The biggest problem. Majority! (+Trolls - the solution!)

  • Inspired by Salix

    "Don't feed the troll" is probably the wisest of all internet wisdom and it's actually backed up scientifically.

    The game itself should encourage good behavior by design and not even allow bad behavior...if it's possible to do that. Strongly depends on the game and the game mechanic of course

    Many problems in the game are related to the majority of industries.

    Majorities are the cause of the most hurt feelings in the game.

    They give food to the trolls. Being able to break them.

    Most problems that trolls create are related to the majority.

    The majority eliminatе the right of players to invest. (Creates a conflict of rights!)


    The majority does not solve problems but creates a lot!

    Actually. Most conflicts and hurt feelings in the game are related to the majority.

    That is why we can say that the biggest problem in the game is the majority!

    That is why I propose completely new approach to the problems.

    Majority be removed!

    Can the game be without a majority?


    Will this create problems?


    Will there be benefits?

    Yes! A lot!

    What am I suggesting?

    I propose to change the mechanics of the game.

    And the "majority" disappears forever.

    In fact, the change for players will be small.

    But not for programmers.

    But even for the developers will be small.

    Compared with other decisions related to the majority and trolls.

    I suggest that everyone can invest in industries as much as he wants (As is "set" in the rules of the game).

    Without being able to hurt anyone.

    More investment to bring more benefit to him and his team.

    But without the possibility of hurting someone.

    This will remove all unwritten rules for the investment. ("Do not Break the Majority!" ... and the like)

    No matter how much you invest, you can not create a problem.

    The benefits of the player and the team will be related to the amount of investment.

    Waiting time?

    It depends only on the amount of the investment and the supply.

    These things will now be more important.

    If 10 teams have an investment of 10 million in one industry.

    They have the same benefit.

    This stimulates the players' activity.

    You and your team benefit from investing.

    The more players in the team invest and the more investments.

    So much better for the whole team.

    But you can not hurt anyone with your investment!


    The industry will have the flag of the team with the largest investment.

    But this will not bring the team's additional benefits.

    All benefits come only from the amount of investments.

    Competition without hurt feelings.

    Investing will become similar to competition.

    The more you invest. The more you get.

    As 10 people can participate in one competition.

    That way, 10 teams to compete for investment is one industry.

    Without hurt feelings and interests.

    Everybody competes.

    But it gets the most, the one who invests the most.

    I propose to change the investment from ownership into a competition!

    We all love competitions!

    There is no need to change the prestige coming from the investments*.

    Just a small change in the logic of investment. And the benefits coming from these investments.

    We need to change the meaning of a friendly/enemy team ... and we need suggestions


    With a relatively small change.

    Many problems and hurt feelings are solved.

    Not just problems with trolling.

    Indeed many others.

    Without creating new problems.

    And the game will become more fun.

    Many solutions. Without costing time, money and effort of employees.

    So I think this is the easiest and most elegant solution to many problems.

    In conclusion:

    I suggest running 2-3 experimental servers without a majority.

    If the attempt is successful, a certain number of servers can be run without a majority, along with others.

    This becomes another variant of the game.

    Please for your opinions.

    * I do not mean that there is no need to change the balance of prestige in the game. This is another topic.

    I mean, there is no need to change the prestige to realize this idea.

  • I think you are right, it would not change how the game is played mostly, right now.

    Well, apart from making the endgame easier for bigger cities (all corps having the majority > quicker EG for them).

    But it removes some strategical opportunities (taking the majority of specific goods in the rival EG city for example). Such actions are, for now, taboo I'd say. But who knows in 6 months, or 1 year, if one team is utterly dominant in all areas, except majority holding. Would it not be an option against them ? Is it worth it to remove it altogether ?

    I dunno personnally. I've been used to majorities. I've played entire games without them. I tend to not focus that much on them anymore. But I know it's a touchy subject for a lot of people. They feel it's theirs. Like "their" city. Wouldn't this suggestion remove that appartenance as well ? How would the people react ? Would they fight over having their team's flag over the industries still ?

    Fr-201 Bad Wolf de coeur

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

    If an active team wants to try new strategies on an E v W scenario (winning EvW agressively), I might be down for it > pm me :)

  • Example:

    It will matter how much you have invested.

    But not on total investments.

    If all teams put x1 million.

    They receive a reduction (equivalent to 1 million).

    If they all put x10 million.

    All receive a reduction (equivalent to 10 million).

    If one team spends 1 million (receives a reduction equivalent to 1 million).

    If another team spends 3 million (gets a reduction equivalent to 3 million).

    If another team spends 10 million (gets a reduction equivalent to 10 million).

    The reduction for one team depends only on his own investment.

    Another option.

    If half the players of one team invest in one industry.

    This results in a 50% reduced wait time for the entire team.

    In this way 2,3,4 ... teams can have 50%.

    At the same time, players' activity is stimulated.

  • People will fight and get annoyed/upset/hurt if their flag is not showing on the industry.

