Lower kd sizes

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

12-08-2010, 12:53
Bishop

if you cant make a point without swearing then dont bother posting.
12-08-2010, 12:57
Aos

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bishop

if you cant make a point without swearing then dont bother posting.

should'nt that be a PM to? , kinda pointless troll post.
12-08-2010, 12:58
comport9

Well, I'm outta this discussion. If they naysayers refuse to agree that more KD's of equal size will increase competition... I don't see a point of continuing.

I will leave with this though, all who are arguing against this change haven't presented any viable alternative. We all know what the status quo is, and that's a slow death with less and less fun for those in the game. Until they can come up with real suggestions, beyond advertising and such that is NOT going to happen, they aren't adding anything to the discussion.

cya.
12-08-2010, 12:59
Luc

Quote:

Originally Posted by comport9

Well, I'm outta this discussion. If they naysayers refuse to agree that more KD's of equal size will increase competition... I don't see a point of continuing.

I will leave with this though, all who are arguing against this change haven't presented any viable alternative. We all know what the status quo is, and that's a slow death with less and less fun for those in the game. Until they can come up with real suggestions, beyond advertising and such that is NOT going to happen, they aren't adding anything to the discussion.

cya.

Indeed, we're on repeat in here. No real point continuing. I doubt anything will happen anyway.
12-08-2010, 13:00
Bishop

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aos

should'nt that be a PM to? , kinda pointless troll post.

No, it serves as a warning to others too. If you want to swear or cause trouble i will assist you in leaving.
12-08-2010, 13:03
Coke

@Luc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bishop

Competition increases with more kingdoms of equal talent, not size. Your 20 player ghetto is still a ghetto, expect now it will be farmed slightly longer before the skds outgrow it. Then, when people leave it during the course of the age to go to better kds, it will start the next age with 15 players. Then someone will make a post about kd sizes not being reduced enough.

^^ That is what I have been saying with much more concise wording.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luc

Please stop telling me what reality is like. I live there too. Your opinions of how things are don't match what I've been experiencing. How well you manage to recruit depends on how well connected you are and your kd's background. If you can show that your kd has been successful before, you are more likely to be able to recruit good players. Newly started kd's, or kd's that attempt to get better don't have any advantages there, and rarely have the contacts to pick up players leaving other kd's. I.e. them being worse at recruiting doesn't follow from their lack of leadership abilities.

As for players leaving, my experience is that the most common reason for leaving is real life interference, not bad leadership. Many also leave because they're simply bored of the game. That's players that could easily get a spot in a really good kd if they wanted, but they don't even care to try, because it's the game itself they're tired of. And that's not hard to understand seeing as how the game really is boring. It's all rinse and repeat. Ghettoes are ghettoes, the mid kd's are stuck where they are, and the top grows away because there's no competition.

Look you're admitting I'm right more or less. Your arguing that you need success to recruit people, wow that's completely different from how the real world works. OFC you need success for people to start bandwagonning on your KD. Who the hell wants to join a losing KD for a long period of time? Also players do leave for RL issues, but most either use that reason as a excuse because they are bored. They are bored because their leadership hasn't offered them anything new. Good Leadership sets clear goals of what their intention is every age, whether it be setting up a race strategy for dicing advantages or whether to play a attacking heavy race staying slightly smaller and warring more. Like I said, you should look to what your doing wrong (or what your lacking - i.e. success record) before you begin to complain.
12-08-2010, 13:04
Aos

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bishop

No, it serves as a warning to others too. If you want to swear or cause trouble i will assist you in leaving.

it was'nt used agiesnt any one special it was used to enforce the point in my post.
12-08-2010, 13:11
Coke

Quote:

Originally Posted by comport9

I will leave with this though, all who are arguing against this change haven't presented any viable alternative. We all know what the status quo is, and that's a slow death with less and less fun for those in the game. Until they can come up with real suggestions, beyond advertising and such that is NOT going to happen, they aren't adding anything to the discussion.
cya.

I thought this was a suggestion thread therefore its to discuss a suggestion. In this case the suggestion was bad, since when did the onus of coming up with a alternative fall to the naysayers while the supports just continue to harp a bad idea.

The problem isn't with KD sizes that is leading to game death. AND Wolf's advertising idea WAS a good one, that you just refuse to give credit because you doubt it will occur. Well I doubt this change will occur either so does that mean this suggestion is not a "real suggestion"?
12-08-2010, 13:17
Bishop

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aos

it was'nt used agiesnt any one special it was used to enforce the point in my post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forum Rules

* Posts containing inappropriate language or content.

Don't swear.
12-08-2010, 13:26
Luc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coke

@Luc

^^ That is what I have been saying with much more concise wording.

