Why would you target someone with 'everything you have,' when 5 people are capable of destroying a single target effectively?
Actually, what the hell are you talking about?
What does your posts have to do with this suggestion at all?
Printable View
Why would you target someone with 'everything you have,' when 5 people are capable of destroying a single target effectively?
Actually, what the hell are you talking about?
What does your posts have to do with this suggestion at all?
And what you're completely ignoring is that the same thing applies for your opponent.Quote:
Originally Posted by pint
You'll be slower at disabling a single province, but at the same time, that single province is worth more to his kd when he's one of 20 than when he's one of 25. Everything scales down
I'm pointing out that there is a difference in tactics if you change to 20 player kd's. If you say that is not true, you have no idea what you're talking about.
I'm not really sure, but last time I checked the topic of this thread, it was about lower kd sizes. So I posted my thoughts on something that happens if you lower kd sizes. Woot, that was difficult!
What does tactics have to do with this?
Are you saying you don't like the feeling of going up against 20~ provinces kingdoms with 20~ provinces of your own, but need 25 at all times so your 'strat' and 'tactic' can function?
Please.
Get a clue.
I suport a 15 player kd.
A simple way to cut down kd sizes would be at eoa. Track time played for every province in every kingdom those who slack the most will be placed in a new kingdom maybe merged with players at the same activity time as ur self.
It will make the game so much more worthy to play again and actully i think it will be fun.
I am not the one that is afraid of changes. I adapt every time if needed. Like I said, I'm just pointing out a side-effect of the idea that was the basis of this thread getting started. What's wrong with pointing out everyeffect on the gameplay when you change something?
Easy.
Because it doesn't have that effect on the game.
oh no? 25 DE kd that likes to do nm vs 20 DE kd.
1) you're more likely to have enough players with high enough wpa to be able to cast it on the target
2) you're more likely to have more DE in nw range to do max damage nm's
3) so you got the targets def lower => you're more likely to be able to have more people able to dt, tt, qt.
4) you're more likely to have more people online to perform the one hour chaining
...
12) you're more likely to be able to use the nm tactic then if you have only 20 player kd's.
Poor you, having your one move destroyed.
Truly, I mourn for your loss.
k, thx for admitting I was right from the start ;)
I can asure you that there are more things like that, but I'm not going to write down a wartactic guide in here.
It never struck you that this would apply to everybody else, too, since it's a global change?
No, I'm sorry - you still haven't said anything of worth in this thread.
I know it is a global change, but it still affects the gameplay like I pointed out already. This is a strategy game, so why limiting the possible tactical moves?
Where's the strategy in warring the exact same teams, age after age?
I mostly agree with the poster. The only thing that concerns me is it may drop some blank eyed, sheep, elitists from some SKD in my newly founded kd and ruin it with thier brain washed BS.
PPL should also consider how many of civil wars that would cuase. It would help to make more kd's that is for sure.
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.
Thanks for the numbers comport
1. Yes, if you count actual provs, which you obviously shouldn't be doing. You should be counting percentage of the kd available, and that would not be smaller than before. I.e. FAILQuote:
Originally Posted by pint
2. Same again, this scales down. Less provs, less targets. Everything stays the same. FAIL
3. Yes, and you shouldn't be able to do it as fast without sacrificing something, as 1 prov is now worth more than it was before. If it was as easy to disable it, wars would be more destructive comparatively, and that would actually mean something had changed. FAIL
4. Again, no. You'd have the same amount of % online as you did before, or even more, as you'd keep your best players. FAIL
12. You're 80% less effective, which is 100% normal, and gives 0% support for your argument that things change. FAIL
Try again, because all your arguments failed to support your claim. Things scale down, just as they should, and as long as they do, nothing is "changed".
