¡Necesitamos tu opinión en la división del laboratorio!

Queridos jugadores:

Seguramente os hayáis preguntado qué pasó con las ideas que aportasteis para las nuevas características. Vuestra característica favorita fue la división del laboratorio. Como recordatorio: la idea iba sobre poder decidir si se aumentaba la velocidad de generación de puntos de investigación o aumentar la capacidad máxima de almacenamiento de puntos de investigación. Ambas opciones, dependiendo del estilo de juego de cada uno, tienen sus pros y sus contras y la opción de poder elegir permite ajustar vuestra estación al estilo de juego personal.

Desde que la idea surgió, hemos estado trabajando en formas de hacerla posible y ahora hemos preparado dos opciones diferentes y nos gustaría saber vuestras opiniones.

Las opciones que se están barajando afectarían a la interfaz de usuario del nuevo laboratorio dividido y cambiarán ligeramente la forma en que funciona el edificio.

Opción A: la solución de los dos botones

Aquí la opción es tener dos edificios en el juego, con una única zona donde hacer clic y que os lleve al laboratorio donde podréis decidir qué es lo que queréis mejorar.  Podría verse algo parecido a esto:

El segundo edificio que veis es solo un marcador de posición por ahora.

Opción B: la solución de los dos edificios

En esta opción ambos edificios tendrían su propia zona donde hacer clic y cada una llevaría a su propio menú. Esto podría aportar un ligero cambio a la mecánica del juego, ya que al ser dos edificios independientes podrían mejorarse de forma simultánea si el jugador así lo quiere. En el juego se vería algo así:

¡Decidnos AQUÍ EN EL FORO qué opción preferís y por qué! Estamos encantados de poder desarrollar esta característica junto a vosotros y estamos deseando ver el resultado final. ¡Y por supuesto os mantendremos informados de cualquier cambio que se realice en el desarrollo de esta característica y pronto podréis disfrutar de ella en primera mano en vuestras propias estaciones!

 

¡A toda máquina!
El equipo de Rail Nation

 

130 thoughts on “¡Necesitamos tu opinión en la división del laboratorio!

  1. Lasst blos alles sowie es momentan ist.
    Es ist ja schon schwer genug nach der anpassung für Stadtwarenspieler die Kupplung zuschaffen was ich persönlich unmöglich finde da das momentane System eigentlich ausschließlich auf PP Fahrer zugeschnitten ist.

  2. Personalmente, sarei favorevole ad altro, che dividere un laboratorio punti ricerca in 2, che alla fine come scritto sopra da Aurigo porta solo vantaggi a chi mette soldi a differenza di chi ne mette pochi.
    Poi tanto alla fine decidete voi, quindi la nostra parola vale poco… Ma non è questo secondo me il sistema per riportare giocatori a giocare a Rail Nation, io preferivo un aumento di giocatori per asso tipo 30 e una competizione settimanale tra le prime 10 /15 asso in classifica che stimolavano di più il gioco, perchè alla fine se uno si diverte poi i premium li prende più volentieri.

  3. Buna seara,
    V-ati gandit cumva la o optiune «la alegerea jcatorului » asta insemnand ca in momentu inceperii jocului de fiecare jucator fie ca incepe in minutul 1 am primei zile in prima epoca sau incape dupa X zile de la inceputul jocului indiferent in ce epoca sa existe 1 fraza cu prezentare a celor 2 variante si sa aiba fiecare jucator posibilitatea sa-si aleaga optiunea care i se potriveste cel mai bine.
    Si daca tot suntem la capitolul PROPUNERI, ma gandesc ca poate nu ar fi rau sa organizati o «lansare de propuneri» pentru marirea atractivitatii jocului. Sunt dintre jucatorii care au jucat acest joc incepand probabil de la inceputul – inceputurilor.
    A fost un joc extrem de atractiv ( si mai este inca ) dar incet in cet a pierdut «aderenta la jucatori » si poate ca aici ar trebui apunate propuneri de revitalizare a jocului. Dupa cum am spus, mie chiar imi place acest joc si mi-ar parea rau sa ajung sa joc eu cu mine si cu prietenul meu.
    Cu speranta ca veti trata cu intelegere propunerile unui indragostit de Rail Nation

