kill off the game. Rail Nation seems to be moving in a direction where some game worlds allow folks to play as freemarket haulers and others to play as protectionist monopolies. My guess is that latter world will die off because folks who want to be the king quickly realize, there are two many kings and not enough kingdoms.
  • Anarchists don't improve the game - you choose to say they do without offering proof. Iagree we need some element of rogue play but we can't have 1 person able to disrupt weeks of play for others just becaue you thin kthat improves the game somehow.

    Anarchists do indeed exist. Thier intent is not always to score more pp simply to disupt the play of others. You appear to be choosing not to see them. Somehow you seek to legitamise their play as a different style.... the players I refer to are not competing at all they are simpy loading a few trains and disrupting. I only know of one player actually fitting your description. That player is utterly selfish and will probably laways fail to get number 1 spot because theyare simply not good enough.

    I would rather play a team based game and RN claims to offer that. However, it remains imbalanced and if Ileave teh game it wioll not be becasue Ican't be 'King' it will be because to many players disrupt team efforts.

    Sanctioning play that ruins the game for the many is no 'killing off' of anyone. It is simply redressing teh balance so that Team players can kee pthe nuisance value of disruptive players down to a controllable amount. Those disruptive players have no sanctions right now so how about providing a coherant argument for that level of freedom? So far youhave offered none

    Perhaps you don't realise that once people see teh team element of the game is ruined theywill break apart socially and that will kill the game as I doubt it can survive as a pure winner takes it all game. I know of at least 5 peopel who are thinking of leaving RN because of teh 'freedom' enjoyed by rogues. None of them were playing as Chair, Mayor or President in teh games Imet them.

    Iam confident that whilst sanctions might cause on e or two arachist type players to leave RN the vast majority of rogue playters will continue to try and get one over on team mates. just when tey do, they risk a sanction.

  • you are calling an anarchist.

    I provide real world examples which you claim are not proff, which implies you agree that I should be banned or sanctioned or embargoed for all those actions.

    If you have played on a US server, You have probably called me an anarchist in game.

    In my current game only 5 people called me an anarchist/rogue/game ruiner. And this is a game where I only played as a city leveler rather than a player who connects 30+ cities.

    This game, the insults were mostly because of one player. My corp welcomed in a looooonnnnnnngggggg time player. Level 25 with only one star. Do you realize how many games it takes to hit level 25 without ever cracking top 100? Anyway. This player is currently ranked number 15 at the end of era 6. He is the highest ranked player who is NOT on either the team with no fewer than 4 FIVE star players and the team of professional prestige hunters (a top team that sacrifices team prestige to increase personal prestige ranks).

    I received many, MANY threats and insults for refusing to kick this player from my team. because he invested less than a million in 'their' industries far too often.

    I even had many 'leaders' offer up free advice on my lack of leadership skills for being unable to 'control' him.

    Not only are you advocating that the game would be better off without me, you are arguing the game would be better off without that (other) longtime player.

    I know all these real world accounts don't constitute proof of value in your mind. Fortunately, it is not you that I have to convince.

  • There is a huge difference between a 'playing style', 'game strategy' and "destructive behaviour".

    In any worthwhile game where 'destructive behaviour' is considered a playing style, you would expect to find game mechanics to counteract 'destructive behaviour', to make a game balanced.

    Right now, according to some, the 'destructive behaviour' should be deal with by 'talking' to those players in a diplomatic and polite way 'hoping' for the best and 'understanding' their destructive game style.

    While the diplomatic approach does work with majority of cases of a 'different play-style' or a 'different strategy' many of the 'destructive players' want to be talked to, enjoy responding with insults and laughs and more insults, they thrive on it. However, once ignored they lash out even harder with their destructive behaviour, attempting to solicit a response they can laugh at again.

    To make a level playing field there should be some mechanics to counteract that behaviour. 'Diplomatic' approach has no teeth, and when 'talk' is not successful, nothing changes and the 'disruptor' WINS! And why should players who just want to have fun, be always on the losing side? ELECTED leadership needs to have tools at their disposal to restore fun to the entire city or region.

    Arguments that those powers could be abused are not valid as the leadership is ELECTED and if the President/Mayors abuse those powers they should be replaced if that is the wish of the city/region and there are game mechanics to do just that.

    Yes, this game IS about competition, however the way the game is set up at present it is not possible for majority of players to compete against 'disruptors', as 'disruptors' play a different game altogether. 'Disrupters' at the moment have all the rights to disrupt and play any way they want and have their sick 'fun', and the rest of the players have no right whatsoever to do anything about it. How is that considered a competition at all?

    Would any sane person consider it a competition and a game at all if on the baseball field during the game we suddenly had players insisting on playing cricket, creating chaos and confusion and having great fun doing it? And no one had the 'right' to remove the cricket players from the field? How should now the baseball players compete against cricket players?

  • Is it just me, or is it harder to believe someone isn't asking to be your lord and master when, like, they actually have Lord xxxx as an alias?

    Now, lets fix the baseball analogy...