    It's true.

    This is similar to competition.

    The whole game is based on competition.

    If you do not like competition, then you do not have to play such games at all.

  • As I think, most of the ingame fighting is based on some sort of misunderstanding. Misunderstanding the mixture of the game ideas.

    - First there is railroad romance ... people are attracted by the marketing actions showing great railroad pictures and promising great landscapes and maps. But as HMR says: The came is based on competition ... not on romance. However, I unserstand, that people coming for the railroad picturs might get upset by the competition.

    - Also, there are solo fighters. But RN is not a game, where you get a gun and have tu run and jump and shoot and collect points and kills ... however, to end up on position 1 you have to do a lot to minimize the chances of others to gain points. So, it's a combat game too (solo competition) though the actiond to be taken are not simple shooting, jumping and running, but they look more like business actions, investing, taking and using majority ... so in this part, it's a zero sum game: taking a majority means someone else loses majority ... being a winner (of majority) includes there is a loser.

    - Contrary to this, there is (announced) team action. You cannot win the endgame as a solo player, You need to motivate, lead and coordinate 100+ players to be in the team of end game winners.

    So even the end game needs a team and a few playsers with the charisma to motivate, with great ledership skills, with the ability to motivate big teams. Plus: solo fighters can use the end game to gain points by acting opposite to what those teams are trying to do.

    3 examples, there are more. RN is a complex game, using combat, competition, leadership, charisma, coordination, modivation, the stron will to be the winner ... so much is included.

    However, marketing actions always focus on one of those parts of RN. "Be a team" focusses on team spirit, but they will find competition on majorities. "Railroad romance and great landscapes" focusses on the nice, harmonic features, not on competition. And like the marketing people also players often focus on one part, forgetting about the other parts and shouting at those, who like one of the other parts.

    My idea is, that RN should be announced as a complex game, made for people who like the cnallenge to use a combination of their skills: combatting and fithing, compete AND enjoy nice machines and landscapes, do business calculations AND enjoy point and click the trainspotters, showing charisma and leadership AND the will to take advantage, even if that's disadvantage for other players.

    RN is a complex mixture of so many game ideas ... it needs players who love to deal with that variety of challenges.

    My idea is to tell them, starting on marketing actions, which will attract those customers, who enjoy this sort of game.

    Henry Ford: "Ob du glaubst du schaffst es, oder ob du glaubst, die Limitierungen verhindern das ... du hast auf jeden Fall Recht."

    Ob der andere nett oder böse schreibt, deine Bewertung wird immer deinem Vorurteil entsprechen.

    Technisch: Win 10 Pro, Firefox 76.0.1 (64 bit), Adobe Flash immer aktuell

  • If you do not like competition, then you do not have to play such games at all.

    :) One can argue "if you are getting upset because some people break majorities then don't play such games at all"

    But getting back to the discussion: I like the idea of an extra bonus for holding the majority. It is a legitimate tactic to slow down others. The fact that most of the players come to an agreement not to use "dirty tricks" is a different discussion.

    I understand that you are proposing removing "dirty tricks" from the game to stop players who choose not to adhere to these "gentlemen agreements" being able to break them, but this sterilizes the game a bit.

    What I would like to see instead is a mechanism where some cities/regions could choose to block players from acting like that.

    The same way Mayors are elected in cities, I would like to see a mechanism of voting for banning particular players from running goods into city/landmark and investing into industries around that city. This way there will be two ways of protecting majorities: keep investing AND convince enough people to vote against a particular player to be allowed to deliver to a city.

  • NO WAY!

    The majorities are one of the few characteristics of RN for the fight.

    Nobody loses an engine, does not prohibit access to industries, only delays other TEAMS for the same good.

    This feature is incredible to weaken other asos. So, why can not we sabotage or compete for any industry?

    The game is based on competition... not on romance.

    The best explanation why we need majorities!

  • 'Majority' nothing more than an agitation for most. . .players commonly used this to target other players or teams for vengeance,not competition purposes as intended.

    This game use to be fun ,when it was about who could build the city the fastest an make it a winner in the end game.

    now it is about disrupting an harassing who can plant the most disrupting players around the map to cause as much problems as possible.

    Game an communities are toxic with name calling an disrespect.

    (please don't delete my post because you don't agree because you are not in game to see this happening.)

  • UAX4IT is right. Overinvesting in majorities is most toxic thing in this game, which make many players quit it.

    Just go ahead and make a survey about it, but objective one, with some few ideas of solutions as well. Lets see what players think and want. I can help in preparing questions for it.

  • Hello o/

    Creating a poll is not an option, because polls create expectations even if just a very small number of players participate.

    Majorities can be both a blessing and a curse, depending on how well you work together with your team and with players around you. Players are free to make investments, and a team has strength to counter all those investments. You can also invite the solo players to your team, or build a good friendly relationship with other associations in the area.

