The Game Rules have been updated

  • Yes, that is allowed. Officially and after plenty of experience with this, you are always allowed to break majorities, as long as you don't do it with the intent to damage the other players' gaming 'pleasure' or 'experience'.


    (edited by CM)

  • And another example, I forgot to mention which is a huge factor and which I still don't know how this is ever going to be solved:

    - City hauler (player B) reports that Prestige hunter (Player A) invests 10mln and breaks majority but isn't using the industry at all and is not hauling any of its goods to the city and therefore Player A is damaging Player B's city.

    - Player A gets punished because this argument proves that Player A is purposly investing a high amount to damage the gaming pleasure of Player B (or his/her city).

    - Player A protests that he invested 10mln to get max prestige points at level up (which he did probably 100x already and his intent can be shown by his #1 ranking)

    - The protest is rejected and Play A still get punished


    So there is still some questions I have regarding this, if Player B's argument is taken into account, must prestige hunters actually haul some goods now to be allowed to break the majority? And if so, how much?

    These questions still really need to be cleared up!

  • It should not be done. It's not fair. I do not do it:)

    Joe, there are several things that should be mentioned here:


    - if it shouldn't be done, it shouldn't be in the game (but it is);

    - if it's still in the game, it probably is fair (to some extent);

    - if you don't do it, then that is your choice (but that doesn't mean it's unfair).


    The way I understood it from Rail Nation, they only want to reduce, and sanction, abusive and/or harmful behavior. The way I see it, it's going to be rather difficult to judge things, but that doesn't concern me as, hopefully, I am outside the rule's scope (much like you from what you've said).

  • Is a player allowed to break a majority to win competitions?

    Yes.


    It should not be done. It's not fair. I do not do it:)

    Well...the rules allow it. However, that being said, playing this aggressively might simply not be a smart decision. Rail Nation is a pretty social game and how other people think of you might have actual gameplay consquences. So while stealing majorities is allowed, you should keep in mind that you probably don't make a lot of friends that way and that this might harm you on the long run.
    But yes, it's of course allowed and it's a personal decision whether it's "worth it" or not.

    - if it shouldn't be done, it shouldn't be in the game (but it is);

    - if it's still in the game, it probably is fair (to some extent);

    Not quite. Features can be used and abused. There is a difference between the two. The most obvious example is the chat. There is a chat in the game, so of course you are allowed to use it. However that doesn't mean that everything you do in the chat (like insulting players) is automatically ok, just because the chat exists.

    In the end, I can only sum it up as I already summed it up several times in various discussions: Don't be a jerk. Be nice to each other. That's the essence of the rules. If you simply do that, you won't ever have a problem with the rules and don't need to bother with the tiny details of the rules. Applies to pretty much every game, not just Rail Nation.

  • Salix

    Is a player allowed to break a majority to win competitions?

    Yes, majorities can be broken to win a competition - the game itself is a competition. I would invest if that ensures me to win a bonus engine from a competition, for example.


    Should the game somehow limit or even stop players from making investments during competitions? What are the benefits or downsides?

  • Yes.


    Well...the rules allow it. However, that being said, playing this aggressively might simply not be a smart decision. Rail Nation is a pretty social game and how other people think of you might have actual gameplay consquences. So while stealing majorities is allowed, you should keep in mind that you probably don't make a lot of friends that way and that this might harm you on the long run.
    But yes, it's of course allowed and it's a personal decision whether it's "worth it" or not.

    Not quite. Features can be used and abused. There is a difference between the too. The most obvious example is the chat. There is a chat in the game, so of course you are allowed to use it. However that doesn't mean that everything you do in the chat (like insulting players) is automatically ok, just because the chat exists.

    In the end, I can only sum it up as I already summed it up several times in various discussions: Don't be a jerk. Be nice to each other. That's the essence of the rules. If you simply do that, you won't ever have a problem with the rules and don't need to bother with the tiny details of the rules. Applies to pretty much every game, not just Rail Nation.

    Yes, I meant from a functionality perspective. Like stealing someone else's in-game money, which is wrong and that's why the functionality isn't in the game.

  • Yes, majorities can be broken to win a competition - the game itself is a competition. I would invest if that ensures me to win a bonus engine from a competition, for example.


    Should the game somehow limit or even stop players from making investments during competitions? What are the benefits or downsides?

