Boosting player retention by decreasing lower ages' upgrade times

[KniferX]

Players that have joined the game 6 or more months, or year+ after release are faced with a tough dilemma as far as their in-game progress is concerned.
1) Rush to the max age to play with the newest toys and leave their defence, in essence, permanently behind compared to the newest age. You can never hope to reach the maximum since the upgrade times & worker requirements get very long
2) Stay in their respective ages (IA, GA, eventually AA) and have a competent defense for their age, but never get to play with the newest units and offense styles (Global alone will take the longest time)
3) Spend dubious ammount of money to play catch-up.

My suggestion is to ease this burden, or should we say, punishment, on players that just haven't had the luck to find the game right as it came out, by simply cutting costs, both resource and time, from pre-atomic upgrades. It will help both rushers and non-rushers and motivate them to play more, and ultimately pay more, because they won't feel like the game is punishing them for something they couldn't control that much (finding the game after its' release)

I don't think anyone, especially the devs, imagined it would be immersive and fun to have atomics with gunpowder defenses but that is the case currently.

 

[SiuYin]

I got an aggressive suggestion:
Up to IA, Upgrade /Research time should be instant

 

[Persia]

I got an aggressive suggestion:
Up to IA, Upgrade /Research time should be instant

I know it'll never happen because Nexon needs to make money, but I'd be salivating at the thought of completing Uni research instantly. 30% shooter damage and health, yes please, mortar damage, yes please, etc.,

 

[Manifesto]

Players that have joined the game 6 or more months, or year+ after release are faced with a tough dilemma as far as their in-game progress is concerned.
1) Rush to the max age to play with the newest toys and leave their defence, in essence, permanently behind compared to the newest age. You can never hope to reach the maximum since the upgrade times & worker requirements get very long
2) Stay in their respective ages (IA, GA, eventually AA) and have a competent defense for their age, but never get to play with the newest units and offense styles (Global alone will take the longest time)
3) Spend dubious ammount of money to play catch-up.

My suggestion is to ease this burden, or should we say, punishment, on players that just haven't had the luck to find the game right as it came out, by simply cutting costs, both resource and time, from pre-atomic upgrades. It will help both rushers and non-rushers and motivate them to play more, and ultimately pay more, because they won't feel like the game is punishing them for something they couldn't control that much (finding the game after its' release)

I don't think anyone, especially the devs, imagined it would be immersive and fun to have atomics with gunpowder defenses but that is the case currently.

Are you serious?
I completely disagree, it is so easy to progress to IA with the available times.
It's higher ages times that need to reduced. IA is ok but Global and Atomic times need a cut, not the early ages!

 

[SiuYin]

I know it'll never happen because Nexon needs to make money, but I'd be salivating at the thought of completing Uni research instantly. 30% shooter damage and health, yes please, mortar damage, yes please, etc.,

Around 100K crowns to rush for each of first 5 leaders. Rush to IA is far cheaper than it.

 

[KniferX]

Are you serious?
I completely disagree, it is so easy to progress to IA with the available times.
It's higher ages times that need to reduced. IA is ok but Global and Atomic times need a cut, not the early ages!

Ofcourse I agree, ridicilous times across the board, but such a compromise Nexon & BHG would never agree to. Otherwise they wouldn't put the current time & worker requirements as-is.
The point of this suggestion is to give them something they can consider and what will at least lower the age & upgrades gap of new players and veterans. While still leaving veterans with the atomic advantages. Global times would be also reduced with this.

 

[Saruman the White]

If enough new players are still being introduced to the game, there is no need for time reduction in early Ages. If not, perhaps a boost could be helpful. However I think that as you progress time should be less, as in real life, that is Medieval Age upgrades should take more than Global Age upgrades, but I can't predict how it would affect gameplay...

 

[Quovatis]

Please reduce the times so we have more competition at the top. The pool of players with advanced Atomic Age bases is incredibly low, and alliances wishing to war with those players are continuously matched up with the same alliances. Allowing more players to catch up more quickly will provide much needed variety and enjoyment.

 

[Tsamu]

Rather than reduce upgrade times, have special offers to help new players advance quickly. For example, instantly upgrade everything to max iron age and advance to classical for $5 USD, $10 to go from Classical to Medieval, $20 to Gunpowder, $40 to Enlightenment, $60 to Industrial, $80 to Global, $100 to Atomic. So for $325 USD, a player could be Atomic with maxed Global everything (except University research; that is too valuable to be included). That is more than an Atomic base costs on PlayerUp.com.

