Time for a rule change in the Classic Game

  • The Classic Game needs a rule change to prevent an excess number of players flocking to one city for the end-game.

    In my current game, the largest city has 232 players, 2nd is 141. My city, which finished first in the regular game, has 59.


    The city with 232 players has run away with the endgame. It's very discouraging.

    I know that the game encourages players to start all spread out with the encouragement of 100 gold. It's not working.


    Some limit on the number of players moving to a city must be instituted.

    The Classic version is no longer fun to play now that people have figured out a way to win easily.

  • Endspiel: Die Anzahl der erforderlichen Tonnen in einer Metropole hängt von der Zahl aktiver Spieler ab und wird mit jedem Block neu berechnet.

    Translation:

    Endgame: The amount of tons in a Mega City depends on the number of active players (connected players) and will recalculated with every new block.


    With that change the stock size will be reduced for cities with less than 100 players and will bei raised for cities with more than 100 players.


    The change is on all servers where HTML5 is currently tested and on all 4x-servers .

  • I agree completely with B9man, we played that same eg and were the second finisher. They are using a herd mentality. Bringing ten towns into the eg and then the majority of the server plays in the one town. The Cylinder Head server will close unlessRN considers making some stricter rules. They have ruined the challenge and strategy of the game. Many of us who were there for the start will not be playing much longer.

  • Hey


    Sry something i don't understand !!!


    Are they smarter than U - did they make alliance before EG and U forget ???


    To me this is what the game is all about diplomacy/strategy !!!


    So no don't get your point


    And this is not to be rude


    Cheers Rype

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

  • Well there is a down-side to basing the amount of tonnes on connected players.

    Most players in the game are planless drone-style players, who will either not participate in the endgame or run counter-productive hauling, not following calls either from mal-intent or from just sucking at the game/not knowing better.


    I think a better thing to do would be to make a proportional division of PP of a certain amount of points for each good. That way a city that has 50 people hauling seriously and 50 people who just touch each good once, will have >95% of the PP go to the 50 that are actually doing the hauling, then there could be a multiplier based on Asso-hauling rank for the good and another multiplier for individual rank.

    Also, if the neighboring city has 200 active haulers and 50 idiots, those 200 will be getting 95% of that PP-pool, which is then a considerably smaller piece of the pie compared to the other city that has 50 haulers active haulers, since 1/50th of 95% is 4 times higher than 1/200th of 95%.

    So let's say the first good gives 50.000 total PP,

    and one player hauls 1/50th, his base PP is 1000.

    Let's say he is ranked 1 in his asso and his asso has hauled the most and that the multiplier for top slot on each is 2.

    Then he gets 1000*2*2=4000.

    One of the bad players or one who is just running around touching the good takes 16 tonnes out of 200.000 or something, his asso is ranked worse than 5th and he is outside the top 50 individual haulers giving no bonus. 16/200.000 <1%, he gets 1 PP

    1*1*1=1 PP.

    For each good there should still be a climb of the PP-pool though.


    This rewards better players and associations and removes the shenanigans around with BS-loads during EG.



    This would mean that in these "alliances" that rype is talking about above, it's no longer just about making as many allies as possible, but also about getting quality allies.

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

  • I also agree with b9man and Calamity. The latest endgame was a foregone conclusion and by no means a competition of any sort. When the occupants of four Top 10 cities combine to finish one city there can only be one result.


    The suggestion by Locomotius Prime also has some merit as his general assessment in his first paragraph is an accurate summary of play.


    My own simple suggestion: No change in Home City from early on in Era 6; and No prestige is awarded for deliveries outside of your Home City in EndGame.


    Make the EG competitive again.

  • I will speak specifically about COM05 (Cylinder head express), because of the usual number of active players, having in mind that for the last couple of years more than 70% of them are the same ones. Servers with higher membership may have some slight differences.

    The way the formulas are right now, no more than 1-2 serious, full-membership associations that haul focusing on their city are required to bring it in the EG.

    Exactly because most of the players are the same, at about the end of era 3, most of the players know where the "party" (end game) will take place.

    In eras 4-5-6, more than half of the server is connected to the city that will go for the win in the EG , making the city giving significantly higher prestige in the higher haulers against cities that are higher on level, because of the population.

    But the "visitors" are not actually hauling there. The proof is that this city has difficulty to win a city competition until era 5 or 6, when the population is so high that the city is unbeatable. The "visitors" are freehauling, leaving the hard work to the actual citizens. (Don't get confused with the higher prestige the city gives, we all know how to take even more).

    The other cities with citizens that go with values such as "teamwork", "fair play", "competitive rounds so we won't get bored" e.t.c. are doomed to bring their city so high to cover the daily prestige award and the income difference, that their city is absolutely unable to cover the required tonnage of the EG. They have to run in another city !! Which they also have to prepare for (bring it in) the EG. More lost prestige and money (that secondary city is low level).

    The associations that would like to follow, are so far away the way the map is (considering where the usual party takes place), that they can't actually follow. And of course, some associations don't want to follow , preferring to stay alone or with some very few neighbors, for the same reasons mentioned above. There goes the alliances.

