SpelerWeetIkHoeveel

Community Sage
  • Content count

    3752
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About SpelerWeetIkHoeveel

  • Rank
    Champion

Contact Methods

  • Xbox LIVE Gamertag
    WeetIkHoeveel

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    is everything!

Recent Profile Visitors

4128 profile views
  1. Hi, I'm SpelerWeetIkHoeveel, and I have OCD. How are you today?
  2. The only server problem I currently have is failure to connect me with a right proper 1.200 crown whale. It's not that I need crowns, but my alliance needs them, so I'm taking one for the group now hitting that next button. No server issues here the last few hours. None reported in alliance as well.
  3. You're derailing your own thread a bit here. You put the focus on the fact that F2P game business models do indeed have no limit on how much money players can spend on the game. You're forgetting that there is indeed very much a limit to what players are willing to spend on a game. And that it's very well possible and viable to play this game without ever spending a penny on it, in fact it's pace lends it to such casual play. I honestly think the F2P business model used in AoE:CS is a very reasonable one. That it still enables some to spend far more than I would ever spend on, say, a car, well that's all personal priority so who am I to judge. But when I look at how long a pint's worth of gold lasts me and how far it gets me in game, then I have no reason to complain. There are F2P business models out there that are truly bastardly greedy though. Like the ones that let you buy "gamble boxes" that ever so rarely contain the best/unique/most powerful stuff you can have in game, but are far more likely to give you a worthless booby prize. Those business models, that skirt gambling laws, now those are the truly greedy ones. I suppose you'd be happier with a fixed price model, where you buy the game, and subsequent expansions, for a fixed price. Or a subscription model, where you pay a monthly fee? I don't know. As a Dutchman, I have to like the fact that I've reduced the cash I spend on gaming entertainment by 90% easily, just because I play F2P games. Sure enough all of those games, the people who pay more get things done faster etc., but I'm a patient man, enjoy myself just as much if not more, and do have the last laugh if I say so myself. Not the last word though, that's yours.
  4. And what good would it do when the signal those new players get from the current endgame players is "uhg bored to tears gonna quit no new content stoopid game"? No, they're going to cater to the endgame as well. If only because they are indeed loyal, and provide a solid foundation of revenue. But also because we are important for the game's health, a thriving endgame population is something that draws in new players, and helps retain them. I actually do expect quite a bit. I agree Android version is huge step forward. I believe they started with it a lot earlier than we think. Perhaps they're already done with it, given how they have this 'rule' to only announce finished stuff? They've announced it for March, so chances are they've got the tech ready for release. Then why not release right now? Maybe they want something extra with the release, something they haven't announced yet because -that- is still being worked on. A lot of maybe's in there, but as the other thread mentioned, 33 million peanut butter is nothing to scoff at, and to carve a good slice off that, you need a big, BIG, knife. Don't bring a rowboat if you're looking to fish big in the ocean, unless you're willing to be happy with fishing from the pier.
  5. That's not a realistic view on long term business. And given the past and projected future lifespan of this game, long term the business is. Long term, sustainable business cannot exist without a win win. So what do -you- get out of a game? Entertainment? I know I do. So they get some money from me, I get entertainment from their product. It's business. It's a fair exchange out of free will where both sides get something good out of it. I'm happy with that.
  6. Oh yeah they'll give their own twist to it. I bet they will. I also bet they're already on top of it as well. Not because of answerability. Andy, have you forgotten how they've let us, their most loyal fanbase, simmer and simmer? They do care about us, but they sure enough put themselves into a position that requires a thick skin when it comes to our cries of woe. They're like the loving parent that does not show the love as much and often as they like, because a higher authority prohibits it. They've put themselves in a place where they are simply not answerable when it comes to new features. So not because of answerability. But because of momentum. That is where it's at. It's not going to fly without momentum. You need momentum. And if you're very, very lucky the momentum allows you to go viral, but viral is just the jackpot of the lottery. Momentum is how big the market slice grows in the relatively short opportunity window after release, without going viral. And after momentum comes retention. And new bouts of momentum with each patch.
