Embargos to combat destructive players.

  • So...

    Are you no longer a game GM because there were too many trolls and not enough players?

  • So if you are winning, you think people shouldn't be allowed to disrupt you so that they can gain an advantage? I have a friend that I play boardgames with. He's pretty good at them. But gets really whiney when people play attacks against him "just because he's winning." But that's the strategically advantageous thing to do for the other players. Isn't it feasible that that is what some of this "disruptive behavior" is? Just curious one thoughts about that...I assume you believe they aren't even trying to win (which could be true.) However, if certain behavior is because the individuals/ teams are actually trying to win and they are following game rules, the people being "attacked" should just out a different strategy. That's one of the great things about this game, there are lots of different strategies that can be used.

  • Hmmmm, tricky.

    I understand why city players think that they should have better means to defend the city they've been working on all round. Because - and not even @DramaMagneTSorry denies that - it's easy to mess up their style of play, while they have hardly anything to defend themselves or to mess with other playstyles in return. (That he likes it this way is a different story ;) .)

    However, I also wouldn't want to see huge sanction tools in the hands of many city leaders. Because even if they only intended to use them on purposefully harmful saboteurs (and who says that they do?), who are saboteurs without the city ever having done harm to them, way too many city players and even leaders know way too little about the game to make a qualified decision about that. Just a random example from the last round on US 102 Grand Central (US scenario):

    • the city that ended up second had city leaders that were in many endgames before and even won some
    • still, when they saw messed up facilities, and players from the winning city in their ranks, they immideatly complained about being sabotaged by the winning city and only losing because of that

    What they failed to see/ check was:

    • that the facilities were messed up mostly by their own players, and by the typical players from the neighbouring ghosttowns, who just like to throw all their trains on 1 or 2 goods and then log off
    • that a lot of the hauling from the players they accused of sabotage was from the warehouse and not the facilities, and even those hauling from the facilities had moved along a while ago already
    • that very most of those they accused of sabotaging for the winning city, weren't actually playing for this city, but just were prestige farmers, who had set that city as hometown for prestige and carreer point reasons

    So when even experienced city leaders fail to see the difference between prestige farmers and saboteurs, and between having a city as hometown for the EG and actually playing for it, why would you want powerful means against other players in the hands of city leaders? The risk of them abusing those means seems to be way too high for me.

  • This is more of a thought to consider than a fully formed proposal. But...

    One idea I have often thought about is giving each EG megacity an opportunity to have track maintenance appear on a track section of their choice. On the SoE servers this power could be given to the mayor. On other servers I am not sure who the power should go to (maybe a mayor could be elected even if he has no other real power?)

    It would only be usable on one of the three tracks coming out of the city, only during EG and only once every 24 hours.

    It would slow down everyone hauling to the city from every factory that side of the city. It could be used to cool down factories, and to 'encourage' outside players not following the call to move on.

    It has the benefit of hitting everyone equally, so it can't be used to hog prestige or target individuals. If incorporated into a plan it would only effect those not following the call.

    I would like it to last more than 1 hour, maybe 3 hours, so it forces cities to think long and hard about when/if to use it. Top cities are probably clearing goods to quickly to make use of it, but then they have the hauling power to overcome the 'saboteurs'. Smaller cities can probably plan around this restriction if they really do have skill/organisation and are only being prevented from competing by 'saboteurs'.

    It is important that this comes with most of the restrictions I have mentioned (and maybe even more) so it doesn't become too powerful/destructive.

  • Just put a report tab on the options ,when you click a players name. Just add the report option. . . . .

    Let the game producer decide what is best for their games future.

    I am sure they see the number of players not returning.(lack of game order)

    They should never let players control other players.(you establish rules and game controlling entities into the game)and you stick to them)

  • It seems that some people here are arguing only for the argument sake and not to solve anything in any constructive way.

    'Problem' is that RN's priority is to make money for Travian Games and not to provide fun for the players (although of course one might argue that happy players are more likely to throw more money into the game, but only RN knows for sure who are the biggest cash contributors).

    So, not to alienate anyone and not to miss anyone with cash, RN mixed up a team base game with a game of solitaire.

    But having it both ways simply does not work.

    Until RN fixes the game itself and decides if this is a team game or solo game we can all argue until we're blue in the face, nothing is going to change.

    We are seriously considering playing our next round as "Dis Raptors"and create so much chaos on the server that RN has to finally do something about it.

  • The dev's will have to change individual abilities.

    individual cannot bid on worker = already in effect
    individual cannot gain supply chain bonus = already in effect
    individual cannot invest in facilities = broken part of game #1

    Making a (Association) should cost 25 gold,
    instead of raising plus account cost would be more productive.

    putting a price on making a (Association),
    would greatly decrease the rogue (Associations)

  • Heh, I know a whole team of trolls who would be upset at that last suggestion. Of course, they assume every individual who does what they do is a mult-account troll so I guess this suggestion was karmically foretold.

    The US servers had a stretch 3 or so years ago where players were winning first overall by going it alone.

    The trade off for having no teammates to pop your bubbles for you was that you could keep forming new corporations and purchasing cheap workers. Since these players were online 24/7/12, they could pop their own bubbles thank you very much.

    At this point, that practice is so commonplace an entire team reforms every few days to get cheap workers, and not coincidentally, pick up a lot of HQ prestige for relatively cheap prices.

    For the record... they are not a team of trolls, they are just highly specialized players fighting for top 10 rankings in a world where 3 years ago, I could make top 10 just by playing but am now hard-pressed to break into top 30.

  • ... is a team game or solo game we can all argue until we're blue in the face ...

    :) I can agree with that.

    Interestingly the world is having a similar debate in its economic simulation game.

    Personally, I am glad that I live in a country that at least says it believes in solo competition, because of that whole being told what to do by 'Lords' in the other system can be brutal.