Lower kd sizes

Coke, you really don't want to understand do you. When I say this change has nothing to do with SKD influences in the game, you manage to reply that reducing kd size won't reduce SKD influence in the game?!!?!! SKDS are not an issue to the casual utopia players. This proposed change has nothing to do with SKDs. They exist in an entirely different realty as far as most kd's are concerned. This proposal, reduce kingdom sizes to be able to have more equal kingdoms, in terms of casual players means: more casual kds to war, not having 16 v 22 wars, not seeing the same few kd's in your nw range time and time again.

Edit: Same goes for the leadership argument. It's a problem envisioned by top KD's, one barely experienced by casual KDs (atleast the ones I was in). And as such it's indeed a strawman argument. Many casual kds indeed lack good leadership in SKD terms. But well, for their reality they do well enough and don't want to become a SKD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coke

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).

---

I have to disagree with this. The quality of leadership won't be dispersed. Ideally, the leadership will stay with the kd (otherwise the whole kd would just disband, as you yourself has pointed out) and allow those who aren't currently involved in leadership to go and try that. But, if a member of leadership did want to leave and try his/her own thing, I don't think the old kd would be losing a significant chunk of leadership unless it was like the head honcho.

Quote:

---

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.

---

I understand this. I also understand that playing in a top kd is a privilege, maybe not so much anymore, and that building a kd is difficult. However, it won't just be 1 or 2 kds having to lower their sizes, so there will be a nice pool of available, good players that these guys/girls could choose from. That is quite a rare opportunity and I'm sure there's a few guys at the top that see a good opportunity to start up a good new kd, and quickly.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Yes. This suggestion is nothing more than a stall. No one is denying that. The only way the game will be saved is if we get fresh blood, but this suggestion is for those who have stuck around for a long time and are just bored of each age being nearly identical to the next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palem

I have to disagree with this. The quality of leadership won't be dispersed. Ideally, the leadership will stay with the kd (otherwise the whole kd would just disband, as you yourself has pointed out) and allow those who aren't currently involved in leadership to go and try that. But, if a member of leadership did want to leave and try his/her own thing, I don't think the old kd would be losing a significant chunk of leadership unless it was like the head honcho.

---

Ofc the current leadership would stay with their KDs, I'm arguing that even if new KDs would form, their leadership would be weaker (as they would either be new, or trying to sync their leadership styles together). With a SKD and possibly other KDs as well, the window to successfully build a long lasting established KD is fairly small, as people tend to get disenchanted fairly fast especially with a new KD. If they don't experience success relatively fast the new KDs would not have the deep players history to maintain their bonds and would disband quickly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palem

I understand this. I also understand that playing in a top kd is a privilege, maybe not so much anymore, and that building a kd is difficult. However, it won't just be 1 or 2 kds having to lower their sizes, so there will be a nice pool of available, good players that these guys/girls could choose from. That is quite a rare opportunity and I'm sure there's a few guys at the top that see a good opportunity to start up a good new kd, and quickly.

---

This does have some merit, but it would require 2 things. 1, a person ambitious enough to seek leadership even while already in a SKD and possibly already in leadership. If that person was not already in leadership he wouldn't be exposed to the leadership side of SKD play and thus reduce his/her effectiveness. 2, it would require the pool of people who were asked to leave to actively search out new KDs to play. I cannot speak for the other KDs, but I know that in my KD the majority of players wouldnt seek out another KD and would rather just hang around IRC waiting for a spot to open up.

Now needing those 2 conditions to combine, i'd expect a very limited amount of new KDs forming, with a tiny few surviving beyond 1 or 2 ages.

As long as you increase my kingdom to 30 players, you may do whatever you want with any others. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coke

Ofc the current leadership would stay with their KDs, I'm arguing that even if new KDs would form, their leadership would be weaker (as they would either be new, or trying to sync their leadership styles together). With a SKD and possibly other KDs as well, the window to successfully build a long lasting established KD is fairly small, as people tend to get disenchanted fairly fast especially with a new KD. If they don't experience success relatively fast the new KDs would not have the deep players history to maintain their bonds and would disband quickly.

