Questions about the newly added Fair Play game rule section

  • Hello,


    Lately I've been having some debates regarding fair play, as a general term, and since Rail Nation has introduced, or let's say reworked, the Fair Play section of the game rules, I would like to know what is sanctionable and what is not.


    1. Is a player who hauls a required good (sometimes not his association assigned RG), ONLY direct, violating the Fair Play section?

    2. Is a player who invests and takes the top investor position of a required good industry (sometimes breaking majority) violating the Fair Play section?

    3. Is a player who during the end game will haul a different good than the one called for violating the Fair Play section?


    Thank you,

    Mihai

  • 1. Is a player who hauls a required good (sometimes not his association assigned RG), ONLY direct, violating the Fair Play section?

    Not necessarily. Essentially, you violate the Fair Play rule if you are intentionally being a jerk.

    I think that also answers your other two questions and pretty much all questions that refer to that rule.

  • I agree, Mihail. However, I am concerned that it might be too subjective.


    It sounds as though I ought to have called on this facility very recently during an end game and will most certainly do so, immediately, should the need arise again. I hope that support can act quickly enough to be useful in an end game. I hope too that it is only called upon by players for valid reasons and not just due to irritations.

    In this world there is nothing softer or thinner than Water.

    But to compel the Hard and Unyielding it has no equal.

    (Lao-Tse)

  • Without sounding condescending, the way it is written and, as such, handled, it can only be subjective. I suspect, and expect, for a case to be conclusive a declaration of some sorts is needed, from the involved player.


    Something like: "alright, I will go free haul without caring for majorities and RG assignements", so that the motivation is more than clear, otherwise it is speculation. If a player who has followed all the commonly agreed rules of a city suddenly decides to go for prestige hunting, can he be blamed for switching his strategy? I would argue not.


    It's like giving a yellow card in a football game to a player from a team who decides not to pass anymore and always shoot for the goal. It's a good analogy.


    Regarding EG, I wouldn't get my hopes up for a quick reaction and it's only reasonable. If, for example, there is a heated argument between a player and the caller, and the player being irritated decides to run ALL the unlocked goods, rising the wait time for all the industries.


    Even if the players open a support ticket on the spot and even if an agent begins to handle it within, let's say, an hour. The damage and the city slow down being made is significant. And I don't believe Rail Nation have the in-game option to park his trains, unless they sign in to his account and do so, which may not be a correct approach.


    I don't expect such behavior to be punishable by a ban straightaway, but by a warning and a recommendation on how to behave. To give you an example, I've reported some multi accounts in a round a while a go, they got banned and the very next round I saw them active again. So Rail Nation, in my view, like to handle things more softly.


    The question whether their approach is a good one or not, I can't really say.

  • What you describe is what I would call an irritation situation. Even multi-accounts, while not being permitted are irritations. I agree, however, that banning multi-accounts on one round only to have them all return in another is futile. But, it seems to me, from experience, that there are situations which require immediate and decisive action. Removing the player concerned and parking his/her trains would make that player think twice about serious misbehaviour in another end-game. However, the looseness of the rule could have support flooded with trivial reports and there-by unable to deal with serious violations. I also question if support has the set-up or the "teeth" to do anything positive.


    I agree with you about the subjective nature, I thought that my view would have been obvious. The problem is I do not see any solution to the situation. An Objective list of rules would by virtue of being Objective be very long and convoluted but still inadequate to cover diverse possibilities.

    In this world there is nothing softer or thinner than Water.

    But to compel the Hard and Unyielding it has no equal.

    (Lao-Tse)

  • 1. No. The player hauling a required good is giving up cash for prestige. The person hauling integrated is giving up prestige for cash. That is the definition of fairness and of capitalism. This isn't FarmVille.

    2. No. The player who invests and takes the top investor positions of a required good is spending the money they have earned (or purchased) in the manner they see fit. In doing so they no longer have the ability to spend that money. They could be looking to reduce their wait time. They could disagree with who's has the assigned good and their entire corporation may have decided to take that RG for themselves. Or they could simply be investing for prestige. Regardless, the game provides a mechanism to earn cash and to spend cash. That is fair.