    If my corp wants to move to other city and occupy that city making the other corp that's working their move away? can I break majorities to make it go away, I can prefer to play in one city that isn't my home city at the moment....


    I'm talking in a classic server map.

  • If my corp wants to move to other city and occupy that city making the other corp that's working their move away? can I break majorities to make it go away, I can prefer to play in one city that isn't my home city at the moment....


    I'm talking in a classic server map.

    Yes, you can change your home city, invest in industries around it to bring profits to your asso or upgrade the city. If your aggressive tactics means the other asso can't keep up with your speed and relocates, that's life...


    No one is forced to be so nice to another team that it would hurt your own game progress, to keep a city on a low level just so a inactive/casual association can enjoy the scenery.


    It is a game where players and teams, cities and regions compete against each other on many different levels. Often you can find partners to share responsibilities and rotate the goods, that's one of the best things about the game. But we don't always have that chance to become friendlies, the game even lets you set a rival association to push competitors out.

  • Yes, you can change your home city, invest in industries around it to bring profits to your asso or upgrade the city. If your aggressive tactics means the other asso can't keep up with your speed and relocates, that's life...


    No one is forced to be so nice to another team that it would hurt your own game progress, to keep a city on a low level just so a inactive/casual association can enjoy the scenery.


    It is a game where players and teams, cities and regions compete against each other on many different levels. Often you can find partners to share responsibilities and rotate the goods, that's one of the best things about the game. But we don't always have that chance to become friendlies, the game even lets you set a rival association to push competitors out.

    so all the smaller asso's in smaller cities have to be content that they are bullied away. Your answer is not a CM worthy.

    :engine1::engine1::engine1:

    Work for a cause

    Not for applause

    Live life to express

    Not to impress

  • so all the smaller asso's in smaller cities have to be content that they are bullied away. Your answer is not a CM worthy.

    As a CM, I cannot create new game rules that would stop the competition.


    Bullying is a completely another thing. For example an association has a goal of pushing other weaker teams out of cities, again and again just for the sake of pushing teams out. That's not the spirit of the game. This is not 'Push Nation'.


    I spoke of inactive and casual assos that take it so slow that another association cannot see a way to level up a city and compete against the best teams. Let's say I had an asso with 5 members and there's no way for me to help the city grow when other assos have 25 members. For the benefit of all players in that city, I can either stick around or relocate - but it is not my place to force other teams to slow down. That would hurt their game experience and progress.


    Bullying can't be compared with the normal rules of competition the game supports.

  • Yes, you can change your home city, invest in industries around it to bring profits to your asso or upgrade the city. If your aggressive tactics means the other asso can't keep up with your speed and relocates, that's life...

    this answer is encouraging bullies. At smaller servers there are some big assos and lot's of smaller assos. It's direspectful just to barge in and take all over from a "smaller" asso. And that's what is happening too often. A ghost city ok that's something else but when 1 or 2 smaller assos are workikng in a city the best they can it's not a free pass for others just to walk in and conquer everything. At least not at the classic or SOE server.

    Who wants to play like that, there is the USA map for. That's all about conquering other cities.

    :engine1::engine1::engine1:

    Work for a cause

    Not for applause

    Live life to express

    Not to impress

  • this answer is encouraging bullies. At smaller servers there are some big assos and lot's of smaller assos. It's direspectful just to barge in and take all over from a "smaller" asso. And that's what is happening too often. A ghost city ok that's something else but when 1 or 2 smaller assos are workikng in a city the best they can it's not a free pass for others just to walk in and conquer everything. At least not at the classic or SOE server.

    Who wants to play like that, there is the USA map for. That's all about conquering other cities.

    My earlier comments may sound more direct from what some may have used to, and that is to enforce the point that players can still compete. And it was to answer a valid question: "Can I make a new city my home even if it makes another asso move away - or will I be punished."


    Pro players should never have to fear their activity and skills could lead to punishments. I trust the pro players to know what is fair compared to what is being a toxic bully.

  • Pro players should never have to fear their activity and skills could lead to punishments. I trust the pro players to know what is fair compared to what is being a toxic bully.

    Sorry than you really don't understand why all these questions are asked. This are all phising questions to get answers how far they can go and point out to this forum when a line is crossed it's allowed by RN team members. You gave them a free pass to misbehave.

