Lower kd sizes

lowering sizes to 20 provs will be a total fail. Halving kd sizes, or to 15, is the only option. As already said lowering to 20 will make very little difference except a few slackers in top kds quiting after being booted. Halving at least has a hope of creating 2 kds from the original one.

A lot of these arguements are flawed, the idea is to create more kds/diversity and competition. Not save utopia or increase new members or let ghettos compete at the top. Our kd is around 35th in the world or something, split the kds in half and I have no doubt we would drop significantly, and the intensity of play inside the top 50-60 would increase. It's all hinged on keeping the split kds together though, which may be a little idealistic. This suggestion is not going to solve every problem there is with uto, its to create a larger number of kds, and if done correctly it could definately work imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bishop

do not accuse me of making false statements to back up your bad ideas wolf, you get this warning only.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bishop

you wont get info on other peoples accounts, that is private data.

---

Sorry man, we allready get info on people's accounts and we get pretty exact statistics, updated daily. Yes, numbers. Yes, they are same kind of info I was asking for. Numbers.

I see no bad thing on getting other kinds of statistics which would ease our struggle in refining ideas to help out the game (yes, even temporarily).
It is not about asking for login and pass or email. It is about anonymous data, not individual info on separate accounts, but a bunch of data slapped togheder much like Comport posted.
I fail to see what is so secret in saying that x kingdoms are sitting y provs for long time and struggling to keep 24-25 players. It is not even about all kingdoms in the game, it is the few who are full or allmost full.

Well, yes it is not according with your line of thinking, doh!, but c'mon, realistically it is not that hard. That could answer some questions and clear some doubts for either side. Maybe next time we can suggest better things. After all, the goal is to see the game go upwards, not downwards, even if we have to wait awhile for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WolfDGrey

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?

---

Then please explain where you expect the booted players to go? If reducing the KD size to 20, increases more full KDs hence reducing the KDs booted players can join, then where are the booted players suppose to go?

Much of the disagreement here hinges on intangibles such as the "leadership qualities" of the players forced to leave their KD's. This is a losing argument, as it can't be resolved with the data that we have. Perhaps you can make the assumption the the "worst" players in the KD might be the ones kicked, however, you can also make the assumption that the "worst" players kicked from an SKD are still better the "best" players in the smaller KD's they'll be transferred to.

Bishop's argument earlier that reducing KD sizes wouldn't affect anything because the ratio of full KD's would remain the same. This argument is flawed because if you follow it's logic, then if you INCREASED KD sizes you'd keep the same ratio's as well. (Resulting in more players overall, what a great idea!) So that argument against lower KD sizes must be rejected out of hand, not only for it's failed logic, but also because there is no evidence to support it.

The objective is to increase competition, and thus fun, in the game as a whole. So what can we agree on that increases competition?

* Equal number of players.
* Greater number of KD's.
* Greater depth of understanding of Utopia.

All things being equal, the KD with the most players has an advantage. Granted, in Utopia things are never 100% equal, but for the sake of the argument we must assume so.

While lowering KD limits wouldn't necessarily increase the number of KD's, it would increase the number of KD's of the same number of players.

As I mentioned earlier, the players of the top KD's would be most affected, these players joining the rest of Utopia would share their knowledge of the game with their new KD's. Rather than have all the talent in a few KD's, it would be spread around a little more. Creating parity. (Kind of like a salary cap in professional sports)

Now, there is a limit to how far you can lower KD's and still maintain what Utopia is: a cooperative war game. (A limit of 2 would conceivably increase the number of KD's and KD's of equal number of players, but it would hardly be Utopia any more) Furthermore, reducing KD sizes DOES negatively affect some people. This can't be discounted. For if too many people are affected in this way, many may choose to simply leave the game, effectively killing the whole reason for it in the first place.