---

Well sure they won't be 100% quality, but it's not like they're going to be a total ghetto. I would hope that in the time of playing with the top that the players have picked up some things about kd management and such. I'm sure the new kds would find success quickly enough. They would probably be NAPed with all the big dogs and be small enough to pick on some mid-tiers to generate some enthusiasm.

Quote:

---

This does have some merit, but it would require 2 things. 1, a person ambitious enough to seek leadership even while already in a SKD and possibly already in leadership. If that person was not already in leadership he wouldn't be exposed to the leadership side of SKD play and thus reduce his/her effectiveness. 2, it would require the pool of people who were asked to leave to actively search out new KDs to play. I cannot speak for the other KDs, but I know that in my KD the majority of players wouldnt seek out another KD and would rather just hang around IRC waiting for a spot to open up.

Now needing those 2 conditions to combine, i'd expect a very limited amount of new KDs forming, with a tiny few surviving beyond 1 or 2 ages.

---

I'm sure there would be a lot of communication about kd dropping if the suggestion were to be taken. My guess is the communication would be fairly open between kds, especially if they were to make some kind of a penalty for kds above the cap, where it would be in the interest of everyone to have a place to dump off spare players.

I know Sonata is a bit a rare case, but just look at them. That got up pretty quickly, at least to my knowledge, and found success nearly immediately, again, to my knowledge. Now I know the new kds won't exactly have Realest running them, but still, it shows it's possible for new kds to be successful.

Why is this about 'the top?'
The top has nothing to do with this.

The top isn't a collection of special snowflakes, deserving of special attention.
The game needs more kingdoms, and smaller maximum sizes - that's fact.

Aww, poor babies! Your legacies are gonna get wiped out by the evil developers! Poor, poor you.
Cry some more.

It's a needed change.
What 'the top' thinks has no effect on whether or not it's needed.
If the top leaves, and we also get smaller and more kingdoms - hey! That's a double-victory.

pull your head out VT2 ,you wont get more kingdoms by doing this.most kingdoms are not full to begin with or even close if it dropped to 20 per kingdom id bet it would cost kingdoms not make more suddenly show up.

Yes, this will create more kingdoms.
Yes, this will limit kingdoms to 20 players..

Yes, those are both good things.

Real men and woman - who aren't as 'elite as 'the top,' have lives, and cannot, or do not want to, sit online 24/7.
We just want to play our game by the rules.

Don't like it? Go away.
No one's forcing 'the top' to stay - and if they leave reduced kingdom-size, we win twice.

This is getting out of hand , how can people say this got nothing to do with the top when it's the top that will have to force kick people? , the people in the top that will get kicked are people with no intention to lead i kd , that's why they are sheep provs in top kd's.

They like it that way , and want it that way.

Nexus - Seasons - Sonata a new kd? LOL , sure but look at the players they hade... your clueless if you use them as a example.

And giving negative ME to kd's that got 25 players? , whats next , give less gains to kd's with war wins?

And how can it be bad to have alot of leaders? by merging kd's you give them atleast 2 leaders that have shown to a group of people that they can handle it.

You think any top kd got 1 leader?

I don't think anything of this will solve the problem Utopia got today , if i would give a serius suggestion on how to fix kd size , id say they have to rework the way randoming works.
Insted of filling kd's with less then 15 players they should fill bigger kd's first , and sence you all say you don't play for charts you should'nt mind random noobs.
I know this will kill smaller kd's , but that effect less people then force kicking people out of 25 prov kd's, and it will bring more 20+ people kd's to the game.

And in the end of a age , monarch should get a option to merge kd's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VT2

Yes, this will create more kingdoms.
Yes, this will limit kingdoms to 20 players..

Yes, those are both good things.

