Lower kd sizes

3 - 4 people with a bad reason for dropping sizes because they cant get to 25 ? thats a hell of a good argument.your right .hard to beat down your argument that you cant recruit enough people.

That's because there aren't enough people to recruit.

Also, I love how you guys are just so stuck on the fact that you think the reason for this suggestion is that kds can't get to 25 people, or that we want to ruin/break the top, or that I/we hate the top, or we're jealous of the top, or some other ridiculous things I've seen. It really shows you the reading comprehension of some of you.

I still haven't seen a single valid argument why it is a good idea. Just arguments people claim are valid. So some small number of players would get spread around a bit into the crappy kingdoms if they don't just choose to quit. There won't be more kingdoms unless they are more half empty kingdoms.

I haven't seen a single valid argument as to why this is a bad idea either.

I've seen (strictly from memory):
-People will quit
-Nothing will change
-Kds will remain unfilled
-Purely a suggestion targeting top kds

None of which is supported by any kind of data. So if you can reject a suggestion by pure speculation, why can't you accept one on pure speculation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palem

I haven't seen a single valid argument as to why this is a bad idea either.

I've seen (strictly from memory):
-People will quit
-Nothing will change
-Kds will remain unfilled
-Purely a suggestion targeting top kds

None of which is supported by any kind of data. So if you can reject a suggestion by pure speculation, why can't you accept one on pure speculation?

---

What are you talking about all of those - All of those - are supported by data.

Show us proof that 25 province kingdoms are good for the game, like we have shown you proof that 20 province kingdoms are good for the game.

VT2 you havent shown proof anywhere that reducing kingdom sizes will benefit the game .no more so than Catwalks old tirades that letting people legally trade would benefit the game and bring in all those people who had left who couldnt play with friends.Its just another change to see change that will not have any effect other than pissing a few people off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VT2

Show us proof that 25 province kingdoms are good for the game, like we have shown you proof that 20 province kingdoms are good for the game.

---

Here is the proof:

http://imgur.com/P0zTZ.png

This is a graph made from real utopia data based on psychological studies on ideal team size and individual member importance using multiple regression analysis to find isomorphisms with standard optimized management techniques.

I think it clearly shows 25 players is the sweet spot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by comport9

If a forced reduction in KD sizes is to be considered we must first understand how many people such a change will affect.

How many KD's have 25 players? More importantly, how many of those KD with 25 players aren't cheating...? Even if you assume there is no cheating (yeah right) how many players would be affected (forced to leave) if the KD cap was lowered to 24, 23, 20?

I've compiled a list of the number of kingdoms for each number of players.

The first number is the number of players, the second number is the number of KD's with that many players.

1 0
2 2
3 1
4 4
5 2
6 1
7 0
8 0
9 1
10 0
11 2
12 1
13 6
14 9
15 28
16 33
17 65
18 43
19 28
20 31
21 26
22 22
23 19
24 17
25 32

As you can see, the vast majority of KD's fall into the 15 - 21 player range. The next is a comparison for the number of affected players (those who would have to be moved) for the given KD size restrictions.

The first number is the KD size restriction, the second is the number of affected players.

24 32
23 66
22 123
21 211
20 341
19 527
18 723
17 1067
16 1652
15 1928

No regard has been given to the quality of the KD's involved. Would reducing the KD size to 20, affecting 341 players, make Utopia a more competitive and fun game? Maybe maybe not. But at least now we have some numbers to work with to understand the ramifications of such changes.

---

The state of the game, and the truth. Truth hurts.

and i say again. once you get to 20 and people still cant compete not only game wise but recruiting wise the next idea will be to drop it to 15. myself im at 17 players. been there all age. doesnt mean this is a good idea.

The ideal is 15, and has been 15 for 6 years.

Once we have 20, we'll supposedly stick to that for two years - at which point the game will be up and working, and advertized.

You've said nothing of use in this thread.

20 player kingdoms.
The future.

why is 15 the ideal number ? because you cant get past 15 / now you sound like catty totally or just trolling again.in 2 years i doubt the games even here and even you know that .if you want smaller kds there are other games similar with that option.instead of smaller kds merge the ghettos and fill them up.then you wont have kds with 13 people anymore and your argument is voided.what makes you think in 2 years the game will be up ,running and advertised when in 2+ plus years it isnt already.
sometimes you make good valid points. this isnt one of them.

I didnt read any of the comments, but its a -1 on the topic

By induction, if we accept the premise that reducing kingdom sizes improves the game then kingdom sizes of 1 give by far the greatest competition. Then you can go to war with almost 7000 other kingdoms.

Moving 341 people...hmm...currently we have 6911 players in 423 kingdoms (avg KD size of 16.3). It's not obvious to me why we have so many kingdoms for the number of players, but unless we trim the number of kingdoms to fill more up then the effect of kicking 341 people out of their kingdom is adding less than 1 person to each other kingdom on average, and that's not including however many of those 341 choose to leave instead. Do the benefits of 1 extra person for most kingdoms outweigh the downsides of kingdoms getting broken up? I'm not convinced.

As for not hearing a good argument against this, it is up to those proposing a change to provide the overwhelming arguments for change, not for those in favour of the status quo to argue in favour of it

And just for the record, I have 12 people in my kingdom so I am in no way taking a point of view purely based on my situation for KD size.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pmyraje

By induction, if we accept the premise that reducing kingdom sizes improves the game then kingdom sizes of 1 give by far the greatest competition. Then you can go to war with almost 7000 other kingdoms.

---

I hope that was a joke, as it would not even resemble this game anymore, so it's obviously not a valid argument. Nobody ever said the smaller the better, we're just saying that the sweet spot is lower now that we have fewer players.