Therefore, I can't see reducing KD sizes to 15 players as a good thing. It would negatively affect nearly a third of the community, far too high a number in my opinion for the potential gain. 20 players seems like the right fit, as it affects only about 5% of the community. (And one might argue that this portion of the community is most committed to Utopia, reducing the possibility of defections) while creating perhaps over 136 more KD's of 20 players. Resulting in a Utopia community of over 280 KD's of equal max size. (As it stands, KD's of 17 have the most equal competition of 65 KD's, with the next nearest being 18 player KD's of just 43 KD's) In my opinion the benefits of this scenario outweigh the costs.

I'll touch on one other argument, that of the changed strategies resulting from lower KD sizes. First, this would affect only 5% of the players (if KD sizes reduced to 20). Thus if there is any strategy changes, only a limited number of players are affected. Second, I've played in both 17 - 22 player KD's and currently in a 25 player KD. I haven't noticed any changes with regards to strategy. Third, if there was any change to strategy, that's simply part of the game. Utopia is a game about change. It's what makes Utopia unique.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coke

Then please explain where you expect the booted players to go? If reducing the KD size to 20, increases more full KDs hence reducing the KDs booted players can join, then where are the booted players suppose to go?

---

read comport's post.

as a monarch of a kd that has 25 provinces pretty consistently - and luckily have been able to fill all spots when I get the invites - I would be willing to see the kd size shrink some. I have been monarch since 2001 - and have sadly watched the game shrivel - I would not want to see kds smaller than 20 provinces - and I would not want to lose 5 at once - I could handle having the kd lowered to 22 next age and then 20 the following age - but is this going to be enough to make a significant change?

if we do shrink kd size:
As monarch I would want to be able to approve who goes and who stays - those who get the boot should have some sort of free pass into another kd that doesnt count as the other kds invite - so that if you got several who got booted and they want to make a new kd they can do that. if the magical 100 full kds lose 3 each that would only give us 14 new kds - but they should be able to form new kds with other players of similiar skills without being confined to the invite limitations.

I understand that many feel this could cause people to leave the game - but let me tell you that the status quo is also causing the others to leave the game. Currently there are only 7 kds that are within 800k nw from my kd - not long ago out of desperation we were going to wave a kd 1.3 mil bigger and then we went to wave and they were deleted .... we are used to 7 wars an age - this age we have had 3 - people are restless all over the game - its the same story - not enough kds to war

instead of worrying about who might leave if we shrink kds - lets worry about who might leave if we dont get more kds and more players - because my kd wants wars and its boring when we dont have them - i fear that many will give up - across the game


how can we get more kds if omac refuses to advertise or even admit our game exists? the only way i can see it happen is if we MAKE MORE kds - by sacrificing our players for the good of the game -- I am sure if there is a special provision for those who get the boot to be able to easily merge with others to form a kd this wont be as disastrous as some predict. of course an even better solution is for omac to put us back on their pages as a game and for those of you who like to whine a lot to be nicer so that omac will give us a chance - if they dont want to pay to advertise us a link on the jolt page would help a lot -

stop thinking about whats best for you or best for your kd and lets think about how to make the game more viable -

Why is everyone talking about this like it is a good idea and ignoring the bad side effects?

By the logic of the people in this thread the ideal would be 1 player kingdoms so everyone would have 6862 kingdoms to war with - Lots of variety - and the best thing is it doesn't change the game at all because "it scales down".

Some of the things you decided to ignore:
- Disgruntled players.
- It doesn't scale down because individual ops and attacks don't become stronger.
- Alliances would become much more important and dangerous to unaligned kingdoms.

It seems to me that what is going wrong here is that you guys want to stay the same size the entire age. If you already warred all the kingdoms in range go into pump/whore mode and get in range of some bigger kingdoms.

What we need is publicity and more players not this bull****.

obviously staying in range of people is not something a kd can control...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lichemaster

Some of the things you decided to ignore:
- Disgruntled players.

---

There will be disgruntled players no matter what. You can't please everyone. I'm sure all of the decent-but-not-all-that-good kds who have already beaten all the targets around them are pretty disgruntled at this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lichemaster

- It doesn't scale down because individual ops and attacks don't become stronger.

