Top 10-cities, stagnated in late Eras.

  • I find a certain final stage of the game a bit tedious.


    It happens that the Eras 4 to 6, especially the 6, many teams, when they already ensure relatively control of the Top 10 of the final, stop making the cities grow, almost stopping the climb more and more levels, to avoid increasing the difficulty in the Final Era. Even, they are no longer interested in reaching the Top 1 in cities, and thus have the first turn to start the EG.


    A solution to this could be: to give much more prestige than what is currently given to raise cities. Thus, who is insured in the Top 10, will want to continue raising their city to earn that extra of prestige.


    Another way to improve competitiveness between cities is to standardize the amount of tons that in the EG, each city requests from each of the 48 RGs. Thus, it will be important to start the EG first and, therefore, to want to increase the cities more and more until the last moment.


    I played in a city with 20 players that in Era 6 we were second and in the EG we finished 5. Against cities of 50 and 150 players. It's illogical!


    ---

    Terre

  • From what I've seen (playing on SoE) :


    - most regions do your "strategy" of "wait and see", and since everybody waits, the top 1 city ends up at level 35.


    This, I believe, is not an issue of the rule. It's that the top corps, the ones that could change things (by, for example, leveling up all cities of one region to force the other regions to a competition for the last 5 spots), don't think.


    I've seen huge differences in the strategy behind the server I play in, depending on if my team plays for the region (doing lots of stuff to get top1 region, and the best possible conditions for EG), or if we play for PP, in which case nobody is doing anything.


    I'm sure, because I've seen it done, that 1 single team, active enough, can force the entire server to react and start leveling up cities. Because once your region has 5 cities in the top5, less active cities that don't fully understand all the strategies want to stay in the top10, and force the more active but "I want 10th spot" cities to also level up.


    From what I've seen, a lot of people dislike to some extent this strategy, so build up a team (or a group of associations) to combat it ! You can do it, with enough participation !

    Fr-201 Bad Wolf de coeur

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

  • There is one more thought, they bring in and NOT fight for being first for the end game: It starts in early afternoon, and when it's not a weekend a lot of the players are still at work.

    That is, why many teams do not fight to be first, they would start with a reduced number of players, while they get visited already by PP hunters who carry all of the first 12 goods into their city. Many love to start at about 4 pm or 5 pm when most of their team members are at home and they can deliver first 12 goods with full power ... and less PP hunters, who spread over the map to the first starting cities.


    That is another reason, why teams deliberately stop leveling up, and why teams starting on 2, end up on 5.


    RN might think of a later start of the end game, so more teams would be able to start with a bigger number of players ... but then the last team had so start ad midnight or even later ...

    Beliebt sein ist eigentlich ganz einfach:

    Man muss nur immer sagen, was die anderen hören wollen.

    Leider liegt mir das so überhaupt nicht.

  • Less tonnage to haul during end game is crucial, I guess. Differences between few level cities can be very big, for every of 48 goods. Top cities rarely win end game cause of this.


    I'm not sure if game was intented to look that way, so top cities have lower chances to win game... but it works this way.


    Now during EG, city have to haul tonnage 3x last level tonnage.


    Chainging it into

    3x last level tonnage -20 000 for #1 city, per good,

    3x last level tonnage -18 000 for #2 city, per good,

    3x last level tonnage -16 000 #3 city, per good,

    ...

    3x last level tonnage - 2 000 for #10 city, per good,

    3x last level tonnage - 0 for #11 city, per good,

    3x last level tonnage + 2 000 for #12 city, per good,

    3x last level tonnage + 4 000 for #13 city, per good,

    ...


    would make it more just for cities/teams working hard for last 6 eras.

    Now best cities has lowest chances in End Game, not counting some earlier start, which is much lower bonus, than disadvantage from more tonnes to haul.


    I guess working for 6 eras should pay off during end game, not being a disadvantage. And lazy cities not making into top10 should have some kind of slightly punishment for it, hauling more tonnes, than their city level shows.