    In the meantime, the "party hosting" citizens (those that take over the hard work to bring the main EG city in a good place for the EG) are doomed/instructed/planned to keep the city in a middle place (never #1-3) so the tonnage will be low in the EG. Lost prestige and money. From what I can recall, the members of these associations are not able to be placed in a very high individual rank, or in the top 2-3 associations, because they have to stay in their town. This way you loose money and prestige, we all know that.

    The result is, that actually the rest of the associations have the freedom to do whatever they want, earning money and prestige in whichever way the game gives the opportunity to do, becoming so strong (mainly because they have the ability to buy almost all the workers and taking prestige all around), that they entering the EG taking over the city, and, obviously, winning the round.

    The way the game is right now, it's encouraging freehauling, not teamwork strategy, and the developers should seriously think about it, because of its' target group.

    As for the players, if something doesn't change, we should reconsider why we like/dislike Railnation, and either quit or continue. I like strategy games and teamwork, not shoot 'em' up.

    Because I think it's wrong to block people of connecting to cities (don't get confused, I'm not talking about avoiding overpopulation when preregistering), my proposals for now :

    - Significant change of the tonnage required to finish an RG in the EG, according to the population.

    - Significant change of the awarded prestige and price/tn as the city goes to higher levels during the round (encourage city levelling)

    - Lower effect of the city level on the required tonnage for an RG in the EG.

    - Higher prestige for deliveries in the PREREGISTRATION city (initial city for new players). For this reason, a whole association should have the chance to preregister in the same city, overriding the overpopulation rule.

    Regards,

    Doc.

  • My view of the end game on Express server Com05 is most definitely two herds the main herd and a second herd which appears to me, and I could be wrong, mainly free-haulers. Either way it is a battle between two camps with the Big herd bound to win and the Small herd in second place with about 2/3 of the goods delivered. Then, all the rest are doomed to deliver few or no goods or worse, zombie cities.


    This server, due to it's speed should be vibrant but, instead it is dull as ditch water. Interesting only because it is faster than the regular servers. Two Goliaths battling it out with the Little David's bound to join either one or the other or simply waste away into oblivion.


    Solution, inmo, is to stop free-haulers in their tracks. Restrict home city changes to a maximum of one or two per era. Prestige for delivery to cities awarded only for delivery to home City and, possibly, even restrict number of associations within each city. There are ten cities which become Mega Cities. There should be ten cities in the race not two.


    I am sure there are other solutions, probably better solutions, and no one solution will fit every player. That is human nature. But, surely the developers can come up with something to rejuvenate what ought to be a very popular server. But, they will not succeed unless they can find a way to have all ten cities participate in the end game. That 100 threshold is no more than a sop and will not fix the problem.

  • Think again, when you see 150 ppl that join to play end game together being called "a herd", cause they are real ppl, and maybe, JUST maybe, the issue, is not up to them 150, but to those fewer, (lesser) who can't appreciate their efforts, don't try/manage to match their performance and simply don't actually want to attribute credits.


    RN made it so you would have to join together and set up alliances.

    A task, not easy for ppl who, are self-centered, and call team oriented players, "a herd"


    However personal goals/achievements are also available to be pursued, (personal ranking for example).


    Hoping RN to Taylor game features to meet inadequate team forming/setting/maintaining abilities, is so against this game's environment (associations, team playing etc) sounds just ridiculous to me, probably, as much as team playing, sounds like a "herd forming" to those others.


    I see nothing wrong in ppl getting together with a common goal (wining end game playing for one city)

    Playing satisfaction, for some, derives from making friends, playing and having fun with other ppl all together, with a common goal. Assuming common goals can be planned to achieved, none should call those ppl " a herd". I'd suggest, some should reassess the "ego degree" they put in their playing/efforts.


    Then again, I doubt that my suggestion will be taken seriously from ppl who call TEAM playing "herd mentality".


    Thank you for reading my opinion.

    Julie


  • Perhaps I should not have used the word herd, but, I did for the very simple reason that I felt it was a case of the pot calling the kettle black. The word was used as a description when in fact it also applies to the group to which the writer belongs who initially made the comment. I apologise, I had not intended to cause offence. Just to emphasize the comparison.


    There is nothing whatsoever wrong with alliances, it is what the game is all about. The problem is the mechanics of the game which does not properly redress the imbalances caused by monopolies. In real life curbs and restrictions are put on large companies in order to encourage competition and to protect consumers. For example, the UK government recently prevented a merger between two supermarkets because the resulting company size would have swamped all other supermarkets and stifle competition. In world trade, tariffs and trade agreements perform the same function. These "game" mechanics are in constant review and flux to adjust to changing circumstances.


    RN End-game needs to change in order to bring some proper balance to the end game. The recent change to consumption calculation (as on the x4 servers) were intended to address the imbalance, but, in fact, they are, imo, making that imbalance worse by providing yet another way for those who lean that way to artificially skew the result. This is being addressed in another thread, so, I will not elaborate.


    But, I believe that the end-game needs to be improved so that the smaller groupings can compete, by introducing a weighting system which properly addresses the problem of numbers actually hauling into each city. Winning needs to be based on strategy, organisation, effort and team mechanics not on shear numbers.


    It is for the game developers to strengthen the checks and balances to keep the game fun and challenging for everyone. Your strategy exploits the game weakness, just as businesses do in RL if they can. Perfectly acceptable as the game is structured to encourage and reward that strategy. But, eventually the weakness could well be fatal for the game. imo.