Posts by Locomotius Prime

    This more or less applies already. It's why people keep re-making small assos for cheap workers.

    And it's part of the problem.

    On any server there is groups of associations on different worker-auctions.

    Let's for arguments sake say that a server has 3 groups of 10 associations.

    In the current system that means there is for example 3 workers being auctioned at any time currently. The groups are divided by rank. All the rank 1-10 are always stuck bidding against each other, which means HUGE bids every time in the first group. low prices in the 2nd group, and minimal bids in the 3rd group. It also means that the rank 4-10 has no chance what so ever of affording some of the more attractive workers, while the rank 21-22 can get those same workers for a penny, especially since the rank 25+ associations are probably going "what's a worker?"

    I'm kinda tired of seeing when I'm subbing someone in a small association, they get great workers all the time, meanwhile my association has to empty the bank against the rank 1 and 3 association every time (we're #2 on that server).

    There is also these people who abuse this by constantly re-making small associations to get super-cheap workers.

    2 solutions here;

    1. Randomising who else is bidding against who completely each time.

    2. Being able to chose "bidding-group". So that the stronger associations spread out.

    A person spends his time getting into the game in the middle of the night, and at this time you are quietly sleeping. Who of you loves the game? And who needs to be limited?

    If you take examples from football, instead of trying to learn how to play as Messi or Ronaldo, here they suggest that Messi and Ronaldo cut off their legs. And allow yourself to play with hands. Then maybe your chances on the field will be equal and you will be able to play on an equal footing with the masters.

    That's right, let's take active players who are ready to play around the clock and who are interested in playing, with the level of those who enter the game when there is absolutely nothing to do and boring. Should not be so.

    Maybe before you make a complaint to the development team, ask yourself, am I doing everything right?

    Your analogy halts in that ronaldi and messi are actually good players who try to push towards scoring goals and making points, and winning their respective games.

    A troll would be a fat dude running into the field with a shotgun, who couldn't make it into a division 9 team.

    So the dude with the shotgun comes in, shooting and decapitating messi or ronaldo without giving a crap about the ball, the game or winning anything. It's not that this fat dude with a shotgun is so good that he is "winning" over ronaldo or messi, it's that in the case of Rail Nation, that fat dude with the shotgun running into the field and shooting people is "not against the rules", and there is no game-mechanic or anything to hit back.

    The problem is if our "ronaldo/messi" RN player over-invests the troll, he will have spent precious resources that puts him at a disadvantage against the real competition 5 cities away.

    Take another game like CNC tiberium alliances, when people try to do this type of griefing, a good player just kills that player and shuts him down for 24h. A little while into the game the powerful player gets strong defenses rendering him immune to the griefing players attacks, while he can wipe the griefer in a heartbeat without losing much. it's been like 6 years since I played it, but it's very obvious to me that a similar power-relation and some sort of attack mechanic is needed in RN to be able to deal with these trolls.

    Right now a troll can spend 100% of their income on trolling, and make huge damage, but they have nothing to lose and can't be stopped effectively.

    I think the way forward on this is to enable players some way to attack each other.

    To damage buildings and engines, forcing the destructive player to spend resources on repairing to regain function.

    For example let's say you can spend credits on a saboteur against another players base and pick 1 building. You damage the engine house; maybe a consequence of this is that the player first has to repair the engine house before he can repair his engines.

    Or if the restaurant/shopping/hotel is damaged they pause their bonus generation. And so on.

    If then for example someone is sabotaging an EG or mucking around with peoples majorities, then whole associations make their attacks on those individuals and rid them of their ability to sabotage.

    The stronger the player the more resistant to attacks, and the more effect the attacks have on the victim (this prohibits masses of double accounts to have much effect). Let's say a 100k PP player attacks a 0.8k PP player then it would be reasonable to push down the trains to around 10% of their max speed. If the 0.8k attacks a 100kPP player, then maybe that players trains would lose one percent or something. Maybe equally strong players could take 10~% off from each others engines if attacking.

    If this is balanced right, it would mean people have to interact in a much more deliberate manner to keep their contacts and surroundings from hostility, while having appropriate tools to deal with saboteurs.

    It would also add a whole new strategic element to the game.

    Winter event adjustments

    What do you think of the winter event adjustments?

    Also, should there be more events in the game like this or do you like the minigames in the Lobby like Clash! or throwing snowballs?

    I think making the event ingame was a huge step up.
    Clash didn't feel very connected to the game, this does.

    I think the adjustments are fair considering they were made after release, good job on that imo.