  4. Auch wenn es dazu zu spät ist, finde ich die Idee schlecht, da mit der Trennung die Schere zwischen «Dauernd-online» und «nicht-dauernd-online» weiter aufgeht. Wenn man dann auch noch nicht so viel Geld investieren will, wird man noch gnadenloser abgehängt.
    … keine gute Idee

  5. Ich Finde Version A sehr gut, da man überlegen sollte was man im Labor ausbaut. Und das man beides gleichzeitig ausbauen kann finde ich Unsinn. Allerdings sollte es angepasst werden. beide Sachen auf stufe 25 sollte auch die Zeit und die Kosten angepasst werden. Wenn ich 2 mal stufe 25 mit den jetzigen kosten ausbauen muss wird es mehr als schwer.

    Das es für Anfänger schwer ist, ist Blödsinn! Es liegt an den Mitspielern dieses zu erklären und es gibt ja das Mentoren Programm im Spiel.

  6. i’m thinking the 2nd option the flexability of 2 buildings the stragey of it and the ability to change focus in the game at any point is appealing to me as i get more rounds under my belt i notice a lack of strategy as i go on i find myself taking the same path i’d like more choice to mix it up in all the buildings to be able to fine tune my game as i think giving more combinations which could change as other members of the corp or other corps some in to my city i see a need to change on the fly with city comps or even end game

  7. The second option is clearly the better one as it has greater flexibility for the player than the first option. I am not sure why someone thinks that this is only for the benefit of those that purchase gold as I feel that is totally irrelevant. You upgrade station buildings with ingame $$ not gold.

  8. Option B: The two-building solution, please ! It allows more flexibility, more chance to choose one’s own path … ideally, the amount which one spends (in terms of in-game cash) will be close to or exactly the same for the two-building solution as the amount which one spends on the current one-building solution … this removes the criticism that such a change can only benefit those who spend real money on the game …

  9. I like option 2 better as I can upgrade both simultaneously or just 1 if that works better for my game at a particular point. For instance near the end of an era when I have finished all of the research and no longer need to increase speed I can continue to upgrade the storage ahead of the era change.

  10. Laboratorul este bine sa ramana fara modificari. Multi jucatori nu inteleg bine modul de accesare al jocului si nu sunt intresati de joc, total sau mai bine spus din convigere ca au mai multe de facut decat sa stea pe joc.
    Dar daca se doreste neaparat divizarea functiilor laboratorului varianta B este preferabila.
    Daca tinem cont ca numarul jucatorilor a scazut dupa ce s-a decis ca jocul sa aiba ultima interfata, orice modificare intervenita in perfectionarea jocului, cum este cea referitoare la Laborator, trebuie bine calculata inainte de a pune in practica.

  11. Te best choice is the A.
    BUT… forcing that the levels of the two branches (speed & capacity) do not have a greater difference than:

    D = # Era + 2

    It does not matter which branch is bigger and which smaller.
    Therefore, in era 1, the difference will be 3 levels of difference, for example. speed in 4 and capacity in 6 … in Era 4 will be 6 levels, eg. Speed in 14 and capacity in 8.

    Also, the sum of the levels of the two branches does not exceed

    MaxLVL (Era) = # Era * 5

    Therefore, in era 3, the sum of the levels of the two branches can not be greater than 15, at the age of 5 years, can not be greater than 25. This balances the development of this building.

    I think that all buildings should have a maximum development limit per era… like cities and engines, and the way is to limit the maximum number of levels per era with that formula or a similar one: MaxLVL (Era) = #Era * 5

  12. I think the whole idea is the wrong way to go. The problem is leading players have excess RP with no way to use em. Instead of adding more tech tree stuff, why not just sell em. You could do it like coins, give a menu of choices, say for 25RP you can get 100PP, 10gold, or $1000000. Even better add a casino and buy a spin on the wheel with em.

  13. Das jetztige Labor ist gut und würde wenn überhaupt auch die Variante A nehmen mit dem 2 Button Klick.
    Zwei Gebäude ist gerade in ersten Phase schwer zu händeln, weil da das Einkommen es nicht zulassen würde und für Neueinsteiger ist es eher sinnfrei, da diese verwirrt werden so wie andere auch der Meinung sind.