Real men and woman - who aren't as 'elite as 'the top,' have lives, and cannot, or do not want to, sit online 24/7.
We just want to play our game by the rules.

Don't like it? Go away.
No one's forcing 'the top' to stay - and if they leave reduced kingdom-size, we win twice.

---

NO one is forcing you to play with the existing rules , so go away?

Vt2 are you just trolling because you know better than this.

Most kingdoms if they drop it to 20 people it will have 0 effect on.they dont have 20 to begin with so it wont matter to them or make a difference.Make a list of how many kingdoms actually have more than 20.then figure those people move to make the kingdoms with less than 20 get up to the 20. You wont gain a single new kingdom and will probably have some quit because of it. and no im below 20 and still know it wont help .fixed bugs and advertising is what will help utopia,not stupid ideas.

Again, I want a 30 prov kingdom next age, the rest of you can do whatever you want. Until anyone gives me a good reason not to let people who want big kingdoms not to have them, I reject your propositions.

Remember, you can always have less than 30 players - you can even have 20, like now :) People who only have 20 players now are only trying to penalize those who have more. Concordantly, I declare them ninnies.

I find the leadership argument funny. The people who are arguing there will be no new kd's all seem to be very interested in the possibilities of advertising the game. So what you're hoping for is that when we advertise, we'll get new awesome leaders into the game? Because no game knowledge is needed right? If we don't have any potential good leaders today, we won't have any later either, even if we advertise and somehow bring more people into the game. We'd just get more half full ghettoes. Why don't we just shut down the game instead? Because if your arguments are to be believed, there really is no way at all to save this game.


How do great leaders emerge? Do they gradually hone their skills, or do they just appear from the mist one day? Of course the good leaders we have in the game today have become as good as they are by competing with others. You attempt to build a kd, you fight better kd's, you learn from those better kd's. Is it possible that the game no longer supports that behavior? People building kd's rarely get over 20 players before they give up, which is completely normal given that it takes a lot of time, and it's very hard to recruit from the dwindling player base. The new kd's we see today are usually mergers. When all you can manage is reach 20 players, you're not gonna get close to the kd's you could potentially learn from. No new leaders are gonna be created, regardless if we have more players in the game or not, because they will not have anyone to learn from.

Or is it possible that good leadership can come from people who have played for a while under another good leader? If so, shouldn't they be encouraged to strike out on their own, so we actually can create more good leaders? Is that likely to happen when people know there is little chance of them ever being able to fill a kd of 25?

Simply put, if you're interested at all in attempting to save this game, you should also be interested in creating the right circumstances for actually keeping whatever new players we can get into the game. All I see in this forum is conversatism. The steep learning curve is fine, because it's always been that way. Too large kd's is fine, because it's always been that way, and there are no leaders anyway. Well, none of that is ever gonna change, if we just keep treading the same old tracks. No new leaders will be created, so nothing will change, and the game will just be on repeat until it dies.

My suggestions are to create a better atmosphere through:
1. Creating a user friendly guide for new players.
2. Lowering KD sizes and making it easier to build new kd's (i.e. more invites). It's crucial to encourage the few talented players we have left to strike out on their own and spread their knowledge in the game, and also to attempt to create a situation where mid tier kd's at least have some possibilities of learning from the better kd's.
3. Attempt to make the game more intuitive and easy to get into, but pay attention to still make it hard to master.
4. Don't forget the social aspect of the game. Players should be encouraged to talk to each other, and communication should be made as easy as possible.
5. Help small kd's merge (don't force, but help).
6. Advertise only when the game actually has a chance of keeping new players, or it's just wasted money.

Quote:

---

Why don't we just shut down the game instead?

---

Why shut it down? Its still enjoyable for alot of us, nothing wrong with enjoying it as long as it last. There will be a time when there is no point in running the game anymore and then its okey to shut it down.

Quote:

---

Because if your arguments are to be believed, there really is no way at all to save this game.