---

So strategy changes. God forbid we reward good strategist in a war game. I'm sorry if it's not as comfortable as our usual change of orcs leet from 8/2 ->9/2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lichemaster

- Alliances would become much more important and dangerous to unaligned kingdoms.

---

Alliances are purely of the concern of the community. The game plays no part in that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lichemaster

What we need is publicity and more players not this bull****.

---

Yes. That's exactly what we need, but we don't have that. They don't just not help people with AIDS just because there's no cure yet.

Lichmaster, you obviously didn't read many of the posts. "Disgruntled players" is the key concern with this proposed change. However, the benefits of such a change can't also be ignored, and by looking at the numbers, the benefit is worth the price.

Your other points don't make any sense... "scaling down"? What is that supposed to mean? "Alliances will be stronger"? I don't see how you come to that conclusion, or how it's at all relevant even if it is true.

BlueFaery made a great point: We're losing players NOW, if with this change we lose some, will we in the long run lose less by doing it? By increasing equal competition by a factor of 5 - 10, I'd say that is a strong argument that suggests we'd lose far less people, if not actually bring people back to the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by comport9

Your other points don't make any sense... "scaling down"? What is that supposed to mean?

---

You need to read more posts too, everyone in this thread is saying reducing kingdom size doesn't change the game tactically because it scales down (I contend it doesn't).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by comport9

"Alliances will be stronger"? I don't see how you come to that conclusion, or how it's at all relevant even if it is true.

---

You don't? Consider the following, if we reduced kingdom size to 1 player per kingdom; you can bet your ass there wouldn't be a single player that wouldn't be in an alliance. 1 player kingdoms might seem ridiculous but it is the endpoint of a recursive thought experiment where you can see all the consequences of reducing kingdom size.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lichemaster

Why is everyone talking about this like it is a good idea and ignoring the bad side effects?

By the logic of the people in this thread the ideal would be 1 player kingdoms so everyone would have 6862 kingdoms to war with - Lots of variety - and the best thing is it doesn't change the game at all because "it scales down".

---

Ah. The straw man argument, I was wondering when it would show up in here. By your logic, the ideal would be a single 6862 player kingdom so that everyone can play with people they like.

The point is that reducing the KD size to 20 or 15 gradually over every age has minimal detriment, and sufficient positives to outweigh the negatives.

Obviously reducing the KD size to 1 would tip the balance in favour of the negatives.

Everything is is a weighing of pros and cons. The pros of reducing KD sizes to 20 outweighs the cons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raviy

Ah. The straw man argument

---

See the post above. I admit it is ridiculous but just like your 6863 player kingdom it is an useful thought experiment, that was used only because people were dismissing valid contrarian positions outright, without considering any of them valid. It becomes quite obvious when taking this to the absurd that they are valid.

As with all issues, there are idiots on either side of any aisle.

Just because there are idiots supporting this suggestion speaks nothing to its invalidity, just as idiots against this suggestion speaks nothing to its validity.

You are correct in saying that there are downsides to reducing KD sizes, but as many have expressed, the downsides are insignificant when compared to the upsides, in such a small reduction.
Now, this is a matter of opinion, and cannot be proven, but what's important is the perception of the players, having had regard to all the factors in consideration.

As far as I can tell, the only person passionately against ANY decrease in KD size is Bishop, and so I will conclude that his view is a minority view, and must yield to that of the majority, in light of the factors presented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raviy

As far as I can tell, the only person passionately against ANY decrease in KD size is Bishop.

---

And me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lichemaster

You need to read more posts too, everyone in this thread is saying reducing kingdom size doesn't change the game tactically because it scales down (I contend it doesn't.

---

Uhhhmmmm... sorry but YOU are the one who needs to read more. We concluded that the tactics will change, but not significantly, because the different used tactics' number is nowhere near to 25^25 or even 20^20.
Also we concluded that, the effect of the ops and spells do not scale down, though it is easy to be tweaked in next ages, still the size reduction would not have significant effect on chaining, as 25 attack chains are not usual.