That is simply not true. If you take the permutations and combinations of 25 players + the number of spells + ops + attacks the number is so enormous that you will never use all. The sad part for you is, that the number, realistically is just as unbelievably high with 20 players, a.k.a. you will never-ever use all the possible actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by pint
Thus, it is safe to assume that if you used 20-100 different valid tactics before, after the change the valid tactics will be around same number. And yes, there will be different tactics, so we're coming to this:
And different tactics is bad, how? By giving people something new? By making people less bored? By making them to adapt and learn? By making them to invent new things?Quote:
Originally Posted by pint
I always thought that the above things are good.
Thank you comport, awsome post. At least we know that with the data we have now, ~0.5% of Utopia would be directly and negatively affected by the change.Quote:
Originally Posted by comport9
Now we only need to find out how many of those are not real provinces, sat, abandoned, inactive, waiting for a long time for new players. Because I have a feeling that, from the 341 we would substract another good chunk if we'd know the real numbers.
As I said it would be awsome to have those numbers from Thundergore or S&B.
you wont get info on other peoples accounts, that is private data.
And you keep failing to address what will actually happen - those kds will be full for about 1 age, then they will decline to the same ratios we have now.
No we don't fail to address that, because we don't really need to address that as it is not the goal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
Stop derailing the idea please with non-issues.
We don't needd full kingdoms, we need more kingdoms, the goal is to have more targets to lift the burden from the same kingdoms who are being hit again and again, to offer more war oportunities. There are only a few full kingdoms now, and that will continue to be just like that. It is a non-issue, because nobody asks for FULLNESS, just more oportunities.
Also it is more easy to recruit and keep 20 players than 25, so at the end I think it still be more full kingdoms than now.
wolf - if the kds are not full then you will have less people in range - meaning you have less targets - in fact, you'll have the same ratios of targets you have now. That is the problem with this suggestion - it is not sustainable.
The players numbers are constant or lower every age.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
Of course that on player level you will have same targets.
But on kingdom level you will have more targets, as there will be more kingdoms for same player base.
Looking at the numbers comport9 posted, I see the majority is able to maintain at least 15-18 players with the current game/account mechanics. I would incline to have kingdoms with a max of 15 or 18 players since those are the realistic numbers for Utopia at this time.
I'll try to make my statement clear some more times. I'm not talking about relative damage done to a kd. I am talking about the fact that a lot of the currently used tactics will be a lot harder to perform with good success. Reducing the number of players in a kd makes it harder to chain a single province. Anyone who sais this is not true? Wether the chain consists out of massacres or razes or trads or ns, nm or fb, kn, or prop or aw or ... The less players in a kd, the less chaining will be a tactic. If you want all wars decided even more on #uniques made then you should lower kd sizes.
Of course you're right, being simultaneously hit by 25 provinces hurts more than being hit by a mere 20. At the same time, precious few kingdoms can currently depend on even 20+ provinces (about 5% (300) of all players (6000) are in 20+ kingdoms) so the effect you're talking about only affects a tiny part of the playerbase. From your argument i'd conclude that it's an absolute necessity to reduce kingdom size, as currently 5% of utopia holds an enormous advantage over the other 95% of utopia.Quote:
Originally Posted by pint
Having said that, i doubt that, even for those players used to tactics based on 25 players, an entirely new style of play will be created. When going as low as 10 or maybe even 15 player kingdoms, the game dynamics could change, as it can indeed be argued that 5 strong mystics are needed to nightmare one province down, leaving only 5 strong attackers (assuming 10 player kingdoms) instead of the current 20. Yet, would it really be that bad if tactics/dynamics change? I honestly don't think that would be a big issue. In your example a choice would have to be made between having 50% support provinces so your remaining attackers can make easier hits, or less support provinces where attackers have harder hits (few double/triple/quad taps). In relation to chaining i don't see an issue, instead of spending 50% of your provinces to disable 4% of the opponent, you need 63% to destroy 5% of your opponent.
