A problem, other than the "pay to win" one, that Rail Nation still doesn't acknowledge

  • Dear Players,

    We see that this topic is still resonating in the community and is highly debated.

    I have raised internally a request to define the act of "sabotage". The conversation within the rules ( no personal attacks or attacks on RN team etc. ) is accepted and welcome. Although we still ask you to respect the definition provided by us. If you have improvements which you would like to see made to the game, you can use the user suggestions section where we can then have community votes on topics to see how the community feels about it.

    I will get back to the thread as soon as we cleared up the definitions.

  • The round winners as tracked on the website are


    For all scenarios

    Top 3 Players

    Top 3 Associations / Corporations

    Top 3 Mega Cities


    Steam Over Europe also has

    Top 3 Regions

    Top 3 Landmarks


    American Dream scenarios also has

    Top Faction


    In each it is possible for an individual to hamper an opponent from winning. This I do not see a need for a change in the rules


    ————


    This thread started discussing EG saboteurs. I think there is cause to have harsher penalties made for multies. If one account is being used to hamper an opponent, then all accounts are banned for the rest of the round, instead of a choice of which account from the IP address returns to the game.


    If indeed household members are playing, I doubt one of them would be assigned to hamper an opponent.


    I know this is not the suggestion thread, but I wanted to float this idea here with this debate group for tweaking before posting a final version.

  • If one account is being used to hamper an opponent

    How do you want to define "hamper"?


    I'm winning the contest with you.


    Am I already "hamper"


    Yes!!!


    I took what you could have had if you won the contest. - Ban?



    I invest in the company to gain maximum prestige.


    You are in second place.


    Am I already "hamper"


    Yes!!!


    I took the prestige you could take if you had more money than me - Ban?



    I invest in a company, I take over most of the shares in it, you lose yours.


    I drive with a shorter time than you, so I take the first place in the delivery of this product and gain maximum prestige. You are in second place.


    Am I already "hamper"


    Yes!!!


    Because you have less prestige because of my actions - Ban?


    Yes!!!!


    I got more prestige for the goods I brought to your city and you can't bring to ours because you will lose the prestige you could have for delivering goods to Your City at that time. - Ban?



    As a result of my game, I win the round, you are in 2nd place.


    Am I already "hamper"?


    Yes!!!


    If I hadn't played, you would have won the round - permanent ban?


    to be continued

  • In the example above, I used you and me so that Mihai would not be offended again and cry for support and it has nothing to do with a personal attack on anyone.


    I have just given a few examples of the normal in-game licks that may seem "hamper" to some of them, and my doubts about the exact definition of "hamper".


    I still think "saboteurs" are an artificial problem.


    The serious problem with the game is that not all players have equal chances in it.


    Also a simple example that probably nobody notices - judging by some entries:


    The city's level of development is irrelevant to the amount of prestige gained for delivering goods.


    It depends only on the number of active players connected to the city.


    It is so that in a city with a higher level of development, the amount of prestige that can be obtained for delivery is smaller (sometimes even three times) than a city with a lower level of development, but with a much larger number of players connected to it.


    This causes a situation where some player or group of players is carrying goods to a large city and not to their own city.


    And they "burn" these factories, not because of spite, but they want to gain as much prestige as possible - because in fact, only he counts in this game.


    This problem needs to be addressed, not imaginary sabotages or fair play.


    Take a closer look at the game and what are the relationships regarding the size of the warehouses, the time needed to advance and the ability to gain prestige in the current conditions.


    Equal opportunities will allow for the real competition of the 10 final cities, not just the two largest.


    It will change the whole gameplay.


    This is an actual problem to be solved.

  • Thank you.

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

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

    (Lao-Tse)

  • How to define “hamper”. That is the discussion I am seeking here.


    Kelots mocking examples not withstanding, there are situation where I believe a support person can make a determination that a players actions are not sportsmanlike.


    If it’s a single player, then thems the breaks for the group of players getting messed with.


    If it’s a multi who is being unsportsmanlike while breaking the rules, I think there is cause to have them lose all the accounts when caught


    Btw Kelot City level alone does increase the requirements and prestige payouts, pop adds extra on top of that

  • jvoodoochild



    Kelot City level alone does increase the requirements and prestige payouts, pop adds extra on top of that


    Again, I get the impression that you don't know what you are writing about.


    Or you have knowledge from a few years ago.


    Look below.


    It's only the 2nd era and see what the differences.