And it can also easily be refuted. More kd's of equal talent = more kd's with the same amount of players. There are talented kd's out there who don't get up to the top because they can't get 25 players of the same skill, but would do well if only their core was required to fill up the kd.

Quote:

Look you're admitting I'm right more or less. Your arguing that you need success to recruit people, wow that's completely different from how the real world works. OFC you need success for people to start bandwagonning on your KD. Who the hell wants to join a losing KD for a long period of time? Also players do leave for RL issues, but most either use that reason as a excuse because they are bored. They are bored because their leadership hasn't offered them anything new. Good Leadership sets clear goals of what their intention is every age, whether it be setting up a race strategy for dicing advantages or whether to play a attacking heavy race staying slightly smaller and warring more. Like I said, you should look to what your doing wrong (or what your lacking - i.e. success record) before you begin to complain.

What's the real world got to do with anything? People get paid to work in the real world. You have more tools to work with than you do in utopia.

Don't you see there's a catch 22 there? You can't get good players unless you're successful, and you can't become successful with ****ty players.

Your claim is that if you just have good leadership, players will come flocking, and they will never leave. That's just not true, because you don't have any way of showing how good your leadership is when there's no players to show it to. What are you supposed to do? Put up an ad saying you have really good leadership? Being able to present some goals takes little skill, and generally won't be enough to attract specially many players. If they can choose between a kd with a well known name, and an unknown kd, they choose the well known kd almost all the time. The unknown kd will be able to do some recruiting, but it likely won't be enough to arrive at 25 good players. The good players are often impatient and leave if they get an offer to a kd that is already up in the top. In real life that would respond to another company offering a much better salary. Some people would stay because of a good leader, but most wouldn't, because they would expect a similarly good leader in the other company, and a faster payoff (higher salary).

I also think you're greatly overestimating the value of goals here. That you have clear goals doesn't matter at all when you've already had that goal several times before. The game is limited and stagnant. There isn't a lot you can do differently. People get bored regardless of how good the leader is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coke

I thought this was a suggestion thread therefore its to discuss a suggestion. In this case the suggestion was bad, since when did the onus of coming up with a alternative fall to the naysayers while the supports just continue to harp a bad idea.

The problem isn't with KD sizes that is leading to game death. AND Wolf's advertising idea WAS a good one, that you just refuse to give credit because you doubt it will occur. Well I doubt this change will occur either so does that mean this suggestion is not a "real suggestion"?

That the suggestion is bad is your opinion, and he's rejected your arguments and simply thinks you're not bringing anything new to the table. Of course he's wrong about the onus though.

There is a problem with kd sizes, and a change could strengthen the effects of advertisement in a later stage, which is something I've been arguing for a while now. No one said the kd sizes is the only reason the game is dying. What we're saying is that it's a brake block.

Anyway, we're clearly not ever gonna agree on this. The devs now have a thread with people arguing back and forth. No one is really bringing anything new to the table anymore, so they can just look at the thread and decide what they'll do, which will likely be nothing.
12-08-2010, 13:58
WolfDGrey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aos

So people that don't have the same problem as you WolfDGrey is a lier now? , you start to sound like VT2...

In general, spreading lies means you're a liar. Saying that your monarch has a hard time to decide who to kick, is a lie, especially in the twisted way you try to put it into the spotlight. Thus, you're a liar.

In general omitting things, showing them in false conjenture qualifies as a lie. Saying that you play in a 25 player kingdom, omitting that your players are not the same at age start as age end, just to prove continuity, qualifies as a lie regarding our discussion here. Thus you're a liar.
12-08-2010, 13:58
Coke

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luc

Your claim is that if you just have good leadership, players will come flocking, and they will never leave. That's just not true, because you don't have any way of showing how good your leadership is when there's no players to show it to. What are you supposed to do? Put up an ad saying you have really good leadership? Being able to present some goals takes little skill, and generally won't be enough to attract specially many players. If they can choose between a kd with a well known name, and an unknown kd, they choose the well known kd almost all the time. The unknown kd will be able to do some recruiting, but it likely won't be enough to arrive at 25 good players. The good players are often impatient and leave if they get an offer to a kd that is already up in the top. In real life that would respond to another company offering a much better salary. Some people would stay because of a good leader, but most wouldn't, because they would expect a similarly good leader in the other company, and a faster payoff (higher salary).