---

Its a realistic view on things, Utopia is outdated game, these kind of games dont hold as much playing value for people these days as it did back in the good old days.

Quote:

---

Or is it possible that good leadership can come from people who have played for a while under another good leader? If so, shouldn't they be encouraged to strike out on their own, so we actually can create more good leaders? Is that likely to happen when people know there is little chance of them ever being able to fill a kd of 25?

---

Ofc its possible but the thing is that there isnt enough players to make good kds from scratch anymore, well at least not dedicated enough players. Most arent willing to spend the time that is needed to achieve something it doesnt matter if its 25 people kd or 20 people kd.

Quote:

---

Simply put, if you're interested at all in attempting to save this game

---

Utopia is like a terminally ill patient, its beyond saving and Utopia know its going to die. So isn it better to enjoy it while it last and not clinge to a naive hope that it will be cured some day.

Quote:

---

2. Lowering KD sizes and making it easier to build new kd's

---

By lowering kd sizes you destroy other kds, they aint gonna go out and build new kds cause they are forced out of their old kds they just gonna quit instead cause they cant play with friends anymore.

Oh, no all those 300 out of 7000 players.
The precious 300.

How ever will the game manage to live without 300 'top' players?

Oh, sorry I thought the idea was to bring more people into the game not making even more people quit. I think 300 more people quitting would quite hurt the game atm.

Sometimes you have to accept that a few will quit to leave place for more to join. Unless you accept that fact, you're gonna find that everything you ever do is doomed to stagnate really fast.

Utopia today is very close to being shut down. The income streams barely cover the server costs, and people keep leaving because the game is in repeat. The devs have no reasons to keep running the game if they don't think they'll ever make money on it. They're not gonna pay any more out of their own pockets just to see it live on for another few months.

There's no doubt in my mind that utopia could sustain 10-15k players if it was renewed properly. With that many players it would at least be self sustainable. It doesn't have to beat WoW in amount of players. I mean, just look at how many people play Farmville. That game is absolutely retarded, but it's much better suited to today's public. Utopia is a much better game, but it's been painfully devoid of new ideas for several years now. Mehul refused to do anything, and after that, focus has been mostly on actually getting the game running again.

Strategy games don't need flashy graphics to survive, but they have to be somewhat exciting and provide some sort of change every now and then. Utopia is just rinse and repeat today. It's the same kd's up in the top, and the others are fighting the same people every age. The community actively works against any change that contains any novel ideas, simply because they would be unable to play exactly like they used to. They want changes to be contained within the frame of what they already know, so only minor adjustments are needed. The utopia community is like a bunch of grumpy old men.

Do you truly enjoy playing the game as it is today? I sure don't. I've despised the game itself for a couple of years already, and I'm only still here because some friends are still playing it. It's just depressing to see more and more people leave, and people working against changes that would bring something fresh to the game for once. It's the same old goals, against the same old kd's. So boring. But I don't know why I even react to it, people are the same everywhere. Change is bad!!!!

If they want it to make money, they need to aim for reliability, ease of use, accessibility, and a much, much improved in-game atmosphere.

Intel should be quick to get, and easy to use.
Bullying (alliances) should not be ignored.
Kingdoms need to be smaller, and the page - or a new class of user - should be given shared, but limited, monarch powers.
Simple calculators are needed in-game. Merely having a little tool that displays how much the units you're putting into each box are worth for offense and defense would do wonders.
Magic and thievery need to be balanced versus each other, and made very different.
The game needs to be marketed towards a certain age group, or at least an age band.
Cheating and superkingdoms need to be taken out, so new players feel that they can compete. Without the feeling that you have a chance, it's simply not worth 'playing' the game.

[quotes] Sometimes you have to accept that a few will quit to leave place for more to join.[/quotes]

Thats retarded, quality always beat quantity.

Quote:

---

There's no doubt in my mind that utopia could sustain 10-15k players if it was renewed properly.