    One critique i have for a thing like this is that you should think about minimizing the amount of thing that pup up.
    Right now for example if I'm sitting on 100k coins and try to spend them it takes hours and hours because of all the pops ups of getting like 1 glove back or 1 diamond. Meanwhile I'm arbitrarily buying thousands of gloves at a time for coins, which means the "huge announcement" of getting 1 glove back si pretty "meh" and just consumes a lot of time...

    I agree I'd like to reward productive players too. Right now the only stick i have is to kick people, and there is no carrot.

    However i feel like clothing vouchers and engines skins would be too little, they're basically nothing for most players who have played more than a couple of rounds and already have the items they want out of the cosmetics.

    I'm thinking it has to have some kind of impact on the economics or PP somehow directly or indirectly, otherwise it's just gonna be "meh".

    Well people move and concentrate to places they think can win or have an advantage. For example if I'm in a region that I think wont win, I will usually build tracks to a place i think will win set my home city there and sometimes play my EG there.
    It's just very very clear in 19 games out of 20 that rank 3-10 regions essentially never have any chance of being even remotely close to compete for the win anything, not city, not region, nothing. Even on the individual level players are punished beyond belief if they for some reason chose to stay in crappy regions instead of connecting to a good one and playing EG there.
    The worst layout city in the #1 region is usually a better bet than the best layout city in the #3 region.
    So playing anywhere in a rank 3 or worse region is essentially pointless. Therefore the winning EG cities naturally have players flock to them, even from other regions.
    By era 2 you can tell on most SOE servers which 1 or 2 regions will compete for winning EG city 2 months later.

    But this thread is not about winning city or the 2 cities competing for the win, it's about the other cities that have to struggle for everything. When the winning and runner up cities are clearing 1 or several goods per hour, the other 15 or so cities take an average of 4-7h to clear a good. Once they have finished their first 3, the other 9 goods are all horribly spoiled to the point most might as well just logg out and give that EG up completely, because they are not going to clear much more, therefore they will not get hardly anymore PP anyway, and neither the region nor the city will evolve anywhere or achieve anything.

    The arguments we see against changing the slates are all saying "buh but it doesn't matter much for the good teams", well no exactly, it wont. But it could potentially let the horribly bad teams at least have something to do in the EGs.

    This doesn't make any sense, 100 gold on a german server costs the same as 100 gold on an international server or a scandinavian server. So if the gummy bear costs 2,40€ here and 2,40 € there, same price, why would you not be able to bring the gummy bear when you move across?

    Well since it's a german game, with germany being in the EU my guess would be that at least the scandinavian servers, germans servers, international servers, Italian servers etc are all in the EU, so then the tax thing shouldn't be a problem.

    Also if in game transfers of things constituted a problem, then an advantage gained on the career engine in one countrys server which can then be exploited on servers in other countries would make a problem too wouldn't it?

    I mean sure, the career engine is just pixels, bot so is in-game gold

    If you don't like PAX in the game, give the USA scenario a shot.

    This is viable advice.

    When I came back about 10 months ago i had not played since the first opening of the game and PAX was new. They seemed OP until I gave them a closer look.
    Now my thoughts on them is that after using more than a few trainslots for them it becomes a sacrifice of PP for $, and in order to maintain that $, the schedule has to be changed as often as every recalc, especially if copying the same schedule to many PAX trains.

    So I prefer having as many cargo trains as possible nowadays, but always at least 1 PAX-trains. This is not "pro advice" or very compehensive but it's enough for a player looking around top 100~

    in era 1 everything fluctuates a lot comparatively, and that dragonfly that is a rockstar the day the cities just become lvl 5 is soon a mediocre earner again, I think this part of the game has been decently balanced.

    I could see a version of it like this;
    The order of goods on the slates slates are dependent on how close the industries are, so for example the first slate will basically always be wood, grain, coal and then the 9 other closest goods, this would mean a lot of goods get cleaned by most towns int he beginning, and having the "bastard goods" last.
    So maybe the first slate is something like coal, grain, wood, boards, paper, cattle, flour, meat, leather, iron ore, iron, tools, cotton.
    And that will look very similar for most cities,
    but on the last one for example on USA; Boise would have oil on maybe it's 2nd-3rd slate, while portland would definitively have it on its forth slate. (oil is like 20 freaken tracks from portland)

    This would also make endgames appear more equal for longer time and therefore more exciting. A lot of bad regions right now only clear like 5 goods, which has to be kinda depressing and has no positive or negative bearing on the top 1 or 2 regions.

    It basically wouldn't change much for the top competitors, but it could do something for morale among the less fortunate.

