Four workers NOW!!

Jalistair wrote:

Life isn't about an equal footing, why should a game be about an equal footing. You complain that you have to join a top corporation in order to compete for workers. Then why not make a top corporation to compete for workers. Too me it simply sounds like a lot of complaining because some people don't want others to be better at something despite them putting more effort into it.

Funny Funny Funny,

Even though I rarely get the workers I want, I still end up in the top 5. *tsk tsk I would classify that as "putting in the effort", why should I be forced to join with people I don't like?

And this is a game, lol not real life. Games require balance, else people will leave.

Jalistair wrote:

If people are quitting the game because they cannot compete it is because they are non-competitive. If you have just the slightest ambition in the game you will end the round in the top 100 and that is without trying too hard. You also have the ability to jump to another corporation as you mentioned if you are looking for a competitive edge. If you only want to set your schedules and walk away then you don't need to be in a top corporation. I can jump onto any server, even one I have never played on and don't even speak the same language, and end up in a top ten corporation and a top 100 personal ranking. There is nothing wrong with having to bid for workers, in fact it is a good thing. Also, there is no need to lower building production or increase how much the licenses pay to make up for your idea of removing workers. Why? Because if you play in a lazy corporation that will not bid for workers and you pay full price for all building upgrades, tracks, full waiting time and so forth, you can still complete your buildings, lay over 200 tracks, and buy the cars you need for endgame.

Any player that would leave the game for the reasons you talked about is a non-competitive player who would likely leave the game anyway. Furthermore, such a player would not purchase gold packages from Travian meaning that player leaving frees up more "space" for the rest of the players and doesn't take away from the profitability of the company. However, you take away that competitive edge and it is your competitive players, and the ones more likely to spend money who end up leaving. That leaves everyone without a game to play.

That's not it, there is plenty of "competitive" people, but people aren't dumb. If they see an imbalance they will leave as there is no viable way to overcome it.

Cool then if I can still compete with out any bonuses for workers, then make it same across the board. Let's see how everyone can compete on equal footing no, let's see those top associations that get every worker to toe to toe on a more even playing field?

This is a game, you are already rewarded for activity, and if you use cash (bonus trains), workers just widen the gap.

Baron Mikel 50 wrote:

Funny Funny Funny,

Even though I rarely get the workers I want, I still end up in the top 5. *tsk tsk I would classify that as "putting in the effort", why should I be forced to join with people I don't like?

And this is a game, lol not real life. Games require balance, else people will leave.

There in lies the dilemma. Change the game to satisfy those who don't like competition and people will leave. Don't change the game to satisfy those who don't like competition and people will leave. So what we have learned here is that people ARE going to leave the game. Now it is up to Rail Nation to decide which group of people is more valuable to their franchise.

Baron Mikel 50 wrote:

That's not it, there is plenty of "competitive" people, but people aren't dumb. If they see an imbalance they will leave as there is no viable way to overcome it.

Cool then if I can still compete with out any bonuses for workers, then make it same across the board. Let's see how everyone can compete on equal footing no, let's see those top associations that get every worker to toe to toe on a more even playing field?

This is a game, you are already rewarded for activity, and if you use cash (bonus trains), workers just widen the gap.

LOL so therein lies the fallacy in your logic. If this is just a game where you are rewarded for activity and if you use cash, workers just widen the gap then you have your answer on which group of people is more valuable to Rail Nation. I suspect the workers will stay.

Jalistair wrote:

There in lies the dilemma. Change the game to satisfy those who don't like competition and people will leave. Don't change the game to satisfy those who don't like competition and people will leave. So what we have learned here is that people ARE going to leave the game. Now it is up to Rail Nation to decide which group of people is more valuable to their franchise.

Where did I say I don't like competition?

I said make it FAIR competition.

You already said you are in those top associations that get all of the workers, do you think you can compete with people when there is no workers? Don't you want to see new people coming into the game and feeling like they can compete or just keep it to the Old Guard that force everyone to play the way they want them to?

Scared of competition without your advantages??