---

10-15k would perhaps been a good start but wouldnt be enough.

Quote:

---

The community actively works against any change that contains any novel ideas, simply because they would be unable to play exactly like they used to.

---

Like SoT! But I dont see why you want punish your faithful customers just to try and bring in some new people that leaves one week later.

Quote:

---

They want changes to be contained within the frame of what they already know, so only minor adjustments are needed.

---

Yea, you should open your mind about SoT! ...

Quote:

---

Do you truly enjoy playing the game as it is today?

---

Yes, I mean more players would be wonderfull but I have no problem with the gameplay itself.

If quality equals 2100, and quanity equals 900,000, number two wins.

Case in point: tiger tanks versus T34.

Quote:

---

If quality equals 2100, and quanity equals 900,000, number two wins.

---

Yea, have fun with your players that login perhaps once every day, then after a week quits! I am sure it will be alot of fun playing!

I will.
I get 899,999 targets to pick between hitting, you know, and 899,999 potential players to make a good kingdom with, while you're stuck with the same 2099 players forever.

Nice to be owned in two threads, isn't it?

While you being stuck with a quantity i enjoy playing the game on a competitive level. I realize you dont have it in you to be sucessfull in utopia as others do so you are happy with being in ghettos.

Korp, quality is not ALLWAYS better than quantity and that is especially true in today's Utopia. Why? Because interactivity often requires quantity for function well. The quality of the game actually decreased with less people as there are less new ideas and challenges in the game. Utopia is the perfect study case.

And it's normal to be like that...

I didnt talk about quality of the game thou, i did talk about quality of the people. I rather have lesser group of people that is ac tive and provides me with something that is worth my while than a ****load of people that hardly bothers playing the game.

The ideal is to have both. But if you have to choose, quantity is what makes the game go around economically. If you don't have some quantity, you can't have quality either, unless someone is willing to pay for you to be able to play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

Oh, sorry I thought the idea was to bring more people into the game not making even more people quit. I think 300 more people quitting would quite hurt the game atm.

---

You said it yourself...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

Utopia is like a terminally ill patient, its beyond saving and Utopia know its going to die. So isn it better to enjoy it while it last and not clinge to a naive hope that it will be cured some day.

---

I think having 2k+ people enjoying the game would be better than having 300 or so enjoy it. At least if you follow that defeatist attitude, which I don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

Thats retarded, quality always beat quantity.

---

Ever heard of Walmart? There's a reason it's a multi-billion dollar company and it's not because of the great quality that they supply.

Although Korp does bring a nice point to light. The top would have the game die than try to save this one. For the record, Battlefields is no excuse to just to throw Utopia to the dogs and enjoy the ride. Some of us are still trying to save it.

Quote:

---

I think having 2k+ people enjoying the game would be better than having 300 or so enjoy it. At least if you follow that defeatist attitude, which I don't.

---

Yet you are one of those that believe those terminally ill patients will be saved cause of some naive hope in God or whatever.

Quote:

---

Ever heard of Walmart? There's a reason it's a multi-billion dollar company and it's not because of the great quality that they supply.

---

Yea, it proves that people are idiots, but its america so go figure. Just cause a bunch of people chose quanityt over quality dont make quantity better. Its like saying MacDonalds is better than a 5 michellin restaurant cause more people eat at MacDonalds.

Quote:

---

Some of us are still trying to save it.

---

Some people are convinced that the world is ruled by lizardmen, doesnt mean its a viable theory or possible even.

Good,then explain how dropping kingdoms sizes and forcing some people out of their kingdoms who will quit will magically make all these new people join who are not joining now and havent in years since the promises were not kept ? How will that make new people find a game that isnt advertised or even on Jolts forums thats been in Beta or Alpha whatever its in for 2 + years run smoother.How will that make people join and stay in a game that has part time Devs who sadly made most of the situation money wise they are in now by their own code.
A game that works makes money.A game that makes money can advertise making more.Devs who spend enough time to fix bugs makes players happy.Devs who know how to properly code dont make new bugs trying to fix previous mistakes over and over again and wouldnt have a bugs list from a year ago still not corrected.

