Some ideas

  • I've played this game off and on now for a few years, I usually have to take time away from the game so that I can try to keep it fresh. I don't usually post in forums but I thought I might share some things that I think might make the game a little better.


    1. Offer a corporation bank. Members can either contribute voluntarily or the corporation could set up a required donation amount. This money could be used to hire workers or loaned to members to help them build their stations or their fleet of trains, etc.


    2. Change the predictability of the game. People have figured which goods are coming up in the next era and they know where they will be located on the maps. Move their locations around even if its just one or two spaces over.


    3. Have spaces that can be purchased by corporations, they can build whatever available facility that they want on it. Of course you would probably have to cap the number owned. The corporation could control who uses their facilities and they can also be traded or sold.


    4. The biggest thing that I think would change the game play is track dynamics. I am not even sure if this is possible in this game due to amount of programming involved. It would be interesting if the terrain affected times and train degradation. If a train has travel through a mountain this would be much slower and cause more degradation to a train than if it were travelling over the plains. Maybe there are two routes to a facility, one might be more direct and take less time but the other might cause less damage to a train, but that would also involve being able to set up which route a particular train takes.


    5. A tweak to the trading element. If I am picking up grain for cattle then that grain should cost me something just as IRL. This also affects supply. If I go to pick up cattle but they haven't been properly supplied with grain then they would cost me a lot more and if they cost me more than what the city pays then I have to move grain to cattle to lower the price. I realize the current system does this but with wait times. Let me try to explain the difference: under the current system if I am hauling cattle and I am away from the game and cattle is not being supplied it just takes my trains longer to make the trip. With my suggestion if I am away from the game and cattle are not being supplied then it will end up costing me more per cow which will affect my total revenue, if I don't have enough money to purchase the cows then I cannot make any revenue, if the receiving city/facility is paying less for the cow then I am paying then I am losing revenue. Therefore it is in my best interest to make sure that the facilities are properly supplied.


    6. An alternative for purchase of gold. I have played several games where "gold" can be purchased with in game currency. There will always be people willing to purchase "gold" with real money so that they can reap the benefits, however this puts those who cannot afford gold or who do not wish to purchase at a disadvantage. If I purchase 1000 gold and at some point during the game I need x number of currency to finish a building or buying an engine I can sell some of my gold to the marketplace. This gold can then be sold for in game currency. This would probably encourage more people to buy gold so they can trade it for in game currency.


    Anyway these are just some of my thoughts. Maybe some have been considered and maybe some just cannot be done.

  • Hi A.Leon and thank you for your ideas and also thank you for playing the game for so long!


    I would actually like to start a conversation here and hear what other players think about these ideas. What kind of changes others would appreciate...


    I'll start ^^


    1. Corporation bank: What if the bank was used only on HQ investments? Players would be able to pay for others as well. I had a chat about this with another player and even if I do think gathering the HQ investments are part of the game rules (and part of the fun), it might be helpful in some occasions.


    2. Randomizing factory locations. Some like it when they know where goods will appear and they stick to the same starting cities. Others enjoy moving around the map where new cities offer all new locations for goods. Locations are now strategically planned so that all cities have a chance to grow into a Mega city, and random locations could make the game way too unbalanced from the very first Era forward.


    3. Extra spots for factories, determined by associations. Might not work on the map (balancing issues) but an association warehouse widget or a warehouse building on station? How would these work? Collecting goods to the city or collecting goods to your private warehouse. Money comes to the picture only once you sell the goods in your home town through the widget. Selling 1000t cows at the right moment could earn a nice little extra cash and would also bring something new to the endgame. Private warehouse would still be very capped. (Just an idea for discussions sake, haven't thought it through)


    4. We already have environmental effects that can hit tracks, and one of the perks of trains is that the routes are well scheduled and railways are built to go through tough terrain. Trains were actually playing a big part in introducing the same fixed time intervals to cities and people far apart (history of railways rules ^^)


    5. Nice idea behind this, and more discussion is needed. Base idea now is that buying grain and selling it to cows happens behind the scenes, and you only get to see the earnings. Less earnings the more grain has been transported to cows. Same with city transports. Adding an economic layer where players could actually start losing money will lead to situations where you would need to check on your trains a lot more often, and make plans with other players not to haul the same goods too much. Also, if you start losing money, how do you pay service fees for engines :P


    6. Gold, I don't think there's much I can add here. Unused Gold can be transferred to other gameworlds and used at a later date. Building a new feature where players can buy and sell Gold can lead to unpredictable issues around the globe, so I'll leave it at that.