  • Or just make it, that all cities in End Game, haul the number of tonnes, adecuate to city with lowest level during end game :)


    So if last city has level 37, lets say, ant #1 city has level 45, then all cities haul number of tonnes as for city with level 37, and then advantage of starting earlier the end game race is nice to have, worth being first and worth racing with levelling the city till end. Additional bonus is possibility to level up more industries.

  • Less tonnage to haul during end game is crucial, I guess. Differences between few level cities can be very big, for every of 48 goods. Top cities rarely win end game cause of this.


    I'm not sure if game was intented to look that way, so top cities have lower chances to win game... but it works this way.


    Now during EG, city have to haul tonnage 3x last level tonnage.

    It ist intentional and was changed from 2x last level tonnage with higher consumption to the actual state. And there was 1h for each level and for each rang instead of the current 0,5h. It was with higher player numbers in mind. When the cities on rang 8-12 fight for the last two places in the endgame the will level more and fast and this will force the better placed cities to level too. Depending on server it stil happens see [29.12.2018] Endspiel auf DE-08 Kuppelstange for example.

  • No. The intention for the change back in the days was to make the endgame longer.


    Cities have to make the tactical decission between starting earliere or less tonnage to haul. There are high populated servers where the rank 10 city is at least level 44 and there are low populated server where the rank 1 city isn't even level 40. Difficult to balance.

  • Differences between servers doesnt matter here.


    Making End Game longer doesnt matter too.


    Differences in tonnage to haul during End Game matters, cause it punish most hardworking cities, giving too much of privilege to bottom of top10 cities.


    Why city #10 or #9 should have it easier than city #1 during End Game?

  • Does it really matter? They are weaker anyway. I have seen many servers were one city already finished the first 12 goods before the endgame for city #10 even started. Its a tactical decission for the leading cities between starting earlier and more leveled factories or less tonnage to haul


    And of course the servers matter here. Its more likely the city #10 forced to level higher to stay before city #11 on strong servers than on weak servers.

  • a rank 9 -10 city isn't weaker at all. I speak for the classic servers now. Associations who wants to win the endgame with their homecity try to stay low in the top 10 to avoid a high amount of tons during the endgame. So most cities lower ranked are the strongest cities in the end.

    I would like to see again that the city at #1 has a better chance of winning the endgame as the city at #10. The competition idea is totally gone during the 3 months of normal play. The only tactic is to stay as low as possible in the top 10.

    So change the amount of tons. Make it the same for all megacities or more depending on the amount of connected players. Or #1 the lowest amount and rising from #1 to # 10.

    Than there will be a competition again to start as first.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -:engine1::engine1::engine1: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    If a turtle doesn’t have a shell, is he homeless or naked?

  • a rank 9 -10 city isn't weaker at all. I speak for the classic servers now. Associations who wants to win the endgame with their homecity try to stay low in the top 10 to avoid a high amount of tons during the endgame. So most cities lower ranked are the strongest cities in the end.

    I would like to see again that the city at #1 has a better chance of winning the endgame as the city at #10. The competition idea is totally gone during the 3 months of normal play. The only tactic is to stay as low as possible in the top 10.

    So change the amount of tons. Make it the same for all megacities or more depending on the amount of connected players. Or #1 the lowest amount and rising from #1 to # 10.

    Than there will be a competition again to start as first.

    You and hilti talk of totally different servers.


    .de servers, and the rest, are like 2 totally different games. On .de, there are so many active players, that to just stay in the top10 is a competition. However, on most servers, low populated, only a few cities can go up to level 45 (let's say, 3). Of those, the slightly weakest decided to be clever and stop at level 35. After getting beaten once or twice, the 2 others decided to apply the same tactic. And now we have the weakest cities competing for top1 at level 37-38, and the few very active that do nothing in the late eras.



    While I agree that the actual strategy "let's wait for EG" applied in most cities on low populated servers is an issue, I would say the real issue is that the clever people did not find a way to punish those strategies yet. Or, those strategies are not applied.



