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

  • Mihai (mihait? Decide what nickname you have, it will be easier for people entering the forum to find out who I am writing to)

    As long as I can remember, it has always been Mihai, hasn't it Mihai ?

    :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:

  • As long as I can remember, it has always been Mihai, hasn't it Mihai ?

    It has always been Mihai to may certain knowledge.


    (I have a certain other contributor blocked. It is easier for people entering the forum if they don't have to deal with a "wooden spoon" aficionado. Right click on the name and select block in bottom right corner.)

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

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

    (Lao-Tse)

  • i tried right clicking and i do not get a "block" option

    Elle, Right click on the name under the avatar portrait. A small window opens giving name, and other basic information such as how long the player has been a member.

    Player Ticket inspector smiley37.pngsmiley37.pngsmiley37.png

    • Member since Jan xxth 20xx

    Posts 100 Reactions Received 151 Points 252 Last Activity x hours ago


    ..................................................................................................................(Three symbols here)


    Below that on the right are three little symbols. Plus, No Entry, Speech Bubble. You want the middle one - No Entry.

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

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

    (Lao-Tse)

  • Hello Nicola.


    Like I've promised after reading your reply, I have waited for your revision (or clarification since the rule hasn't literally changed) of the 3.5. section from the Game Rules before further commenting. But before I start I really hope we are allowed to discuss the game rules and not get straight up warned, or worse straight up get banned like I have been on Discord. If we are not allowed please proceed and ban me straight away on the Forum as well since the trains will stop for me here if this will be the case.


    The problem with this 3.5. and (in corroboration with) 4.1. was this particular phrasing: "disruption of the game play experience", which despite it being a very subjective expression, like I've said in numerous times, it stands true when the actions of 3-5 individuals go against those of over 150. That is by definition DISRUPTIVE. That being said the confusion was created in the first place by not fully explaining how should these game rules be interpreted and what acts as disruptive in the eyes of Rail Nation staff, a thing you've only done now (officially) and not through support tickets or Discord/Forum replies (which are lost in history).


    Now, what Rail Nation staff understands as being disruptive is very limited (and I don't meant it in a condencending way) but literally limited meaning that a disruption of gameplay can (and should) cover end game sabotage, at least this is my opinion; alas, we work with what we are given. So by disruptive Rail Nation mostly considers exploits and/or impersonating other players or associations. The part regarding exploits is the easiest to dysmantle since it's already covered by the 2.6. and 4.1. sections of the Game Rules, so adding it here is redundant and meant to throw dust in our eyes.


    Regarding the second part which refers to impersonating another player or association is something I don't understand since the game only allows unique avatar names and unique association names. I can agree with not being permitted to impersonate a Rail Nation staff member, that player should be straight away banned, but a simple player? Well if memory serves right there recently has been a case involving a rather controversial player doing this thing and him getting sanctioned for something that wasn't literally in the Game Rules. This isn't me saying he should have walked free, no, what he's done wasn't ethical and borderline sanctionable and I am glad that this is something against the rules, but it wasn't in the game rules to begin with. Now it is so let's move on.


    So in the eyes of Rail Nation' staff, it is disruptive to impersonate another association but to what end? To make them do silly mistakes with association friendly? To fool them into thinking they have majority over an industry? To share strategies with the wrong player in a private message? I agree, it's disruptive. But how can this be disruptive but sabotaging the end game NOT? It's... beyond my understanding.


    But let's move on to the last part, how should the end game be played, which is my main topic. All you've said regarding it is that there can be only the following types of players:


    - those that aim for prestige;

    - those that want to go solo;

    - those that are unexperienced;

    - those that do not understand collaboration.


    That's all nice and well, every type of player from the above taxonomy can be educated, like you've pointed out towards the end of the announcement, but what about the type of player who just wants to sabotage the end game. It has no desire for prestige, doesn't care if he's solo or in an association, he is clearly experienced and knows what he's doing and he understands the importance of collaboration but he has a different agenda. What about this type of player?