It's entirely clear. And there's also no reason to think like you are. Yes, of course it takes more time to chain a single province. But as I've said multiple times already, one province is now worth more than it was before, so you can't compare it to what it's like with 25 provs. More time, more value, it evens out in the end. So chaining will still be a tactic, just like it is now. Everything in this game is relative, and scales. I'm not gonna waste my time trying to explain this again. You SHOULD be talking relative damage, because that's what matters in this game.Quote:
Originally Posted by pint
you won't do the same relative damage because chaining, if performed properly, causes more damage the better you do it.
like it's not worth trhowing one massacre on a prov for example.
So you're saying you can't chain with 15 provinces?
Yes, I say it is NOT true. I can't remember the day when chaining a single province was done by 25, or even 20 players. We usually chain 2-3 provinces/wave. So the effect against one single province is zero.Quote:
Originally Posted by pint
Your math is wrong.
On the other hand, there is nothing wrong if people will need to find new strategy and tactics.
let's make another example. Nightstrike.
when is ns most usable?
- to reduce a provs def from unbreakable to breakable
- to reduce a provs def from breakable to double-tappable
(- or to reduce offense for the opposite)
if you have less provinces that can nightstrike, you're less likely to get one of the above - to be performed. So ns becomes less valuable the more you drop kd sizes.
another thing to add: I'm speaking in general decrease of kd sizes. ofc 20 vs 25 won't make a HUGE difference, only a small, but still one to be considered imo. some people here are talking about 15 prov kd's, and there you'll feel it a lot more.
If you would have added: "in the same timeframe" your sentence would have been true.Quote:
Originally Posted by pint
But this way I can say: It just will take slightly longer and maybe more people will use thievery due to necessity.
That is ok. We will have one age of more attacking/less magic and ops, then we will have people suggesting strenghtening the key ops/spells that need to be tweaked. It is all numbers and changes are kinda good at this moment. We even might have a few ages where a good mage/thief will be valuable again.Quote:
Originally Posted by pint
Quote:
Originally Posted by WolfDGrey
You are right about the timefactor. But I don't think you have all the time you want during wars. It's always bad seeing that you were close to opening someone for dt when opponent kd withdraws and goes running with your honor.
and you are also right that if they tweak some other stuff it'll be about the same then it is now.
That's true, in some cases you don't care about the relative damage. Even though you've made the same relative damage, it could still be that you couldn't break. I don't really see what anyone would do different though. You'll attempt to scale down, so that if you were able to ns 2 provs before you can do 1 now. If you care more about being able to ns down unbreakbles, you'll run more a/t's comparatively. The basic strategies are still the same, because this game mostly scales well, and when it doesn't there really aren't a lot of alternatives anyway.
I do see your point with ns and nm, but I still don't think there will be much change for most of the players in the game. And yeah, you can tweak numbers if you want things to remain exactly the same. I dunno if that's even needed unless we see that strategic choice has become more limited than before though.
What I don't understand is why this point has been overlooked?
If you reduce a KD from 25 to 20 prov's which prov's are gonna get kicked out (in SKDs at least)? Not the good players, not leadership, but the players are that are there simply to fill space to reach 25. So each Top KD kicks out 5 players that are just hanging around, suppose they form a new KD, as what would ideally happen, what kind of KD would they form, with mediocre players and no leadership?
How does that create more competition (at the top at least)? The good KDs (the ones that kicked people out) will still fight the same other good KDs (other KDs that kicked people out), and the KDs formed from the SKD rejects most likely wont be a SKD. End result? No change.....
Now it is possible that the SKD rejects would form a KD that is comparable to a mid-tier KD, however most have been playing a SKD style for a long time. It is a pretty far stretch to think they all of them would stick around. Thus there would be a fairly large exodus of players in a time when the player base is already small.
In Theory, this would be a good idea if everyone stayed around and accepted their new positions, but this is a game and people can quit or take a break. So maybe there might be a few new KDs with this change for a age or two, but the biggest result would be a far smaller player base and similar numbers of KDs.