Ok - were the strong associations always strong - how did they start out? You imply that nobody who is not in a strong association can compete. Well most of the servers have a strong association & they have evolved into these. They were initially smaller, weaker groups who through hard work, good game play & forming good relationships with players have developed into successful teams & good players drift towards more successful teams & so make them even stronger.

There are not enough players to do the only thing that might level the playing field which would be to create leagues of servers whereby strong teams were pitched against strong teams & weaker ones matched with weaker ones based on the performance of those groups.

It is wrong to give strong teams a hard time for being successful. Rather other teams that wish to compete should look at what strategy they wish to employ & build to be competitive.

I fully accept that I speak here as a part of one strong team which grew from a small freehauling association on a server previously dominated by a very strong group of 4-6 city-based associations who won the round consistently until they decided to seek a new challenge. My team then developed & became the full sized association & gained the success we have as a result - by good strategy & strong leadership, committed play by a majority of the association & by playing hard but fair as judged by the rules of the game (not by those who dislike our success).

The 4 workers is a one off situation whereby Travian have to honour the bought slot whilst adding the additional slot that comes from levelling up the HQ to the top level. 4 slots have been discussed a number of times in the past but would actually more likely increase the dominance of strong teams rather than reduce it.

Finally people play this game for multiple reasons - some to compete, some to have fun, some for the companionship & some for their love of trains. There will be other reasons of course. The trick for Travian is to make it competitive for the competitors but also fun for those there for other reasons & please do not underestimate the companionship element & the benefits it has had during this pandemic for some players. Actually they do manage to tick the boxes for many but let's face it nobody can please everyone & people come & go for different reasons some related to the game but others related to real life.

I welcome suggestions for game changes, the new formats are already providing alternatives like the new Platform X which skews the strategy towards city based running over freehauling. However, remember that the best strategists & tacticians will always find a way to be the best whatever format they compete on. I look forward to the challenges of bright new ideas that will bring in the new order & make me & my team work even harder to compete

Thetdoc™ wrote:

I totally understand that you were at one time a small association.

We can agree to disagree. I think the workers cause a competitive imbalance.

You don't it's as simple as that.

I have played many other games, and imbalances like that are usually addressed right away in those other games. The idea is to let newer players have a chance to play strong and competitively.

The way it works now, your group consistently targets smaller associations and drives people from the game because they can't fight back against you with in the rules.

Baron Mikel 50 wrote:

Where did I say I don't like competition?

I said make it FAIR competition.

You already said you are in those top associations that get all of the workers, do you think you can compete with people when there is no workers? Don't you want to see new people coming into the game and feeling like they can compete or just keep it to the Old Guard that force everyone to play the way they want them to?

Scared of competition without your advantages??

You do have fair competition. You have the same ability to purchase a worker that a top corporation has. You just don't want to pony up the money and want things given to you instead. You also have a reading problem as I stated that I am in top corporations that get all the workers, and I am in corporations that do not get all the workers. Heck, I even play in corporations that game the system by reforming every few days to lower the corporate prestige so we can purchase workers in a lower tier for less money. You know what the amazing thing is? With the exception of Masters, I somehow manage to find myself in the top twenty in every game that I play. Oh, and on the throw away games, I still more often than not find myself in the top 100 even though all I am doing is building gold or helping friends have a stronger corporation.

If you can't be competitive under the current rules for workers then you really are not that good at this game. Oh, and for the record, in masters my corporation gets no workers, I am still in the top 100.

Jalistair wrote:

You do have fair competition. You have the same ability to purchase a worker that a top corporation has. You just don't want to pony up the money and want things given to you instead. You also have a reading problem as I stated that I am in top corporations that get all the workers, and I am in corporations that do not get all the workers. Heck, I even play in corporations that game the system by reforming every few days to lower the corporate prestige so we can purchase workers in a lower tier for less money. You know what the amazing thing is? With the exception of Masters, I somehow manage to find myself in the top twenty in every game that I play. Oh, and on the throw away games, I still more often than not find myself in the top 100 even though all I am doing is building gold or helping friends have a stronger corporation.

