The main crux of the issue is how trains work in FFA and what they incentivize/disincentivize.
Explanation:
There are currently 3 ways of money coming into the game:
- Populations passively generate it slowly
- Trade ships make it based off of the distance they have travelled
- Trains visiting cities/ports
Importantly, there are cons to every way of making money:
- Population making money is slow, requires you to keep your population doing nothing else
- Trade ships need to travel long distances to make good money, during this trip they can be pirated by a third player for minimal cost (250k for the first warship)
- Factories that produce trains need to be placed close to the structures they are sending the trains to. If you want to trade with another player, the factories need to be "vulnerable".
This means that populations are simply not good for money making, and trade ships are dynamic. You can control who to send the trade ships to, and you and other players can pirate passing trade ships.
Closest thing to these dynamic, interesting choices that exist for trains is if you can trust the other player next to whom you have constructed your factory (you only need one "connecting" factory, the rest can be farther away) to not kill you.
This would be okay if trains produced less money than ships, as there is clearly less risk. But because trains produce more money when visiting other players city/port than they would when visiting your own, in addition to both players receiving the money, doubling the effect, it results in trains overshadowing trading ships in money generation when the network gets large enough. The growth is exponential, and because one player builds mainly factories and the other cities, both receiving the bonus money, the exponential growth is huge.
This all relies on the two player co-operating, even in a situation where the city player wields all the "real" power. If the factory player got eaten by the city player, they would no longer receive the extra income from visiting other players cities, or the double income that both receive.
Therefore, the current train mechanics encourage what I think is "unhealthy" teaming in FFA's. If both parties can actively profit from a shared border, in pure game theory sense the solution is that both players honor their "deal". This IMO goes directly against the spirit of FFA, where every player should be trying to win, and I do not think it would be unreasonable to expect that to be the norm.
This is not to mention the pre-teaming potential there is. If you know with 100% certainty that your partner is trustworthy, you just render the whole match moot for everybody else not doing the same thing.
I think the bonus money for trading with other players is fine for actual team games, but in FFA, it just perverts the incentives.
TLDR (what the problem is):
In FFA, you can get secure allied borders protected by mutual financial interest, not just by a shaky alliance. This, IMO, should strictly not happen in FFA.
The solution is simple:
Remove the extra money received from visiting other players cities/ports with trains in FFA. You still will be rewarded for connecting the networks, as your trains have more stops where they can go, but there wont be exponential growth. This would also remove the "mutual financial benefit", as if one player then eats the other, the income stays the same. Only income being removed from the game is both players receiving the "normal" amount, which you might want to deny to the other player anyhow before they gather too much money for a bomb, for example.
This solution would make FFA more dynamic by removing strictly mutually beneficial borders, while also keeping an incentive to connect train networks. You still can benefit by trading with trains with other players, but it wont and shouldn't protect you from the other party.
The "normal" amount of money received by trains could also be increased, because the amount of money coming into the game is not strictly the problem, but rather how you currently need someone you trust too much and who is willing to sacrifice their own game to boost you, again, going against the "spirit" of FFA.
TLDR (what the solution is):
Make the money trains generate in FFA be the same if visiting own or another players city/port. This removes the mutual incentive to keep the other player around for direct financial gain and makes them a potential threat again.
I do not think there are that many alternative solutions to this "problem". One I have read would be to remove alliances all together from FFA, but I think they do serve a purpose there. If on the other side of the map someone is starting to snowball, it is important to be able to ally someone near them and send troops, for example.
I have seen multiple people complaining and praising the 'mito' meta, but in the long run, I believe it is strictly unhealthy. New players trying FFA, seeing other players playing in seemingly illogical ways in the FFA context, but receiving more money than you ever could make alone for sure would have pushed at least me away from the game.
I made this issue to cauge the opinion here where the game actually gets updated. I can make a PR for this if enough people agree with my points. It also might be that this is what people actually want, in which case it is what it is.
The main crux of the issue is how trains work in FFA and what they incentivize/disincentivize.
Explanation:
There are currently 3 ways of money coming into the game:
Importantly, there are cons to every way of making money:
This means that populations are simply not good for money making, and trade ships are dynamic. You can control who to send the trade ships to, and you and other players can pirate passing trade ships.
Closest thing to these dynamic, interesting choices that exist for trains is if you can trust the other player next to whom you have constructed your factory (you only need one "connecting" factory, the rest can be farther away) to not kill you.
This would be okay if trains produced less money than ships, as there is clearly less risk. But because trains produce more money when visiting other players city/port than they would when visiting your own, in addition to both players receiving the money, doubling the effect, it results in trains overshadowing trading ships in money generation when the network gets large enough. The growth is exponential, and because one player builds mainly factories and the other cities, both receiving the bonus money, the exponential growth is huge.
This all relies on the two player co-operating, even in a situation where the city player wields all the "real" power. If the factory player got eaten by the city player, they would no longer receive the extra income from visiting other players cities, or the double income that both receive.
Therefore, the current train mechanics encourage what I think is "unhealthy" teaming in FFA's. If both parties can actively profit from a shared border, in pure game theory sense the solution is that both players honor their "deal". This IMO goes directly against the spirit of FFA, where every player should be trying to win, and I do not think it would be unreasonable to expect that to be the norm.
This is not to mention the pre-teaming potential there is. If you know with 100% certainty that your partner is trustworthy, you just render the whole match moot for everybody else not doing the same thing.
I think the bonus money for trading with other players is fine for actual team games, but in FFA, it just perverts the incentives.
TLDR (what the problem is):
In FFA, you can get secure allied borders protected by mutual financial interest, not just by a shaky alliance. This, IMO, should strictly not happen in FFA.
The solution is simple:
Remove the extra money received from visiting other players cities/ports with trains in FFA. You still will be rewarded for connecting the networks, as your trains have more stops where they can go, but there wont be exponential growth. This would also remove the "mutual financial benefit", as if one player then eats the other, the income stays the same. Only income being removed from the game is both players receiving the "normal" amount, which you might want to deny to the other player anyhow before they gather too much money for a bomb, for example.
This solution would make FFA more dynamic by removing strictly mutually beneficial borders, while also keeping an incentive to connect train networks. You still can benefit by trading with trains with other players, but it wont and shouldn't protect you from the other party.
The "normal" amount of money received by trains could also be increased, because the amount of money coming into the game is not strictly the problem, but rather how you currently need someone you trust too much and who is willing to sacrifice their own game to boost you, again, going against the "spirit" of FFA.
TLDR (what the solution is):
Make the money trains generate in FFA be the same if visiting own or another players city/port. This removes the mutual incentive to keep the other player around for direct financial gain and makes them a potential threat again.
I do not think there are that many alternative solutions to this "problem". One I have read would be to remove alliances all together from FFA, but I think they do serve a purpose there. If on the other side of the map someone is starting to snowball, it is important to be able to ally someone near them and send troops, for example.
I have seen multiple people complaining and praising the 'mito' meta, but in the long run, I believe it is strictly unhealthy. New players trying FFA, seeing other players playing in seemingly illogical ways in the FFA context, but receiving more money than you ever could make alone for sure would have pushed at least me away from the game.
I made this issue to cauge the opinion here where the game actually gets updated. I can make a PR for this if enough people agree with my points. It also might be that this is what people actually want, in which case it is what it is.