No I'm claiming that if you have good leadership your player rotation would be much lower as fewer people would leave, hence building a 25 prov KD is easier. Obviously success and connections don't hurt, but the good leadership keeps their users engaged and eventually you would build up a KD. I never said it was easy to build up a KD, I've done it twice and it's probably one of the jobs that can burn you out the most easiest. But then again I had no other support in my KD and ran everything, which contributed to my burn out. Hence EVEN IF I was providing strong leadership it still wasn't good leadership because I was doing everything by myself, when you should really have a group of people within the KD to help with everything

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luc

And it can also easily be refuted. More kd's of equal talent = more kd's with the same amount of players. There are talented kd's out there who don't get up to the top because they can't get 25 players of the same skill, but would do well if only their core was required to fill up the kd.

If a 20 player KD had such strong people they would be experiencing great success in the mid-tier KD level and shouldn't have a hard time finding people to join them. People join and stay in winners because, well everyone likes winning. Hence reducing KD sizes would have no affect, because the KDs stuck at 20 players either aren't winning wars or land growth or w/e or don't offer good leadership which keeps people around. Although a lot of times good leadership is also closely related to the frequency of wins (I'm assuming mid-tier so winning KD = most war wins).
12-08-2010, 16:24
lichemaster

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luc

Don't you see there's a catch 22 there? You can't get good players unless you're successful, and you can't become successful with ****ty players.

(...) The unknown kd will be able to do some recruiting, but it likely won't be enough to arrive at 25 good players. The good players are often impatient and leave if they get an offer to a kd that is already up in the top.

You keep talking about good players and how they have a problem recruiting "good players". A good kingdom with good leadership doesn't need good players it needs active players since it can always teach them and turn them into good ones.
12-08-2010, 17:01
Aos

Quote:

Originally Posted by WolfDGrey

In general, spreading lies means you're a liar. Saying that your monarch has a hard time to decide who to kick, is a lie, especially in the twisted way you try to put it into the spotlight. Thus, you're a liar.

In general omitting things, showing them in false conjenture qualifies as a lie. Saying that you play in a 25 player kingdom, omitting that your players are not the same at age start as age end, just to prove continuity, qualifies as a lie regarding our discussion here. Thus you're a liar.

And you making stuff up is'nt the same as lying? , sence you don't know the situation in my kd - but still can claim that im lying about it?

So insted of saying something that would fix the issue for the kd with 25 players , you call them a lier coz they don't have the same problem as you?
way to go there...
12-08-2010, 18:12
WolfDGrey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aos

And you making stuff up is'nt the same as lying? , sence you don't know the situation in my kd - but still can claim that im lying about it?.

Of course you're lieing about it. All who claim that, or try to propagate that, in Utopia today, there are kingdoms which would have same 25 players whole age, are lieing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aos

So insted of saying something that would fix the issue for the kd with 25 players

So, I am right and you admit that, there is a problem with the 25 players kingdom.

I said something that should fix ther issue until we get more players. If you're too blind to see it, is not my problem. I explained it enough so except retards and idiots all understood my arguments. That some are too dull, some are too malevolent and some are too chicken to give up the status quo, is, again, not my problem.

I did my duty in trying to open people's eyes.

Now, if you please, excuse my rudeness for turning my back to your cheap blurb, but I have talked enough. What you understood (or not) is not my concern from now on. Have fun with the thread.
12-08-2010, 18:20
Aos

Quote:

Originally Posted by WolfDGrey

Of course you're lieing about it. All who claim that, or try to propagate that, in Utopia today, there are kingdoms which would have same 25 players whole age, are lieing.

So, I am right and you admit that, there is a problem with the 25 players kingdom.

I don't think it's a bad thing with 20 players kd's , but to force kick people out of the kd they play in is retarded , and retarded to suggest.
even more it's retarded that some people belive that there is'nt kd that don't have problems with there players.
12-08-2010, 18:26
TheRock

Mercy has had 24 players the same the whole age. One prov got deleted so we kicked the player and replaced him. The end.

I want 30 players in my kingdom, you guys can all have 20 if you want.
12-08-2010, 20:15
Coke

Quote:

Originally Posted by WolfDGrey

Of course you're lieing about it. All who claim that, or try to propagate that, in Utopia today, there are kingdoms which would have same 25 players whole age, are lieing.

So, I am right and you admit that, there is a problem with the 25 players kingdom.

I said something that should fix ther issue until we get more players. If you're too blind to see it, is not my problem. I explained it enough so except retards and idiots all understood my arguments. That some are too dull, some are too malevolent and some are too chicken to give up the status quo, is, again, not my problem.

I did my duty in trying to open people's eyes.

Now, if you please, excuse my rudeness for turning my back to your cheap blurb, but I have talked enough. What you understood (or not) is not my concern from now on. Have fun with the thread.

You sound like VT2 version 2, except not better. Like Vista wasn't a upgrade from XP.