If you can't be competitive under the current rules for workers then you really are not that good at this game. Oh, and for the record, in masters my corporation gets no workers, I am still in the top

I think you need to tone down your personal attacks. We have a difference of opinion, that's all, You don't need to make it personal.

First, I easily pay the most in my association for all of the workers we do get, even ones we don't get I will still drop 15-20 mil and gone higher than my bank account will allow to try to win. Ask Doc, he's in that association and he knows they rarely get the workers cheaply if I'm online.

Now, let's talk about the imbalance part.

You can bust tail all round long and be in the top 2, but if you don't get the City PPS Bonus worker in Era 6 as much as the other association does (or at all if they constantly out bid you for it), then Era's 1-5 don't mean anything. you will get passed quickly and your praying you don't fall to far. Seems fair that 1 worker can totally alter the rankings of the game so much.

Wait.. Now you are making my point for me, all that corporation jumping using system loop holes to get the workers they want, man up and bid, isn't that what you just told me to do? Why all the trouble if they are not as imbalanced as you say they are? Besides, I thought the whole reason for the 24 hour wait to change associations after entering one was to prevent that type of playing, if not, then RN should remove that 24 hour waiting period completely from the game and allow everyone to jump like rabbits all over the place.

Seems like a lot or work just to get a worker that doesn't "imbalance" the game. Let's hop over there, make money til the bank if almost full, then hop over there and use the cheap building worker, then back there for money then over there to lay track and so on and so on.

If people will go thru so much trouble to get those workers, then that should be telling you what you need to know. It's not balanced the way it is.

As I said before, I have played many online games, and typically they are designed for balanced play where it's strategy that matters most, and second MONEY not who can get which worker for the win. The reason I say money second, is cause there is always great players out there that can come up with a great strategy that some of the money guys just can't seem to grasp.

there are 4 or 5 worker tiers depending on the asso prestige. So there is a balance for the workers.

Workers don't bring you the victory. I play also in asso's who try to get workers but not at all costs like others. Do I like the game less about that, no. If I want that worker so bad I need to waken up my asso and bid with all. What I understand from your posts Baron Mikel that you asso you play isn't active with bidding on workers. But that's not an imbalance of the game, that's an imbalance of your asso.

Naike ♏ wrote:

there are 4 or 5 worker tiers depending on the asso prestige. So there is a balance for the workers.

Workers don't bring you the victory. I play also in asso's who try to get workers but not at all costs like others. Do I like the game less about that, no. If I want that worker so bad I need to waken up my asso and bid with all. What I understand from your posts Baron Mikel that you asso you play isn't active with bidding on workers. But that's not an imbalance of the game, that's an imbalance of your asso.

Why is everyone's go to is that you or your association is lazy? Seems like just a catch all phrase, and at the same time, not one person has commented about all of the trouble people go thru just to get workers, such as the association hopping to get into a lower bidding tier.

I also participate in that, I find that having to do that just for a worker or two is silly and damaging to your original association and should not be a necessary part of the game and RN apparently agrees with the institution of the 24 hour waiting period after you join a new association. Isn't there an RN Career Reward for joining 1 association and playing the entire round in that one association? Seems counter productive to what RN wants vs what people do.

Tiers are not balanced.

I can be top player in the game, create a new association several of us can jump into it and bid against players that do not have anywhere near the capabilities of making as much $$ as we do and simply out bid them over and over again until my association grows to the next tier, then rinse and repeat. I feel that this more of a loophole/hack/cheat and not the way the game was intended.

I have nothing against big organized associations, that is what they have worked for, and is an advantage all to it's own via Pull Power, Majority taking/holding etc. Plenty of things they already have an advantage for over others.

Hear Me Roar wrote:

But if they want to do this they have to give up using workers

(Cos you will not be able to buy Worker if you already have one)

Let's change tactics,

How about Worker Vouchers?

you can save them and use them for the worker you want (as long as it's up for bidding) and it won't affect the current bidding on a worker?

So in reality, multiple associations can have the same worker at once.

For example, assoc 1-5 all want the same worker, but 3 of those assoc have vouchers, so they use them to guarantee the worker. that leaves the other 2 in a bidding war.

