Let's talk about the Update 4.14.0

  • Obvisouly for me, the new change concerning the pre-registration is not working well.

    As Sacroima said, the first morning after the start of the server, I made some observations : 2 large corps in one city and two other in other 2 towns of the same region. By large corps I count only the players who had actually start the server on the morning.


    If they could start on the same city or region, they were pre-registered, no ? So the system allowed 2 pre-registrations in the same town (meaning 40 players) and 2 more corps in the region meaning a total of 74 players.

    Meanwhile, one other corp was forbidden to put a foot un a region with 2 large corp and a smaller (meaning 50 players at all).


    My purpose saying that is : the new system is clearly bugged. Where ? that's to the developpers to say.

  • Many of us do because we prefer the challenge of trying to build up a region from scratch. I find it incredibly boring knowing that I am going to win on day 1 and have left several cities because of it

    so there you go \(^^)/


    no need to have so many complaints about people who join winning regions/cities/ companies by many ways (mainly by invitation, contacts from other players)!!


    you find amusing going to deserted areas, some of us find amusing to go join friends and players we know in another winning.

    there you go, everyone is happy!


  • I also find it boring and understand why people quit knowing that whatever you do you can't win. Building up an association and region is an interesting challenge, but there should be chance for all to win, not just one team.

  • I don't like restrictions against having a group of associations going together to play together.

    Some of my closest ties have developed in skype/slack/discord groups with associationleaders of other associations, with the whole point being we go together and bring our assos to play as a 100 member team.


    So what if several SoE servers only really have the playermaterial to properly fill 2-3 regions, let them fill those, and let the players who want more space and care less of ranking play in the other regions.

    There is also a lot of associations and players that better associations just don't want to have next to them, because they are negatively effecting just about every aspect of the game, and pre-regging in 5 assos in 1 region helps getting rid of some windowlickers.

    The diplomacy and building of relations for the next gameround is also a strategic element in the macro-level of the game.

    On both the SoE servers where I have played for many rounds I have seen the power shift because new alliances were made, it's not so "given" or obvious that someone will "rule forever" as people think.

    Current limits work fine.


    Also remove the whole HQ-thing from assos, let all have 25 slots from the start so it's easy to start new ones in a competitive way.

    Now excuse me, I've got a train line to run!

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

  • So what if several SoE servers only really have the playermaterial to properly fill 2-3 regions, let them fill those, and let the players who want more space and care less of ranking play in the other regions.


    Who says that the other play4ers care less about ranking? It may just be that they never get the chance to compete properly due to only have 50 people in the region compared to 100 in one city elsewhere.


    There is also a lot of associations and players that better associations just don't want to have next to them, because they are negatively effecting just about every aspect of the game, and pre-regging in 5 assos in 1 region helps getting rid of some windowlickers.

    Bigger does not mean better, I have seen some extremely good players in small associations, constantly beating many larger groups.


    Why should you foist the 'windowlickers' as you call them on to other players, blocking all newcomers who are potentially going to be problems from interfering with your game but happy for them to spoilt it for others?


    The diplomacy and building of relations for the next gameround is also a strategic element in the macro-level of the game.

    On both the SoE servers where I have played for many rounds I have seen the power shift because new alliances were made, it's not so "given" or obvious that someone will "rule forever" as people think.

    Current limits work fine.


    I am on one of the same servers as you are and I agree that power does shift when players tire of the game or look to move as a group, however it is very difficult to build up sufficient power to challenge them if all of the top associations stay together.

  • 1. Because if they did care about it they would just use the messaging function and be in a crowded place next round. I and many many others have done this time and time again. Begin somewhere at era 6~the previous round, connect with someone you deem worthy, and pre-reg with them for the round you actually intend to play. Simple.


    2. No of course bigger isn't automatically better, but most bigger associations get better by kicking the crap and keeping the good. However one thing that all the horribly ranked associations that never get much hauling done and play SOE without ever noticing there is a landmark is that they are all small and they are all filled with players who either refuse to communicate at all or do so extremely immaturely.


    3. Well in most other games there is an offensive function, which is used to kill off these kinds of annoyances. In railnation we don't have that option, and all we can do right now is to attempt to move away from them. There is no "human right" for players to be parasites and expect the players they are piggy riding on to reward them for it.


    4. I believe you are refering to "Big Ben" where power shifted when "Team Europe" quitted and the new alliance that was formed specifically to challenge them suddenly became very dominant instead.

    Sure that happened because Team Europe quitted, and their satelite associations in city merchants, vikings etc were not strong enough to replace them.


    However the intent with the new alliance(Valar, Diamonds, SAS, Batmen and now in the last round CLMH) that was in the SW and won the last 2 rounds, was to form up and challenge the former victors. I can't say who would have won, but the mechanics work; >100 players joined forces in order to challenge the other 100~ that had previously dominated the server.


    I've also seen it shift on towerbridge for similar reasons, a couple of strong assos allied together and won over enterprise a couple of rounds ago in the NW.


    What makes SOE fun at all is the fact that there is a bigger "macro meta" to engage in for more experienced players. Players/associations who feel excluded are free to communicate with each other and form their own alliances.

    And in order to make competition more accessible for those, I have many, many times suggested that all associations should begin with 25 open slots from the start, to give eveyrone equal opportunities to compete and form new assos.

    Now excuse me, I've got a train line to run!

  • 1. Because if they did care about it they would just use the messaging function and be in a crowded place next round. I and many many others have done this time and time again. Begin somewhere at era 6~the previous round, connect with someone you deem worthy, and pre-reg with them for the round you actually intend to play. Simple.