Considering the plain and dry fact that only 32 kingdoms maintain maximum players (and I have doubts on that too, as long time sitting is usual these days), the looking glass should be focused on the realistical aproach that it is harder and harder to maintain max.

Until we had more kingdoms, the many, who had less players than 25, could live easily beside the full ones, but now the burden is huge. There were never too many kingdoms with 25 players, I remember from NOX days that map (don't remember the guy's name) with player numbers: usually 25-60 kingdoms.

But the fact is, that, the ratio was much lower, from 2000 kingdoms, 50 full means only 1/40, while now the number is 1/10. That is a huge difference.

Anyway, the biggest thing that doesn't scale down and is today's utopia's biggest problem is: targets.

i'm not sure how you can think that causing some players to quit for what will be a temporary fix is "minor".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bishop

i'm not sure how you can think that causing some players to quit for what will be a temporary fix is "minor".

---

Considering that at the moment there are no constantly full kingdoms around, we can't talk about "causing some players to quit" as the current grinding is "causing some players to quit" aswell.

So our inactivity in changing anything causes losses, the activity causes losses too. I see no argument here. People quit anyway. It is a given fact. You can do something so more people enjoy the game for longer time, until the devs finally decide to advertise, or you can just sit and wait to die. Why the status quo is so important for you?

I would choose to act. What you choose, Bishop?

i dont think trying to improve the game is bad wolf - i'm always moaning because i feel people sit back and wait for someone else to do things. I understand the reasons for this suggestion, i just do not consider it a viable longterm improvement - i'm pretty confident that after a couple of ages we'll be back to square one - top kds will be full at 20 or whatever, and ghettos will have 75% of that number.
I am also aware that Palem, and i assume the rest of you, accept that the best thing for us is to get more players in so i am extremely wary of any idea that might potentially remove players from the game. I accept the validity of your argument that the current situation could be causing more players to leave than a reduction in kdsizes though.

Ok, so for the nay sayers. The arguments I've seen from you are:
1. Players will quit.
2. There will be less strats to choose from (I assume that's what you mean, because if you think just different is bad, you're not worth listening to).
3. Alliances will be more important.

Our replies:
1. More players will quit due to a lack of excitement, and it's less likely that people will join or come back when there are so few kd's and so hard to find enough players to become competitive. Please respond to this rather than just repeat that players will quit, because we've understood that already.
2. Please give examples of strats that will no longer work when kd's have 15 players, and convince me that no new ones will be available instead. And don't just point back to pint's posts. If you want to bring down a big prov, yes it will be harder. So because of that you're not gonna use ns at all? Also explain why 25 is so important. If strats are dependent on having lots of players, why don't we raise the number to get a more diverse game?
3. I'm gonna ignore the straw man here and ask what's gonna change with 15 players per kd and why it's bad. Does an increase in alliances mean lots of people will quit? Or will they welcome some excitement? Please elaborate.

you missed

4: this is a very temporary fix

2) - strats change, this isnt a big deal
3) - meh, their importance or lack thereof will be unaffected.

Temporary fix isn't better than no fix? Is it better to just sit on our asses and wait for death than to at least temporarily add some excitement and in the worst case go out with a bang? There are also long term effects that you ignore by saying that (easier to get ppl to join or come back).

It's not a temporary fix.

Currently, you know what every single kingdom on your tier is capable of, beceause they haven't changed in a very, very long time.
With smaller kingdoms, we directly gain more kingdoms. More kingdoms equal more targets, more targets mean we have more competition. More competition is fun. Since you only need to look out for X players, as opposed to Y, it becomes easier to compete with the rest of the game, and monarchs will have to do a whole lot less recruiting, managing, and plotting.

There's nothing temporary about that.

Once we have more players in the game, you can decrease or increase kingdom sizes again.
If you want the game to survive until that happens, you need to affect this change.