I'm sure their are KDs that have very little issues finding players, and its not a tiring process. You being unwilling to belive that its possible makes you fairly ignorant. Again there is not a problem with the KD sizes there is a problem with a lack of new players, so go be productive and keep promoting your advertising idea, which was actually good. This idea, not good.
13-08-2010, 00:26
Palem

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coke

Again there is not a problem with the KD sizes there is a problem with a lack of new players, so go be productive and keep promoting your advertising idea, which was actually good. This idea, not good.

There is not one single person here who does not agree that the game needs more players. There's just 2 problems with that.

1. We aren't getting advertised.
2. We won't be getting a large amount of fresh blood anytime soon.

You are right. 25 player kds is perfectly fine. Unfortunately, it's only perfectly fine when there are enough players for that to still be interesting. We don't have even close to the number of players that we need for 25 player kds to remain fresh. Because of this, the game has gone stale.
13-08-2010, 01:58
lichemaster

I see more arguments towards kingdom merging than anything else here. If the current kingdoms can't get full they need to be merged.
13-08-2010, 02:09
Darkz Azn

Forceful merge isn't recommend ... we should just drop this nonsense of lowering size =)
13-08-2010, 05:05
Palem

Quote:

Originally Posted by lichemaster

I see more arguments towards kingdom merging than anything else here. If the current kingdoms can't get full they need to be merged.

So you want to just merge 2 kds with 18 provs?

Putting aside the fact that that's impossible, you would rather upset 36 players who are far more likely to not want to play with each other and are being forced to rather than the 5 players who likely made the decision to leave and made their own arrangements with other kds?

Mergers aren't needed. If WoL was run amok with 12-13 player kds, then I would be all for a large-scale kd merger, but that's not the case.
13-08-2010, 08:59
Aos

Quote:

Originally Posted by Palem

So you want to just merge 2 kds with 18 provs?

Putting aside the fact that that's impossible, you would rather upset 36 players who are far more likely to not want to play with each other and are being forced to rather than the 5 players who likely made the decision to leave and made their own arrangements with other kds?

Mergers aren't needed. If WoL was run amok with 12-13 player kds, then I would be all for a large-scale kd merger, but that's not the case.

So kd's with 20 or less people refuse to accept new people? , that's your arrgument.
But kd's with 25 players should accept that we need to kick 5 players , can't add words to this that don't ban me.

18+7= 25 , not really impossible...
13-08-2010, 10:00
WolfDGrey

ROFL @ landwhores hurrying to defend Status Quo!
13-08-2010, 15:22
lichemaster

Quote:

Originally Posted by WolfDGrey

ROFL @ landwhores hurrying to defend Status Quo!

Who's trolling now Wolf?

Basically I see 2 people passionate about kingdom reduction. You a troll and comport9 that defected for unknown reasons from a 24/25 player kingdom and is now the monarch of a 5 player ghetto.
13-08-2010, 16:17
Palem

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aos

So kd's with 20 or less people refuse to accept new people? , that's your arrgument.
But kd's with 25 players should accept that we need to kick 5 players , can't add words to this that don't ban me.

Forced mergers historically do not go well. There's usually a powerstruggle as both monarchs don't want to give up their leadership (even though they can just be co-monarchs and work together, but hey, people are dumb), which eventually leads to a split kd and ultimately, you're left with either a civil war, or people just start leaving. Which brings you back down to a 16-18 player kds yet again.

The only thing that's happening with a kd reduction is that you are being forced to drop your numbers.
No restrictions on who.
No restrictions on how.
No restrictions on where those other players go.

So how is forcing 2 kds to try to get along a better option then a kd reduction?
Oh that's right, because your kd wouldn't have to deal with it.
13-08-2010, 16:30
lichemaster

Who the hell said it was to be forced...it could be an option at the end of the age for the monarch.

[x] Merge our kingdom with another small neighbour
13-08-2010, 16:42
Palem

Any of the kds that have actually been through a merger know that it's more than likely just completely not going to work and pretty much waste an age for them. Why the hell would ANY monarch want to do that with their kd? So the big kds don't have to hurt anyone's feelings cus they kicked them out of their clubhouse?

Mergers might help a couple kds get to 25 players, but it won't help Utopia be any less stale.
13-08-2010, 16:52
lichemaster

Quote:

Originally Posted by Palem

Any of the kds that have actually been through a merger know that it's more than likely just completely not going to work and pretty much waste an age for them. Why the hell would ANY monarch want to do that with their kd? So the big kds don't have to hurt anyone's feelings cus they kicked them out of their clubhouse?

Mergers might help a couple kds get to 25 players, but it won't help Utopia be any less stale.

It's like arguing with a brick...