    3. No. The player during the end game who is hauling a different good other than the one called may have legitimate reasons for hauling what they want to haul. One, they could simply be playing their own game of "I hauled the most of such and such good" just as some play the "I planted my flag on the most amount of factories." It is a foolish way of playing but people should not be kicked off or punished (by RailNation) for being foolish. Now, when there is a player, let's say they call themselves Big Mac, and they announce that they are hauling off goods during End Game because they didn't agree with the calls and they are now making it their mission to increase wait times in hopes of taking away the lead for the End Game city, you now have an announced malicious intent. That is where I would draw the line. If you announce you are attempting to harm others simply for the sake of harming, that is poor sportsmanship. If you do the same thing but keep it to yourself, we can't prove you were malicious or foolish so we give you the benefit of the doubt and call you foolish.

  • See, this is exactly my protest against the new rules and how they are being interpreted!!!


    Steve, you say that hauling a non-called good equals 'deliberately hurting the progress of the mega city'.

    Where do you get that idea from? Where is your evidence of this??? I am personally offended by that statement and offended that CM's and support staff have validated this as a reason to punish other players.


    It is a bold face lie !!!!!


    There are many reasons to haul a non-called good, there are probably as many reasons as there are players who haul non called goods. It happens in EVERY mega city on EVERY server! Have you ever wondered why? Have you ever wondered what the goal of the entire game (originally) is?


    It's called prestige. The non called goods usually have a 0 or close to 0 wait time, which means you can get maximum deliveries in in between recalc hours, giving you and or your corp more prestige. This can be done in a single city but usually in all mega cities (for the extreme prestige hunters who connect and build 48 rails around each one). This is a major strategy and game play style by many many players. They may be ignoring the imaginary city races during the end game and they may not care if they are damaging your wait times for an hour, or sometimes longer, but fact of the matter is, they shouldn't care. They have their own goals, they have invested hundreds of millions in their rail network and city connections and should be allowed to pursue their prestige rankings without being harassed and yelled at in forums and without being accused of being a 'jerk'. And they certainly should be allowed to pursue their goals without the fear of being accused of 'intentionally damaging the gaming pleasure of others', because this is just simply not the case. It is a 100% FALSE accusation which is currently being supported and encouraged, and it will destroy the game.


    PS, these prestige hunters who you say are deliberately ruining 'your' progress, are probably doing the same in other mega cities as well, and are therefore not even influencing the city race one bit. Furthermore these 'non-called goods' haulers might also just be new players who do not understand the game yet or who simply just want to run their own end game according to what they want to do with their hard earned trains, and maybe not according to your city 'orders'. I see no reason whatsoever why any players should be forced to follow commands of any other players by punishing them. And instead of harassing, threatening, reporting or driving these players out of your city, maybe next time you should try just being nice to them. Or work out a deal where they can run all goods at 0 WT's for an hour and leave before the next recalc, giving you both what you want.

    But accusing them of deliberately ruining your progress is just plain not true. They are doing what they want to do and not what you want them to do. This is pretty common in any fair and exciting competition and I support their actions 100% for this exact reason.

    If it ain't Dutch, it ain't much!

    Edited 2 times, last by Dutcher ().

  • Have to agree with Dutcher on this one. Just because a group of people join together to help push a city into the End Game or to have the End Game city compete to win the game, doesn't mean that they are the law of that city. Other than placing corporations on a rival status, there should be no other consequence for someone or an entire corporation following their own calls of the game, at any stage of the game. The ONLY time someone should be punished is when they are deliberately attacking a person, a corporation, or a city with the sole intent of harming the before mentioned group. As you can guess, that is hard to prove unless an individual comes out and broadcasts that is the reason for their actions. I have only seen that happen once and it was during the Masters qualifier. Short of that you should allow people to play the game as they see fit. If that is removed, you no longer have a game, you have a process. When that happens, I, and I am sure others, will simply find a new place to play an online game.