    Both teams were playing baseball and one team (team Anarchy) scored many more runs, however the other team (team Team) felt they deserved to win because they played as a team.

    Lets focus on the destructive behaviors of team Anarchy, shall we. (warning, it is quite the rogues gallery of baseball)

    • One Anarchist hit the ball where nobody on the team Team could do anything to prevent him from scoring. We need the ability to warn a player after they hit one of these so-called 'home-runs' and we need to be able to take the player's bat away if they do it again.
    • That player wasn't the only problem though. One player was so fast , he didn't even swing the bat. He just tapped the ball and then ran to first and there was nothing we could do to prevent him from reaching first base. This so-called 'bunting' is game ruining and needs to be nerfed ASAP
    • But don't get me started on what that player did next! He Literally STOLE three bases. This was clearly socially repugnant behavior for which I think we can all agree the player should be banned.
    • The worst player however was the pitcher. He refused to let us hit the ball, no matter how nicely we asked. By the end of the game EVERYONE on team Team tried as best they could but were unable to stop this player from preventing us from playing the game the way we wanted to!

    In summary, these are three clear examples of selfish players.

    • The Home run guy stole prestige from our pitcher AND didn't let anyone else on our team play defense.
    • The base stealer stole prestige FROM HIS OWN TEAMMATES. I can't understand why they are willing to play with him, but what do you expect from a bunch of cheaters.
    • Not only did their pitcher steal prestige from all the players on team Team, but he only let the Anarchist catcher on team Anarchist play any defense.

    When I consider the depths to which some of these so called teams are willing to sink to wrack up pointless prestige... err... runs, I just can't see how the game is going to survive if you continue to let teams like team Anarchy play the game.

  • Even though I quit trying to actively participate in this discussion, because clearly the minds are made up already. (you should really try to play for prestige just once btw, it really is mind-breaking as you see the game from a whole different angle).

    Reading it is still a lot of fun ! ;)

    Fr-201 Bad Wolf de coeur

    en pause indéterminée - away from the game until next interesting server

    Likely coming back for clash!

  • @ DramaMagneTSorry - unfortunately, the way you 'fixed' my analogy shows that you missed my point entirely.

    I'm surprised that you would skip 7 paragraphs and only latch on to the last one. Perhaps, when you actually read those 7 paragraphs you would be able to understand better my point and analogy.

    Perhaps, in the middle of the night I did not make the best case. It would be a better analogy of what I wanted to express if example had a Baseball team A playing on the field and suddenly one of the player on the team decided to play Cricket on this very field instead, creating chaos and confusion. The baseball team A was not able to do anything about it, nobody was allowed to escort the 'destructive' player out of the field and of course team B won the game. Do you still think that this was perfectly ok and that Cricket player had a full right to interfere with the Baseball game and once he got on the field he was free to play any game he wanted?

    My point was and still is that some players simply do not play RN game at all, they are like trolls and bullies who enjoy provoking others and tear others down and they delight when they achieve their goal of having others quitting the game or lose control of themselves. That's their goal, that's their game and RN makes this behaviour, perfectly acceptable by treating it as a 'game strategy' without providing any game mechanics to counteract this 'strategy'.

    I would also like to add that I'm talking about SoE version where the teamwork is essential to win the game.

    @sacroima, yes, I did play one of my first RN games 'solo' for prestige only on the classic server and managed to get to #10 on International server and even considered to try again to improve my rank, so I understand the thrill of pp hunters. Personally though, I prefer SoE, I find it much more challenging and much more interesting than other versions, but also much more unbalanced, unfortunately.

  • I did not offer any solution to the problem as this is really not my 'job', I'm a player who wants to enjoy the game, not to design it and I expect the game designer to hire competent paid employees to do the adequate job.

    That said, to give everyone the choice to enjoy their 'play-style' and keep everyone happy, perhaps that choice could be made at the starting point when we register for the new round. We already have a choice of pre-registering.
    We could have a simple option to make a decision at the pre-registration time what kind of players we want to join us in our Region in the next round, so the 'new' players registering at the actual start of the round are aware of what kind of players intend to play in each Region and what kind of players they will be joining.

    Region A could have players that want to play for prestige only and have no interest in anything else,
    Region B is for players who want to just have a relaxed hauling from point A to point B and like to chat,
    Region C is for players who just log in once in a while and are only after career points',
    Region D gives gold for joining there, maybe 'destructive' players could go there as well,
    Regions E-J are for serious, mature players who actually want to achieve victory and have fun doing it.

    This is just an idea to try to make everyone happy and give everyone a choice.

  • @

    The players I decribe as anarchists are defintiely not those who adopt a play style that is only different. As Lord Ocroyd describes they taunt and dsirupt others play when they actually lose pp in teh process. Thier enjoyment of teh game is trollish behaviour not simply selfish pp hunting.

    The ruiles clearly state that using multiple accounts to attack other players is not allowed.

    So be careful what you claim is your behaviour.

    The measures I suggest are for those players who put a lot of effort into weeks of team work. They offer some balance back to counter the freedom' that allows players to break rules adn use their mutliple accounts to disrupt others. They also allow beginners the opportunity to be told when they are causing problmes theymight not even realise are disrupting other players.. THAT is why the sanctions I suggest include those various statements. Not because I want to homoganise all players into pure team play.