Dropping to 20 people per kingdom isnt going to fix or save utopia.The game being ran right and having people doing it on a full time basis and not making excuses for bad codes will bring back players once they see its not another promise not being kept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

Yet you are one of those that believe those terminally ill patients will be saved cause of some naive hope in God or whatever.

---

Did you really just assume not only my spiritually beliefs but my personal opinions on euthanasia based off my drive to want to do actually do something to help save this game? Putting aside the fact that I said nothing concerning the two, go ahead and stop trying to derail the thread, or whatever the hell you were trying to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

Yea, it proves that people are idiots, but its america so go figure. Just cause a bunch of people chose quanityt over quality dont make quantity better. Its like saying MacDonalds is better than a 5 michellin restaurant cause more people eat at MacDonalds.

---

Yep. People are idiots. We've known that since people started hanging out. But success speaks pretty loudly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

Some people are convinced that the world is ruled by lizardmen, doesnt mean its a viable theory or possible even.

---

That's true, some people actually think you're worth talking to...
If you'd like to get back on point that'd be great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunder TA

Dropping to 20 people per kingdom isnt going to fix or save utopia.The game being ran right and having people doing it on a full time basis and not making excuses for bad codes will bring back players once they see its not another promise not being kept.

---

Are you illiterate or just that ignorant as to not get the point yet?! Let me spell it out again...

THIS IS NOT A SUGGESTION TO SAVE UTOPIA!
THIS IS NOT A SUGGESTION TO SAVE UTOPIA!
THIS IS NOT A SUGGESTION TO SAVE UTOPIA!
THIS IS NOT A SUGGESTION TO SAVE UTOPIA!
THIS IS NOT A SUGGESTION TO SAVE UTOPIA!

You got it yet? No? Well let me try it again.
THIS IS NOT A SUGGESTION TO SAVE UTOPIA!
THIS IS NOT A SUGGESTION TO SAVE UTOPIA!
THIS IS NOT A SUGGESTION TO SAVE UTOPIA!
THIS IS NOT A SUGGESTION TO SAVE UTOPIA!
THIS IS NOT A SUGGESTION TO SAVE UTOPIA!

If one more person asks how this is supposed to save utopia, or eludes that this suggestion is intended to save Utopia, I'm reporting you for trolling.

report then idiot. whats the point in making even more kingdoms if it isnt for trying to help the game or is your idea of lowering kd numbers just so you can feel like your able to compete because the higher kingdoms are down 5 people and not as big.

how damned goofy can you actually be.not anything you have said will bring any more people to the game. until you figure out whats the problem you will never have a clue and will be like most of the trolls here. just posting more BS for responses.

Quote:

---

But success speaks pretty loudly.

---

What does sucess have to do with quality beats quantity? Is MacDonalds more sucessfull than Gordon Ramsey cause MacDonalds has more restaurants? I dont see anything that you wrote now or your previous post that goes against what i said.

Quote:

---

That's true, some people actually think you're worth talking to.

---

People that cant argue usually attacks the person instead, are you one of those people?

Quote:

---

If you'd like to get back on point that'd be great.

---

There was a point, just cause you believe you can save it dont mean its possible to save it. You can hope all you want but in the end its not going to happend as well as David Icke never will find those spacelizards.

Quote:

---

I'm reporting you for trolling.

---

Its cute that you are reporting someone after you spammed. Pasting one line again and again wont help anything, it doesnt make things better it just makes people more annoyed instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunder TA

Good,then explain how dropping kingdoms sizes and forcing some people out of their kingdoms who will quit will magically make all these new people join who are not joining now and havent in years since the promises were not kept ? How will that make new people find a game that isnt advertised or even on Jolts forums thats been in Beta or Alpha whatever its in for 2 + years run smoother.How will that make people join and stay in a game that has part time Devs who sadly made most of the situation money wise they are in now by their own code.

