Support

Assigned RGs in Endgame

    By using our site, you accept the use of cookies to make your visit more pleasant, to offer you advertisements and contents tailored to your interests, to allow you to share content on social networks, and to create visit statistics for website optimisation. More information

    • Assigned RGs in Endgame

      Unless you haul for total victory in the Endgame, the type of goods assigned in every set has a big influence on the final result.

      This EG on SoE i see Megacities who have 3 one track RGs assigned in the first set of 12, and my Megacity has no 1 or 2 tracks RGs assigned, an other Megacity has five Era6 goods (5/6/7 tracks) assigned. The assigned goods can make the difference between ending 3rd or 10th, and that is not fair.

      In order to make it more fair and balanced:
      Make the assignment of RGs equal for all Megacities, so all has the same chance for a good result.
      Equal could be:
      1) each set of 12 consists out of 2 RGs from each Era
      or
      2) equal number of tracks

      The element of LUCK in the assigned RGs has a too big influence on the result.
    • This would not increase fairness or balance in any form because every mega city must haul all 48 goods to win, and not all mega cities have equal representation of which goods are around their city or how far away they are. You would also have to re balance the distribution of facilities. Example, USA map, Miami Food (burgers) is 3 tracks away, where as the nearest Sporting Goods (Soccer Balls) is the Jackson WH 9 tracks away with another 10 tracks from the WH to stock it (19 from city). Meanwhile Boston has Sporting Goods 6 track away, and burger 3 tracks away, but they have their own stinker good in plastics at 17 tracks away.

      If every city had Equal Opportunity for all goods, in facility number , distance, endgame RG distribution, etc., then the game just becomes a boring and monotonous exercise of who can do the math the best and assemble the largest team. It would take all the challenge elements out of the game, like overcoming the obstacle of getting that 12 track lvl 1 facility with 3 minute WT in your first set of goods. City choice, facility development, planning, ability to adapt, and team work make the difference between 3rd and 10th, not the order in which your goods were assigned.
    • I wrote about Steam over Europe (=SoE) In SoE we often just 2 or 3 regions competing for victory. All other regions battle for the other ranks and most of the time only complete 20-24 of the total of 48 goods, and in that case it matters a lot which goods you get assigned.

      For the top 2 or 3 regions an more equal assignment of RGs per set doesn;t really matter and has no negative influence.

      As i wrote, the balancing can be done based on fair assignment of goods (2 RG from each Era) or based on nr of tracks.
    • All regions and all megacities are competing for the same thing. I have played SoE and I understand people migrate to the regions they think will win. just because you don't play that way on your server, doesn't mean that other players and other servers follow that mindset. I only used the USA map as an example because i wanted to illustrate how trying to re-balance good assignment would affect all scenarios (they use the same game mechanics for all 3 scenarios).

      You also missed the point I was making about your method of assigning goods would be ineffective unless you also re-balance goods and track lengths surrounding the city so this was also equal among all cities. Even then somebody will cry that its unfair because their wheat facility was only lvl 8 and they had to compete against someone hauling form a lvl 23 wheat facility. If you want a better shot at endgame plan for it. Design and execute a strategy as a group. That is one of the two main objectives of the game. If you don't like that option, then the other objective is to go for winning the prestige race.

      There is no such thing as a bad poker hand. Only bad poker players. Luck has nothing to do with winning.
    • Your argument about the lvl of an industry is completely irrelevant, as that is something you can influence.

      Although i haven't played that much rounds on SoE, i have been a part of a team and region that has ended 1st and 2nd. So it has nothing to do with a game plan for the Endgame, a bit strange argument as you have no idea about our game plan.

      Poker has element "bluffing", this element is absent in the EG of RN and Pokers is an individual game, while RN is a teamgame. In the last round of the SoE server i played, the winning region had twice as much active players as my region.

      What you keep on missing is: a more balanced set is very relevant for the regions which are competing for the spots behind the topregions. And you keep on missing my points i suggested also the assigned be balanced based on tracks. Which i think is the best of the two options i suggested.
    • my last points and them I am done responding, because clearly you will be right no matter what flaws are pointed out.

      1) bluffing is irrelevant to the poker analogy .. it simply implies luck will not have a major affect on the outcome of the game if you are a good player

      2) I have not missed the point about the balancing being based on tracks - however what you did miss is my point that not all cities have the same number of total tracks required to run all 48, so this balancing is not possible without redrawing the maps and affecting all 3 game scenarios

      3) if you feel tracks balancing was the best solution, why did you offer it up as option 2 and not elaborate on it?
    • New

      A 100% balancing will need indeed a complete redraw of the maps, But the present assignment of Goods is completely not balanced at all, there can be a difference of 10 tracks single way per set and that's too much, to give equal chances to cities/regions. When the difference would be maximum 3 tracks (lower prefered) it would be more or less balanced.

      The sequence in my options is random, nothing more.
    • New

      I could see a version of it like this;
      The order of goods on the slates slates are dependent on how close the industries are, so for example the first slate will basically always be wood, grain, coal and then the 9 other closest goods, this would mean a lot of goods get cleaned by most towns int he beginning, and having the "bastard goods" last.
      So maybe the first slate is something like coal, grain, wood, boards, paper, cattle, flour, meat, leather, iron ore, iron, tools, cotton.
      And that will look very similar for most cities,
      but on the last one for example on USA; Boise would have oil on maybe it's 2nd-3rd slate, while portland would definitively have it on its forth slate. (oil is like 20 freaken tracks from portland)

      This would also make endgames appear more equal for longer time and therefore more exciting. A lot of bad regions right now only clear like 5 goods, which has to be kinda depressing and has no positive or negative bearing on the top 1 or 2 regions.

      It basically wouldn't change much for the top competitors, but it could do something for morale among the less fortunate.
      Now excuse me, I've got a train line to run!

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

    • New

      Hey

      i both agree and desagere, some uf the best with EG is the tactical (at least for the 2 or 3 best Corp) we where behind with 7 in last EG 31-24 and end up with a victory of 3 after a very nice EG (most fun i ever played) but for rest of the regions i understand it was not fun, so:

      Take nr 3-5 with same slate
      nr 5-9 same slate
      9-rest same slate

      but don't ruin the first 3 always a nice and hard competition.

      Have a nice Friday

      Cheers Rype