First the game is meant to take too long, you often won’t reach level 30 and practically unlock things like GOs for at least 12 months but often 12-24 months.
I'm not sure it was "meant" to. The fact that it does not have an expiration today does not mean it is best for gameplay and long term player retention.
I think the game can be tailored to a 12 month cycle (or whatever we settle on), but if there are enough players who want to continue a world in perpetuity, I won't object.
In fact, I think design changes are not really meant to be disruptive (that is, I don't think it was intentional in the way that current players can get blindsided with a major impact).
All was going fine until AS got uploaded - I had neither the time nor the CV to fund a go at it. Am I happy that there was a swarm of noobies that passed my company's rank? That I lost key suppliers? That...etc? NO!
So much for a game "meant"/designed for long term play.
You, indeed, recognize that changes will be introduced that could fundamentally rejigger the balance.
Since that will be the case, it makes sense to have a way to introduce those without messing up people's current play.
BTW, I've been playing for over 2 years, and reached level 34 so far. Really there are few benefits anymore at this level that are all that interesting (GO unlocks, Certificates, Achievements - all are not that interesting, imho, but I do see that some may find them so).
The main "fun" for me is defining and optimizing a business model for success (i.e. ultimately, it means, can it get me to/near the top in a reasonable time - not days or weeks, but months) and am I getting a fair shot at it (after AS I question this now).
Second I don’t think the current player base could be split without detracting from the game and future splits would take new players from the main server and they would then be pushed into a smaller “dead” server. There’s also the fact that some of these players won’t be playing forever and will eventually quit
If you haven't played in a multi-world game platform that does a good job of this, I can see how you may think that. Fact is, it can be MORE fun, as one can play in more than one world.
There will always be attrition. I think an incentive structure (aside from the fun of playing in more than one world) can be designed to keep the serious players on - see my suggestions on my OP for starters.
Not sure how long you've been playing SC, but when I started this game, IIRC, there were several hundred players - not the 1000s there are now. It was fun then - worlds with a few hundred players (if that were to happen) will be fun too.
Another issue is that I don’t see an issue with the current rankings, sure they may be harder to topple but those people have spent 2-4 years growing to that position,
if you did the same you would doubtless be close in the top 500 if not top 50.
Man, if only that were true. It is far from it.
Like I said, I am around 250 Rank. I am distinctly NOT doing the same. I like Retail and I've stuck with Retail.
I see 9 of the top 10 ten sitting on AS (Colorado-School-of-Mines is the only one without SOs).
Do the same? It wasn't an option.
I looked at AS shortly after it started, but it was going to be WAAAAAAAY too much personal time commitment AND/OR it required a ton of up from cash, which my company didn't have.
When I see a Horde pass me by because they had either to commit, that seriously SUCKED!
All I want is a fair shake at a game that will suit my time availability - I deeply suspect anyone starting the game in recent times wants the same.
As of right now, #1's CV = $2,178,694,144. My CV = $262,181,943 (12% of #1's).
My company is growing in rank, but not at a rate that can get anywhere near #1 in the foreseeable future (i.e. not even another year or two will do it!).
"Doing the same" should mean specializing in and optimizing on one of multiple business models that provide a path to the top - not all doing the same industry and building sets (how many top 10s are dominated with SO buildings?).
What a fun game if we have to all do the exact same things to get to the top - Not!
Also, I highly doubt the 1000s that have joined after I have are looking to hang their hat on a game for a "2 to 4 year" commitment.
Another thing that’s in the game is “admin overhead” it makes smaller companies grow faster then larger ones a rank 5000 company will be rank 3000 before a rank 100 company is rank 90 for example.
I understand the rationale.
If that is a reason for such crazy Admin OH in Retail, then it is a poor tool for that purpose. Better to use graduated taxes as a mean to temper growth for everyone - this will hit everyone of each tier of profitability the same. Then allow economies of scale to be realized.
I am quickly reaching the end of the scale of my Retail expansion. There was a reason why I was #3 employer three times last year.
This is a big limiting factor in getting to top 10. #1 has <60% of my staffing at ~10x the CV.
Also the addition of new updates will likely disrupt the ranking enough as it is, when you are in the top 500 everything you have is extremely high level and fine tuned, it could cost tens or hundreds of millions to change it and
smaller companies can do it much easier and cheaper since they aren’t going to lose nearly as much sales and production as a large company would. There’s also the fact that some of these players won’t be playing forever and will eventually quit
Absolutely NOT true of AS when it was introduced. As I mentioned above, it took tons of time in the game (which many noobie players evidently had) or one needed a company with lots of cash to invest (guess who had this). I had neither.
There is no guarantee that will be true for any future intros either.
I think it is an unhealthy problem when so many players are looking for the next big thing to jump on. Think about why?
Is it because they exhausted the challenges of their existing industry and they are bored? There is tons of depth in each and plenty of nuance in the game, as I can see it.
Or, is it because they don't see a path to the top and are looking for a (fast) way to get there? I think much of the desire is based on this latter sentiment.
So, what happens if the intro of the new Food industry is more balanced and not a profit spigot like the AS debacle? Tons of players will be disappointed.
As I said, there will always be turnover. Thing is, the game doesn't want the turnover to happen because of disappointment, or, worse, a disruption crashes what someone spent the last "2 to 4 years" building.
I think introducing big new changes like that are better handled with new worlds - everyone starts on the same footing (maybe not the game time availability), there is no in-game incumbent's advantage.
And, there is no traumatic impact on current players from an intro that didn't go as anticipated.
BTW, before Patrik announce major changes to AS, I was ready to quit, I was that p***ed off.
Easy to avoid hurting your current player base using alternate worlds to introduce these kinds of changes.
Hope this helps. Thanks.