It's that simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bishop

you missed

4: this is a very temporary fix

.

---

You're giving the same argument again with a different variation. While at the same time not explaining your reasoning.

Also, arguments about strats not being viable without 25 players is rather moot as most KD's don't have 25 players to begin with. (Most are under 20 players...)

Also, it was mentioned that you can reduce KD sizes only so far without losing what Utopia is all about.

And, again, you haven't described why or how alliances will be more powerful, or why this will make the game less fun if it does happen. (Seems to me, the fewer KD's there are increases alliance power as it requires fewer KD's to aquire a larger portion of the community into your alliance)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bishop

i assume the rest of you, accept that the best thing for us is to get more players in.

---

Yes that would be the best course of action. Unfortunately NOW it's not much the players can do here, except people to people advertising.

If at least the devs would put up some ads at the usual MMO list sites we could go and vote for Utopia...

Some popular voting sites, at many of them 1000 votes daily would bring Utopia to top positions!!! Some games are on all of those sites!
If the voting would give 10 free acres/site, or maybe hourly income... many people would go to all of them daily.

And if you would vote on ALL the sites, you would have a plus 10% more income for 24 hours. Yes, people would love that and would vote pretty often.

Also, it could be added that if the whole kingdom votes all sites, every day, for a whole month, they get 3 more invites or 5 days free sitting credits, used by anybody in the kingdom with the monarch's approval. Or other ideas...

Some sites, and some prices I could find, without signing up anywhere:

www.onrpg.com
http://mpogtop.com
www.toppbbgs.com
www.mmorpg100.com - $6.00 a month
http://top-game-sites.com - flat fee of 5$ per month
http://top50.onrpg.com/
http://www.mpogr.com - The minimum buy is $50 USD.
http://www.gamesites200.com/mpog/ - $15.00 per 31 days:

I mean under 200 USD advertising / month can bring Utopia into the tops. If we can get people to vote, of course. But we can make them vote if we offer them something tangible in exchange.

Also, S&B have NO CLUE how much the community could help them. I have no idea why or how they didn't realised that.
I mean companies with 6-7 milion users can organise user artwork contests for everything from a sword to site layout, but Utopia devs do it all by themselves? That's a lol.
I am sure the users who in the last 10 years made banners for their kingdoms could easily make the ads for those sites above. And I am sure they would not charge S&B for that. They would be glad that they can help.

Gah, I am again starting to be disgusted by the general numbness, so, will stop writing now... :(

Their list of failures is extremely long, and it doesn't help that there's two years of lies, neglect, corruption, and other assorted bad stuff behind the hosting company - which may or may not still be in charge of running the operation.

You're not likely to get the community to help until we see some tangible results, or the owners pay us for our troubles.

That's neither here, nor there.

This is about needing to lower kingdom sizes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by comport9

You're giving the same argument again with a different variation. While at the same time not explaining your reasoning.

Also, arguments about strats not being viable without 25 players is rather moot as most KD's don't have 25 players to begin with. (Most are under 20 players...)

Also, it was mentioned that you can reduce KD sizes only so far without losing what Utopia is all about.

And, again, you haven't described why or how alliances will be more powerful, or why this will make the game less fun if it does happen. (Seems to me, the fewer KD's there are increases alliance power as it requires fewer KD's to aquire a larger portion of the community into your alliance)

---

I have already explained it several times :s It is temporary because for an age it will be more kds in range etc - then players leave kds due to decline in numbers and lack of happiness in ghettos and we will be back to the same ratios as we have now and the same lack of targets. It doesnt solve a problem (though the problem isnt really one that we, as players, can solve by ourselves) but merely patches it. If teh devs spend any time on uto i'd rather they spent it promoting the game than making fixes that will need continual addressing and provide no real benefit. Wolf made a good point about this.

you misunderstood me about strat and alliances though - i dont see that they are an issue at all and they are not something i am concerned about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VT2

Their list of failures is extremely long, and it doesn't help that there's two years of lies, neglect, corruption, and other assorted bad stuff behind the hosting company - which may or may not still be in charge of running the operation.