  7. I know you didn't write it, but I won't bother to comment yonder on a year old piece. My response does have it's place here, because it spans further than just that one particular review even if I use it to illustrate the, in my eyes, somewhat poor quality of the reviews this game has gotten in the past. It deserves better reviews, I think. But the mobile market doesn't drive on website/magazine reviews the way the PC/console game market does. It drives on the dynamics of the app store. "If a lot of people play this new game, it's gotta be gud". And on the dynamics of social media - including FB. Where each player becomes "someone in your bubble that plays this game and so should you". In that respect reviews, even those on websites, are old media. They're not seeking to fish in a lake, but in an ocean. Common logic would dictate you will need to bring a ship, not a rowboat. Or you're just going to stand on some pier and use one or a few rods, but will that feed the family?
  8. I know for fact that my next phone will be an android device. I don't have a say in that, other than that I can try to keep my current phone up and running as long as it keeps working. It's replacement is bound to be android. The game will work on android as it does on iOS and on WP. But your appstore will look increasingly different than the iOS/android, if you stick to WP, as the WP OS moves more towards being the mobile platform of desktop. So even less dedicated mobile games, even more serious connectivity with the office. Maybe - and why not - additional functionality for PC games, I suppose as the WP platform becomes increasingly compatible with the desktop windows platform, there are opportunities there as well. A mobile sidekick to your MMO, things like that. SGI is an independent game development studio. They do a lot of work for MS though, that's for sure. But it's not like their bound to the MS OS. So it's clever business to expand to the Android market. It's accessing a huge market. And doing it the way they do, with the quadruple platform, you can build on top of your current playerbase rather than replace. That's actually pretty smart indeed.
  9. Various means of inter player trade have been suggested before. The devs have in the past said that this is unlikely to happen because of game balancing reasons being mainly possible exploits. Yet as we are now, inter player trade does happen to a limited extend. It's not unheard of that a maxed player who has run out of food/wood upgrade options stops by a younger, growing alliance and donates their surplus food/wood to that alliance's wonder. So the demand among the players is surely there. But can the devs device a way that can't be exploited, doesn't overthrow game balance, fits into the business model and is a larger priority than other features on the drawing board? The answer to that has been "no". I suspect it'll remain "no" for some time to come. I could be wrong though.
  10. Rewind to beginning of 2016 and read some of my posts regarding how I looked at the future of this game back then. You'll find a decidedly different tone than today. Yes, I never ignore the full part of that infamous half empty cup, but I don't ignore the empty part either. I guess it makes me an optimistic realist. And many who consider themselves realists are more pessimistic than they think themselves to be.
  11. Personally, I think a lot of AoE:CS reviewers miss the mark somewhat or even almost completely, because of the perspective of the reviewer and/or the quality of the reviewer. Like the reviewers from the past that reviewed AoE:CS from the perspective that this was the next AoE title, and measured it up to full fledged PC AoE titles. Needless to say reviewers that do this are always disappointed, because AoE:CS is not made primarily for PC, but for the mobile platform, including some of the less powerful hardware. The full PC game standard is unfair. At least the review you linked does not do that, phew. Graphical stuff, I'm sorry, but that is partly in the eye of the beholder. So if you like style A, and dislike style B, you're going to give a bad review because a game uses style B? Please, when you review, learn the meaning of objective and subjective. The other side of the coin here is for what tech you are making the game. AoE:CS plays pretty good on a load of mobile devices. The trade in, part of that is graphics I bet, because the capacity is used for individual unit control. The review you linked doesn't mention anything about the broad scope of devices you can play this game smoothly on. I think the game scales very well to older hardware. And also there's how AoE:CS is a hybrid game. It's part RTS, part tower defense, part builder. So if you review it from the perspective of a pure game of one these three categories, you're gonna miss things, and not find the extra's that special. I find the review you linked compares it too directly to CoC, and takes CoC as 'the standard of what is good', so anything that deviates from that can't be good, or isn't good enough. Finally.... do reviewers actually -play- the game? No seriously, I mean play the game beyond, say, age IV? AoE:CS has a very real learning curve. And it's in the learning curve that the full individual unit control really starts to shine, and defense options mature. You start out like a lot of other games, but as you age up the gameplay sets itself apart more and more. The depths of strategy come into play more and more. The review you linked says nothing about the learning curve, which for AoE:CS is easy to learn hard to master, and that is a value in