    A city on the 14th level, only 22 players develops this city with great effort, players devote their time and transport opportunities and achieve the following effect:




    1. city level - 14


    2. Number of players - 22


    3. Prestige to be obtained for delivering goods for the first five players - 414


    4. The level of the warehouse required for the next promotion of the city - 11,390 tons.



    A city on the 13th level, 68 players achieve the following effect:






    1. city level - 13 - The lower level


    2. Number of players - 68 - Three times as many players


    3. Prestige to be obtained for delivering goods for the first five players - 850 - More than twice, only on one good!


    4. The level of the warehouse required for the next promotion of the city - 10,385 tons. Over a thousand tons less in Era 2!



    Only the passenger limit is higher, but it does not matter, because this number does not decrease every 15 minutes.



    Now you know what I am writing about?


    Simple math is enough and everyone should draw their own conclusions why the course of the game looks the way it does.



    One thing is for sure.


    An association that wants to calmly transport goods in its city (so that no one disturbs them and no one disturbs them) and tries to win the match with a team or someone individually - there is no chance, because the game does not give everyone equal chances.


    Promotion of such "small" cities is pointless, because it is better to connect with a larger city and promote the city faster with others (less goods needed for promotion and a lot more players), and spend the rest of your time earning money or looking for additional prestige elsewhere .


    Then there is the problem of "sabotage" - so that it would not be that I am not writing about it.


    I ignore the other consequences of such a solution and the pointless automatic allocation of cities at the beginning of the game, which was supposed to prevent "overpopulation" of cities.


    But what is this supposed to be for now? Since the prestige assignment has been changed and it no longer depends on the city's level, but on the number of connected players.


    Look closely at the gameplay, not just the fact that someone has raised shares in factories.


    You'll come to interesting conclusions.


    Actually, to some uninteresting conclusions.

  • Also keep in mind that the requirements/payouts that pop ADDS to the total is calculated at level up. So if one city adds pop after the level up it can have the same req/pay as a city that hasn’t grown in pop but is the same level.

  • jvoodoochild


    You still pretend to be Greek. (Polish proverb)


    I can see you have no idea about it.


    Sit in the game, watch, write down, take screenshots, check who, from where and to where, and try to draw conclusions why and then what is the cause.


    Not from theory, but from practice.


    Maybe then you will be a conversation partner on this topic.

  • If the wrong conclusion is drawn, anyone can still participate in debates and share their POV.


    A newly leveled city won’t have the same requirements and payouts as the previous level even if the population did not change.


    Kelot it’s your right to believe differently, I’m not going to rude as I have seen you routinely do in these forums. This sidebar is off topic, so if you want to present proof that the above statement is false, please create another thread.

  • So would anyone like to come up with their own definition of what is unsportsmanlike in RN?


    My problem in all of this is the notion of just because a larger group has decided to limit themselves in certain ways that it obligates everyone else to play by those standards.


    EG hauling off calls,

    Waiting for Golden Hours,

    Running bonus engine comps when you have the bonus engine.

    Don't break crests.


    Also another issue is that what is considered acceptable on one server can be unacceptable on another. Should not the standard be the widest it can, not one thing here but a different thing there?

  • Individually, none of the above. Collectively they are all likely to be part of the syndrome.

    A player who:- (in significant combination of the points below)

    • May or may not actually have stated his/her intention to disrupt.
    • Who exhibits all or most of the jvoodoochild's behaviours.
    • Whose infrastructure is seriously neglected.
    • Who invests heavily in the required RG of the players he is targeting while hauling non RGs.
    • Whose ranking is low and most likely dropping.
    • Who is more than likely a secondary account. (Once identified as doing some or all of the above the possibility of a secondary account should be investigated.)

    or

    • Any player who, when part of a team hauls against his/her team in the end game and who, although online at regular intervals, does NOT respond to messages from his/her teammates. (IMO, always and unquestionably Unsportsmanlike. He is damaging his own team and not acknowledging his team mates and because of the rules he cannot even be booted out).

    The saboteur player will quite patently have no interest in his own game position only in how he can damage other players' game. There is no obvious goal or attempt to win by any definition of the term "to win". (And, yes, I acknowledge "to win" may be just to improve on one's previous position. Such players or teams can be easily seen to be striving to improve.)

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

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

    (Lao-Tse)

  • Kelot it’s your right to believe differently, I’m not going to rude as I have seen you routinely do in these forums. This sidebar is off topic, so if you want to present proof that the above statement is false, please create another thread.


    If I have written something incomprehensible in English - sorry.


    I just gave an example that there are bigger problems in the game that make it difficult for players to play than imaginary "saboteurs" - and this is most related to the main topic of this thread.


    You started a discussion of unequal opportunities with me instead of looking at the screenshots and analyzing them.