You're not likely to get the community to help until we see some tangible results, or the owners pay us for our troubles.

That's neither here, nor there.

This is about needing to lower kingdom sizes.

---

All you do is whine and demand money for your time. Grow up.

I did.
That's why I want compensation if I'm ever to lend your masters a hand.

It's still a not temporary fix, judge.

How is having 25% more kingdoms (assuming filled kingdoms, 100 players fill 5 kds instead of 4) temporary? Of course, effort (by the devs) must be taken to keep kingdoms as filled as possible, but the same goes for the situation as it is now. Even assuming that player count will drop, having 20 prov kingdoms still yields more kingdoms than having 25 prov ones.

What seems to be happening now is deleted players start afresh and land in a (a few) random kingdoms. Good. Only kingdoms with extreme low player count receive new randoms. Good. Now there are two problems: Firstly, half of the randoms are inactives/scripts, this won't be addressed by reducing prov count. Secondly, there are way too many kingdoms for the player count, so kingdoms with about 18 provs don't get randoms. This is addressed by lowering province count. (another solution would be lowering the number of kingdoms, but as is often stated in this topic, what's needed to increase competition and deter stagnation is more kingdoms, not less)

I completely fail to see what makes lowering prov count a temporary solution to the problems of decreased competition, stagnation and too few kingdoms in range to war. Yes it doesn't solve the lowered number of players, but it has never been proposed as a solution to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bishop

It doesnt solve a problem (though the problem isnt really one that we, as players, can solve by ourselves) but merely patches it. If teh devs spend any time on uto i'd rather they spent it promoting the game than making fixes that will need continual addressing and provide no real benefit. Wolf made a good point about this.

---

I would like both a reduction to at least to 20 players, AND advertising. Please don't misunderstand me, I didn't changed sides, just concretely expanded my desires :P

This idea solves part of the problem permanently. It solves the part where you are required to recruit and manage 25 players. It solves it because you will have to manage less players.
Also permanently reduces the huge discrepancy between the max number and the feasable number of players at the moment, (15/18-25).

What the idea does not solve is the lack of fresh blood and the semi-faulty mechanism of filling up kingdoms.

That is why I added the advertising part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bishop

It is temporary because for an age it will be more kds in range etc - then players leave kds due to decline in numbers and lack of happiness in ghettos and we will be back to the same ratios as we have now and the same lack of targets. It doesnt solve a problem.

---

I'm sorry, but I can't accept your reasoning. The way I read your argument is Utopia is losing players due to unhappiness playing in ghetto's.

Utopia has ALWAYS had "ghetto" KD's. This never caused an exodus of players. Rather, players defected from said KD's until they found one that better suited them. For years I'd been in KD's that many would call a ghetto. I didn't quit the game, I stayed with the KD to try and make it better. I'd quit when it was apparent that we'd never be able to compete with many KD's simply because we could never maintain a full KD. (Or get there actually). I know I'm not alone in this. Furthermore, many players prefer to play in the "ghetto's" as they are often far more loose with rules and regulations. They can simply play the game how they like and enjoy the camaraderie with the rest of their KD.

So I categorically reject your argument that Utopia is losing players due to ghetto's.

However, one of the benefits of lowering KD sizes is to spread out the talent of top KD's to the bottom KD's. This would in theory reduce the effect you're describing as these veterans would teach their new KD mates how to compete and hopefully at the same time show them how competing can still be fun.

My argument is that Utopia is losing players due to lack of competition. Lowering KD's will increase competition. This really can't be argued against as a major aspect of fair competition is equal KD sizes, which I've shown would be significantly increased by lowering KD sizes to 20 players.

There will still be SKD's and Ghetto's. Regardless of the KD size. But the fact that there will be doesn't at all diminish the fact that there will be greater competition overall.