    :engine1::engine1::engine1:

    Work for a cause

    Not for applause

    Live life to express

    Not to impress

  • It's good and healthy to ask questions when rules get updated. Players need to feel safe and confident in their choices.


    For some, the concept of fair play comes very naturally, like for you Naike . Some are highly analytical and need a much more detailed approach to feel comfortable with the rules.


    Then there is a very small minority of players who wish to play the system, who aren't interested in fair play or the game experience of others. These players are the focus of our rule change, and we can guide them via private messages, warnings and if nothing else helps - with punishments.


    P.S. The rule that has caused questions or worries is this:
    3.5. The Rail Nation team reserves the right to protect the healthy and fair state of gameplay for its players at all times, especially in situations where the evaluation and investigation of the potential harmful situation or action strongly indicates that harm is being incurred against gameplay and/or one or more players in the game. In such situations, the Rail Nation team has the full right to take necessary actions even if the specific situation as such is not covered in the current game rules.

  • It's good and healthy to ask questions when rules get updated. Players need to feel safe and confident in their choices.


    For some, the concept of fair play comes very naturally, like for you Naike . Some are highly analytical and need a much more detailed approach to feel comfortable with the rules.


    Then there is a very small minority of players who wish to play the system, who aren't interested in fair play or the game experience of others. These players are the focus of our rule change, and we can guide them via private messages, warnings and if nothing else helps - with punishments.

    So if I have a big corp that wants to go to a city where is another big corp, and for that we have a "fight" For majorities and probably some not healthy words, is there any problem, not counting the "not healthy words", to get any kind of punishment?

  • So if I have a big corp that wants to go to a city where is another big corp, and for that we have a "fight" For majorities and probably some not healthy words, is there any problem, not counting the "not healthy words", to get any kind of punishment?

    Based on the description here, I can't really say. Not a lot of details... The two corps may have history and the non-healthy words you mentioned point to a toxic direction. There could be a combination of reasons building up into a warning or other sort of punishment.


    Every day, corporations fight for majorities. Some may get tired at the bidding contest and move to another city, some find a way to join forces and share responsibilities, some cities may have a great economy rolling and will fight outside forces not to spoil everything. There are many fine ways to compete.


    There are also ways to compete in a toxic way, causing hurt to individual players and corps, throwing insults, being a jerk (to quote another team member) - which will be considered as a whole when thinking of possible punishments.


    There is no one answer to rule all situations unfortunately.

  • I think I can give an example on how a fight might look like, and perhaps some indication where me (or my team) could have made mistakes that were deemed to be sanctioned.


    About 4 rounds ago my team was playing in Springville and we had a small corporation (consisting of 5 players) playing in Fort Crow. While the city would eventually fall very far behind in level, it being very close it was inevitable that we would share a site at some point during the era 1-2. Such was the case of Leather.


    Of course Springville unlocked Leather first but when Fort Crow unlocked Leather, the small team instantly broke majority. I tried reasoning through city forum posts, no reply. I tried reasoning through private messages, no reply. So eventually I've set them with rival status and maintained majority.


    Later on in the game, because our city had different RGs and their supply goods become Fort Crow's RGs (due to being lower level), they started to broke majority in our supply chains. At this point me and a couple of my players connected to Fort Crow RGs (and their supply chain) and invested almost 100 million so that our team owned majority in all of them. The idea was to drive them off in a different city since us having majority and having set them with rival status meant horrendous profit for them.


    Needless to say it didn't worked because some of those players were dead set on playing in Fort Crow (they played there for another two rounds before finally deciding to start in Liberty this round).


    My team didn't (and wouldn't) report any of these players since it's part of the game but would my team, me and the couple of players who sought retribution in particular, could have been sanctioned if we were to be reported?

  • ok .. so to me platform X is a step in the right direction though it encourages one sided hauling to get to the top of a supply table and get the PP (eg. coal-iron-city and not also doing iron ore-iron-city) this has resulted in even city haulers turning into PP hunters if the iron ore is two more tracks away and given us lop-sided waiting time penalties.


    How about a return on investments for those who haul integrated. You give PP in PlatformX sure... that's trying to give us a bit of reward but how about you get a proportion of your money back when an industry levels based on some complex (or even simple if someone can suggest it) formula of how much you supplied and how much you invested?


    This way the city haulers at least have some cash to defend their industries?