    Oh, and for the record I don't think that Dutcher and I have ever played on a team together or even on the same server before. Could be wrong but I don't remember doing so.

  • Well, having experienced it I could give you one very good reason for doing it which I am sure that support are aware of but which I cannot describe here for fear of giving copycats an idea.


    Where does it come from, BTW, that this game was originally about prestige. I was playing 7 years ago and it was most definitely about building the city. There were a few prestige hunters about but I never knew of one who would continually invest in an industry while the city was in active levelling mode thus making leveling extremely hard. Most that I knew back then would actively participate in levelling the strongest cities.


    Just a thought, without city developers beavering away and unable to make huge sums of money because they are concentrating on delivering low returns Required Goods, where would the prestige farmers do their prestige farming?


    RN here is a challenge. Develop a version of this game, heaven for prestige farmers, but completely devoid of the city builder who is an unnecessary irritation!


    I propose the theory that prestige hunters/farmers need city builders. Without them they have no game. Or they would perforce need to become city builders themselves. But City builders do not need prestige hunters/farmers. Without them the game would progress very nicely.


    The type of end-game prestige hunters being referred to above who take a tiny bite from each goods in every Mega city do no real harm. They may irritate a bit when there is a lot of malicious industry breaking occuring in the city, but, that is all. Mostly they can be, and are, ignored.


    It is the people who set out to ruin a city's chances in the end game or who attack industries during the main or the end game for other nefarious reasons whom I believe this rule is aimed at. These people will know who they are. Dutcher, I am sure you are quite safe if you are playing the way you say you are.

    In this world there is nothing softer or thinner than Water.

    But to compel the Hard and Unyielding it has no equal.

    (Lao-Tse)

  • Without city haulers/builders there wouldn't be any prestige hunters, that's for sure. And this ain't a relationship predator-prey, the prestige hunters (in their majority) do actually help cities level, it's just that they wouldn't be able to do that on their own without city haulers, as opposed to city haulers.


    But while I agree that prestige hunters need to be in the game, and that the game is all about being number 1 (for some), I am strongly against those "small bites" during the EG. They may sound harmless if only 1-2 players are doing it, but what if 10 players would do it? Then you have 10 Olympus trains making 2-3 trips per hour. That is certainly no longer harmless and it's annoying as hell (to me, as a caller).

  • Without city haulers/builders there wouldn't be any prestige hunters, that's for sure. And this ain't a relationship predator-prey, the prestige hunters (in their majority) do actually help cities level, it's just that they wouldn't be able to do that on their own without city haulers, as opposed to city haulers.

    prestige hunters earn very little prestige without the dedicated city haulers, I will go so far to call prestige hunters parasites. They live of others hard work and dedication. And again most prestige hunters contribute nothing to a city except a lot of irritations because most can't wait for a golden hour, break majorities for a little more prestige etc.They do anything for gaining prestige and in most cases more harm than good. That's the point of spoiling others game fun. And if the roles are turned around they are the biggest complainers and most get verbal very agressive.


    I know free haulers who play with respect for the city builders but that are not the prestige hunters. That's the difference. A real free haulers isn't a prestige hunter.

    :engine1::engine1::engine1:

    Work for a cause

    Not for applause

    Live life to express

    Not to impress

  • prestige hunters earn very little prestige without the dedicated city haulers, I will go so far to call prestige hunters parasites. They live of others hard work and dedication. And again most prestige hunters contribute nothing to a city except a lot of irritations because most can't wait for a golden hour, break majorities for a little more prestige etc.They do anything for gaining prestige and in most cases more harm than good. That's the point of spoiling others game fun. And if the roles are turned around they are the biggest complainers and most get verbal very agressive.


    I know free haulers who play with respect for the city builders but that are not the prestige hunters. That's the difference. A real free haulers isn't a prestige hunter.

    I totally agree Naike.


