Considering Endgame post level 80 discussion

I have read some interesting data concerning early choices and allocations. I've been lurking and reading heavily doing my best to pick up tips from those who have gone before.

I've come to some conclusions. I'm not griping, just... curious and discussing. That's why I posted in discussion.

When I consider the gaming industry in general, I can't think of another instance where I enter into a MP game knowing that while I am forced at some point to compete with the games leader, I have absolutely no chance of winning. This seems to be the much discussed gauntlet level at 80. Yes I can rise, I get that, I can strive for number one over a long time period, but I can't hope to catch an equally devoted but higher level player nor beat him. The limited variables of the matches ensure this. Is this correct? I mean at 80 you cannot ever win against a 160 player? (assuming all else was equal, I understand it's not)

Example; Even playing chess against a far superior opponent, I will gain small victories within a game or draw ties within a match etc, all the while learning and improving with the task of matching and surpassing the play of my opponent. I have game choices that I can try in order to see what's possible and then correct errors that I will invariably make. Within the context of Castle Ages, there is no hope of correction, you cannot reallocate attack, defense, energy etc... So early mistakes potentially doom you forever?

Arguably money and equipment is one great leveler, however assuming we all sat idle for a while and did nothing but built vast real estate empires prior to advancing in the game, that could be easily negated.

So now I'm curious.. if there are no variables that allow a win against the much higher ranks, what exactly is the point of engagement? Of the whole game for that matter? I wouldn't enter a ring in a boxing match against an opponent armed with a 50 cal machine gun. Why would I do it in a game? Games typically offer both strategy and chance. It seems this game enters a phase of "no chance".

So I ask the forum folk as points of discussion if I am reading correctly or I've just lost the whole gist of what's happening.

Respectfully,
Ugly

[Lena Gkika]

Originally Posted by Ugly

When I consider the gaming industry in general, I can't think of another instance where I enter into a MP game knowing that while I am forced at some point to compete with the games leader, I have absolutely no chance of winning. This seems to be the much discussed gauntlet level at 80. Yes I can rise, I get that, I can strive for number one over a long time period, but I can't hope to catch an equally devoted but higher level player nor beat him. The limited variables of the matches ensure this. Is this correct? I mean at 80 you cannot ever win against a 160 player? (assuming all else was equal, I understand it's not)

started a month later than many high level players and i am now a lot levels higher than many of them and have thousands of wins more than them. Many devoted players will get tired after a while and not be as consistent as you are as a newbie. I have seen people that were 20 levels below catching up on me lately (without favor point use) just because i play a little bit less than before, especially till about few days ago, when battling was extremely difficult.
I could also win players 100 levels above me since level 70 due to their luck of initial strategy. Moreover, after the changes to the battle system, how you choose to allocate points might do significant difference. Most of the high level players i know have gone all or almost all defense till now. I was 3:2 favoring attack, so currently my high attack beats many high level players but i started losing more against lower level players that went all attack as well. Nobody is immune. TRying to go 50-50 is a big mistake imho, cause you will be weaker in both attack and defense. You have to pick a side and stick there.

Within the context of Castle Ages, there is no hope of correction, you cannot reallocate attack, defense, energy etc... So early mistakes potentially doom you forever?

they can't ruin you forever but you ll need a lot of patience and probably some hiding till you recover, if you want to preserve stats

So now I'm curious.. if there are no variables that allow a win against the much higher ranks, what exactly is the point of engagement? Of the whole game for that matter? I wouldn't enter a ring in a boxing match against an opponent armed with a 50 cal machine gun. Why would I do it in a game? Games typically offer both strategy and chance. It seems this game enters a phase of "no chance".

You are assuming high level players will play forever and will do no bad choices. I assure you that many high level players did mistakes while leveling, and this is how rest of CA world gets to know how to play this game correctly. We shared that knowledge. Many also started getting bored and are trying new games, so a devoted newbie has plenty of time to catch up. And if you are prepared to pay the devs for a couple refills once you are done creating your army and income, you can reach high levels pretty quickly without missing out on anything

Respectfully,
Ugly

Christina said it : You are beautiful..no matter what they say

[Death Knight]

Originally Posted by Lena Gkika

TRying to go 50-50 is a big mistake imho, cause you will be weaker in both attack and defense. You have to pick a side and stick there.

my Queen dont tell me I am doing it wrong. I invested 50/50 in attack/def. my attack points and def points are equal and I manage just fine.

