Posts by Mihai TheRetired

    Maybe this will shed some light over why this suggestion may be of help, as well as to provide the insight on to why this is an issue in the first place.

    External Content
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Video is unlisted, it's not edited, just quickly cut and rendered, part of a larger series of videos over simple and advanced topics from the game.

    Rhoswen you are correct, and fair, when saying that this option has its benefits, ones that I overlooked. If it were up to me I would have considered that the exchange is quite equitable, it adds another flavor to the game.

    Right now it's pointless to make plans about your end game city, might as well announce it from day 1 era 1 and be done with it.

    There are associations that instruct their players to connect to the competitors to add weight to the city in terms of consumption and tonnage.

    I think a balance must be made here otherwise we all end up doing the same, round after round after round, without the element of surprise, without excitement, without refreshment.

    In chess you have different openings suited for different other openings. Tactics change mid-game and more often than not you think at least 3 moves in advance. Game is so complex that no ending resembles another.

    How can you compare that with this game?

    What I am trying to say is that in just one minute I can figure out which association will play together and in which city. Asses their threat and figure out if I need to do something about it or not. In just one minute.

    The comparison between chess and this game is nonsense.


    Wouldn't it be interesting if players weren't able to check other player's railway network? Unless, of course, they are members of the same association.

    This, coupled with not being able to see which players have connected to a city, unless of course you are connected to that city as well, would make this game more strategic towards the end game. You would still be able to see the population of a city, in terms of numbers, but not exactly which players are connected until you reach the city.

    Right now it's easy as hell to figure out where an association is playing the end game and kind of defeats the purpose of having a strategy to begin with.

    What do you think?

    More over, I'm going to paste here what I wrote on Discord regarding the new upcoming changes, which are all great except this one in particular, with the worker auctions.

    The return of the worker share program? It never left ^^

    You can join COM2 and see it in action, done exactly by those who profit the most, that is the 1st ranked player.

    When I challenged this issue on Discord I got immediately warned so... good luck with that!

    But in Kelot's defense he didn't made any accusation, he inquired about the relevance of such exception (to the 1.3. rule) that deemed necessary for Travian Games to include it in the first place. This isn't an accusation, can barely be considered an suppositon.

    Point 2. in this post Community Guidelines

    Understood. I asked because in a previous reply (and not necessarily only here in this post) that any accusation in particular towards Travian Games and its staff will not be tolerated but I see now that the rule is more general.

    Quote from nEwW

    Any accusations towards Travian Games, Rail Nation, Their Staff, and employees of being impartial making favors to someone is against the forum rules and will not be tolerated.

    You can make suggestions for changes, but accusations towards Rail Nation, Travian Games, and their staff/employees are not acceptable.

    Any accusations towards Travian Games, Rail Nation, Their Staff, and employees of being impartial making favors to someone is against the forum rules and will not be tolerated.

    This keeps getting reminded by you and other Rail Nation staff members but can you point out to which rule does it exactly refer, please?


    Okay with that but if a player is supposed to manage his account by himself, what do you think about account sitting? Because if we go in this way, this is not really about knowledge and tactics.

    It's fine because the following:

    1. It's limited.

    2. It's readily available, meaning that you can always ask a teammate to spot you in need.

    3. Cannot be abused, meaning that it has a 12 hours cooldown.

    That being said, I think its period should be halved (from 30 to 15 days).

    I doubt TG will change their position about this. But I imagine things can still change if a great part of players claims this, not a number of players we can count on both fingers hands. Personnally, allowed or not this won't change anything for me because I'll never share my account, I wouldn't risk see it stolen.

    You don't seem to get it, it's not about you or me or an individual specific. It's about all those players that want to go 1st (win a round) and stumble upon competitors who are always online, doing competitions, switching trains, etc.

    Even if, let's say, you can count on both finger hands the players that have someone else helping their account when they sleep, it's unfair towards those that do not. This game is about knowledge, effort and tactics. Having someone who signs in to your account has nothing to do with those.

    I honestly don't know what to say anymore to your statement. Basically you're saying that if a person finds itself at a disadvantage with another player who, when he sleps, is backed by another player, basically the very definition of sharing an account, to simply buy gold or sleep less. How can this be considered fair treatment or fair chance?

    Do not forget that we talk on a forum were some people think that pay 2 win is a problem. So, about sharing account with other players? Of course this is saw with bad eye, because this gives an advantage. Some players also think that hyper active players are abusive...

    Why the unnecessary jab at other players regarding the pay 2 win aspect? I could also make a jab at you and say that 8 out of 10 phrases you write can be considered spam since they don't contain any substance, they are but reiterations of what someone else has said already. This isn't Discord where you get a point for each line of text you write.

    Moving on, the pay 2 win aspect is a problem in EVERY game out there for almost EVERY other player except those that, well, pay to win.

    Lastly, on the topic, hot seating (account sharing) should be forbidden and straightaway banned but since Rail Nation has different views than other, bigger online games, it's allowed and this ultimately leads to exploits since I can ask my friends in Canada or the States to play on my account when I sleep and vice-versa, making me effectively a prestige gathering machine.

