Posts by polimorphic

    Because it is not balanced. If you have unlimitted availability of cash, then you've got unlimitted cash. You could, for instance grow your station from scratch to full development (except EH) during the first minutes of the round by repeatedly buying lotto tickets for the required cash and paying for instant builds, and that's only an example. You could do massive investments in all factories, lay all routes in the map, buy all bonus trains.... and much much much more.

    The contrary is not true, if you have unlimitted amount of time to be permanently connected and playing, it will take you a couple of months to get to that point and it is perfectly possible that you don't get the money advantages, like for instance the bonuns trains.

    All the benefits that you list can be instantly and easily compensated with cash, even if connecting once a day.

    Of course, you don't want to see this and I don't want to spend more time in this discussion. In my short life I have already find out that it is almost impossible to convince wallets-with-legs about how unequal and unfair is a money based world.

    If you think this from a different perspective, the decision is rather odd given the fact that Rail Nation actually loses the income generated from the station videos. I am rather surprised they've done this, but I am enjoying it :D

    No, I am not a good payer, I'd say I spend roughly around 30-50 EUR per round (that's 3 months for me since I play mainly classic).

    30-50€ per round is the third part of mean monthly salary in some eastern european countries. Now I understand why of your responses. This change clearly benefits you as you are a pay2winner.

    Before I continue, I have to give my most sincere thanks to you: you help financing this game, making possible that it is (almost) free for most of us.

    And after that, I'd like to encourage you to think about these 2 aspects:

    1. If you consider that getting extra benefits from watching videos is an abusibe income, wouldn't it be fair to say also that the extra benefits from paying are abusibe. Then, why not capping the max amount of benefits that one can get from spending gold? And what would you think if RN decided to punish the pay2winners in such a way? You can rest asured that you'll never see that, as nowadays in this world only money matters.

    2. Since I began playing this, there has been a continuos tendency to benefit the pay2winners. I don't know if this will be the definitive hit, but this tendency will ultimatelly expell to players that don't like purchasing a victory when they finally realize that there is no competition possible. And when this happens, competition will also disappear for you, when you find out that what originally was a competitive game able to balance time, knowledge and wallets has become some kind of bizarre auction where the one paying the highest amount gets the victory, the one paying the second highest amount gets a silver badge, and so on...

    The difference between you and me is that I love that you have the option to get benefits spending the resource that you own (cash), I think that it gives unskilled players some options and increases competitivity adding a new factor to beat. On the contrary, you don't like others getting benefits for the resource that others own (time). You desire that benefits are only available with the resource that you own. If you could, you'd even reduce the benefits from the 3rd core resource (knowledge). That's why your opinion is wrongly founded.

    if you watch 400 videos per day you watch almost 1/3 of all the videos you can watch in an asso with 25 players (1300 videos in 24 hours available if all videos are watched with + account).

    So 24 other people have to share the other 2/3 of the videos, that's not fair either. That's why I'm for a restriction per day.

    I like this reply although it does not align with my own preference.

    You've certainly got a point there. There are players that abuse the video system, but in my experience most players don't, and if there is a good communication within the association, by talking you can encourage your mates to not make a massive consumption of the bonuses.

    In the worst cases, it's relatively ease to do a careful inspection of your mates behaviour and identify who are the abusers.

    And yes, for sure your solution will drasticvally limit the abuses in the video system, but will also punish many 'innocent' people, those that do a fair use of it, trying to share the benefits throughout the association. Is that fair?

    This very same ethical dilemma can be applied to many aspects of real life. For instance, everybody knows that some social subsides protect very vulnerable people, but there are a small amount of people that ilegally benefit from them. Is it fair to supress those subsides to avoid abuses, leaving all those vulnerable people unprotected?.

    If you watch an ad video on your own station or on the station of someone else, the bonus from that video goes to you - not to the person whose station you are visiting. The player who watches a video should get a reward from that video unless something has changed?

    I have the impression you don't even now how the system works. Unless this is being changed, each building and in each cycle enables a bonus that allows you to watch 2 chained videos.

    After watching the first video, the owner of the building earns a reward, after watching the seocnd video, the watcher earns a reward.

    The question is, if I watch 2 chained videos (earning a reward for the building owner and another reward for myself), this will count as 1 watched video or as 2 watched videos?

    We are trying to know if we can potentially collect 56 or 28 rewards per day.

    Also, the players in countries with low income, will be the ones that feel the downside of this the most. It will be harder to compete against the players with deeper pockets. $10 is a day of income for some people.

    I know there are alot of players from eastern Europe in this game. Not saying that all of the players there have low income, but the average wage is lower for sure.

    Very clever note about ethics behind $-motivated decissions.

    This is a move that hits active players, specially that kind of active players that like to stand out by video mining instead of by gold spending. And it clearly benefits non active players, that will see their progress to be close to those of active players with a little effort, even if connecting once or twice a day.

    I am sure that behind this decission, resides the idea that if players cannot get lots of rewards by videos, they will purchase them with gold.

    Well, I don't think this will work that way. Gold spenders purchase rewards to be better than the rest of active players. Consequently, it is competitivity the true motivation of gold spending. With this move, active players that don't like to spend gold will have their progress limited, so they'll advance evenly through the game. This will reduce competitivity so the gold spenders will need to spend less gold to stand out.

    Also, the servers will become less and less active, which will reduce the interest of the game.

    I also want to point out how shocking is to see the amount of time and energy invested in developing non demanded features (oh, by god's shake!!!, another bonus engine? why not 47 new bonus engine next update?), while they delay for months or years the solution to nasty bugs and the redesign of things that everybody hates.

