My thoughts on Aug SotN

[Skyman]

Whose complaining? Just offering suggestions to pivot the focus which I think would make things better.

but time is the problem. Don't you think the best players should be reflected as being the best? The overarching importance of time/process detracts from the ability differential of players and places too much focus on how far you have got in maxing. For longevity the game needs to reduce the focus on process and pivot towards ability/game play.

That would require resources requirements to be harder to achieve but upgrades to take less time. This is reflected to an extent in WW and Oil.

 

[Manifesto]

Whose complaining? Just offering suggestions to pivot the focus which I think would make things better.

but time is the problem. Don't you think the best players should be reflected as being the best? The overarching importance of time/process detracts from the ability differential of players and places too much focus on how far you have got in maxing. For longevity the game needs to reduce the focus on process and pivot towards ability/game play.

That would require resources requirements to be harder to achieve but upgrades to take less time. This is reflected to an extent in WW and Oil.

Now THAT is a succinct and efficient statement.
However, l could counter with: your previous argument is based on lower players not being able to catch higher players. Times are not an issue in lower ages. A person spending a reasonable amount of time can progress to IA, maybe even Global or Atomic, in less than a year. (I've done it casually and l have a 2nd account going IA after a month in EA).
The game is then predictability harder/longer in the higher ages, which allows younger players to close the gap, yes?
And, if players have managed to get to global and Atomic through many hours of playing, isn't that an arguement that these players are, by expectation, good players, because of their long hours to get there?
Sure, if someone gets there by paying it will be reflected in their 'playing'!

 

[LordJestix]

Now THAT is a succinct and efficient statement.
However, l could counter with: your previous argument is based on lower players not being able to catch higher players. Times are not an issue in lower ages. A person spending a reasonable amount of time can progress to IA, maybe even Global or Atomic, in less than a year. (I've done it casually and l have a 2nd account going IA after a month in EA).
The game is then predictability harder/longer in the higher ages, which allows younger players to close the gap, yes?
And, if players have managed to get to global and Atomic through many hours of playing, isn't that an arguement that these players are, by expectation, good players, because of their long hours to get there?
Sure, if someone gets there by paying it will be reflected in their 'playing'!

After some more careful calculations my previous numbers were a bit off. With that said its still pretty bad how long it starts to take to advance to the next age, especially considering they are adding 2 more ages. These numbers are estimates as always based off the data i have via wiki and assume you max the entire age before moving to the next.

=TIME/(16/AVG WORKERS)
AGE	YEARS PER AGE	DAYS/AGE	30D MONTHS/AGE
01 Stone Age	4.09113E-05	0.014932622	0.000497754
02 Bronze Age	0.000609299	0.22239409	0.007413136
03 Iron Age	0.004857663	1.773046935	0.059101564
04 Classical Age	0.020113451	7.341409714	0.244713657
05 Medieval Age	0.055010464	20.0788195	0.669293983
06 Gunpowder Age	0.122077377	44.55824274	1.485274758
07 Enlightenment Age	0.19991409	72.96864267	2.432288089
08 Industrial Age	0.452269294	165.0782922	5.502609739
09 Global Age	0.667669641	243.6994189	8.123313963
10 Atomic Age	1.064922854	388.6968418	12.95656139
Grand Total	2.587485044	944.4320411	31.48106804

What this table tells us, it essentially takes the same amount of time to fully max out AA as it does to fully max out IA and GA Combined.

Again, these numbers dont factor in University research or library/armory research(which really doesnt factor since no workers are needed.

You didnt fully max out your EA base then. Based solely on forest and building upgrades and assuming you have 16 workers available( both beginner packs) it takes 2.4 months to fully upgrade your base's buildings and clear the forest to get from EA to IA. So either 1, you used crowns or 2. you 'rushed' your base to get to IA from EA or 3. you are lying/miss remember.

Just because someone gets to AA doesnt mean they are a good player in terms of skill/strategy. It just means they have invested a lot of money and or time to get to a high level account. I can easily raid millions of loot a day just deploying a handful of infantry each attack. That doesnt make me skilled sniping resource buildings.

But lets just pretend that CW was released today. A near max AA player has essentially a 2 year lead over a player that just went IA. We will also assume that Space age will come out in that 2 year time frame and its pretty much impossible for a IA player to get a max account in under 3 years. This games shelf life is probably shorter than that from this point.

In all honesty if I had known it would take 4.5 years to max a base i probably wouldnt have started playing this game.

 

[Manifesto]

I never said ''maxed'' to anything, l said progress. Only a puritan would max everything. That is a totally different discussion. Smart people max the important things then move up.
You really should read what people write and not project your prejudices into the equation.
And added to that, l thinks its reasonable to expect that players who have progressed to global or atomic by playing many, many hours are smart players.
There are supposedly millions of players, it's easy to use one or two variations and say ''it cant be so''. Easy, and also inaccurate.
Again, don't project your prejudices. Try to think with an open mind and a closed mouth.