    For example World of Warcraft forbids account sharing. This should be the only argument needed to include this in the game rules, no further discussion.

    True, the sabotage has nothing to do with racking prestige and unfortunately many players think that those seeking prestige are, by definition, saboteurs.

    After all, this game is all about collecting prestige and the winner is the one with the most!

    This has been discussed, or at least I have discussed it. This game is about the end game and which city wins. Being ranked 1st, as individual, or 1st, as association, are secondary goals. Alas, it's irrelevant to this topic so let's not debate further, please.

    Why implement a feature to correct bad behavior? It's just bad design overall. Not to mention that the focus for Rail Nation should be on fixing critical bugs and not on spending months on adding core features instead of simply writing two more lines in the Game Rules.

    I don't know that saying but players usually don't forget bad behavior. Take Ronnie O'Sullivan for example, great player, terrible person. That's how he'll go down in history. Regardless, on the server I'm playing, the previous 5 round winners (could be more but these I know for certain) never intentionally broke a majority or overinvested, never ruined golden hours, never thrashed industries during the end game, yet they've won. If you're trying to tell me that you have to do all those things to win, then you don't know how to play OR you're up against jerk players.

    RN does NOT accept that PP hunting other cities running their times up is classed as disruptive behaviour. In fact the encourage everyone to PP hunt and disrupt other players gaming

    Correct. The topic was about those players that are ruining the wait times during the end game, not prior to it.

    That's not a problem for an association. No player can outinvest a fully fledged association, and if the matter persists they can always set that player's association with rival status, and that will hurt. I know some complain about investments, I'm not one of them.

    And you can do it, you just have to try to win the round and not sit in front of the forum screen and cry how bad everyone else is, because I can't win.

    You keep thinking that this rant is because we cannot win. We aren't trying to win as individuals or association, we're trying to win as a city. If I were to race for 1st I sure wouldn't have cared about where and how much a competitor is investing, I would have cared solely about my game. This rant here on the forum is about the players, presumably multi accounts, that are intentionally ruining end game industries.

    Coming back to how people play: When investing facilities to gain PP, you can do that at any time before it levels. But time and again we see people making big investments right after it levels, and thus breaking the majority - which then slows down a whole bunch of people whose main aim was to advance their city. If that is not disruptive, then what is?

    I constantly see "well you should take care of your facilities" - which is code for "you must invest IMMEDIATELY so that I can invest and gain PP; and somehow it's the OTHER person's fault that the PP-hunters can't be bothered to wait a while, or to ask for investment room, or to invest moderately and respect majorities.

    That is an inconvenience, especially for passive (mostly offline) players. But that's just a downside of not being active enough, it's just how it is. In most cases you will take the majority back with ease, with the help of just 2-3 other team members.

    As for "sabotage" - if anyone thinks that doesn't happen you are naïve or ignoring it. Especially in endgames, there is certainly deliberate sabotage. Players from another city will come and haul some goods from all the 12 current goods, just to add wait time. It's clearly deliberate and some players on some servers are even well-known for it.

    This is not about gaining prestige. They would gain more PP by hauling a large amount of goods in their home city than by hauling a small amount in another city - one big source of final prestige is the rewards for hauling in EG - and of course, if you're in the winning city you get a PP boost right at the end.

    It's all fine to say a good caller can work around it, but then again, a good saboteur (or maybe 2 or 3) can thwart even the best caller. It takes very little to mean that instead of clearing 3 short goods easily in an hour, you only clear 2, or instead of clearing 1 hard good within the hour, it takes an hour and a half - and that, if done cleverly, can essentially decide the outcome of the endgame.

    Thank you for your spot on interpretation of what I was trying to point with my topic. Sadly I don't think we will get to see any changes.

    I know from experience that players who have achieved nothing in this game, with the passage of time and subsequent unsuccessful attempts to achieve a good result, search for the imaginary goals of this game in order to raise their own value in their own eyes and in the eyes of others.

    That is wrong, borderline offensive and shows how little you understand concepts like team play, community, fair play and player behavior in general. Just because the purpose of other players is to have fun, without seeking high rankings, doesn't make them unsuccessful or, as you've stated, thus needing to compensate and create imaginary goals. And this is coming from someone who is highly competitive and doesn't like to lose. Just because someone doesn't want to win doesn't make him a loser by default.

    So prestige can be or not be as important as the individual wants it to be. Those who dismiss any other player for any reason is only doing themselves a disservice because their are many goals in this game that are team based.

    Pretty much how what jvoodoochild has said above.

    To me this is the problem area. In my opinion, if through normal game play something can be done, then there should be no rule to restrict players from doing it. The one area I believe the staff is restricting is harassing communications not game actions

    This is a competitive game, and again one that I think is purposely designed to create conflict between players in order to generate gold sales. What is Travian’s preferred method for beating saboteurs? Purchasing instant dispatches for regain zero wait times. I’ll ask again, why would Travian restrict a potential money source?

    You are correct as this may as well be a matter of purchasing IDs, all the which I have completely missed it. Thank you but I rest my case, things are clear for me.