    I am very very thankful that Rail Nation staff are working in this game. Imagine if they had found a job developing control systems for nuclear reactors. The world is safer in this way ;).

    You say it is not fake news, I say it is and explain why. Be transparent and explain me technically why the "unlimited videos" and the "guaranteed second videos" are unrelated, if you can.

    You say it is not censorship? I say it is. The original posts had 2-4 replies at the moment it was closed. The new thread had one reply in 18 hours.

    As you have pointed out, everybody can see that you got your censoring objectives acomplished.

    When you have closed the post it has been moved to the Archive folder. Then you say a new thread in the main discussion area is more correct and has more visibility, but statistics show that the original thread had more visibility.

    So I have another question for you: why not keeping the original thread open and move it to the main discussion area if you think that it was not correctly placed?

    You can split the "unlimited videos feature" and the "second guaranteed videos" as two concepts if you want, but both problems are exactly the same from a technical point of view and has been produced by an intentional decission of RN.

    The "unlimited videos feature" was limited by not allowing a second viewer to consume the video if other viewer had already consumed it. Consequently, if that second viewer is a Plus player, that viewer is not allowed to view the video, thus the second video is not guaranteed anymore for the Plus player.

    It is not my fault that game designers do not have enough skills and ability to foresee that their decission would have that consequence in Plus features.

    I want to denounce censoring practices in this forum.

    This thread was being very critic towards several decissions by RN:

    - Only one person can watch videos through the widget

    It had dozens of followers and was having 3-4 posts per hour when it was suddenly closed alleging it was located in the bugs section but it was not about bugs (which is a very subjective opinion, by the way).

    Well, if the location and the topic of the thread do not match, then move the thread, but closing it when it was so active and opening a secondary almost hidden thread that is absolutelly inactive can only be interpreted as censorship.

    Closing a thread that was so active and was targetting to a large audience is a censoring practice.

    Even if you open a new thread, the new thread will have less followers so it will have less impact. Then critics against RN targets less people. That's bad, very bad. Active threads must be moved to new locations if you think they are not in the correct place, but never closed.

    Also, in this thread there is nor eference to the original discussion.

    Finally, there is an in-game warning about the boosts and 2nd video Plus features which is incorrect, so RN is spreading fake news.

    In that warning, they suggest that the 2nd video feature got broken because of HTML5 switch, then suggesting it has been an unintentional accident. That's wrong, this feature got reduced because of a voluntary decission of RN.

    I completly agree.

    It is not as simple as loosing some videos and some irrelevant rewards, it is unethical and violates what is advertised when you pay for the plus pack.

    When I say it is misleading advertisement, I'm not being light. In the EU, advertising is contractual so this practice is ilegal. It could even have legal consequences.

    It is also necessary to make a distinction of a situation in which not providing the service is caused by an accidental event (for instance, an unexpected crash of a server, a connection broken...). In this situations RN and Travian are not be blamed because they make an effort to provide the service but something unexpected and out of their control happens.

    On the contrary, in this specific case, the fact that they are not providing the advertised feature is not a consequence of an accidental event, but a consequence of an informed decision (disabling watch videos for multiple members) that clearly was going to have this consequence.

    I think this is a consequence of the decission of removing the functionality that allowed multiple members of an association to watch the same bonus video sequence.

    If my observation is correct, what is happening is that another member is watching the same sequence at the same time than me but (s)he receives a first video which is shorter or maybe (s)he is using the mobile app which only requires 5 seconds. Finally, when I get to the second video, it is unavailable because the other member finished earlier.

    I have experienced this several times, and I have a plus account. Then I consume an advert but I'm not rewarded for it because I have not the option to watch the second video, which is very annoying.

    Note that the guaranteed bonus video is a plus feature explicitly advertised in the gold shop for plus accounts when you purchase it, so if you are not able to fix it you must refund to anybody that has purchased gold on any HTML5 server or you could be accused of misleading advertising. The the options are these:

    - Quickly restore the functionality that allowed multiple association members watching the same video

    - Quickly implement an alternative that guarantees the second video for plus account even if consumed by other members.

    - Remove this feature in the shop account and refund to anybody that have purchased gold in HTML5 servers.

    I encourage anybody that has purchased gold in an HTML5 server to oficially complain and ask for a refund.

    Monetizing is a funny word made up in Silicon Valley, an euphemism that actually means "raise the price of a product". It would be good, if that increase would be invested in improving the game. God knows there is a lot to improve, for instance you could make it more reliable, remove the trillions of existing bugs, smoothen the transitions and animations, make the UI more intuitive, create a nicer artwork, and many many more.

    But we don't believe that you will do that because during the last years almost nothing has been done but minor functions and bug fixing. And the HTML5 porting, which has been forced by industry, not by yourselves, due to the endline of flash support in major browsers.

    So considering that major issues have been ignored over years, when you show up here announcing a caprice idea about solving an alleged old minor bug (not registered anywere, oh surprise) and in the process you remove a functionality that most users love, well, don't expect the community to be happy, even if you try to convince us with nice and funny words.

    Answer: Yes.


    As train A covers 160 km in an hour, it will cover 80 km in half an hour.

    As train B covers 120 km in an hour, it will cover 60 km in half an hour.

    After 30 minutes both trains will have approached by 140 kms (80km + 60km).

    As the supervisor notices the problem when the trains are 140 km away from each other, he will have exactly 30 minutes to reach the switch.

    As the supervisor can run at 14km/h, it will cover 700 meters in 3 minutes.

    Then, it will take him 27 minutes to run 6300 meters (3 * 6300 / 700).

    Consequently, he will reach the switch 3 minutes before the trains crash.

    I hope the trains have a good braking system.