itself, in particular for a game that provides enjoyment through strategy. AoE:CS has a focus there, and missing it in a review to be honest is somewhat of a disqualification. User reviews. Hmm.. I daresay the user reviews of 2016 should be colored somewhat negatively because of the slower rate of new content and the lack of novelty of that content. I mean, let's face it, while the devs were working there ***s off on stuff we don't see yet, we got "more of the same" in the form of Age X, and some extra's that were welcome but none sensational. IIRC the first year review were raving. But the gauntlet is there for sure. It's easy to score a 5 * user review on the windows phone platform, because there's not that many great games out there on it, it's a lot harder to score a 4 * user review on Android, with the huge volume of good to great games. Whether my optimism or your pessimism will prevail, or we'll end up in the middle, the future will tell. The surprise jump to Android is telling though: there's one thing that did prove to me: the devs -have truly been- hard at work. And SGI -is- a lot more dedicated to this game than I thought a few months ago. And so I boldly claim that optimism has the better cards today. If you had asked me a year ago, I'd have given pessimism the upper hand. But SGI had this joker card up their sleeves. We didn't know, but now that we do, we have to change our view, I think. My prediction is that during 2017 we'll see the following for AoE:CS: - horizontal expansion content, the type of content that adds gameplay for (almost) all ages, battle chests could be that, an extra use for pennants could be in this category. - vertical expansion content, further fleshing out of Age X. - introduction of specific matchmaking, and yes this would include Alliance Wars in some form - which doubles as horizontal gameplay, so two birds one stone there.
  12. Answer 1: The gauntlet has already been thrown yesterday!. What remains to be seen is how far SGI will go to further set them apart from the competition. The game in itself already has unique selling points going for it that set it apart as is: individual unit control, AoE setting, graphical design, triple quadruple platform playerbase. But do we want more? Of course! Answer 2: I expect more horizontal expansion options, that serve players throughout the ages, for example to make pennants useful. Horizontal expansion is great because it gives something to the endgamers and to all those new Android players as well! I can really imagine horizontal expansion is high on the dev's list, stuff that the new players benefit from early in the game as possible. I dare bet that "Battle chests" is exactly that: horizontal expansion. And then there's filling up of the still empty headroom of Age X: further upgrades (remaining buildings, units, economy), wonder tiers, research tiers, because @Andy P needs something to do by now . Crowns will be crowns. Resources will be resources. Answer 3: Personally I think it's inevitable that the matchmaking system is expanded upon. Not replaced, it has it's place and function, but expanded upon. The expansion would be 'specific matchmaking' in whatever form, where the player has grip on the target they're about to engage, as opposed to the random matchmaking we have now, and the goal to the siege is more significant and more personally engaging than just 'getting resources/crowns'. You'll learn to regret a lost siege when this happens, and all the regret over lost sieges before 2017 will seem like mere minor grievances. That right there is what specific matchmaking can potentially bring to the table. Adrenaline. And the bottomline: there's no incentive to another next press, there's every incentive to another speedtrained army/speedrested hero. As far as the "how to" goes, we'll just have to see. The devs have over time proven they're very well aware of what we'd like to see, and at the same time very well able to give their own twist to it. So the "how to" is the most unlikely part of any suggestion we make as far as implementation goes. I'd go as far as "don't bother with the how to, that's what the devs are for".
  13. I looked at your layout and I can explain what you're seeing. If you put a tower -in- a wall, it functions double: both as tower and as (indestructible) wall piece. So you can free up extra wall pieces by putting your towers in the walls, and not outside like you've done. At first glance you can have 16 extra wall pieces, because all your towers are not part of your walls.
  14. LMBFPAO that went downhill fast And we wonder why devs would hesitate to allow user uploaded content on ingame items
  15. Here's a possible plan: you have been crown hunting. This ends today. From now you will hunt stone. By hunting stone you'll automatically start losing crowns over time, because crowns are no longer a priority. You'll slowly but surely gravitate towards your 'natural' league. What league that is depends on a ) your powerlevel and b ) how often you attack every day. While hunting stone for the next few months, keep an eye on the offered crowns. At some point you'll connect to the powerlevel pool with the top crown players, and that's your sign that you may want to try your hand at crownhunting again, test the waters a bit, you know. You should be able to hit bottom at about 2.000 I guess, provided you siege on a daily basis.