    I've not seen you in a game and I have never called you an anarchist.... Iwould describe some of your actions as those of a rogue palyer, adn that is very different from the anarchist player Idescribed... which you have yet to accept even exists.

  • The choice of region would likely not work.
    If I want to become a prestige hunter in SoE, I will likely go for a region where everybody is focused on the landmark. It gives me a good region for the endgame PP bonus, as well as an awesome starting region where I can get prestige on the cities for free. On the other hand, competing for prestige in the region where all prestige hunters are is taking way too much energy for small gains. ;)

    For the rest, I'm happy your proposition of region separation covers more than simply the destructive players. My experience in SoE (that's the only version I play now, I prefer it as well) shows that, to me at least, the most annoying people are the 20 carrier hunters with carrier 30 coming to your region in era 2 because you are the first region. That totally removes access to your region to the real new players, that actually want to play the game and not log once an era to check if they made the right region choice. That + the fact they increase the goods demand for landmark and city consumption is a real pain. But well, we have to make it work...

    I've never encountered bullies as you describe them in my SoE games, that's probably why I have some difficulties grasping why you complain so much. The thing is, many people call prestige hunters bullies and want to kick them out. But a prestige hunter deserves his place as much as anybody else. For the bullies, on the other hand, it sounds to me like they harass by message > that must be punished by the support. But I still don't see how a single player destroys the game of an entire corp. Yes, the "war" might be costly, but after a while, your sheer number will render him quite inefficient. You have to pick your fights, but a single player cannot endanger the game of an efficient corporation. It's simply not possible.

    It might be a small annoyance, just like a prestige hunter is, but usually, in my experience still, it is how the corp's own players react that is bad for the city. Because they don't like to see somebody not participating, using their efforts for his own gains.
    I can perfectly understand this reaction, I'm kinda the same. But well, I don't think removing an entire way of playing is a good way of "fixing this issue", if you call it an issue, because some experienced teams already manage to play around it.

    You say the issue if with anarchists that use multiple accounts. I respond that yes, multiple accounts are a big problem. And should be removed, because it is now allowed and causes so many issues. But let support handle it, don't give tools to the president / mayor that can be abused to create more problems, because we all know how impossible it is to remove even a shitty president once he is elected.

    Fr-201 Bad Wolf de coeur

    en pause indéterminée - away from the game until next interesting server

    Likely coming back for clash!

  • It isa fine line between a pp hunter adn a rogue player.... but most pp hunters will spread trheir huntig around enough that it doesn't hinder others playas much. What does hurt others is those who wreck GH or take maj when theyare not hauling teh RG adn their top spot in in vestmenmt doesn't need them to hold tha maj.

    Single players can as you say be a nuisance to a team but can be outplayed as you say. I suspect the multiple accounts is the core issue. The reason Isugggested the sanctionsis becasue Iam pragmatic. Idon't beleive it isin RN 's interest ot remove anybutthe worst multiple account play. This leaves far too much power in teh hands of these destructive players that use multiple acccounts to change the game in thier favour.

    Selfish play has its place in teh game , I do see that . However, there does need to be more balance. I strongly suspect Support will not want ot chase them as some forms of mutli account abuse take far too much time and money to chase and prove.

    As for poor presidents , Mayors and chairs. Some better protection should be devised so that rogue cannot usurp those positions within a Assoc. The Presidents posiition can be made more accessible by adding a President tab to each City. I think that would help with removal of poor Presidents as currently Isuspect many player s only look at that during teh Tutorial.

  • Is it just me, or is it hard to see how an individual being confronted by twenty to 100 players is the 'bully' in any scenario?

    So I do understand that folks are trying to distance their requests for absolute power to punish evil doers from requests for absolute power to punish me. .

    I also understand that you have completely ignored every time I have pointed out that someone, would in fact use them to punish me, because they currently do so in every game..

    You also refuse to accept that the behaviors I have listed should not be behaviors that trigger sanctions.

    I understand that you have refused to do so, because you are asking for the privilege to be judge and jury behind intent. To be able to decide for yourself whether the behavior was merely a person stupidly hunting for prestige or a bad person being actively hostile. Here again, I know that players cannot be trusted with that privilege, because they already abuse that privilege today.

    The baseball example was an excellent example, that is why I jumped to it. It stings, because you know that stealing is part of the rules of baseball and would never dream of changing it. Breaking a majority is part of the Rail Nation rules, and you know it, but you would like to change that. In truth, the player who wants to change the game of Baseball into a game of Crickett, is you, not me.

    edit.... I Realize cheesy waffles DID acknowledge that he would use the tools against me if we were in a server and he didn't know my Id in his last post. He assures me he wouldn't because I am just a rogue and not an evil rogue. I don't find that quite as reassuring as he thinks it should be.

    P.S. I thought this was the embargo thread, when did this turn into the ban multi accounts thread? Sacroima's response on that topic summed it up perfectly.