Association tiers need a rework

  • Hello,


    I'm here again with another suggestion, I guess I haven't learned my lesson from the previous two. Anyways, I've searched the forum before posting but haven't seen something related to this. Regardless, although to some players this information isn't new, associations (much like players and cities alike) are grouped in what I call "tiers", and compete each other for workers from these tiers.


    The reason I think this needs a rework is because the associations ranked last in these tiers have zero chance of getting a top tier worker like the building discount, or wait time reduction, or speed worker, and so on. In the server I play my association has made a name of itself for getting pretty much all the good workers, and our competition usually consists of only two associations. Every now and then a third one may surprise us, but in 99% we blow the competition out of the water by doubling the amount of money needed to win the auction.


    I think a tighter tier should be taken into consideration, or at least a different algorithm to group the associations. Currently I've noticed that the first tier consists of the first 10 associations, though I may be wrong, and I have never seen an association past 5th place win a good worker. Hell, I've never seen them have 3 workers in the same time. And yes, I am complaining from the winning seat, as we all should when we noticed something being completely unbalanced.


    Has anybody else thinked about this, and perhaps how it can be solved?


    Cheers,

    Mihai

  • I noticed that tiers depends from asso prestige points, so 1st tier(I prefer to use word 'bucket') can have way more than 10 associations in it.

    I can suggest only 2 variants:

    1) Based on asso winrate at worker auctions, 3 or 4 buckets on each server.

    Pros: every asso will be able to buy at least 1 worker per round. Solo prestige players would have some troubles in such system.

    Cons: A lot of cries about competing with 20-players assos as 5 players asso.

    2) Same system, but associations can't have points lower than 1/10 * max_prestige_in_asso (or so). - To prevent very hard abusing by solo prestige players. It would be still abusable, but not so easy.

    Карьерник большой - это хорошо! :- )
    Лучшее место в карьерном рейтинге: 27
    Лучшее место в рейтинге престижа: 80
    Рекорд по прессу за раунд: 1 034 797 (чешский экспресс 21.12.2018)

  • yes, the classification of associations depends on the prestige of the associations. There are 4 classes on each server. It works that way:

    1. One class for all associations with less than 10% of the prestige of the first association
    2. The other assocaiations are diveded by prestige in 3 groups of equal sizes

    Rail Nation did already two changes to raise the chances for the "weaker" associations. First of all they introduced the fourth group for associations with less than 10% of the prestige of the first association to have a better distribution. It used to be only 3 groups back in the days. And 1 or 2 years ago they raised the number of worker auctions from 6 (not sure, was 2 years ago) to 12 a day.


    I don't think there is a good way to solve the problem with dominating associations. Further reducing the class sizes would help a bit, but would be only a bandaid, because it wouldn't change anythink for the weakest associations of a class. And making classes with 10 or less assos would reduce the competition to much.

  • I recently brainstormed about this topic a little myself and I came up with the same conclusion as hilti2 : Adding more classes is not really an option because this reduces competition, making it a pretty lame feature. It's true that well organized associations with experienced players tend to win within their tiers, but in the end I have to say: They are supposed to. Even if RN can be played in many different ways, collaboration is one of the most important things in RN and is rewarded if you do it well. Worker auctions are one of those rewards. That doesn't necessarily that some tweaks couldn't improve the system, but it means that "Well organized associations have an advantage" isn't really a sufficient argument to make these changes.

    Anyway, I would love to hear some more ideas about what could be improved about the class system without make it boring by removing competition and without removing the aspect that exception teamwork should provide exceptional rewards.

  • I recently brainstormed about this topic a little myself and I came up with the same conclusion as hilti2 : Adding more classes is not really an option because this reduces competition, making it a pretty lame feature. It's true that well organized associations with experienced players tend to win within their tiers, but in the end I have to say: They are supposed to. Even if RN can be played in many different ways, collaboration is one of the most important things in RN and is rewarded if you do it well. Worker auctions are one of those rewards. That doesn't necessarily that some tweaks couldn't improve the system, but it means that "Well organized associations have an advantage" isn't really a sufficient argument to make these changes.