Also, while i detailed it out for a SKD, the same applies for Ghetto's, how many decent (was gonna use good, but the number is even fewer) monarchs are their in ghetto's. The ones who are willing to plan out strats and organize wars. The answer: Very Few. Now you want to remove the worst players in a Ghetto and mix them with other Ghetto rejects and you hope for what? For those players to stick around?
Edit: You don't just go around forming a good KD that can challenge other good KDs in one age (unless your Sonata) unless you have unusual circumstances. And for ghettos, making the people that even Ghetto's rejected form a KD.....that just seems futile.....even while typing it.
@ Coke:
What you're missing is that the kd's who had 15 good players before couldn't compete then, but would now be able to. More competition.
Another point is that it'd be easier to bring new player into the game, because it's easier to invite 5 friends to max out the kd than to invite 10 (I mean finding them. If you don't find them, you won't bother to try anyway, which means we'd miss out on new players).
Ghettoes don't have 25 players, so they don't have to kick especially many.
@ Luc
But on the flipside, full KDs at the moment (which are mostly established KDs) would be kicking out 5 people. 5 players that know how to play the game although they may not be up to par with their KD. Those people would try to find another KD like their past KD to join, but surprise their all full. Then what? You think the leadership of those KDs are gonna get booted? Not that many people want to lead KDs. I for one know I never want to be monarch ever again. How many KDs can be formed together on the go so fast, that will actually last?
How can you say for certain that this would be a net positive gain in terms of players? If we execute a change that reduces the player population even lower, how is this game going to continue on?
It is overlooked because it is a non-issue. The numbers are above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coke
Saying that shows us that you don't care about evidence or arguments, as the numbers are above. In fact the number of players affected is VERY small, but to prove your point you use strong but vague words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coke
No they would not. At the moment, there is no kingdom with real 25 players, who don't change during a whole age! Your argument is false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coke
My KD has 25 Real players....sure we have change over age to age and sometimes need to trade someone in the middle in ages past. But runs with 25, so please revise your statement. 25 player KDs are rare, but do exist.
You can bash all you want, but your idea is more or less to have the rejected players still stay around and organize themselves to form new KDs. It just doesn't seem very feasible.
Ok so, even if you say most KDs aren't full, but the ones that are, and have to kick ppl, are most likely established KDs. Thus the people they kick are more or less going to be people with a decent understanding of the game and competent players. Aren't those the people the game at the very least need to keep not force into a situation where they may or may not come back?
Like the numbers said, it gives no consideration to the quality of the players being affected.
My statement is correct, as even you, in fact admit it. You need to read it again to understand it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coke
Again: There is no kingdom who would have zero player movement, so all the boast from your behalf about "running" with 25 is a false track and not the point.
1) Many kingdoms run with 25. ZERO have the same 25 at age end as at age start.
2) Many kingdoms recruit. ZERO kingdoms never kicked anybody.
3) kingdoms run on 25 because that is the number set by mehul 12 years ago. If the number would be 20 or 5 or 178 they would run on that.
4)Bishop says: the devs will not release statistics about how many real full players kingdoms are out there (a.k.a. account numbers). A false statement because that is not more account info than rankings. Under same statement they should remove all the rankings too, because we can find out account numbers. Let's just please remember that statistics don't mean account info, as "account info" refers to a specific account, not about anonymous statistic... Thanks.
That means: a) that the situation is in fact worse than I thought, and b) they are afraid of an exodus if we find out the real numbers, as the numbers kept at 25 with sitting and different other stuff, seem to be lower than the official records.
ergo: your points, in the circumstances people described the change in this thread, don't stand.
There can be an age long reduction, even two ages long, which can mean you don't even have to kick anybody. Please do not come with the same refuted arguments over and over again, when there are several solutions posted for them already.
I only bash in cases like this when somebody puts words in my mouth, or other times when somebody is unreasonably idiot. Please point out where I said that I want to have the players who left their ex-kingdom to band togedher and organize into new kingdoms by themselves?Quote:
Originally Posted by Coke
do not accuse me of making false statements to back up your bad ideas wolf, you get this warning only.