    Thanks for tha additional suggestions and the made remarks.

    @Locomotius Prime
    I disagree with your suggestion 2a and 3. I strongly believe like in real life 1 person, 1 vote. People should have the choice to vote or not. That is why i suggested t set the counter on zero at each election. This will automatically lead to that lesser active players will not vote and the active players automatically will have more influence on the elections, but with setting the counter to zero, less active player still have the choice to vote or not. Not every player starts at day 1 of a new round. Last server that finished i start at day 20 in the game, so i will have no voting powers for weeks and that wouldn't be fair.
    Your point 4 cannot be implemented on international servers, as the voting will take place when people on the other side of the world will be sleeping/working/ schooling. Most regional servers are becoming more and more international too, so shortening the voting period isn't fair.

    Why do you think you should have a vote after joining way later than everyone else? It just keeps things open for bot-acc voters and nothing else. It's clearly worth a lot more to lose 1 or 2 voters in each regions to remove the chances of bot-votes/multi acc votes.
    If i assume you are not alone on your region there will be others who started from the beginning who will be at least as invested in the happenings of the region as you are.
    The real life thing; well giving everyone a vote is one of the biggest and worst mistakes ever implemented in modern democracy, as it promotes idiocracy over meritocracy.

    Point 4 is to re-count the votes, not re-make the votes. So if I miss the 22:00 vote-count and vote 23:30, it's counted in after I'm at work/sleep in a new 02:00 count instead. All votes remaining.
    Right now that vote-count is 1 time every 24h.
    What it means is that it will more often take up to 18 hours instead of up to 2 days to oust a bad president if everyone loggs in 1-2 times a day.

    I agree with the first part, it's already doable to switch out president in any region that is active enough to matter. If you are in the rank 5-10 region, then who cares anyway, your game round is a failure and the presidency is unlikely to be the problem.

    I also agree that I don't want to attend to the business of voting every era. I've never played in a region that wasn't already a complete sh1tshow with or without the president where switching president was a problem.

    The one thing I really see as necessary is getting rid of inactive votes from players who are clearly not active. The "active players" as defined by the game in a city is also a VERY questionable metric in the game, although it has nothing to do with the presidency it sheds light on the "active" definition being questionable at best.
    It appears to only measure who has logged in or something, which is a shit metric.
    If not a minimal amount of PP then maybe a minimum amount of [tonnes]*[distance]*[active trainslots] or something. Just get the retards running 22% maintained donkeys in era 3 out of the voting. NOBODY can make a case that a vote of such players is worth considering for anything. period.

    Now for the parts I dissagree with below the dotted line.
    I don't like limiting people from towns or associations, because it's usually hard enough to find enough cabinet members who are helpful even without this restriction. From my experience I'm lucky if I find 2-3 who are actively helping, and putting limits on this will cripple a lot of presidencies from getting a decent cabinet.
    Also on low population servers you might only have 1 decent association in a region, some regions might not even have that!

    Voting for cabinets and councils? Hell no. Enough voting with the mayor and president. If the mayor and president can't pick their own cabinets, they wont last in their offices in most haöf-decent regions anyway. the one version i could see of this is if each mayor automatically also gets a cabinet seat(unless they are already president). But even that I would prefer if it didn't happen, there is a lot of crappy mayors elected because they are the leader of their rank #57~association, who absolutely NO CLUE about anything, with even worse members.

    I've noticed as the game goes through the eras, the time for recalculation shifts compared to the real time hours. It's also very seldom on the hour as in 1:00, 2:00 etc. One server is at for example :24, another at :04 another at :17 etc. No consistency.
    Another issue is where City consxumptions don't align with industry recalcs... like endgames where they are sometimes 3 minutes apart, which creates consumption issues.

    I feel like my OCD tendencies are going nuts over this and it also makes it hard to plan; for example
    " should I go to the supermarket now and will I make it back before recalc in the endgame"?
    Well who the hell remembers when each gameserver has it's recalc the current week? or after the last maintenance pause?

    So what is the suggestion?
    Have recalcs reset/re-allign at the same time as the +acc get 5% extra cash in the middle of the night, so that recalcs happen every hour, on the hour, on all servers, every day.

    Speaking from experience of being president 3 times now, it's not easy work.
    At least from my point of view, I'm just ending 1 round on the big ben server as president and I can tell you I'm completely spent when it comes to how much time goes into trying to do it well. And it's not like I'm getting paid for it, the small amount of career points is a fkn joke in comparison with the work, and I don't think I'm going to sacrifice anymore time on precidencies, it's just not worth it as it is now.

