I have a slightly different perspective.
I can say that I started playing during the pandemic, even though my account was created earlier. I invested time and money in a game that challenged me and, consequently, entertained me.
Today, with practically everything maxed out, there’s nothing left for me to do except wait two days to make two attacks in world wars.
I don’t have RSS, yet my resources never run out as long as I keep my citizens organized to complete their tasks at intervals longer than a day.
Resource generation is absurd, even without a highly optimized museum or council for that purpose.
Multiplayer is monotonous. Events, regardless of their type, no longer bring any excitement because they are always the same, offering the same rewards.
Construction discounts are so frequent that they seem permanent. Upgrade times only increase, while costs decrease. This equation doesn’t make much sense.
I have an unpopular view on how things could be changed. It’s about the "scarcity" of resources.
Everything in the game has become abundant… Tokens, advisor cards (the biggest joke in the game), museum resources, war resources (I haven’t needed MP to get coalitions for almost a year), and improvement resources like gold, food, and oil.
At the very least, we could have a scarce resource, such as oil. It should be harder to obtain, and new events should be created to allow players to earn extra amounts of this scarce resource. But not the same repetitive events with easy tasks as always—rather, events that encourage greater player interaction outside of world wars.
Multiplayer should be more engaging, and the revenge system should be more interesting. Here’s an example of how it could work:
With resource scarcity, everyone would be forced to play in order to upgrade important things like university research, library research, buildings, and more.
When a player is attacked, revenge shouldn’t be limited to the attacked player alone—it should also be available to all their alliance members. That means any alliance member could attack that player, not just once, but as many times as they want, as long as the target is not under a peace treaty. If those allies choose to retaliate, it would then open revenge opportunities for all allies of the other player as well.
This would create deeper multiplayer interactions and could be used strategically. I could choose to seek revenge if I want resources from that player or if they belong to an alliance whose progress I want to slow down. This is just one example of how it could be used strategically.
In the end, scarcity makes things more valuable. The game needs to reinvent itself to remain engaging for players. Alliances should be able to interact beyond world wars.
A more dynamic, strategic, and interactive game benefits everyone.