    Thank you again for the list of ideas, and I hope others will participate and give their 2 cents <3

  • First of all, thank you for replying to my ideas. It's nice to see something that lets you know that someone, somewhere actually read what you wrote.


    1. One thing that frustrates me is when a worker is available and I am the only member on. If I can't afford to bid against whoever else is bidding then we lose out. Even if there were a way to pre-bid that would be great.


    2. Just to clarify I don't mean locations are randomized around the whole map but rather around each city. Keeping everything in the same location gives long term players a much greater advantage over newer players. My last server did not seem all that balanced. The winning city had three of the same early era resources located within a short distance and the city where I was had to go longer distances. If the game were going to be totally fair and balanced then each city would have every commodity available within the same number of tracks and have the same number of each facility. That way no one city would have an advantage over another city, then it would be competition only between the corporations and individual players, location then would have less of an impact then strategy and cooperation.


    3. An association warehouse might be a good idea, I am not sure about private warehouses as the game is supposed to be about team work.


    4. nothing to add.


    5. You could probably put a safety in so that the player does not lose money out of their account merely that their profit margin could actually be zero. Just another thought, it might be interesting to have a financial goal for cities to level up as well as having certain products.


    6. It was just a thought.

  • I'll toss in an idea


    Split tech tree. I know it would require a lot of programming, but I'll explain the benefit. Split the tech tree. One side is for the engines, the other side is for capital improvements. We already know the engine side and this would need to be modified based on the Cap. Improvement side. On the Cap Improvement side your rails would start off running stringers, move to iron, then steel. Steel rails upgrades then be made to move trains of more tonnage at higher speeds. Electric trains could not be run on rails unless you had electrified the rails. Other aspects of the tree might deal with adding telegraphs, radio control, CDC, etc as well as having the ability to speed up loading due to improvements in logistics. The benefits of this would completely change the game. Right now, folks follow the engine tech tree and most folks figure out what engines to build and/or stay away from pretty fast. In doing that, pretty much all players end up at the same place with the same abilities. If you split the tech tree, you would end up with a game where chances are no two players would be exactly alike and this would have a huge impact on the game. Perhaps the RPs would need to come a little faster also. IN doing this, a few tweeks to the engines to account for some of the other changes could make it so that folks didn't always go for one specific engine in an era, but might go for the engine that best fit for where they were also on the Capital improvement tech side.

  • I'll toss in an idea


    Split tech tree. I know it would require a lot of programming, but I'll explain the benefit. Split the tech tree. One side is for the engines, the other side is for capital improvements. We already know the engine side and this would need to be modified based on the Cap. Improvement side. On the Cap Improvement side your rails would start off running stringers, move to iron, then steel. Steel rails upgrades then be made to move trains of more tonnage at higher speeds. Electric trains could not be run on rails unless you had electrified the rails. Other aspects of the tree might deal with adding telegraphs, radio control, CDC, etc as well as having the ability to speed up loading due to improvements in logistics. The benefits of this would completely change the game. Right now, folks follow the engine tech tree and most folks figure out what engines to build and/or stay away from pretty fast. In doing that, pretty much all players end up at the same place with the same abilities. If you split the tech tree, you would end up with a game where chances are no two players would be exactly alike and this would have a huge impact on the game. Perhaps the RPs would need to come a little faster also. IN doing this, a few tweeks to the engines to account for some of the other changes could make it so that folks didn't always go for one specific engine in an era, but might go for the engine that best fit for where they were also on the Capital improvement tech side.

    There are numerous games known for their incredibly complex tech trees, and I believe at some point someone figures out the most optimal route anyway, and everybody ends up using it. You can relate that to chess (some openings more popular than others), hearthstone (netdecking), LoL (you have one build for each champion basically). Ant that's only the most popular games that come to my mind (PoE is kind of the same, even though the tree is so complex that you have many options).


    I agree that some changes to the tech tree are needed (I'm looking forward to having the new passenger trains), and a split tech tree might be a great +). But I don't think it should be added just for the argument of "more complex = more variation". People will still do whatever someone tells them to do, because it's way too time consuming to figure everything out by yourself, for most players.


    Already at the moment, some options are way better than others and still totally unused by the large majority (Hello Elephant in SoE, you are 30% more performant than lynx and even morpheus, but still nobody dares buying you^^).