 

[Manifesto]

Then where's the challenge? Just paying for things doesn't help people 'grow'. All people have to do is fork out some money, there's no effort involved and the whole point of playing this game is missed.
The easier things are, the more likely something will be abandoned as soon as it gets harder.
The good news is we'll be left with more abandoned bases than we currently have. Personally I can live with that if it means we get rid of people like that, so maybe making things easier is the way to go. Can I change my mind?

 

[Bedlam]

I really enjoyed the upgrading in the early ages. It wasnt until global when it became crazy.

 

[yemen]

New players should be able to get to one level below the current max within a few months at most (for serious players), and shouldn't find it a drag to do so. That isn't necessarily everything maxed, but at least a respectable army and defenses. With the max age atomic, I would say it should take 2-3 months at most to be a very low level global. Then you are playing the same game long time players are, and the player pool expands a lot. I would encourage a lot more players to start if that were the case.

That balance was close to true when the game first came out, with enlightenment the highest level, and was still reasonably close when industrial came out. Now it takes close to a year to get to global or atomic - you can "rush" there in 8-9 months if you really try, but your defenses will be more appropriate to enlightenment than global.

I understand the desire of the game makers to reward long term players / induce people to spend money. But a broad, active player base requires people to be able to start today and be a part of the main part of the game before they get bored and quit. You will always have people leaving, even high level long term players. If new players aren't getting to the top as fast as or faster than those quit, the game becomes quite small at the top, and not very interesting.

 

[Manifesto]

If new players aren't getting to the top as fast or faster than those who quit it's not the game, each player plays at their own pace. Who said there's a hard-and-fast rule about how fast someone must advance?
If players can't or don't want to stick it out to the end so be it, I would rather those players leave than complain on here about the inequities of life.
More abandoned bases for us!

 

[KniferX]

I'd like to have Manifesto's mindset in which a dwindling playerbase is somehow a positive for the game, but I am not successful in that endevaour.

I mean, jee, allowing low age and new players to get to the latest game content faster without paying, and thus keeping more people in the game? Preposterous. In that mindset at least.

 

[Tsamu]

Good point Manifestó. Maybe it would only be offered as a reward for a series of quests that you have to complete within a certain amount of time, and that you wouldn't achieve without upgrading 30% or 40% of the buildings and troops in an age. So it wouldn't be a complete shortcut, and players would have to demonstrate competency.

 

[yemen]

No shock that they didn't read this thread. But setting the top age with a 220 minimum, when that requires a minimum of ~2 years for a free to play player. Wow.

 

[Master Contrail Program]

Those first 12 day mortar/redoubt upgrades in Industrial for me, but the rest was tolerable

 

[Master Contrail Program]

How do people quitting before ever reaching global and soon to be atomic equal more bases for you, an atomic, to plunder?

 

[Manifesto]

KniferX - your comment ''allowing low age and new players to get the latest game content faster'' is a problem in itslef.
That mindset wants everything all at once and if they can't get it the way others have, through hard work and time, then all they do is moan about it.
Those people should find something easier to play. I'm sure there are plenty of 'tapping' games on the market.

 

[KniferX]

Manifesto
I don't think a lot of things, outside of P2W, will drive out new players faster than this:

"Hello new player! You got into a good alliance, yes? Nice! Ah you saw those advanced players? Well guess what, after some hard work and a year or so of upgrading you can reach maybe half of their upgrades! In the meanwhile they'll be going through 2 ages! What, you're saying that you'll be permanently behind on new updates and new content? Well duh, why didn't you find the game earlier, your fault that you didn't put in the hard work and you're lazy.
Oh you're leaving the game? Well goodbye, we don't need this grumpy new generation anyway! New players, bah, who needs that!"

Answer this honestly. Would you keep this same opinion if you had started playing, say, half a year ago? And would you even continue playing once you found out how late you are?

I'm asking you this so you can reconsider. Is it really all about the new generation instant gratification effect? Or is it maybe just a bit of ego and: "I played this game for 2 years and got this progress, I don't want someone else to get the same progress in a year and 3 months!"