So you rather *force* kingdoms to kick people than having everyone in a kingdom stay together and *voluntarily* joining with another group of people?

It seems you people are not interested in making any effort whatsoever to reach 25 players so you decide to make rules against the players who do make the effort.
13-08-2010, 16:52
Ethan

@ General question of how to lower players to X (20, then 15?!) smoothly:

Have no randoms into above target (duh), and apply a penalty of X*(players over cap) to ME. Start X at 1%, increase by 1% each age. So first age a 25er is at -5% ME across the board (worth it), next age it's -10 ME, third age it is -15% ME... and now it surely isn't worth it.

It moves slowly enough people can leave at their own pace - and because it is known beforehand how mean the penalty is, the "market" will decide when it is mean enough. Before that it will slowly close the gap between those over cap and those at, so those aspiring to the top can just stay at the eventual target and watch the difference slowly melt away.

Edit: once an age ends with no-one over (soft) cap, change the "Hard cap" down to the "soft cap".

I don't know if I actually like the goal - but this seems like a reasonable way to achieve it. I certainly don't want to go below 20... 20 or 25 (current) are my two preferred values.
13-08-2010, 16:59
Palem

Quote:

Originally Posted by lichemaster

It's like arguing with a brick...

Likewise.

Quote:

So you rather *force* kingdoms to kick people than having everyone in a kingdom stay together and *voluntarily* joining with another group of people?

I'm not sure how much "forcing" is really going on here, other than saying that something MUST be done. As Ethan posted, there are plenty of ways that this can be done through persuasion.

And I can tell you've never been through a merger. It's not like a marriage where everyone is happy and having a good time. It's more like getting a new inmate in your prison cell. You either get along, or one of you dies.

Quote:

It seems you people are not interested in making any effort whatsoever to reach 25 players so you decide to make rules against the players who do make the effort.

It's because 25 player kds is the problem. There are not enough players to reasonably keep kd sizes this large and still maintain a fun, competitive environment. Thanks for reading the thread and understanding that this is whole ****ing point.

And you say, I'm like talking to a brick. At least I know wtf the discussion is about.
13-08-2010, 17:07
Yadda9To5

Even if there was the possibility to merge all kingdoms into 25 province ones, there still would be low competition because there'll be too few kingdoms. The whole reason for reducing kingdomsize is to create more kingdoms.

Having said that, once kingdom sizes are reduced, i'm all for the possibility to merge. Like last age, this age again my kingdom got omaced (partially deleted) and once again, all that's left to do for the kingdom is enjoy being not competitive at all, filled with non committed randoms. But it's not only in the best interest of omaced kingdoms to create as many filled kingdoms as possible. It's also in the best interest of the game as such. Especially when trying to attract new players it's no good to have them land in half empty ghetto's. Does anyone really think people will stay if they first end up in a kingdom with less than 10 non green provs that claims to be disbanding and that says "defect or we kill you", then after defecting ending up in a kingdom with 12 players without any sign of leadership and then, after another defection in a kingdom with 1(!!) non green province and 11 green ones coming oop??? (true story, sadly) A new player should land in a nearly filled kingdom, so his first taste of the game is a positive one. (And no, the recruitment forum doesn't help. For every noob that uses it, i'm pretty sure at least 5 others that just create an account and get the worst first impression possible). The devs realy must do the utmost to keep kingdoms filled, having these near empty kingdoms in the game is killing. (From comports9 numbers there are now 29 kingdoms with 14 or less players, the way account creation and defection seems to work, a new player has a huge chance to land into one of them. I'd much prefer if these 29 kingdoms were put together. I don't belief a 10 or less prov kingdom has any solid intra kingdom ties (left) to make it impossible for it to be merged with another kingdom)

Another thing i'm reading here is that top kingdoms are oh so happy to accept new players. It's only half of the truth. When my kd disbanded a few ages ago i was indeed asked to join some top kds, and some of our players did. I didn't. I wanted to play more relaxed, not wanting to set my alarm to attack in the dead of night. During these ages I've had three invitations from top kd's in my in game pm box, i always answered i'd be happy to join but would not set my alarm to attack. Needless to say, i was rejected by all of them. What this clearly shows is that the current top kd scene is an elite group, if they know you, they might want you. But if they don't you have no chance to join them unless you're willing to make utopia a way of live. And this is simply not the way the better part of the player-base wants to play utopia. For casual players i'm pretty sure having a 20 player kingdom is currently a luxury and having 25 nothing but an unreachable dream. The casual players simply don't have the ingame connections to attract new players. My kingdom moved some players in, true, but they were all players from kd's we warred against that switched sides. Good for us, but as a whole, not helping the game at all.
13-08-2010, 17:09
lichemaster

Quote:

Originally Posted by Palem

It's because 25 player kds is the problem. There are not enough players to reasonably keep kd sizes this large and still maintain a fun, competitive environment. Thanks for reading the thread and understanding that this is whole ****ing point.