Now, you could reject my argument if you also reject my assertion that players or leaving Utopia principally due to lack of competition. If so, what do you believe is the primary reason people are leaving the game, and would lowering KD sizes accentuate that problem? (If lowering KD sizes doesn't make matters worse based on your reasoning of why people are leaving the game, then what is your opposition to lower KD sizes?)

Reduce Kingdom Size by attrition by not allowing new Provinces into Kingdoms larger than 13.


Intra-Kingdom combat

1. -25% causalities for attacker.

2. 50% gains only - 50% wasted destroyed from Gains both Land and Resources

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wallfly

Reduce Kingdom Size by attrition by not allowing new Provinces into Kingdoms larger than 13.


Intra-Kingdom combat

1. -25% causalities for attacker.

2. 50% gains only - 50% wasted destroyed from Gains both Land and Resources

---

Only if you will post your location and be the first victim

Please lower them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by comport9

However, one of the benefits of lowering KD sizes is to spread out the talent of top KD's to the bottom KD's. This would in theory reduce the effect you're describing as these veterans would teach their new KD mates how to compete and hopefully at the same time show them how competing can still be fun.

---

You assume the people from the top would be willing to go to a lesser Kingdom, which under ideal conditions would happen, but currently it probably would not. I can say for one, that I have no intentions of ever playing in a ghetto again, unless my old KD mates came back which is unlikely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by comport9

My argument is that Utopia is losing players due to lack of competition. Lowering KD's will increase competition. This really can't be argued against as a major aspect of fair competition is equal KD sizes, which I've shown would be significantly increased by lowering KD sizes to 20 players.

There will still be SKD's and Ghetto's. Regardless of the KD size. But the fact that there will be doesn't at all diminish the fact that there will be greater competition overall.

---

This is the jist of the problem and hence why Bishop argues that this fix will be temporary. With any feeding Hierarchy it is shaped like a pyramid in order to sustain itself, with the bottom (ghetto's) being in the largest quantity and the top (SKD) being the least. The mid KDs will feed on the ghetto's and everyone will get fed on by the Top. Now, no one likes to get fed on age after age after age, hence people in the ghetto's tend to be the first to either quit or find a better KD. Which means the numbers of ghetto's decrease IF THERE IS NO NEW PLAYER INFLOW. When ghetto's decrease, then mid-tier KDs have no one to feed on and the top tend to feed on more mid-tier KDs, causing mid tier KDs to transform into Ghetto's, and so on and so on. Thus reducing the KD size doesn't solve the underlying problem, hence a temporary fix.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by comport9

Now, you could reject my argument if you also reject my assertion that players or leaving Utopia principally due to lack of competition. If so, what do you believe is the primary reason people are leaving the game, and would lowering KD sizes accentuate that problem? (If lowering KD sizes doesn't make matters worse based on your reasoning of why people are leaving the game, then what is your opposition to lower KD sizes?)

---

Your right players are leaving, but players left utopia even during its glory days. But the difference is that more players joined, hence the ghettos were always full. By making this change you hope to increase competition and because of that people will not leave. People will always leave even with the most ideal conditions, this would make them leave slower, but because we have almost no new player base growth this doesn't solve the underlying problem. Which is we need more players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coke

You assume the people from the top... bla bla bla bla

---

Look at the numbers Comport posted. You CAN realize that the realistic approach this days is to have up to 20 players in the kingdom. All other arguments are futile and just blurb to fill space. You CAN see the numbers and you COULD see that there is no argument good enough to stop reducing kingdom size. There are countless arguments and facts in this thread to open your eyes. There are numbers. There are ratios. Do you find that the shrink from 1/40 to 1/10 (full to not full KD's) while full kingdoms numbers didn't changed much, is not enough?

Even Bishop agreed that it is VERY POSSIBLE that less players would quit due to changing kingdom size, than now, due to recruitment and PR nightmare.

We came to a point when must balance things. Hopefully, may be a temporary thing, but it needs to be done IMO.

