A mistake that a player does very early has a disproportional impact later. I mean that the difference in skill has an exponential effect later and this helps distinguish between the good and the bad players if the takeoff stage is longer.
It allows large ELO ranges, from 1300 for weak players to 2200 for very strong ones. And this ELO range is very attractive for the most competitive players.
If we take out or shorten dark age, this would shrink this range. So 1300 would become 1400, and 2200 would become 2000. This would take out lots of the shine of this game as an e-sport.
I still remember all those comments during the development of User Patch: "If we do this, then there will be no difference between a good and a bad player" and similar comments. I could collect them and edit a book lol. People begging to keep the rax firing at scout bug, the teleport monk bug and other really stupid bugs just for the sake of discrimination between a good and a bad player, or a new vs a more experienced one. I understand the deeper reasons even though I hate all the stupid bugs.
Dark age is long enough to allow for the best player to accumulate power, via all these little things as deer luring, boar stealing, walling and camp placement, and in the end via faster age up or stronger feudal/castle age with upgrades or TCs. It also reduces the effect of random bad luck.
Sure we have 10' of peace and this has an effect on streams, but viewers can always go grab something to drink or something, since they know that the first 5-10 minutes are pretty standard and indifferent. But the same happens later, when the game is decided and the losing player/team just won't quit. Similar stuff happen in other sports, e-sports or not.
In short, even though a shorter dark age would help "streamability", it would not help the ELO thing and people would abandon the game, thus reducing "streamability" in the end.
It allows large ELO ranges, from 1300 for weak players to 2200 for very strong ones. And this ELO range is very attractive for the most competitive players.
If we take out or shorten dark age, this would shrink this range. So 1300 would become 1400, and 2200 would become 2000. This would take out lots of the shine of this game as an e-sport.
I still remember all those comments during the development of User Patch: "If we do this, then there will be no difference between a good and a bad player" and similar comments. I could collect them and edit a book lol. People begging to keep the rax firing at scout bug, the teleport monk bug and other really stupid bugs just for the sake of discrimination between a good and a bad player, or a new vs a more experienced one. I understand the deeper reasons even though I hate all the stupid bugs.
Dark age is long enough to allow for the best player to accumulate power, via all these little things as deer luring, boar stealing, walling and camp placement, and in the end via faster age up or stronger feudal/castle age with upgrades or TCs. It also reduces the effect of random bad luck.
Sure we have 10' of peace and this has an effect on streams, but viewers can always go grab something to drink or something, since they know that the first 5-10 minutes are pretty standard and indifferent. But the same happens later, when the game is decided and the losing player/team just won't quit. Similar stuff happen in other sports, e-sports or not.
In short, even though a shorter dark age would help "streamability", it would not help the ELO thing and people would abandon the game, thus reducing "streamability" in the end.