And you say, I'm like talking to a brick. At least I know wtf the discussion is about.

I know perfectly well what the discussion is about and it isn't the bull**** you guys keep saying it is. What you want is to destroy competitors that are better than you, not to improve competition per se. You want better competition try harder and better and get your kingdom to the 25 player kingdoms level.

[edit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yadda9To5

Even if there was the possibility to merge all kingdoms into 25 province ones, there still would be low competition because there'll be too few kingdoms. The whole reason for reducing kingdomsize is to create more kingdoms.

Yadda this fallacy has already been shown wrong. If there are very few kingdoms with more than >20 players like pro-reductionists claim, there will obviously be even fewer new kingdoms (since many will simply leave or stand aside waiting for spots to open in their kingdom). Basically, with luck, you would get 2-3 more kingdoms out of this change.
13-08-2010, 17:26
Yadda9To5

Quote:

Originally Posted by lichemaster

Yadda this fallacy has already been shown wrong. If there are very few kingdoms with more than >20 players like pro-reductionists claim, there will obviously be even fewer new kingdoms (since many will simply leave or stand aside waiting for spots to open in their kingdom). Basically, with luck, you would get 2-3 more kingdoms out of this change.

Which is excellent! No more kingdoms but instead all kingdoms get filled. Then atleast competition on an equal footing would be possible. No matter how you try to twist this proposed change, having x players distributed over 25 - y kingdoms gives you more kingdoms than having x players distributed over 25 kingdoms.
13-08-2010, 17:38
Palem

Quote:

Originally Posted by lichemaster

I know perfectly well what the discussion is about and it isn't the bull**** you guys keep saying it is. What you want is to destroy competitors that are better than you, not to improve competition per se. You want better competition try harder and better and get your kingdom to the 25 player kingdoms level.

this is why I usually don't like people who play in the top kds. They think everything is always about them.

If I was so very desperate to win a crown, I'd get in touch with ABS. If I wanted to help improve the enjoyability of the game, I'd do what I'm doing right now.

Get your head out of your ass and stop thinking about yourself.
13-08-2010, 18:17
Coke

Quote:

Originally Posted by Palem

Forced mergers historically do not go well. There's usually a powerstruggle as both monarchs don't want to give up their leadership (even though they can just be co-monarchs and work together, but hey, people are dumb), which eventually leads to a split kd and ultimately, you're left with either a civil war, or people just start leaving. Which brings you back down to a 16-18 player kds yet again.

I've been through mergers before when I was Monarch of one of the halves. I can tell you for sure that there was no power struggle and the other monarch was fairly useless the whole age. That what happens when Ghetto's merge, their a ghetto to begin with because they have little history or attachment to their leadership. Most in ghetto's have drifted around for ages hoping to end up in a winning KD. Its when their KD starts to lose wars or not attempt to war enough, that people begin to leave.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Palem

So how is forcing 2 kds to try to get along a better option then a kd reduction?
Oh that's right, because your kd wouldn't have to deal with it.

I'm not agreeing that forced mergers are good, but the option to merge with another KD of your own choice might have merit. You get to choose who you want to merge with, You get a full KD, You get STRONGER leadership because it was a mutual decision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yadda9To5

Which is excellent! No more kingdoms but instead all kingdoms get filled. Then atleast competition on an equal footing would be possible. No matter how you try to twist this proposed change, having x players distributed over 25 - y kingdoms gives you more kingdoms than having x players distributed over 25 kingdoms.

You would think that competition would be of equal footing, but I doubt it would happen. I have explained this in my earlier posts but I will explain it again:
Right now there are a bunch of KDs int he 16-22 prov range that war each other (for Mid-Tier). Assuming you war around equal KD NW, the KD with fewer provs will have greater NW/prov than the KD with more provs. But in the end you are still warring those group of people. Now lets assume a cap to 20, and those 16-22 prov KDs are all 20 provs. You would still be warring the same group of people. Why? because the ghetto's are still too ****ty to compete with a mid-tier, and the SKDs even at 20 provs will still be out of range before mid-tiers are ready to war. In the end your still warring the same group of people as you are now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Palem

this is why I usually don't like people who play in the top kds. They think everything is always about them.

If I was so very desperate to win a crown, I'd get in touch with ABS. If I wanted to help improve the enjoyability of the game, I'd do what I'm doing right now.

Get your head out of your ass and stop thinking about yourself.