I would gladly try such a thing on a test server

Hear Me Roar wrote:

I would gladly try such a thing on a test server

So would I,

At least it wasn't shot down immediately.

Baron Mikel 50 wrote:

Let's change tactics,

How about Worker Vouchers?

you can save them and use them for the worker you want (as long as it's up for bidding) and it won't affect the current bidding on a worker?

So in reality, multiple associations can have the same worker at once.

For example, assoc 1-5 all want the same worker, but 3 of those assoc have vouchers, so they use them to guarantee the worker. that leaves the other 2 in a bidding war.

Display More

than the entire game element of the worker auctions is destroyed. Just deal with the fact that you need active to buy workers. This is a economic/strategic/tycoon game. You wil make a lottery of it. The ones with the most vouchers get the most workers. So people start buying them with gold or if the vouchers can be won at the lottery, the biggest money spenders buy tickets and scratch. The stronger asso's have more chance to get the worker vouchers so you give them even more chance to get the best workers. This is really unbalancing the workers.

Naike ♏ wrote:

than the entire game element of the worker auctions is destroyed. Just deal with the fact that you need active to buy workers. This is a economic/strategic/tycoon game. You wil make a lottery of it. The ones with the most vouchers get the most workers. So people start buying them with gold or if the vouchers can be won at the lottery, the biggest money spenders buy tickets and scratch. The stronger asso's have more chance to get the worker vouchers so you give them even more chance to get the best workers. This is really unbalancing the workers.

Uhm they were going to most likely get them anyways, but this give those not in that 1 association at least a viable chance to secure a worker now and then.

If they spend real cash to get them, shouldn't that be a + for Travian?

Baron Mikel 50 wrote:

I think you need to tone down your personal attacks. We have a difference of opinion, that's all, You don't need to make it personal.

First, I easily pay the most in my association for all of the workers we do get, even ones we don't get I will still drop 15-20 mil and gone higher than my bank account will allow to try to win. Ask Doc, he's in that association and he knows they rarely get the workers cheaply if I'm online.

Now, let's talk about the imbalance part.

You can bust tail all round long and be in the top 2, but if you don't get the City PPS Bonus worker in Era 6 as much as the other association does (or at all if they constantly out bid you for it), then Era's 1-5 don't mean anything. you will get passed quickly and your praying you don't fall to far. Seems fair that 1 worker can totally alter the rankings of the game so much.

Wait.. Now you are making my point for me, all that corporation jumping using system loop holes to get the workers they want, man up and bid, isn't that what you just told me to do? Why all the trouble if they are not as imbalanced as you say they are? Besides, I thought the whole reason for the 24 hour wait to change associations after entering one was to prevent that type of playing, if not, then RN should remove that 24 hour waiting period completely from the game and allow everyone to jump like rabbits all over the place.

Seems like a lot or work just to get a worker that doesn't "imbalance" the game. Let's hop over there, make money til the bank if almost full, then hop over there and use the cheap building worker, then back there for money then over there to lay track and so on and so on.

If people will go thru so much trouble to get those workers, then that should be telling you what you need to know. It's not balanced the way it is.

As I said before, I have played many online games, and typically they are designed for balanced play where it's strategy that matters most, and second MONEY not who can get which worker for the win. The reason I say money second, is cause there is always great players out there that can come up with a great strategy that some of the money guys just can't seem to grasp.

Display More

Baron, I doubt you are a poor player. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if you are quite good. However, there is no computer game that I know of that allows free players and money players where the money players are not the leaders. It is the reason people spend money on these online games.

You did fail to grasp the strategy of jumping to a new corporation for lower workers. As you mentioned there is a 24 hour restriction from jumping to a new corporation after you have joined one. Furthermore, there is a 24 hour time frame where a new corporation will not have any workers to bid on. So what you do is have one player leave the corporation and found a new corporation. 24 hours later, he will start sending out invites to join the new corporation. It is a time consuming process AND it costs a lot of money as you must build up the new corporation HQ. So the strategy does have its drawbacks. That is the beauty of this game. There are ENDLESS strategies. All you have to do is find them and use them to your advantage.