    Danke

  14. I am sure that either of these options are going to require more cash to upgrade the lab to it’s fullest than the current lab gives. If you are going to do this I hope you increase the overall amount research points may be stored and that you decrease the amount of time to develop a research point.

  15. Ein Gebäude ist ausreichend. Stellt beim Ausbau die frage ob Zeit oder Menge verbessert werden sollen. Erweitert das Labor auf stufe 30. Gesamtausbaukosten sollten ungefähr gleich bleiben. ein labor auf stufe 30 sollte bei gleichmässigem zeit/menge ausbau die gleichen werte haben wie jetzt stufe 25.

  16. Beide Varianten haben ihren Vor- und Nachteil.

    Variante 2 wird halt nur Spielern mit +Acc wirklich helfen.
    Variante 1 kann man halt auch ohne +Acc an den individuellen Spielstil anpassen. Von daher bevorzuge ich diese Variante.

    Wenn Variante 2 beachtet bitte das Ihr die Ausbauzeiten anpasst. Es ist jetzt schon nicht einfach den Erfolg zu bekommen alle Gebäude auf maximale Stufe ausbauen, mit noch einem Gebäude mehr sehe ich das schon fast als unmöglich an.

  17. Salve,
    per come la vedo io l’avere due edifici separati che possono essere aggiornati contemporaneamente va a favorire soltanto i player più esperti che in genere hanno maggior disponibilità economica e possono quindi permettersi di aggiornare contemporaneamente i due edifici.
    Quindi sarei più propenso per un unico edificio che possa essere aggiornato o in un senso o nell’altro.
    Saluti

  18. Bonjour !

    L’OPTION A me parait très bonne dans la mesure où cela laisse le choix au joueur de privilégier soit la capacité de stockage, soit le temps de production, dans la mesure où on peut selon les circonstances changer ce choix.
    Exemple: si un joueur est souvent présent, il n’est pas utile d’avoir une capacité de stockage importante (et inversement si ce joueur n’est présent que 1 ou 2 fois par jour).
    Autre exemple: un joueur peut vouloir investir à long terme, en tablant sur une augmentation rapide des niveaux des locomotives pour pouvoir bénéficier d’une capacité accrue de livraisons et donc de revenus.

  19. I would prefer the second option, I think the first option would get a bit confusing to players. Also getting two buildings gives players who are always on a way to speed up the research points, and those that aren’t, would be able to collect more. It would ease the RP situation a lot more.

  20. I would say one building & flip the toggle on which option you want with the 1st upgrade. I’d need more info on how the supposed split works. Do both building go to level 13 and I have to upgrade both for max? If I start down speedy path and can’t play as much later & swap to quantity, what kind of mess is that? I guess the usefulness of this «Improvement» should be decided by showing us some math vs whatever the art dept came up with.

  21. I think the second one would be better.

    It gives more flexibility and choice. Players who can only log in for a short time twice a day (say) will be able to prioritise the storage part and ensure that they don’t ‘waste’ RPs, while those who are online more frequently can focus on speed of generating RPs.

  22. Stupid. If either suggestion goes ahead then I will quit the game. Everything is for the benefit of those who spend thousands on buying Gold and the majority of player who do not spend, or like me cannot afford to, this amount of money on Gold will be left further behind.

    The fun element in this game has gone, vanished in to thin air.

  23. Although the First Option, one button -> menu looks nicer, I think that the second option (two different buildings) is the better choice, as it gives more variance to the station area and enables Plus Account holders to upgrade both labs at once.
    This would, however, make getting the medal for max-upgrading every building even harder to achieve, so I’d want to see more research points given away, perhaps as a reward for being a plus account holder?

  24. having either option is okay with me…kinda like 2 separate bldgs but i think you will need 2 means in order for this to go over with the players…first the dollar amounts must be reduced especially if you go with 2 separate bldgs…2nd….the amount of time needed for those bldgs to upgrade must be reduced…as a matter of fact i think your times needed for upgrading bldgs are way to long especially for the express versions

Deja una respuesta