I don't like playing in my KD for winning crowns. I like the leadership structure that is present in my KD, which is why I stick around. And this is my argument. KDs disband NOT because there is a lack of players, its because the Lack of competent leaders. If your KD has a good leadership structure you tend to win more, by winning more you have more player retention and a easier time to find active players. Competition only rises out of KDs facing other KDs of equal leadership, not because the KD prov's are imbalanced. Hence as I said earlier in this post, you will still be fighting against the same group of players except all KDs will be of 20, if you lost to a KD before over and over, you will still lose even post change. Why? because their leaders are better than your leaders. People, especially new players will always want to move into a ever improving KD situation until they find a KD their comfortable with. Hence KDs with weaker leadership will find a hard time recruting people, its not the KD sizes' problems that created this current situation. Therefore with this change your really looking to punish KDs with better leadership. This is why I argue that voluntary mergers (not forced) might be a better solution, since if the 2 monarchs both agree before the merger how they will merge, it could potentially create a much stronger leadership core than either KD had before, and because the leadership is now stronger they will become much more competative.
13-08-2010, 18:55
Palem

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coke

I've been through mergers before when I was Monarch of one of the halves. I can tell you for sure that there was no power struggle and the other monarch was fairly useless the whole age. That what happens when Ghetto's merge, their a ghetto to begin with because they have little history or attachment to their leadership. Most in ghetto's have drifted around for ages hoping to end up in a winning KD. Its when their KD starts to lose wars or not attempt to war enough, that people begin to leave.

You're lucky then. I've been through a couple mergers and not one has ended well and to my knowledge, they don't typically end well. Both times we merged, it was with a kd that was established, but falling apart and still had a few pieces left, including leadership. Those are the kind of kds that would be merged with forced mergers.

Quote:

I'm not agreeing that forced mergers are good, but the option to merge with another KD of your own choice might have merit. You get to choose who you want to merge with, You get a full KD, You get STRONGER leadership because it was a mutual decision.

My only problem with mergers are that it's more of a temporary measure that would decrease the number of kds. None of these are really desirable traits.

Quote:

I don't like playing in my KD for winning crowns. I like the leadership structure that is present in my KD, which is why I stick around. And this is my argument. KDs disband NOT because there is a lack of players, its because the Lack of competent leaders. If your KD has a good leadership structure you tend to win more, by winning more you have more player retention and a easier time to find active players. Competition only rises out of KDs facing other KDs of equal leadership, not because the KD prov's are imbalanced. Hence as I said earlier in this post, you will still be fighting against the same group of players except all KDs will be of 20, if you lost to a KD before over and over, you will still lose even post change. Why? because their leaders are better than your leaders. People, especially new players will always want to move into a ever improving KD situation until they find a KD their comfortable with. Hence KDs with weaker leadership will find a hard time recruting people, its not the KD sizes' problems that created this current situation. Therefore with this change your really looking to punish KDs with better leadership. This is why I argue that voluntary mergers (not forced) might be a better solution, since if the 2 monarchs both agree before the merger how they will merge, it could potentially create a much stronger leadership core than either KD had before, and because the leadership is now stronger they will become much more competative.

I agree. The top are where they are because they have the absolute best in the game leading them. That's why I've never had a problem with the top. That's also why I don't see why this suggestion is getting so much opposition. The best will most likely still be the best. The worst will remain the worst. The suggestion lies with the possibility of new opportunity within the whole community. I'm sure quite a few of the players at the top that would be spectacular leaders if they had their own kds under them, but there's no way they'd be doing any leading while they're still under their management. It's not like I'm suggestion Jdorje quit abs and start up something new. But I know there are fabulous players who could do good things on their own and this would be a good opportunity to do so.

I'm not saying that the top aren't the ones that will be doing most of the sacrificing here. They will. Anyone who denies that would be an idiot. But the top will really be doing a lot of sacrificing when the game dies underneath them and they don't have a game to play anymore. But to think that this whole suggestion is intended to knock the top down is absolute bull**** from a paranoid little pissant that's far too worried about losing status in Utopia.
13-08-2010, 19:00
Yadda9To5

It might shock the top kingdoms, but the largest player base, the casual players, don't care about competing with the top kingdoms. If anything they want to be left alone and not be farmed (http://forums.joltonline.com/showthr...-This-Strategy). They just want to play the game in their own way, and fight with opponents that are their equals.

As I said again and again, the devs should take care that kingdoms stay filled. At the same time, having kd's filled with fewer players than the current 25 creates a more targets. There simply aren't enough players to fill 25 player kingdoms. The far majority already plays in < 20 player kingdoms. What's wrong with making 20 the norm, and fill those 20 instead of sticking to the 25 norm?! reducing size to 20 (5 per 100) creates 25% more kingdoms then there would be with 25 (4 per 100, 4 + 25% = 5).