    The above type of player is the quintessential issue of my post and one of the many reasons (if not the main) players get upset during the end game and somehow you've missed this exact one. Is it coincidence or you are intentionally avoiding this type of player? If it's coincidence, then by all means please explain why and how you are dealing with this type of player. If it's intentional, please explain the reasoning since I can think of only one and I really want to keep my reply decent and unbiased.


    Thank you,

    Mihai


  • Dear Mihai,

    We would like to explain it once more if the communication in the announcement was not clear.
    We are not overlooking saboteurs, if there will be sufficient evidence of deliberate Sabotage from a player towards another player or group it will be sanctioned.

    In the statement, we have also explained, that playing the game in several ways which can make the game more challenging for another group of players is NOT sabotage until it has use of exploits or clear evidence of deliberate harm to the other group.

    We will also look into making arrangements to have the definition from our statement added to the rules and your feedback quite rightly identifies that this could be forgotten otherwise.

  • Sabotaging the end game doesn't imply exploits. Let me offer an example since it's easiest way of getting a clear answer.


    We have the following player who:


    - doesn't communicate on the forums nor responds to private messages;

    - is online;

    - delivers to the city one-two goods per hour, carefully moving at recalculation to another set of two goods so that it always keeps two industries ruined (with high wait times);

    - never delivers to the city what the majority of the players are currently delivering.


    Is this player breaking any rule or can this player be accused of something?


    Thanks,

    Mihai

  • What constitutes as "ruining industries"?


    I ask because I have seen members of your association hauling non-RGs during EG, but according to them they were "not ruining wait-times."


    So I assume a bar needs to be set: what inflected wait-time on the opponent is 'acceptable' for you?

  • What constitutes as "ruining industries"?


    I ask because I have seen members of your association hauling non-RGs during EG, but according to them they were "not ruining wait-times."


    So I assume a bar needs to be set: what inflected wait-time on the opponent is 'acceptable' for you?

    Ruining an industry is generating a wait time of over 30s. During the Origin EG there were some players from my team delivering small tokens (a maximum of 10t, one time only) that wouldn't raise the wait time by even one second.

  • The above several posts interest me because I have seen this behaviour or variants of it, far, far too many times. In our last end game we had two who did the following (one did all, the other was marginally less organised):-

    • Used 25 Lindworms which made what they were doing easier.
    • Continued hauling all era 4, 5 and 6 goods after we had requested all hauling to stop to allow the industries to cool down.
    • At the start of the end game, and of each card after, distributed their engines to deliver a balance of every goods on the card, except the called goods.
    • When a goods closed, redistributed their engines to take account of the change.
    • When one goods was left to deliver on the card, distributed their engines across all era 5 and 6 goods remaining to be delivered
    • Stopped delivering completely when we were on the final goods.
    • Never answered any messages politely requesting that they help with delivering goods.
    • Had the main opposition city set as their home city.(I am not suggesting that this city sanctioned this action, btw).
    • Were showing as on-line for most of the end game.

    In any type of game I can think of the equivalent of this sort of behaviour would be classified as a foul (or, actually, a series of fouls), whether or not the perpetrator knew it. Think of it in the same way as when New Zealand bowler Chris Pringle used a concealed bottle cap to rough up one side of a ball during a 1990 series in Faisalabad or when Chess Champion Garry Kasparov changed his move against Judit Polgar in 1994 after momentarily letting go of a piece.


    We won, in the end, but, this type of unsportsmanlike behaviour should surely be discouraged.


    I would very much like to know if this was behaviour which could have instigated action against these players or, is it actually a legitimate strategy?


    If it is not stopped it encourages others to copy and this cannot be good for the game. It follows, this being the case, that it is not good commercially either.

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

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

    (Lao-Tse)

  • what you describe Rhoswen is organised disruptive play. There are players who sacrifice their own ranking to mess in other endgame cities to help their home city. Or it is done by players of the main asso's in other endgame cities with alt accounts or invited friends from other servers. I have seen all ways of stalling.