You guys cry that nobody is there to teach people anymore... No wonder. Now, monarchs and leaders burn out fast, with recruiting and managing 25 players from the few we have. Monarchs and leaders, aka the bunch who could carry a kingdom further, who have the knowledge and the skill. The trouble with keeping a kingdom together is huge at the moment.

Yes, one of the goals is to ease the leaders job. I am a certain level in Utopia where I can see their struggle, Utopia wide. Yes, I think we can to some sacrifice on players who don't fit perfectly into some kingdoms. But putting in balance, if the leaders quit and the whole kingdom will scatter, as so many kingdoms until now, many more will quit than if we transfer some people to other kingdom where they fit better.

Another other goal is to have more kingdoms with closer numbers of players, wich means more competition in warring and means lenghtening the charts, so top is further from bottom, in numbers. Because after all numbers matter in this game. More similar numbered kingdoms mean less burden, the whoring bottomfeeding hits trough and age, spread out on more than a few kingdoms.
Both playing styles benefit from the reduction.

Finally, the people who would quit at 20 players sized kingdoms, would quit anyway... there are people who do it every age. Go ask your monarch and he'll tell you the exact numbers. There are absolutely zero kingdoms who do not loose players every age.

So the argument about top players willing or not to go to lesser kingdom is irelevant. We are talking about people who would quit or would change kingdoms anyway. And they are plenty every age anyway!

Wolf, did you even read my post?

I'm quite certain I said that this would most likely lead to people leaving slower. But slower is still much more compared to nearly zero player increase. Hence it's a temporary fix and a few ages down the road people would want 15 player KDs and so on. Thus it doesn't fix the underlying problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coke

Wolf, did you even read my post?

I'm quite certain I said that this would most likely lead to people leaving slower. But slower is still much more compared to nearly zero player increase. Hence it's a temporary fix and a few ages down the road people would want 15 player KDs and so on. Thus it doesn't fix the underlying problem.

---

Ok, so we have 2 choices:
1. Lower kd sizes, make people leave slower and have more fun while giving the devs a few ages more to sort things out and get more players into the game.
2. Stay where we are now, with more people leaving, and with less chance of bringing new or old players into the game since the kd's are too big.

This "it's only a temporary fix" is a BS argument unless you can develop it further and show how it'll result in negative effects later on. I mean, why would you choose bad when you can have better, even if better isn't perfect?

Smaller kd's doesn't have to solve everything, or even anything, it just has to be better than what we have now.

i prefer wolfs idea of voting on sites to get Uto some exposure myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coke

Wolf, did you even read my post?

I'm quite certain I said that this would most likely lead to people leaving slower. But slower is still much more compared to nearly zero player increase. Hence it's a temporary fix and a few ages down the road people would want 15 player KDs and so on. Thus it doesn't fix the underlying problem.

---

I can ask same. Did you even read my posts?

Of course it doesn't fix the underlying problem, I know that and everybody supporting the idea knows that!

That is why I have a pretty long post on "some help" on voting sites, which are pretty cheap. I mean yes, as you see on the sites, the "IN" clicks are more than the "OUT" clicks ("IN" means somebody went to the site, "OUT" means somebody clicked that link from the site), yet still on one site I randomly picked (the one with 6 usd/month), the top 10 games had a grand total of 18397 clicks, the lowest being 422 "OUT" clicks. Which means if S&B can get a monthly 6 USD for advertising, PLUS enough votes to be in top 10, more than 400 people will check out the game DAILY.

I repeat: a potential of 400 new people checking out Utopia DAILY!

From ONE SITE AND 6 USD MONTHLY!

If you check the site, you will see that from the top 50 games, only one has less than 100 "OUT" clicks. And one hundred is WAY MORE than how many people are checking out Utopia at this moment!!!

Give Utopians enough benefits, as I suggested and EVERYBODY will vote, just as we all took the free 5 acres daily land.

And IMHO, even if we get new people, we can lower kingdom sizes without any problem. There is absolutely no real, irefutable argument to hold it up to 25.