Naike ♏ wrote:

there are 4 or 5 worker tiers depending on the asso prestige. So there is a balance for the workers.

Workers don't bring you the victory. I play also in asso's who try to get workers but not at all costs like others. Do I like the game less about that, no. If I want that worker so bad I need to waken up my asso and bid with all. What I understand from your posts Baron Mikel that you asso you play isn't active with bidding on workers. But that's not an imbalance of the game, that's an imbalance of your asso.

I have seen top corporations, and last year had the short privilege of playing with one of the top Russian corporations and what they do for their members is keep a roster of who bids on what auctions and how much they bid. If you don't bid enough you are booted from the corporation. It didn't take gold to win those workers or to come up with the cash. It did take being online at the right time, making enough money in the game, and being willing to play as a team member.

Baron Mikel 50 wrote:

Why is everyone's go to is that you or your association is lazy? Seems like just a catch all phrase, and at the same time, not one person has commented about all of the trouble people go thru just to get workers, such as the association hopping to get into a lower bidding tier.

I also participate in that, I find that having to do that just for a worker or two is silly and damaging to your original association and should not be a necessary part of the game and RN apparently agrees with the institution of the 24 hour waiting period after you join a new association. Isn't there an RN Career Reward for joining 1 association and playing the entire round in that one association? Seems counter productive to what RN wants vs what people do.

Tiers are not balanced.

I can be top player in the game, create a new association several of us can jump into it and bid against players that do not have anywhere near the capabilities of making as much $$ as we do and simply out bid them over and over again until my association grows to the next tier, then rinse and repeat. I feel that this more of a loophole/hack/cheat and not the way the game was intended.

I have nothing against big organized associations, that is what they have worked for, and is an advantage all to it's own via Pull Power, Majority taking/holding etc. Plenty of things they already have an advantage for over others.

Display More

Baron, the reason everyone goes to the you or your association is lazy is because when it comes to workers, that is the truth. Bidding a million dollars per person for a top worker in era six is the same as not bidding at all. Having a single player bidding 20-40 million for a worker is also a poor choice. You need the majority of your corporation online, at the same time, working together, to win workers.

Also, if you go to the new corporation hopping you are not doing so against what RN wants. Sure, they provide you with a reward for staying in the same corporation without ever moving to a new one. I completed that award by jumping into a server in era 6, either getting into a top ten corporation or if unable to do so starting my own solo corporation. You complete the new player tasks for your 75 gold, win a few gold competitions, attempt to connect to the winning Endgame city and knock out that award, get a feel for the map, find out their strengths and weaknesses, complete the round and bank some more gold for the round completion. Then you save that gold, repeat that a few more times on that server until you have enough gold to purchase a couple of weeks of plus accounts. Then you either join one of the corporations you found there, or you bring your gang with you if you found something you can exploit in that server to take it over by storm before leaving.

But, back to corporation jumping. When you pick to use the strategy of jumping to a new corporation for workers you do so at the cost of never winning the top corporate ranking. So why do you do so? In order for someone on your team to get the top individual ranking. Oh, and for the lowest tiers, the reality is that most of the time the players at those tiers either don't bid at all, or they are doing the same thing you are doing in which case the larger corporation will win. As you move up through the tiers you will find the same thing applies. If they are not in the top tier it is because the players of the corporation are not active enough to be in the top tier and that means they frankly are not bidding on the corporations. So you keep going through the tiers until you are back at that very top tier when you start the process all over again. Your Corporation ranking is reset to zero with each reset.

Baron Mikel 50 wrote:

Let's change tactics,

How about Worker Vouchers?

you can save them and use them for the worker you want (as long as it's up for bidding) and it won't affect the current bidding on a worker?

So in reality, multiple associations can have the same worker at once.

For example, assoc 1-5 all want the same worker, but 3 of those assoc have vouchers, so they use them to guarantee the worker. that leaves the other 2 in a bidding war.

Display More

No, I would not support worker vouchers. That is like saying what about just giving everyone the worker for free at the same time. Corporations that are willing to work together should be given an advantage. Corporations that are not should not have an advantage.