    :engine1::engine1::engine1:

    Work for a cause

    Not for applause

    Live life to express

    Not to impress

  • Yes Naike. I would also suspect secondary accounts with the real player in the home city and another account causing disruption to the opposition. (One of these had a name which when translated indicates the likelihood of this being a clone account,)


    What we all need to know, is, is this reportable and sanctionable. Is RN doing anything, or planning to do anything to rectify or prevent this? If it is sanctionable, how far does it have to go before the problem is reportable?

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

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

    (Lao-Tse)

  • Ruining an industry is generating a wait time of over 30s. During the Origin EG there were some players from my team delivering small tokens (a maximum of 10t, one time only) that wouldn't raise the wait time by even one second.

    I'm playing the Devil's advocate here:

    So anything lower than 30 seconds wait-time is OK?

    Or anything above 1 second is moving into dangerous territory?


    I mention this because as far as I understand your proposal/complaint it is with these measures RN-personel will have to judge whether or not certain game-play is qualified as disruptive warranting a sanction on that player.


    For the record: I accepted your members explanation (which was very much in the same vain as yours here) and thought: fair enough.

    But a judgement of "fair enough" is not one that RN-staff can make.


    The judge's conundrum.

  • 1) unless there is clear evidence that a player is deliberately causing disruption or detriment to the game, we cannot and will not take action against them.

    I could be wrong, but I take the term “to the game” to be something along the lines of causing the server to crash and not actively raising wait times of EG factories..

    We are not overlooking saboteurs, if there will be sufficient evidence of deliberate Sabotage from a player towards another player or group it will be sanctioned.

    nEwW, would you please define the word sabotage in the context of RN and EG?

  • I can see a simple solution and a definition of sabotage.


    In the regulations, it is enough to write:


    A saboteur is:

    1. Who does not transport goods ordered by Mihai;

    2. Who takes the majority of the factories that Mihai considers his own and has a stake of at least $ 1;

    3. Who does not reply to messages sent to him by Mihai;

    4. Who dares to connect the city in which Mihai plays without his consent;

    5. Who wins the competition in which Mihai participates;

    6. Who buys the worker Mihai auctioned with even one $;

    7. Who beats the bid at the license auction in which Mihai is participating;

    8. Who will earn more $ in a day than Mihai;

    9. Who will collect more prestige points than Mihai;

    10. Who logs into the game during the final that Mihai is going to win;



    The above points will ensure a fair game unprecedented in the world.


    If I missed something, I'm sorry, but I can't read your cries on this topic anymore and may have missed something.

  • First of all we shouldn't be the judges, Rail Nation staff should establish this, I'm only asking for a section in the game rules under which we can report these things since disruption clearly means something else in the eyes of Rail Nation staff.


    I would say, but this is just me, that any action that starts raising the wait time above 3s is becoming dangerous. Sabotage starts with 30s and above, in my view.

  • Hello there,

    I have some news, We had an internal discussion and unfortunately, we cannot provide you publicly with an end-to-end definition of disruptive behavior as it will evolve in the future and we want to be able to react to this evolution of player behavior.

    Considering this, I´m not able to provide you direct answers to "cases" as you presented, because the place to report such issues ar via Support, and not in public due to T&C
    Our support and RET team are responsible and it´s in their right to decide on each case based on all available information.

    To explain a bit more depth, there must be evidence available to support / RET which clearly proves that the player is behaving that way due to malicious intents towards someone else, and that will be sanctioned.

    Playing the game their own way, even if it means your tactic is more complicated or needs to be changed is clearly within the game rules (taking over an association or hauling goods which then raises waiting times is part of the game and not sanctionable without another context ). Players are not forced to play the game in cooperation with others, it is their choice.

    If you wish to report cases of players, you should raise a support ticket and our support / RET team will investigate each case and make a decision.