    There is also the amount of abuse presidents often have to take from people in their region, who will keep harassing and whining about everything no matter what. I had an experience like that recently as president of the central region on the Tower bridge server, where I basically took over the presidents position after the 2 first presidents got kicked out through voting as both turned out to be useless(neither did anything).
    So with that experience I would say it's hardly impossible to have a bad president changed out. and also that a presidency is a coin with two sides.

    I have a feeling the changes you suggest will create more problems than they solve. I think there is less complicated ways to deal with this problem, that wont make the presidency crippled in the beginning of every single era, just because a very few rare regions that probably suck regardless of the selfish president in question anyway, can't handle electing a new president.

    I would rather look at how voting power works. Right now every registered bot account gets 1 vote. That vote stays even if the player gets inactive.
    I agree that it is a problem that votes stay forever from players who just totally neglect the elections.

    So let me suggest the following alternative to your solutions;

    1. The vote of anyone who is inactive for more than 72h is removed no matter when it is. This includes when a player is getting help from a sitter during that time.
    2. a) Instead of 1 player = 1 vote, every players personal PP = their amount of voting power. Better players tend to be more engaged in the game, and more attentive to what is going on on the larger scale, so it makes sense that they have more voting power.
    2 b) The leader of each association can also vote for president with the association prestige points. This grants stability and connects the influence of associations to the presidency.
    3. Players with less than 50% personal prestige than the average player in the region has no vote. Un-engaged players shouldn't dabble in voting for stuff they probably don't understand anyway.
    4. Presidential votes are counted every 6 hours instead of every 24 hours, so that replacement can happen faster.

    This would be an improvement in RL democracies as well, today we have too many idiots on welfare with the same voting power as the people who have to pay for their welfare programs etc. People who don't pay taxes shouldn't have a vote irl and players in RN who don't make PP for the region shouldn't have a vote for the presidency.

    Wrong, an association on the region I'm playing kicked 2 players who are actives, I don't know why but but this makes what you said wrong. Moreover this is the same thing on non pre-registered associations it is better to keep someone active rather than kicking him out.

    I agree with this, things are different since pre-inscription, so a rethink of this would be good.

    This will just create a more unbalanced situation between associations with very active members and the with people only coming 3-4 a day.

    Making all association slots open why not, this could help to create new groups, but it won't really give new associations more chances against pre-registered ones. In the same way pre-registered associations, even if they start with 25 members, don't have the same chances.Strong associations have strong and experienced players and it comme only with time. New associations won't have that building time and are therefor dissavantaged whatever the rules you put on.

    There is a major difference between an association being better than another because the players are in fact better, and if the association is better because it was allowed tos start with game-mechanical superboost that is the current system.

    The entire point I'm trying to argue is 25-slots open from the start associations, which you appear to agree with to some degree..

    While some members might have left or been kicked from your asso in spite of being good/active whatever, this is a more or less rare occasion. If you look at any gameworld, the majority who come in with the pre-registry into an association with more than 15 members are still there by the end of era 1, the majority of those in era 1 are in era 2 and so on. There is no movement, and in the case of bad leaders, you have no real mobile options. 1 sidestepping association from that doesn't make what i wrote wrong, it's an exception to the rule.

    I've recently played on 3 servers where the immobility created issues for different reasons. It's just stupid sitting there with 15 or whatever the number players like donkeys because the system keeps his position important and it costs everyone their surplus to change it.

    For example; let's say you have a good leader, he gets inactive and the next runner up takes over after 7 days, and turns out to be crap. Are you and 22~ or whatever others gonna split up into other associations every man for himself or are you gonna stick it out with a sucky leader? If your objective here is to stick with a team you otherwise like you only have bad and worse options.
    But if 1 of you could just jump out, create a new one and invite everyone at once and be a new 22~ people association in 5 minutes, then more power to you, right?

    Or let's say you begin a new world, you bring 10 of your previous 25 in pre-regged, and another nearby association does the same. You would like to merge, but people aren't going to cough up 40 million each in era 1 are they?
    So while you and your merge-partner associations are sitting there collecting half-prestige in each waiting for era 2 to have the financials to merge, the association that did get 23-25 members across the pre-reg is hauling in the full PP in the same place.
    To me this is idiotic, and serves for no purpose other than to game-mechanically enforce prestige points to be collected in the same places.

    I see all arguments against opening all 25 slots from the start are "oh but it's not that bad it's a little tiny tiny bit mitigated this way", but I haven't seen a single argument for why the current system is good in any way. Does anyone really have an argument for why it's beneficial to the gameplay to make sure new associations are handicapped this way?