    Not necessarily. I know many people who care about it but they wish to actually earn it by building up a decent association over several rounds, rather than just jumping aboard the gravy train. I have been asked several times by more powerful associations to jump ship and go with them the following round but I am staying loyal.


    2. No of course bigger isn't automatically better, but most bigger associations get better by kicking the crap and keeping the good. However one thing that all the horribly ranked associations that never get much hauling done and play SOE without ever noticing there is a landmark is that they are all small and they are all filled with players who either refuse to communicate at all or do so extremely immaturely.


    No all smaller associations are like that. I am in two associations at the moment, which are gradually growing, but by educating players, rather than kicking them out. It is much more rewarding turning a poor player into a good one than it is just replacing them.


    3. Well in most other games there is an offensive function, which is used to kill off these kinds of annoyances. In railnation we don't have that option, and all we can do right now is to attempt to move away from them. There is no "human right" for players to be parasites and expect the players they are piggy riding on to reward them for it.


    I agree but that is part of the challenge. Either making it so hard for them that they quit, or by educating them with some patience and perseverance. I do wish it was harder for one or two rogues to level the city though.


    I have also quit Big Ben now due to time restraints and am concentrating on 2 SoE servers & 1 Origin but no that wasn't the one I was thinking off, it was actually Tower Bridge, where it looks like the power may be on the move again, but that is because some of the larger associations are looking for a new challenge.


    starting with 25 slots is not a bad idea, but how about a max of 20 pre-reg so you can invite newcomers in straight away, rather than waiting 3 days?

  • 1. Not necessarily. I know many people who care about it but they wish to actually earn it by building up a decent association over several rounds, rather than just jumping aboard the gravy train. I have been asked several times by more powerful associations to jump ship and go with them the following round but I am staying loyal.


    2. I have also quit Big Ben now due to time restraints and am concentrating on 2 SoE servers & 1 Origin but no that wasn't the one I was thinking off, it was actually Tower Bridge, where it looks like the power may be on the move again, but that is because some of the larger associations are looking for a new challenge.


    3. starting with 25 slots is not a bad idea, but how about a max of 20 pre-reg so you can invite newcomers in straight away, rather than waiting 3 days?

    1. And if they opt for that, they will also have to spend the time that it requires. This is like weightloss irl, You can decide to only eat vegan, but if you make an active choice to make it harder for yourself, you'll also have to expect things to take a bit, or a lot longer.

    Exaggerated loyalty to failing associations/clans/guilds is something I see in FPS games, MMOs, etc and this is rarely anything that pays dividends, it's usually a waste of time. When you write "not all" you're trying to refute my argument with the rare exception. Yes maybe 5% of associations that end a round with less than 15 members at EG have something nice going on towards building up in the next round, but the other 95% are still useless crap that will waste the time of everyone involved, and where their gameplay towards better region efficiency or asso ranking etc would benefit from split+merging a lot more.


    2. Well on TB the SE was above the N just a few days ago. That server is not written in stone. And whoever wins have every chance of recruiting a new asso into their group and winning over the other next round. I really don't see a problem from the perspective of competition here.

    Power has already shifted on TB before, remember the round where enterprise was in the north sector and penguins+batmen+whoever else was in the NW and won their EG in dublin? That was before "It wasn't me" and some other heavy hitters left, and before I left.


    3. That would force a big association to cut people out that have been playing whole gameround with them, how would you feel if you have done a good, productive round but is just the 21st player and have to be cut? In the quest for fairer associations I think forcing associations to punish individuals is a bad route to go, then it's much better to have them open from the start. See the origin server with already made teams forced apart because they have to wait for the earning power to make stupid HQ donations, in an overcrowded economy with low earnings...

    Now excuse me, I've got a train line to run!

  • 1. And if they opt for that, they will also have to spend the time that it requires. This is like weightloss irl, You can decide to only eat vegan, but if you make an active choice to make it harder for yourself, you'll also have to expect things to take a bit, or a lot longer.

    Exaggerated loyalty to failing associations/clans/guilds is something I see in FPS games, MMOs, etc and this is rarely anything that pays dividends, it's usually a waste of time. When you write "not all" you're trying to refute my argument with the rare exception. Yes maybe 5% of associations that end a round with less than 15 members at EG have something nice going on towards building up in the next round, but the other 95% are still useless crap that will waste the time of everyone involved, and where their gameplay towards better region efficiency or asso ranking etc would benefit from split+merging a lot more.


    I did say that they wanted to do it gradually - over a few rounds. Any sensible person knows it isn't going to happen overnight. Many players who you call 'useless crap' are no such thing, they just haven't had anybody take the time to talk to them, explaining how the game works etc. I will agree that there are also many who have no wish to learn the game but are quite happy pottering about in their own way and I say good luck to them. It is up to the rest of us to deal with them to the best of our ability.


    3. That would force a big association to cut people out that have been playing whole gameround with them, how would you feel if you have done a good, productive round but is just the 21st player and have to be cut? In the quest for fairer associations I think forcing associations to punish individuals is a bad route to go, then it's much better to have them open from the start. See the origin server with already made teams forced apart because they have to wait for the earning power to make stupid HQ donations, in an overcrowded economy with low earnings...

    Valid point about cutting members who don't deserve it, so I withdraw my restriction suggestion :).


    None of my associations even managed to get more than a couple of people into the same cities on Origin so have formed completely new groups of players, which has actually added more interest in some ways.