    Also on the many little bites, up to a point. Unfortunately we cannot stop them as the game is currently structured, and, as long as they take only a tiny amount - not an Oly's worth, that is totally unacceptable and amounts to an attack on the industry by anyone's definition - we can cope even as a caller! Certainly I would be happy to see them gone. But, for now it is the major pests which have to be dealt with.

    In this world there is nothing softer or thinner than Water.

    But to compel the Hard and Unyielding it has no equal.

    (Lao-Tse)

  • See, this kind of language calling us 'parasites' and 'pests' .....

    This is the real problem. Maybe the prestige hunters do indeed need the city haulers and the city haulers do not need the prestige hunters. Fine, but that doesn't mean that you should be allowed to press that report button to chase us away or to get us punished. We are not doing the same to you. We are merely following our own goals of topping the prestige rankings (clearly the official and original goal of the game).


    The REAL damage to the community and to the game is being caused by exactly this kind of attitude of the city haulers.


    And if this behavior with the support of the CM's continues the prestige hunters will just have to prove their point, they will all leave the game and you can continue to play it without us to your hearts content, while the game dies a slow death.


    By the way Rhosen, no I am not safe. This has already been clearly demonstrated which is exactly why I am trying to warn everyone that these new developments are really not a good idea and that they are creating a huge amount of damage to the entire game, much more so than the imaginary damage that these new rules are trying to avoid.

    If it ain't Dutch, it ain't much!

  • And if this behavior with the support of the CM's continues the prestige hunters will just have to prove their point, they will all leave the game and you can continue to play it without us to your hearts content, while the game dies a slow death.

    never thought of it that behaviour like yours and more like you will maybe drive more people away and that might be the main reason of changing the gamerules like they are now??

    The classic map is about city building, your style of playing belongs at the USA map at the border between red and blue. That scenario is all about conquering cities with all the mean play what goes with it.

    :engine1::engine1::engine1:

    Work for a cause

    Not for applause

    Live life to express

    Not to impress

  • Sometimes a free hauler invests in industries to gain extra prestige (or win a competition), breaking the majority system around city X. The "head" associations in that city may feel like they have some sort of ownership towards those industries and what the free hauler did was wrong.


    Let's not call them 'parasites' or 'pests', as that is insulting and against our guidelines. The free hauler has just as much right to take a majority - and to fight for the majority. The association in the city X can push the free hauler away to the next city, per game rules by making bigger investments. Or by opening a discussion channel with the free hauler and find another solution.


    Sometimes a free hauler looks through the whole economy system and invests just enough to gain benefits but respects the economy around city X. This free hauler will not risk to be pushed out of the cities where he has trains running but instead tries to optimize prestige gain in the long run.


    The change in the rules does not give one player the right for an industry majority over another player.


    Free hauling and prestige hunting is still allowed. The features and mechanics in the game are the tools to either accept these haulers in your cities or push them out. It's a competition, and regular competition is not something that should ever be reported to game support. In competitive games, there will always be tactics and goals that others like and understand and others dislike.


    What if someone starts to repeatedly cause harm, and other players feel causing harm is the sole purpose of this player? This behavior can be reported to support and the team will look into it. The report can lead to "nothing's wrong here", to a warning or to something else if absolutely necessary.


    I've had a long break from the game, but if/when I return to do a serious round - I know my game style will not be everyone's cup of tea. My free style stops if I start to think my moves will cause someone to drop out or lose interest in the game. I can't always tell if someone takes my moves "too seriously" but that is where I personally try to pull the line. Everyone around me should have fun with the game, and a chance with the game. I think that's a good cue for others as well.


    The rule change does not mean players can now decide how the rules work to their benefit, to support their playing style. The rule change will give the RN team a way to look into complicated situations where (constant) harm is being caused without a valid reason. It is a tool for us to help guide players out of toxic situations, or stop this toxic behavior. All the regular gameplay is still 100% supported per game rules, as are the different playing styles and goals the game offers.