    I will repeat again:


    Nothing that is not prohibited shall be used as a basis for punishing a player.


    You can having some informal rules, but you cannot require other players to obey these rules.


    I, too, prefer to wait until the factories are counted to begin the Golden Hour so that it lasts the full clock hour.


    But I don't challenge anyone to "saboteurs" if they start carrying goods sooner.


    The best thing about this game is that you can't force anyone to do anything!


    I try to include such a person in the team, so that he willingly accepts our informal arrangements.


    If it fails and a given person insists on "burning" our factories before the Golden Hour, then we undertake such activities that they cannot do it.


    We are trying to end the lvlup and advance the city exactly when the factories are recalculated.


    This is just one example of possible legal defense actions against such situations.


    Certainly none of our players is going to persuade Support to change the rules just because we are not able to play actively enough.


    Therefore, I consider this problem of "saboteurs" to be a substitute topic and the real problems still remain unresolved - not even noticed, as in the case of unequal opportunities.

    Individually, none of the above. Collectively they are all likely to be part of the syndrome.

    A player who:- (in significant combination of the points below)

    • May or may not actually have stated his/her intention to disrupt.
    • Who exhibits all or most of the jvoodoochild's behaviours.
    • Whose infrastructure is seriously neglected.
    • Who invests heavily in the required RG of the players he is targeting while hauling non RGs.
    • Whose ranking is low and most likely dropping.
    • Who is more than likely a secondary account. (Once identified as doing some or all of the above the possibility of a secondary account should be investigated.)

    or

    • Any player who, when part of a team hauls against his/her team in the end game and who, although online at regular intervals, does NOT respond to messages from his/her teammates. (IMO, always and unquestionably Unsportsmanlike. He is damaging his own team and not acknowledging his team mates and because of the rules he cannot even be booted out).

    The saboteur player will quite patently have no interest in his own game position only in how he can damage other players' game. There is no obvious goal or attempt to win by any definition of the term "to win". (And, yes, I acknowledge "to win" may be just to improve on one's previous position. Such players or teams can be easily seen to be striving to improve.)


    Hands fall from helplessness.


    You have defined exactly 90% of the players on each server.


    The funniest:


    "does NOT respond to messages from his/her teammates"


    :D

  • Multi in the second degree, punished by a choice of one account to return to the game. (Currently practiced today)


    Multi in the first degree, punished by all accounts banned for the rest of the round. First degree is when Support determines that one or more of the accounts is being used in an unsportsmanlike manner. (However that is defined)


    Unsportsmanlike player only using one account, no Support action taken.

  • password sharing between accounts on the same server. This happens a lot during endgames so 1 person can login for more players. That's unsportsmanlike.

    :engine1::engine1::engine1:

    Work for a cause

    Not for applause

    Live life to express

    Not to impress

  • password sharing between accounts on the same server. This happens a lot during endgames so 1 person can login for more players. That's unsportsmanlike.

    Cheating under any circumstances is unsportsmanlike. I’m trying to come up with a definition that speaks to sabotage but not multies that are used to aid the team haul more and not directly “harm” an opponent.


    I heard a story where a player had a family emergency during EG, so another real player played both accounts at the same time. He was reported as a multi, discovered, but after a short suspension returned to the game with his account.


    What he did was wrong, but I think the proper punishment was given. He openly admits it, and on top of the lost tonnage his reputation will be seen as a cheater by those who know about the occurrence.


    Are people of the mind that all accounts declared as a multi by Support be banned from finishing the round and lose the potential for end of round career achievements?

  • You write about solutions that already exist and there is no need to change anything in the "rules of the game".


    Tracking miltikonts can be difficult and sometimes even impossible.


    You cannot rely on the feeling that this is a multi-account, there must be certainty, proof of it.


    Passing on passwords is punishable by law. Always.


    But two, thre players play on one account ist ok.


    Although these people do not play on their avatars in a given game world, if they play on a shared account, someone had to share the password and login with someone.


    Since they play on a shared account, each of them is a player of this server and providing them with login data breaks the rules.


    The account should be immediately suspended until the end of the game, a random password should be assigned, and these players should identify whose account this should be.


    Only this person gets a random password and if he gives the others the login details again, the NAME of this account should be blocked for life.


    This is not included in the current rules.


    Playing several players on one account non-stop for three months is the highests of the unfairs game . And yet it does not seem to violate the rules at present.

  • Actually password sharing is NOT against the rules for some strange reason. You can share your password to as many people as you want, just the people logging onto that account can’t also have an account of their own on that server.


    It’s called Hot-seating and is perfectly legal