Do you think the players should be divided into groups?

What competitions? What are you write about in general?

Can you write more details in numbers and circuits?

I dont see a reason for that.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to have a tutorial world for new players to learn how majorities and various game mechanics work. This would give a newer player a better chance of doing well, perhaps getting them hooked on the game better by boosting their confidence.

This would also cause less frustration for more experienced players, having to endure erratic behavior. Perhaps all new accounts must play at minimum one round in the tutorial world, before unlocking the other servers?

This would also make it more difficult for someone to make a second account too, since it would require that they complete a tutorial game round before playing on regular servers.

Hear Me Roar wrote:

Everyone plays in their own group.

Beginner against Beginner!

Advanced against advanced!

Champion against champion!

Example Groups by player level

Group 1 - Player Level 1..6

Group 2 - Player Level 7..16

Group 3 - Player Level 17..26

Group 4 - Player Level 27 ...

Display More

Isn't that already done?

There are worker groups, the highest ranked associations have different worker groups than lower ranked associations.

The same is done with competitons, there are several competition groups based on the prestige of a player.

How do you want to divide the worker groups? Those biddings are done by asso and not on a personal level?

Newbies have to learn from people with experience, if they end up in groups with only newbies I think they even quit faster.

Than there are different kind of players, what is your main goal? Personal prestige, city win or asso win, cargo or pax hauling. All these goals have different play styles.

Create than a kind of tutorial scenario which isn't played on a regular server where people can learn and understand the basics of the game.

Better explanations about city consumption, recalculation, load-utilisation etc. etc.

A quick question:

Is this feedback coming from new players, that they feel crushed by the bigger players in the overall rankings, and not treated fairly?

I don't remember ever feeling like there was no justice for me. When I started my first rounds, I spent time in learning about the different mechanics and enjoyed the amazing scenery the RN team had built. I had no time to think about the experienced players or how hard it would be to catch them.

I was approached by experienced players who wanted to guide me through the most important rules of the game, ways to help me level up cities together with others, perks of being in an association. Other players, even the champions made me feel like - yeah, I can do this. I don't need to be a champion in the beginning, I never felt like that. Part of the reward for me is learning, and the other players will help people advance if they want to learn. The newbie slot was yet another step forward, and I feel that is the strength of Rail Nation - making new players feel welcome. Becoming a champion, that's just one of the goals/rewards if you are up for the challenge.

well, I've seen a few comments. People that cannot achieve top rank blame :

-gold

-the "I don't care" attitude of the top1 (which is often a wrong assumption)

-other

I don't think top rank should become easy. It has some worth because it is difficult to achieve. And a new player shouldn't be able to become a top player in one game (just as you cannot hope to beat the best tennismen just after starting to play). But yes, maybe there should be another ranking, just "for fun", to see you make progress against people that started in the same conditions you did.

Even though the game already rewards that in a way (your first top 1'000, top 100 and then top10 each give you 1 more star to your profile).

I didn't feel the gap between my prestige and the top prestige as disheartening, but as a proof that I needed to improve my gameplay if I wanted to reach that goal.

Samisu wrote:

A quick question:

Is this feedback coming from new players, that they feel crushed by the bigger players in the overall rankings, and not treated fairly?

I don't think it is. Personally i don't know who would find this a good idea. Every MMO I have ever played the best knowledge was learned from more experienced players. Classifying servers by player rank only creates isolation and hinders community growth.

Nerisrath wrote:

I don't think it is. Personally i don't know who would find this a good idea. Every MMO I have ever played the best knowledge was learned from more experienced players. Classifying servers by player rank only creates isolation and hinders community growth.

Fully agree.

And I think (at least I understood it that way) that the idea of HMR is more a second ranking besides the first. So that the server is the same as now, but you have one more tab, with all players from your carrier level, or number of stars. So that you can compare yourself to everybody else, but also to a smaller group of people.

Hear Me Roar wrote:

Do you think the players should be divided into groups?

As teams have groups.

When buying a worker.

Example by player level

Group 1 - Level 1..6

Group 2 - Level 7..16

Group 3 - Level 17..26

Group 4 - Level 27 ...

And everyone to compete in their group?

Is there a need for a fairer ranking? (Based on Groups)

Display More

I see two problems.

1. Servers already have a low population, splitting them more would cause empty servers and frustration, especially in the lower brackets where you breeze out of it.

2. It's counter-intuitive, I have learned the most by playing with the best.

When I started I was clueless, some knowledge from playing other strategy and sim game offered a good starting point, at first I focused on familiarising with the elements, but when it was time to step up I started looking at players above me, I wanted to see why they were better and that me a better player, to me, you would do a disservice.