    I see little point in taking away or limiting this 'king of the hill' element, because there are always ways to take majorities back. Only way I could see people having less interest in majorities would be to lower the prestige gain from factories when those level up - and counter it with adding more prestige to competitions. This way there would be less random investments, probably...

    Factories and majority investments are an important part of the game at least for me, and it's always interesting to see how different associations switch between RGs and work together. It's also fun to watch two or more assos competing for majorities, if they are trying to push each other out of the city.

    A good topic, I really enjoy reading different opinions here!

  • This game has many different ways to play it, most of which, by design, are in conflict with each other. That, and the fact that opponets are real people, is why it is fun, interesting and at least somewhat different every game.

    Many players only know one way to play. Many think their way to play is "best" and then try to force that on everyone else. . . A troll can be defined as anyone that doesnt see things the way you do. Maybe you are city focused and they play the entire map and are prestige focused? Maybe you are prestige focused and they are a city grinder camped on one good direct for many days? Maybe you play for your team, for top corp honors. . . Maybe you play one game and pay attention while they play in 15 games at once for CE points and don't read anything ever and therefor don't follow agreements/calls.

    I'm 100% against the ideas suggested here. Im agaist ideas in general that force everyone to play the game a certain way. And am agasint ideas that remove the strategic aspects of the game in favor of a more "Farmville with trains" approach.

    Individuals that take majorities and dissagree with me are generally not Trolls.

    I do think that if RN had subscription based games, like the Birthday Server game but for 10% the cost so most could afford it, then there might be less alt account trolls. People that make multiple accounts to intentionally cause trouble.

  • Triarius, You generally mentioned different approaches but seems that You dont believe that overinvestment trolls exist... yes they do. They just overinvest trying to piss off others. And they dont care about prestige, strategies and so on, they just want to piss off others. Yes, they do exist. And yes, there is no solution for them, than just fight investment war. But if they attack in the middle of the night, when most normal players sleep... You can not do much about it until You log in.

    There are even players to set up multi-accounts in other cities/regions, play normally full 6 eras there with You, just to hit in sabotage during end game, just to spoil Your tries for a good result. This is totally defendless situation and development team didnt give any tool for it.

    They might just sell all waggons trains and spend few hundred millions into Your industries, just to make it hardest possible to have good result by Your team/city/region.

    And You do nothing about it... developers do nothing about it...

    And then they refuse to make even a poll :D

    ... so lose more players until You learn that some justice and troll defenses in game are needed if You want to keep players playing. Some will of cource, but some will just leave, cause of trolls, which You have no solution against.

  • I still think you have the mindset that players that don't think as you do are trolls. A single player with a single account can be countered by an organized team of active players every time. That is one, of many, solutions. Since we are prestige players and we play the entire map, we have left cities with "one star experts" that wanted to tell us how to play. . . Or wanted a much larger piece of the pie than their hauling capacity warrented. Guess what happened? Without my team of top active players, their city stopped leveling after we left. It plumeted in rank. That is another option, we simply leave and find better places to haul and more cooperative corps to work with; corps that believe a good deal is when both parties benifit. It is a big map, you can move around.

    I do agree that multi accounts are a problem and think the pay once per game model will help with that. One of the more flagrant multis was in Davenport last game. Some "clever" guy had 4 corps of 10 players each, 10 one star level 1 players. We waited until a time that was good for us, when we were connected and THEN they were reported. When they went bye bye the vacume they left behind benifited us and we moved in. Yeah, we sometimes even benifit by the actions of cheaters. The concept here is similiar that that of the martial art of Judo; we used their own energy against them.

    I find that most of the people that cheat are so busy being disruptive, as well as most of the people that have vendettas, that they never do very well. We focus on our goals and generally pass them by game after game. :-)

    Of course we are reported as well. Right now we hold the top 3 individual positions on our server. So naturally the folks that used to hold those positions think we cheat instead of out play them as we have. . . LOL Bring it on. When that didn't work, they treid to get RN to change the rules for everyone just for them. Good luck! Ha! Again, I think folks should focus on their own game and adapting to changing conditions rather than insisting that others play the way they do. But what I think doenst matter, pther players are going to do whatever they want to do. Our job is to adapt to it.

    So many players complain about how others play. Don't be a victum. Work with like minded players to find your own solutions to random players and teams of players that have different goals. There are many options to dealing with other players and corps if you are creative and open to them. Especially if you are part of a team of active players with a goal.

    The post was edited 4 times, last by Triarius ().

  • Another option.

    If half the players of one team invest in one industry.

    This results in a 50% reduced wait time for the entire team.

    In this way 2,3,4 ... teams can have 50%.

    At the same time, players' activity is stimulated.

  • A single player with a single account can be countered by an organized team of active players every time.

    If You met just 1 single troll during a round, You might be one of most lucky guys around :D

    In real life, normal humans, if some evil guy is around, they make laws, they make ways to stop him, set up police, whatever... Your proposition is to do nothing with lack of empathy, actually helping evil to flourish. I dont agree to You and to Your approach.