Make All Ages Fun!

[Rooster Cogburn]

Purpose:

To add importance and competitiveness for all ages specifically the lower ages



Background:

Since this is a time based strategy game, time plays a critical role in game progress. Because of this over a large span of time it will be more difficult for new players and even lower age players to compete with players that are a much higher age, particularly in world war competition. This will ultimately create a negative motive for lower aged accounts and certainly for new players.



Recommendation:

During world war make it a requirement to be +/- 1 age to donate troops to the town center and SH on planning day. Also make it a requirement to be +/- 1 age of a target to be able to attack.



Intended Results:

This will force alliances to consider lower age accounts more importantly. I believe it will make it more difficult for alliances to “sandbag” world wars. This would also promote a more positive experience for new players (this is important for game growth and sustainability over time). I believe there is more benefits that would result in this simple change however on to the issues.



Related/potential issues:

This will likely make world war matching more difficult. I don't think much explanation is necessary here however it is a issue that needs to be considered.
This will also create a few other potential issues. I could type them all out and provide a decent resolution however this is to start the conversation

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

well I see there is a couple of no votes
I am curious of why...

I have thought of a few potential issues and added thoughts to minimize said issues...
This will likely make world war matching more difficult? Make a search available only when the max span of ages is 4 or less.

This would possibly upset the dedicated players and top tier alliances and alliance rankings? This would be solved by adding glory for higher age wars. An all auto age world war would have the ability to gain considerable more glory than a war with a mix of or completely smaller accounts. The highest ranked alliance in the game should ultimately be the biggest and the best


So a big issue I see with the game in general is that its not a good game to start playing when its been around for 9 years the way its currently setup, meaning that the player pool growth will be stagnate and get even worse over time till the game basically dissolves. In addition to that even experienced players and long term players eventually stop playing at some point for one reason or another, we see this all the time. this will accelerate the end of the game. I dont believe that all these instant upgrade events is going to work either

Bottom line is the game dies way sooner if the company cannot continue to bring in new players IMO of course.

For any dislike vote what is the reason? How do you entice new players to keep the company and game strong?

 

[King Crimson]

If you're comparing yourself to 9yr veterans then yes, wars will be hard. Maybe instead of comparing yourself to those players - which is always going to be unfavourable no matter what game you're playing - why not start the game with your own benefits in mind? ie: play the game because you want to grow the civilisation or you want to design your own city or whatever. Change your expectations to something purposeful, rather than looking at it like an insurmountable climb.
Once you get to a more advanced age then you can start comparing yourself to other ages. They recently made upgrade times a lot shorter so you shouldn't be that far behind the veterans anyway - at least it shouldn't take 9yrs.
Besides, new players have other new players or early age players to compete with - for now leave the veterans to compete with veterans.

ps: Being a young player in world wars or even mp shouldn't be a negative motivation for players - it should motivate you to learn and get better. And the veterans in your alliance would surely help you.

 

[nobodyknowsthetrouble]

この投稿は取り下げられました

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Thanks for the responses. Its definitely not a perfect idea, I still stand behind it accomplishing two big things.

1. Entice new members to a game where they can be a meaningful part of wars. I agree with King Crimson that there is people that will “play the game because you want to grow the civilisation or you want to design your own city or whatever” and thats great. I suppose from my vantage point that stuff got old pretty fast and the only reason to continue to play is for the alliance banter and world war competition with other alliances. I further agree with the comment “Besides, new players have other new players or early age players to compete with - for now leave the veterans to compete with veterans.” This idea basically enforces it to some degree



2.It would give accounts less than the max age to consider defense. A problem is to be effective at defense particularly you really need to be 3D latest age with a bunch of maxed or near maxed defensive structures to compete (...and a museum and a nice council with coalitions). I realize you dont have to have that but if your not maxed 3D auto with a decent museum your no doubt going to get cleared. I cant think of how many times I have seen great digital age players stand all war till some auto age account comes and wipes him out in under 80 seconds. How fun!lol.



As for the nice response from nobodyknowsthetrouble thanks, I will go search for when this has been discussed before. Maybe there is some other angles to consider outside of this discussion. As for your last paragraph “This means that as an automation age, I can no longer accept new players into my alliance, because we can no longer play together. I would also have to kick almost half of my alliance. On the one hand, this leads to old alliances dying out, because no new blood can join, and on the other hand, there are fewer conversations about experiences and strategies with new players and new players quit even earlier.”

I cant say I totally agree with everything but I do think it deserves a response... I do think its a bit dramatic to state that “This means that as an automation age, I can no longer accept new players into my alliance, because we can no longer play together. I would also have to kick almost half of my alliance.” This is just for world wars and it would still span over 4 ages. If you have wars that span a lot more ages surely the lower ages folks are outgunned and get cleared every war?.?. or maybe its a strategy to lower your match by “war weight”?.?. and as for the strategies... I see strategies change all the time and different strategies work better at different ages (also my opinion), remember when commandos and bazookas were the “mete”? Just my thoughts of course.

Maybe have an option for the alliance to choose before spinning a war. For instance an all age war or not?.?



Regardless I feel this post has had enough action since posted that maybe a developer will read and possibly consider it (thanks for all the respondents/reactions ). I will also keep this dialog going as long as someone is replying and doesn't completely change my mind that the cons outweigh the benefits long term for this game.

Disclaimer (not that it matters) I have 4 accounts. I have basically abandon 2 already. I have to suspect others are doing the same. Its futile having a non maxed age account when a maxed age account can just wipe you out in a hurry with little to no strategy. This doesnt happen as bad in multiplayer where this rule is already applied.

Apologies for the edits... the folks I discuss this with on discord feel some of these comments are valuable ,

 

[nobodyknowsthetrouble]

この投稿は取り下げられました

 

[King Crimson]

@Rooster Cogburn
Your comments are all about lower ages or young players have trouble playing the game but really, no-one starts this game and stays young or at Iron age. Like any game players start, learn, grow, learn some more, grow some more, get better (by participating and learning from veterans), grow more, get better, etc, etc. The next thing you know it's almost a year and you're in Atomic. Any low age should be considered a stepping stone, not an end game experience.
Your points might be worth considering but if someone is complaining about the game not being fun while they're only 2-3 ages in, then Dominations isn't for them. This game is not over in a weekend.

 

[Lezley]

I was just reading the other thread where the engineer said they don't use age in the matching, if i read it right it's cos age is too linear. Just cos u speed run through ages doesn't make u stronger, if your village isn't upgraded to that level. It doesn't mean your troops are upgraded to that level either.