---

Who said players would magically appear? I personally think you can get some people to return to the game if you make it easier for them to play together and be competitive. I also think it will be easier to recruit friends who aren't playing for the same reason. I also think it would be easier to keep new players after advertising if the kd's aren't too big.

Quote:

---

A game that works makes money.A game that makes money can advertise making more.Devs who spend enough time to fix bugs makes players happy.Devs who know how to properly code dont make new bugs trying to fix previous mistakes over and over again and wouldnt have a bugs list from a year ago still not corrected.

---

What a bunch of BS. Whether a game makes money or not depends on a lot of things, not only if it works. Utopia only has a few income streams (ads ingame and ppl who buy credits). That really isn't a lot by today's standards, especially now that lots of people use ad blockers and ads are everywhere, so you don't get paid as much anymore.

Bugs are not being fixed because the game doesn't make the devs any money. They had to work on other stuff to actually get paid so they don't have to live on saved money.

Quote:

---

Dropping to 20 people per kingdom isnt going to fix or save utopia.The game being ran right and having people doing it on a full time basis and not making excuses for bad codes will bring back players once they see its not another promise not being kept.

---

The game isn't bringing in any money, so the devs can't spend a lot of time on it. Also, there are few dealbreaking bugs left in the game, and even if they get fixed, we're not gonna get any new players because of it. What we need is to stop people from leaving (which is not being done by just claiming things are fine the way they are) and make the game attractive to new players, and then advertise. Since the devs can't spend a lot of time and effort on the game, we're looking for simple measures. The idea behind lowering kd sizes is to create more excitement to stop people from leaving, and to provide an environment better suited for keeping new players. That's not gonna be sufficient on it's own, and nobody claimed it was the ultimate solution to everything. Other things that need to be done is a good newbie guide for example, but I don't see anyone actually working on that. The devs won't be writing such a guide any time soon, so it's not gonna appear unless players write it (or attempt to make the wiki better).

1. People are saying we don't have enough good leaders in the game. The only way to fix this is to make it easier to build kd's, and to encourage people who have played under good leaders to break out on their own. Or we make it easier for the almost good leaders to compete, so they can learn and get better at their jobs. Does 25 player kd's help with any of that? NO.
2. This is a social game, and the only way we're gonna be able to keep any new players is to get them into the community fast, and that's not likely to happen unless they can play with their friends. Again it needs to be easy to play with friends, and build your own kd. A newbie guide is also needed, as well as any changes we can come up with that makes the game easy to learn (without making it easy to master). Does 25 player kd's help with this? NO.
3. People are leaving out of boredom, since the game is merely repeated age after age. You fight the same kd's over and over, and it's boring to no end. The solution to that is to help kd's compete with kd's they couldn't compete with before. Having a full kd is one step towards that solution. Does 25 player kd's help with this? NO.

I'm getting tired of repeating arguments now. Nobody is really listening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

There was a point, just cause you believe you can save it dont mean its possible to save it. You can hope all you want but in the end its not going to happend as well as David Icke never will find those spacelizards.

---

You're aware that your argument can be turned on you?:
just cause you believe you can't save it dont mean it isnt possible to save it

Quote:

---

You're aware that your argument can be turned on you?:
just cause you believe you can't save it dont mean it isnt possible to save it

---

It's true, it could be turned against me. But I feel my arguments are a bit more realistic, judging by different factors like how the playerbase steadily has gone downards. It's sad and al, I would love the game to flourish again but I am a realistic person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunder TA

whats the point in making even more kingdoms if it isnt for trying to help the game or is your idea of lowering kd numbers just so you can feel like your able to compete because the higher kingdoms are down 5 people and not as big.

---

helping =\= saving.