    Anyway, I would love to hear some more ideas about what could be improved about the class system without make it boring by removing competition and without removing the aspect that exception teamwork should provide exceptional rewards.

    to give other, smaller, associations in the same tier a chance maybe change the stacking of the same workers. It's changed with the licenses too.

    :engine1::engine1::engine1:

    Work for a cause

    Not for applause

    Live life to express

    Not to impress

  • I recently brainstormed about this topic a little myself and I came up with the same conclusion as hilti2 : Adding more classes is not really an option because this reduces competition, making it a pretty lame feature. It's true that well organized associations with experienced players tend to win within their tiers, but in the end I have to say: They are supposed to. Even if RN can be played in many different ways, collaboration is one of the most important things in RN and is rewarded if you do it well. Worker auctions are one of those rewards. That doesn't necessarily that some tweaks couldn't improve the system, but it means that "Well organized associations have an advantage" isn't really a sufficient argument to make these changes.

    After further thinking about it adding a maximum size for classes would be a good tweak. I remember rounds where the 30th placed association was in the same group as the first placed association. I don't think that helps the competition cause they probaly aren't able to compete against any Top20 association.


    So maybe putting a size limit like 20 for each clas. Or maybe even only the first class.

  • Separating the 3 classes into prestige pourcentages, rather than 3 groups of the same size ?


    Asso 1 has 1 million prestige points >> group 1 is 700'000 to 1 million, group 2 is 400'000 to 700'000, group 3 is 100'000 to 400'000, group 4 stays 100'000 and below.


    With an additional tweek that at least X (5? 10?) corps must be in each group starting from the top, to avoid having the top corp being alone if they regroup the top 25 players of the server.

    Fr-201 Bad Wolf de coeur

    en pause indéterminée - away from the game until next interesting server


    Likely coming back for clash!

  • I purposefully play a server with only a small Corporation. We often get good workers because the competition is lower.

    The change to 12 a day was great and helped spread out the workers to smaller Associations. You are correct Hilti that it was 6 per day (3 hours bid time and 1 hour between bidding is 4 hours for each.)

    More groups would help.

  • I think a tighter tier should be taken into consideration, or at least a different algorithm to group the associations. Currently I've noticed that the first tier consists of the first 10 associations, though I may be wrong, and I have never seen an association past 5th place win a good worker. Hell, I've never seen them have 3 workers in the same time. And yes, I am complaining from the winning seat, as we all should when we noticed something being completely unbalanced.

    Associations beyond 5th place win quality workers all the time because they are in lower tiers. You may not see them win the worker because you only see the workers in your tier. However, if you start looking through the lower ranked corporations you will find that some of them have quality workers.


    There are two things that come into play here. First, I used to be on a team where we were notorious for constantly reforming our corporation with the intent of dropping our rank to the lowest possible worker tier. This allowed for our group to constantly win top quality worker at a fraction of the price. More importantly it allowed us to "hunt" 50% prestige workers across multiple tiers as we would leave a member in the old corporation to keep it open and then we would use discord to share which tiers had which workers. As such, we sometimes failed to even make the top ten in corporations but we always had the winning prestige player in our corporation. Even those of us who didn't win a round were still ending on the American server with 1.5 mill or more prestige points per round based off of worker exploitation.


    The second and more important factor is what you cannot control. Top players seek top teams. They want teammates who are willing to pay funds towards workers. Many top corporations have a member who keeps tally of who bids on what worker and how much they bid on the worker. If you don't bid enough, you are booted off the team. So you will always have your top bidders on your top teams and you will always have teams that simply do not bid on workers, or worse yet, they do bid on workers but are so divided on when they are online that that they can't get enough people bidding at the same time.


    So you come up with an interesting idea on how to change things with the worker, but I don't see a solution on how to divide the workers out.

  • I don't think there is a good way to solve the problem with dominating associations. Further reducing the class sizes would help a bit, but would be only a bandaid, because it wouldn't change anythink for the weakest associations of a class. And making classes with 10 or less assos would reduce the competition to much.

    Show me a change and give me enough time and I will show you how to exploit that change, said every gamer everywhere.