[Lena Gkika]

Originally Posted by Death Knight

my Queen dont tell me I am doing it wrong. I invested 50/50 in attack/def. my attack points and def points are equal and I manage just fine.

well i have no proof of it, but since the battle formula changed and att/def have their own weights, going 50-50 may get you in trouble.

My scenario goes like this :

Player A: att 400, Def 100
Player B: att 250, Def 250
Player C: att 100, Def 400

Player A will always win attacks against B. Player C will always defend the attacks of B. Player A will win 50-50 against C in any type of battle.

Players A&C will both have an occasion to win against their opponent. Player B will lose the most times

So if you like questing more or you just don't care that much about gaining many wins, go as Player C and try to defend.
If you love battling go as player A. Will be weaker in defense, but high levels already get less battles compared to low levels . Therefore someone who competes in the Most Wins category will do great as Player A, and will do fairly in Losses, which i guess is a price to be paid.

[Death Knight]

I get your point. very well observed scenario.

[Genevieve]

Its easy to look at players who have more than you and I here so many complain on these forums about who has beaten them. But IMO its just not about that. You have to pick who you battle to keep your stats in good order and those who attack you are out of your control.

Don't think about it! Just move on and see who you can beat. That is where the fun is. In the over 80 levels there are many players who don't have a 501 army so you should have plenty of options who you can battle. I for one am lingering on level 79 investing in land and equipment before I bother to cross the line. I want to be as ready as I can. Others don't bother with that so I am confident I will have plenty I can fight on the other side.

Its like life. Focus on who has less than you instead of who has more or we shall all go MAD.

Thank you for the responses.

In no particular order;

Genevieve, thanks for the thoughts- I am looking at more though. If the game is only to battle those who are weak, it's not really very attractive. Games for me are about strategy and chance. Yes, a weak player should have an element of chance to beat me, just as I should have an element of chance to beat a stronger one. As to not looking ahead, I always look ahead, those coming behind me can enjoy the view that way. Or not I hold out to you that there are many historical example of small forces lucking out and beating larger ones in combat via strictly superior strategy.

Lena, thank you as well, it seems you've played for some time. Essentially from what you've said and the changes that have been recorded I can see that the whole environment is a work in progress with the company responsible for development trying to find their way in the wild as they learn. It's tough to build an application strategy within Facebook that actually pays the bills and retains player interest to ensure repeat visits for the ad revenue alone (FV purchases aside).

I'd love to model the impact of need for revenue against the game design, but I'm missing too much data, like at what level the average users stops playing after the initial drop off. The dev team is likely targeting that for retained interest and balancing it against retention of longer term players.

Investing in playing a game is leisure time that needs to be allocated carefully being that there is so little of it. I always play to win but since there seems to be so few strategic choices, I'm not sure this is for me. Even the kids games like Chaotic have more complexity and choice. Please don't take that as personal criticism of any player, it's just what I've observed and concluded, right or wrong.

I think I'm going to give it a pass at the moment and keep an eye on it to see if it evolves.

Thank you for the input, it was appreciated.

Regards,
Ugly

[slosh]

I haven't been playing long, but one thing that has troubled me looking forward is the lack of an "end game." The fact that there's no level cap or allowance to reallocate points would, imo, discourage a prolonged stay in this game.

I'm going to bring up WoW for a second, and before you all claim, "This isn't WoW, so don't compare it," please read to understand where I'm going.


So take an MMO like World of Warcraft (used because I played it for years). There's both a Player-vs-Environment (like questing) and a Player-vs-Player (battling) aspect to the game.

With the original release, the max level is 60. Say you're PvE specced, but you want to do PvP. You spend a little money and then you can respec for PvP. Or maybe you were a healer and now want to do DPS. Again, spend money and respec.

Then they release an expansion, and now you can get to level 70. Again, costs money to go back and forth between specs.


I think having something similar would be a good idea for CA. As it stands now, if someone continues to play the game forever, there is little to no chance that someone new could beat them -- ever. The discrepancy in skill points would remain too high. Assuming both parties are equally intelligent when it comes to their strategy, the ultimate deciding factor is the amount of time invested. So assuming equal time played per week, the new player stands zero chance.


But if you capped the levels and allowed people to adjust their points, someone brand new could get to the "end game" and have a reasonable chance when fighting someone else. Maybe the veteran would get all the new units/weapons/armor/spells first, but a new player could eventually "catch up" and stand a reasonable chance at defeating him. At that point, it's the strategy that dictates the outcome, not purely the hours invested.