Do you think this suggestion is going to save utopia?
http://forums.joltonline.com/showthr...d-help-buttons
or how about this one?
http://forums.joltonline.com/showthr...-Suggestion%29

No. They won't save utopia. Does that mean they aren't worth posting? No. This suggestion is NOT for saving utopia. It's to facilitate a more competitive environment, which is what the first 10-14 pages were about.

Quote:

---

how damned goofy can you actually be.not anything you have said will bring any more people to the game. until you figure out whats the problem you will never have a clue and will be like most of the trolls here. just posting more BS for responses.

---

When I make a suggestion that's actually designed to BRING people into the game, I'll let you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

People that cant argue usually attacks the person instead, are you one of those people?

---

Hmm..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunder TA

report then idiot.

---

I'm an idiot

Quote:

---

how damned goofy can you actually be

---

I'm "goofy"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

Yet you are one of those that believe those terminally ill patients will be saved cause of some naive hope in God or whatever

---

I'm naive (and religious?)

And that's just from this page. You guys seem to be doing the personal attacks.

Quote:

---

Its cute that you are reporting someone after you spammed. Pasting one line again and again wont help anything, it doesnt make things better it just makes people more annoyed instead.

---

Thanks for misquoting me. That was special.

And that exact point has been typed out at least 50 times in this thread. What's another 10 in 1 post to get you guys to get the point?

Quote:

---

And that's just from this page. You guys seem to be doing the personal attacks.

---

You mean being called religious is an insult? You sure get smarter by every post you make.

Quote:

---

I'm an idiot

---

Yes you are, spamming something in red isnt especially smart and is against the rules. If you think hes trolling you should not break the rules yourself you should report them. Yet you didnt do it, instead you had a childish hizzy fit.

"Is MacDonalds more sucessfull than Gordon Ramsey cause MacDonalds has more restaurants? " Yes.

It's a bit like how Blizzard is more successful than OMAC, because the Blizzard franchise has more customers served at more restaurants. Their customers tend to be happy, too.
There's also less % of old, cranky, gnarled people crowding the place, throwing salt and toothpicks at anyone who dares suggest the chief should add some beef and garlic to the menu.

Luc: they dont make money because they cant code a game.what game stays in Beta or alpha for over 2 years ? the game is dumbed down enough.making it even worse wont bring in new people but will send more away to alternative games.as more go to the alternative games guess where the new players will also go.it wont be here because the game will have even less players much like UK .

Palem: all you seem to want is the top kds removed to make your play seem better. sad. you used to make decent suggestions and posts.now you have turned into only another troll.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunder TA

Palem: all you seem to want is the top kds removed to make your play seem better. sad. you used to make decent suggestions and posts.now you have turned into only another troll.

---

This is what I love. How I'm "trying" to bring down the top, even though everyone(including myself) is in agreement that if this would happen that best in the game would still be the best in the game.

Is this not true? Thunder? Do you know of some underlying principle that would destroy the very fabric of the top kds with the simple loss of of a universal 5 players?

There's only 2 scenarios here:
1. I'm an absolute genius with a game changing suggestion that will incredibly bring down the top once and for all; somehow circumnavigating the fact the top has better strategist than anyone else!
2. The top is far too paranoid about falling and the paranoia runs into this suggestion.

Trust me, it's not 1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palem

There's only 2 scenarios here:
1. I'm an absolute genius with a game changing suggestion that will incredibly bring down the top once and for all; somehow circumnavigating the fact the top has better strategist than anyone else!
2. The top is far too paranoid about falling and the paranoia runs into this suggestion.

Trust me, it's not 1.

---

False dichotomy (since you love the straw man you should learn more logical fallacies)... MAYBE this suggestion would affect mostly the top because MAYBE they would be the ones kicking 5 players and so understandably MAYBE they aren't happy about it. Another reason is that it is totally an unnecessary change since it wouldn't increase competition at all as I've already identified the real cause of lack of competition in another thread.