  • There can be an association fund which can be built by


    Donations from players OR A percentage of each members hourly income tothe association fund automatically.


    TAX can be a setting on association. So a chair and deputies may increase or decrease the percentage on an hourly basis. If leaders see a potential worker coming up in next few hours, they increase the TAX percentage and then reset back to zero.


    Chair or deputies can bid workers using the TAX revenue

  • That sounds an awful lot like what I suggested in corporate chat a month or so ago ;) Other than the "tax" part which I do like!

  • That sounds an awful lot like what I suggested in corporate chat a month or so ago ;) Other than the "tax" part which I do like!

    Got the idea from there. But there are always those people who will not come online on time of bidding or not donate willingly. So tax setting is a way that can be used to take a portion of their income.


    If a player is not willing to pay TAX, they may try another association which does not look for worker recruitment

  • Got the idea from there. But there are always those people who will not come online on time of bidding or not donate willingly. So tax setting is a way that can be used to take a portion of their income.


    If a player is not willing to pay TAX, they may try another association which does not look for worker recruitment

    I like it and I like the tax idea.

  • I don't like it at all a demanded (fixed) contribution. This will create more cheating in the game. You let a few people decide which workers will or won't bought this isn't a fair option at all. With this "solution" the bought workers are those workers a chair or deputies think are the best and I can imagine it wouldn't be the teams choice.

    :engine1::engine1::engine1:

    Work for a cause

    Not for applause

    Live life to express

    Not to impress

  • I don't like it at all a demanded (fixed) contribution. This will create more cheating in the game. You let a few people decide which workers will or won't bought this isn't a fair option at all. With this "solution" the bought workers are those workers a chair or deputies think are the best and I can imagine it wouldn't be the teams choice.

    More often than not a Chair and/or his deputies are more experienced than the rest of the team, and it's perfectly fine for him or they to decide what workers to get.

  • Proposal: Lower the auction time. Whoever wins a worker's auction will have to run out of time, which would increase it from 24 hours to 48 hours, but not allowing them to choose to bid for the same worker until that time elapses. In this way, by reducing auction times, not being able to choose to bid for the same worker and increasing the enjoyment time, the rest of the associations are given the option.

    Also lowered to a maximum of 2 simultaneous workers per association.


    Propuesta: Bajar el tiempo de la subasta. Quién gane la subasta de un trabajador, tendrá que agotar el tiempo, que lo subiría de 24 horas a 48 horas pero no permitiendo optar a pujar por el mismo trabajador hasta que pase ese tiempo. De esta forma, bajando tiempos de subasta, no pudiendo optar por pujar por el mismo trabajador y subiendo el tiempo de disfrute, se da opción al resto de asociaciones.

    También bajada a un máximo de 2 trabajadores simultaneos por asociación.

  • Got the idea from there. But there are always those people who will not come online on time of bidding or not donate willingly. So tax setting is a way that can be used to take a portion of their income.


    If a player is not willing to pay TAX, they may try another association which does not look for worker recruitment

    If players are not willing to bid or donate, then kick them and search for players who are willing to bid/donate/come online in time, at least that's what I've done before.


    IMHO there is no (good) reason to raise taxes within an association.

    :Train: NL01 Stoomketel

    :Train:  NL201 Euromast

    :Train: COM202 Loch Ness *

    :Train: ES201 El Escorial *

    :Train: M1.201 Scandinavia *


    * played my last round at this server, due to

    :thumbdown: RN'S LACK OF DECENT BUG FIXING :thumbdown:

  • More often than not a Chair and/or his deputies are more experienced than the rest of the team, and it's perfectly fine for him or they to decide what workers to get.

    It isn't a case of more or less experience, not always has a chair or deputy more or better knowlegde of the game. And it's not fair that 2 or 3 members of an asso decides which workers are bought. The reason worker bids are locked during a sitter option are not done without a reason. Workers shouldn't be bought with others money if they can't decide for themselves if they want to contribute yes or no.

    :engine1::engine1::engine1:

    Work for a cause

    Not for applause

    Live life to express

    Not to impress