With a new "release" like they did a few weeks ago, you open up new units, spells, new battle ranks and a new level cap. The veteran doesn't necessarily hold a huge advantage at this point, allowing the new player a chance to win more matches.

I think this would be a healthy path for the game. It gives newer players a long path to get to the end game, but it's not an endless one like there is now. It also provides veterans a (larger) threat that they might be defeated through a better strategy, forcing them to make adjustments. But the adjustments are done not through the slow process of a new skill point allocation as you increase in level, but through other means.


How you allow people to adjust their points could be done in a variety of ways. Maybe it costs money and increases with each adjustment. Maybe it's favor points. Maybe you can only adjust 'X' number of skill points at a time. Maybe there's a cooldown like the demi-god blessings where you can adjust 'X' number of points every 'Y' number of hours/days/weeks. Maybe the costs start decreasing after 'X' number of hours/days/weeks from your last adjustment. Whatever the developers think is healthy for the game.


But going back to Lena's post: "Many devoted players will get tired after a while and not be as consistent as you are as a newbie."

I think that should alarm people and is perhaps evidence that maybe the "end game" should be thought through a little more. Presenting new challenges is the best way to achieve this, and what better way than to create a new "end game" every so often?


Well, my post has gone from Discussion to Suggestion pretty quickly, but I found the topic interesting and kept typing. Flame away!

[chupacabra]

Originally Posted by slosh

As it stands now, if someone continues to play the game forever, there is little to no chance that someone new could beat them -- ever.

...

But if you capped the levels and allowed people to adjust their points, someone brand new could get to the "end game" and have a reasonable chance when fighting someone else.

Part 1: very true
Part 2: major problem i see, is that in wow-like games there are MANY other things to do with your time once you are at "max level" the lack of current content would leave max level players bored and with no reason to play the game until a new level cap was introduced.

I think if the level cap was bumped up every 2 weeks, it could help. If it were frequent enough that the old players would hit it quickly, but the new players would still have some time to catchup. It could work, just work require some things that aren't currently in the pipe, like new quests which they don't seem to produce regularly or a new mechanic for the level cap. etc.

Just some thoughts.

[SDHawk]

Originally Posted by Ugly

I have read some interesting data concerning early choices and allocations. I've been lurking and reading heavily doing my best to pick up tips from those who have gone before.

I've come to some conclusions. I'm not griping, just... curious and discussing. That's why I posted in discussion.

When I consider the gaming industry in general, I can't think of another instance where I enter into a MP game knowing that while I am forced at some point to compete with the games leader, I have absolutely no chance of winning. This seems to be the much discussed gauntlet level at 80. Yes I can rise, I get that, I can strive for number one over a long time period, but I can't hope to catch an equally devoted but higher level player nor beat him. The limited variables of the matches ensure this. Is this correct? I mean at 80 you cannot ever win against a 160 player? (assuming all else was equal, I understand it's not)

Example; Even playing chess against a far superior opponent, I will gain small victories within a game or draw ties within a match etc, all the while learning and improving with the task of matching and surpassing the play of my opponent. I have game choices that I can try in order to see what's possible and then correct errors that I will invariably make. Within the context of Castle Ages, there is no hope of correction, you cannot reallocate attack, defense, energy etc... So early mistakes potentially doom you forever?

Arguably money and equipment is one great leveler, however assuming we all sat idle for a while and did nothing but built vast real estate empires prior to advancing in the game, that could be easily negated.

So now I'm curious.. if there are no variables that allow a win against the much higher ranks, what exactly is the point of engagement? Of the whole game for that matter? I wouldn't enter a ring in a boxing match against an opponent armed with a 50 cal machine gun. Why would I do it in a game? Games typically offer both strategy and chance. It seems this game enters a phase of "no chance".

So I ask the forum folk as points of discussion if I am reading correctly or I've just lost the whole gist of what's happening.

Respectfully,
Ugly

You are reading it correctly, you are just looking at it kinda onesided and shortsided.(No offense meant)

For me, it isnt beating the highest player in the game. I start out pretty sure that is unattainable. If, as you say, they are as dedicated as I. This game, however, has a built in awesome zone, as in the fact that at any given time in game play, there are many opponents who you have come up the ranks with. These folk sometimes beat me,sometimes I beat them, and they are numerous. There are side wars being waged all round.

In the event I catch up with someone above me who I have been able to keep an eye on...and eventually start winning some battles, which has happened, then I get that lil extra. But there is plenty to keep me interested in the game without having to be the top very best. Its like playing in 15 different chess tournaments..or better yet...risk games...all at once!~