For all i care it'll be optional to accept a 20 player limit, choosen by the monarch at end of age. The only drawback will be that a kingdom that doesn't accept the limit will not be able to attack into a kingdom that did accept. (And yes, I know this will feed the top kd's cry "you don't us to be able to compete", but then, top kd's can still choose to accept the 20 player limit ;))
13-08-2010, 19:07
Coke

Quote:

Originally Posted by Palem

My only problem with mergers are that it's more of a temporary measure that would decrease the number of kds. None of these are really desirable traits.

By trying to force lower KD sizes as a measure to increase KD numbers, you disperse the quality of leadership in those new KDs. Weak leadership = less competitive, which in the end would not increase competition in the game overall even if the gross number of KDs increase (which I also disagree with).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Palem

I agree. The top are where they are because they have the absolute best in the game leading them. That's why I've never had a problem with the top. That's also why I don't see why this suggestion is getting so much opposition. The best will most likely still be the best. The worst will remain the worst. The suggestion lies with the possibility of new opportunity within the whole community. I'm sure quite a few of the players at the top that would be spectacular leaders if they had their own kds under them, but there's no way they'd be doing any leading while they're still under their management. It's not like I'm suggestion Jdorje quit abs and start up something new. But I know there are fabulous players who could do good things on their own and this would be a good opportunity to do so.

Players in Top Kds, if they wanted to create a new KD would leave to do so, they don't leave because they have no desire to lead or ever leave their current KDs. By forcing them out, most would probably take a couple ages off the game and return when their KD has a slot open.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Palem

I'm not saying that the top aren't the ones that will be doing most of the sacrificing here. They will. Anyone who denies that would be an idiot. But the top will really be doing a lot of sacrificing when the game dies underneath them and they don't have a game to play anymore. But to think that this whole suggestion is intended to knock the top down is absolute bull**** from a paranoid little pissant that's far too worried about losing status in Utopia.

This change is a reactive change and doesn't solve any problems. Competition only increases when you have KDs of equal leadership, you don't get there by capping KD sizes. In fact fewer KDs of 25 provinces, with stronger leadership cores would be the only way to increase competition. Assuming you want to close the gap between SKDs and mid-tier KDs. Even if you temporarily boost KD numbers by capping KD sizes, in a few ages we'd be back to where we are now, because a lot of those KDs leadership would still be weak, and even if given a full KD they would still be less competitive and hence after a very bad losing age, they would lose players.

The only way to strengthen leadership is to get more NEW players, with more incoming new players, the potential that there are good leaders in that group would increase. Only with more good leaders would competition arise.
13-08-2010, 19:14
Coke

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yadda9To5

It might shock the top kingdoms, but the largest player base, the casual players, don't care about competing with the top kingdoms. If anything they want to be left alone and not be farmed (http://forums.joltonline.com/showthr...-This-Strategy). They just want to play the game in their own way, and fight with opponents that are their equals.

As I said again and again, the devs should take care that kingdoms stay filled. At the same time, having kd's filled with fewer players than the current 25 creates a more targets. There simply aren't enough players to fill 25 player kingdoms. The far majority already plays in < 20 player kingdoms. What's wrong with making 20 the norm, and fill those 20 instead of sticking to the 25 norm?! reducing size to 20 (5 per 100) creates 25% more kingdoms then there would be with 25 (4 per 100, 4 + 25% = 5).

For all i care it'll be optional to accept a 20 player limit, choosen by the monarch at end of age. The only drawback will be that a kingdom that doesn't accept the limit will not be able to attack into a kingdom that did accept. (And yes, I know this will feed the top kd's cry "you don't us to be able to compete", but then, top kd's can still choose to accept the 20 player limit ;))

How would making SKDs equal in prov's lessen the farming? In fact the opposite would be true. Right now farming is capped because SKDs have 25 provs farm into KD with under 25 provs hence there is a big KD NW gap which caps gains. If those farmed KDs had equal players as SKDs there would be a lessor KD NW gap hence their farming gains would be EVEN better. Your logic is backwards in this case.

2nd those people who are complaining about being farmed, are the ones who are TURTLES, who have NO desire to compete with anyone but themselves. Hence they have No offense and all defense.

But yea, the closer to bring SKDs to the mid-tier KDs the more farming will occur not less. Nowadays SKDs hit out of range fairly fast and STOP hitting and resort to dicing. When they stop hitting = when they stop farming, hence mid-tier KDs are then left alone. You want to make that farming period longer?

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

All times are GMT. The time now is 21:30.

MUGA GAMING, LLC