    I do love the EG as it is now, but well, with my team we experienced a few different strategies prior to EG, so be haven't had time to get bored of the wait and see strategy (once we did push the neighbouring city way up, another server we took a few days to level up the warehouse up to 35 and fill it up, etc).

    Fr-201 Bad Wolf de coeur

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

  • My point is to:

    - not punish better in rank cities, for being better in rank, by higher tonnage

    - keep competition during all eras, so it would not pay of to have slow-down-waiting-strategy, just to keep as low level as possible but still being in top10

    Let there be competition all the time, let the race be open. Let not punish those who hard work for 6 eras, with much bigger tonnage to haul.

  • I agree with the system of allowing to higher rank cities to start EG earlier.


    The tonnage level for the lower rank cities however should be factored with the number of active players in the city


    In the last game in Steam Boiler, the winning city had 2 adjacent cities in their group, one was pushed to top rank, to allow them to develop the era 6 industries. The other kept around rank 8.

    In the endgame they romped the low rank city home due to the well developed era 6 industries and low tonnage requirement.

    They had a high player count compared to the other EG cities.


    Fair play to them though, they executed the plan brilliantly. Made it a short EG though so not much opportunity for players in other cities to gain prestige.

  • As others have pointed out, the real problem is that it is possible to go into endgame with a level 34 city. The game was designed assuming that reaching the top 10 would be difficult, and on most servers it isn't. On Firebox any half-decent 20 member association can get a city into endgame on their own, but they then struggle to clear goods.


    One solution that I haven't seen discussed much is reducing the number of endgame cities. I doubt many .com servers have more than 500 active and engaged players by the end. Wouldn't 6 or 7 megacities be enough for everyone? Honestly the whole map is too big for current player numbers, but that would be a far bigger change.

  • As others have pointed out, the real problem is that it is possible to go into endgame with a level 34 city. The game was designed assuming that reaching the top 10 would be difficult, and on most servers it isn't. On Firebox any half-decent 20 member association can get a city into endgame on their own, but they then struggle to clear goods.


    One solution that I haven't seen discussed much is reducing the number of endgame cities. I doubt many .com servers have more than 500 active and engaged players by the end. Wouldn't 6 or 7 megacities be enough for everyone? Honestly the whole map is too big for current player numbers, but that would be a far bigger change.

    That !


    I've tried to go in that direction for the SoE scenario (from 10 regions to 5-7). Maybe in a new scenario, if one is in preparation ? The issue is, that people love the game as it is, with 500-600 engaged players. If you look at the festival server, with more than a thousand engaged players, everything is going too quickly. With probably all 50 cities reaching the level 8 mark before the end of era 1 (remember the masters...)

    Fr-201 Bad Wolf de coeur

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

  • Another way to energize EG:

    The RN team must select only one option:


    1- All cities start at the same time (EG) but each city with different tons to deliver, indirectly to the Position:

    Top 1: 1k * #C

    Top 2: 1.2k * #C

    Top 3: 1.4k * #C

    Top 4: 1.6k * #C

    Top 5: 1.8k * #C

    Top 6: 2k * #C

    Top 7: 2.25k * #C

    Top 8: 2,5k * #C

    Top 9: 2.75k * #C

    Top 10: 3k ** #C

    where #C = Number of citizens registered in the city, not connected to the city, but as Hometown.


    or


    2- Each city starts with 1 h difference, but all with the same tonnage required. No matter # players connected to the city or selected it as hometown.


    Maybe I prefer the Opt. 1.


    Anyway, the EG must be a competition of cities, recover the spirit of the game: group work to increase the city faster to the maximum required ... and for that in the EG, players must remain in the Hometown, something that is decided in Era 6, and delivered only in this city.

    Thus, we will give priority to the working group of the cities but not to the PP hunters.

    In the six previous Eras, you decide how to play, if you want to go up to your city, work for asso or work for your individual PP... but the EG only needs to be the last cities competition.


    It is unfair that the individual work of 6 eras is lost in the EG for PP hunters.

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