    (so I like your idea, but don't do it for the wrong reasons^^)



  • That used to be possible.Back before city level prestige sniping was common, I had all my teammates doing it. When the team we were chasing tried to counter us, well... We didn't actually get the price to go negative, but $1 a ton was seen. We were wondering if the game could handle it (bad array pointer), and whether we were about to become incredibly rich (integers without a sign bit can go from $0 to $65K), but the city levelled to fast for us to find out.


    Now, they set a minimum price, presumably to prevent exactly what you are asking for.

  • 5. A tweak to the trading element. If I am picking up grain for cattle then that grain should cost me something just as IRL. This also affects supply. If I go to pick up cattle but they haven't been properly supplied with grain then they would cost me a lot more and if they cost me more than what the city pays then I have to move grain to cattle to lower the price. I realize the current system does this but with wait times. Let me try to explain the difference: under the current system if I am hauling cattle and I am away from the game and cattle is not being supplied it just takes my trains longer to make the trip. With my suggestion if I am away from the game and cattle are not being supplied then it will end up costing me more per cow which will affect my total revenue, if I don't have enough money to purchase the cows then I cannot make any revenue, if the receiving city/facility is paying less for the cow then I am paying then I am losing revenue. Therefore it is in my best interest to make sure that the facilities are properly supplied.


    Ummmm, in this part the game works as "IRL" already, and you just have a wrong conception about it. Also, no "you don't see the trade behind the scenes" magic is needed to explain the economic actions there. The point is, that you don't run an trade enterprise, which buys and resells stuff, but a transport enterprise, which means that you get paid for the service of transporting goods. And you get paid less for this service of transporting a specific good, the more other transport enterprises offer to haul the same good. The loss in money you can make there is, when you create less income with offering this service, than your costs for buying and repairing trains, buying waggons, buying tracks etc. are.

  • 2. Change the predictability of the game. People have figured which goods are coming up in the next era and they know where they will be located on the maps. Move their locations around even if its just one or two spaces over.

    I just thought I would talk on this issue alone. I did look at all replies and something that people forget is that several years ago, city locations were random. We could play in the exact same city every round, however, where that city was geographically was different each round. Many of us disliked it when they locked the cities into the same location and I have mentioned this on multiple occasions so thank you. By the way, moving the actual city each round would achieve what you are going for. I would like this to come back as the random location of cities does change up your gameplay each round while helping to keep your team together

    “You must be the change you want to see in the world.”-Mahatma Gandhi

  • Another Idea.

    I have been playing for years now and have been enjoying most games scenarios on USA or Europe maps. I have played game worlds SoE, USA, Europe either on the US server or International server. Only one I don't fancy to play is the express version as I find it too short to play


    1) In the station there is a building located left of Lottery & below Engines that is only a decoration. What about changing it to an overflow building for the Bank only when a plus account runs out while that person is offline and can be redeemed within 48 hours if plus account in reinstated. It would save discouragement when someone loses the extra money when a plus account expires. (There was something similar to that when "Truck Nation" was avail online as well).


    2) If its possible to program/write in when player upgrades a station building have a crane appear while upgrade in progress instead of just showing the length of time to complete.


    3) This would be a reply to others who have posted about moving cities around.... If when looking at the map in game world it should be fairly close to what it would be looking at an actual map as the cities should be as close as possible to its location either way. Yes the factories could be located differently by a spot or 2 but I wouldn't go too much more than that just to keep the game fair for both experienced & beginner players instead of having the same locations every round and keep factories to fewer of the same spread out to balance cities for fairness in distance and number of tracks between.


    Cr8zTrain

  • Ummmm, in this part the game works as "IRL" already, and you just have a wrong conception about it. Also, no "you don't see the trade behind the scenes" magic is needed to explain the economic actions there. The point is, that you don't run an trade enterprise, which buys and resells stuff, but a transport enterprise, which means that you get paid for the service of transporting goods. And you get paid less for this service of transporting a specific good, the more other transport enterprises offer to haul the same good. The loss in money you can make there is, when you create less income with offering this service, than your costs for buying and repairing trains, buying waggons, buying tracks etc. are.

    You are most correct, I looked at it as a trading element when that is not what it is.

  • I just thought I would talk on this issue alone. I did look at all replies and something that people forget is that several years ago, city locations were random. We could play in the exact same city every round, however, where that city was geographically was different each round. Many of us disliked it when they locked the cities into the same location and I have mentioned this on multiple occasions so thank you. By the way, moving the actual city each round would achieve what you are going for. I would like this to come back as the random location of cities does change up your gameplay each round while helping to keep your team together

    This might work with the classic scenario, but it wouldn't work very well for Europe or USA as you would move cities from where they actually are and that might be a bit confusing.