Would it be possible for you guys to consider forcing an end to the Neolithiic on the player when he earns a fixed number of stars? I would suggest something along the lines of a total number of five stars earned or three earned in any one category, hunting (+1 military), pop (+1 food) or science (+1 science) moves you through and you get the legacy bonus depending on which three stars you earned and none if you don't get three but have 2-2-1 instead.

What issue are you trying to solve by forcing an end to an era? Do you feel some players are spending too much time in neolithic and getting an unfair advantage?

I don't see any benefit to limiting choice of when to end an era - it's one of the key choices in the game.

Dayvit78 wrote:

What issue are you trying to solve by forcing an end to an era? Do you feel some players are spending too much time in neolithic and getting an unfair advantage?

I don't see any benefit to limiting choice of when to end an era - it's one of the key choices in the game.

Excuse me but who appointed you as the gatekeeper of community suggestions? I'm not answering your questions, thank you - the proposal is clear and concise and if the developers want to consider it or ignore it, that's fine by me.

I think the idea of combining legacy trait to what they do during Neolithic Era is really good. It'll require more strategic decisions, which lacks in  current version. 

Katrina wrote:

Dayvit78 wrote:

What issue are you trying to solve by forcing an end to an era? Do you feel some players are spending too much time in neolithic and getting an unfair advantage?

I don't see any benefit to limiting choice of when to end an era - it's one of the key choices in the game.

Excuse me but who appointed you as the gatekeeper of community suggestions? I'm not answering your questions, thank you - the proposal is clear and concise and if the developers want to consider it or ignore it, that's fine by me.

The idea of a forum is to discuss ideas between members, I don't understand this hostile reaction to Dayvit78's questions. We are interested by your idea and just wonder what you believe this will make better, that's all.

Well, I guess I did push back a bit harder than necessary but a reminder that the questions were:

What issue are you trying to solve by forcing an end to an era?

Do you feel some players are spending too much time in neolithic and getting an unfair advantage?

No, I'm not answering those because the answers are obvious and his subsequent remark 'answers' them.

I don't see any benefit to limiting choice of when to end an era - it's one of the key choices in the game.

The suggestion is quite complete and concise as it stands and, IMO, those are not questions that develop it or encourage development. I'm not going to put words into his mouth but his objection is plain - he feels it is a key choice in the game and my suggestion takes that away from him. There's no debate to be had there.

Obviously, my suggestion's not a perfect solution and requires some further analysis - why five stars for example? Otherwise, I think it fits in quite elegantly with the existing game design and adds a new level of strategy to the Neolithic to replace the "I want to stay here as long as possible to max the benefits" and any issues that might emerge as a result. Perhaps a developer might see some benefit to it ;) It also means that players can choose not to pick up science anomalies in order to max their population or to delay gathering those berries that will get the third pop star in order to get some science or influence before advancing?

None of that means I have any expectation that it will be adopted - I actually think it won't but at least I tried.

Katrina wrote:

Well, I guess I did push back a bit harder than necessary but a reminder that the questions were:

What issue are you trying to solve by forcing an end to an era?

Do you feel some players are spending too much time in neolithic and getting an unfair advantage?

No, I'm not answering those because the answers are obvious and his subsequent remark 'answers' them.

I don't see any benefit to limiting choice of when to end an era - it's one of the key choices in the game.

The suggestion is quite complete and concise as it stands and, IMO, those are not questions that develop it or encourage development. I'm not going to put words into his mouth but his objection is plain - he feels it is a key choice in the game and my suggestion takes that away from him. There's no debate to be had there.

Obviously, my suggestion's not a perfect solution and requires some further analysis - why five stars for example? Otherwise, I think it fits in quite elegantly with the existing game design and adds a new level of strategy to the Neolithic to replace the "I want to stay here as long as possible to max the benefits" and any issues that might emerge as a result. Perhaps a developer might see some benefit to it ;) It also means that players can choose not to pick up science anomalies in order to max their population or to delay gathering those berries that will get the third pop star in order to get some science or influence before advancing?

None of that means I have any expectation that it will be adopted - I actually think it won't but at least I tried.

I think your taking the questions the wrong way. The person was asking what are the benefits to doing this cause they see none. Responding with a "that's obvious" remark isn't helpful. It wasn't obvious to that person and while the person did technically answer their own question, you are being unnecessarily hostile for no reason. 

More or less a side benefit to your suggestion would speed up games as everyone would come out of the age faster and start settling sooner. So it be interesting if it was an option. 

Yutterh wrote:

Katrina wrote:

Well, I guess I did push back a bit harder than necessary but a reminder that the questions were:

What issue are you trying to solve by forcing an end to an era?

Do you feel some players are spending too much time in neolithic and getting an unfair advantage?

No, I'm not answering those because the answers are obvious and his subsequent remark 'answers' them.

I don't see any benefit to limiting choice of when to end an era - it's one of the key choices in the game.

The suggestion is quite complete and concise as it stands and, IMO, those are not questions that develop it or encourage development. I'm not going to put words into his mouth but his objection is plain - he feels it is a key choice in the game and my suggestion takes that away from him. There's no debate to be had there.

Obviously, my suggestion's not a perfect solution and requires some further analysis - why five stars for example? Otherwise, I think it fits in quite elegantly with the existing game design and adds a new level of strategy to the Neolithic to replace the "I want to stay here as long as possible to max the benefits" and any issues that might emerge as a result. Perhaps a developer might see some benefit to it ;) It also means that players can choose not to pick up science anomalies in order to max their population or to delay gathering those berries that will get the third pop star in order to get some science or influence before advancing?

None of that means I have any expectation that it will be adopted - I actually think it won't but at least I tried.

I think your taking the questions the wrong way. The person was asking what are the benefits to doing this cause they see none. Responding with a "that's obvious" remark isn't helpful. It wasn't obvious to that person and while the person did technically answer their own question, you are being unnecessarily hostile for no reason. 

More or less a side benefit to your suggestion would speed up games as everyone would come out of the age faster and start settling sooner. So it be interesting if it was an option. 

The reason, whether you think it is good or bad, is because I've seen too many discussions online get derailed in this fashion and I've already admitted that I pushed back harder than was necessary. The suggestion was presented in a respectfully pristine fashion and was also very clear in its intent, namely force an end to the Neolithic upon earning that fifth era star and award the player with a legacy bonus depending on which star the player earned three of, or none if he had 2-2-1. And the issues it addresses are obvious - and as you recognise, the respondent answered their own question - it removes choice and that's it. Of course it does and that's the entire point. What is there to debate? Had he not recognised it, yes, it would be unhelpful not to explain.