Lower kd sizes

Sorry but i dont play in or near the top anymore nor want to. You have yet to make a single point that shows where making kingdom sizes at 20 will do anything to ( help ,save ,insert any word you want here ) new players still wont have a clue joining even what the top kds are anyway.ghettoes will still have 8-10 people and the only think that will change is those removed by force from their full kingdoms will

a) Quit and their kingdoms will also along with friends making even less kingdoms

b) Go to other games " like ' utopia.

The more people leave the faster this game dies. Every suggestion to run off even 300 more people to me looks like it has alternative motives. The more that leave the more other games grow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunder TA

b) Go to other games " like ' utopia.

---

Yes I do play battlefields. That doesn't stop me to play Utopia or to try to help Utopia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunder TA

The more people leave the faster this game dies. Every suggestion to run off even 300 more people to me looks like it has alternative motives. The more that leave the more other games grow.

---

By not lowering kingdom sizes we loose more people than 300. Your argument is also a false dilemma, but the problem is that you posted it seriously while palem was sarcastic. Way to go.

Quote:

---

By not lowering kingdom sizes we loose more people than 300.

---

Right, like you can prove that not lowering kd size has a direct relation to people would leaving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

Right, like you can prove that not lowering kd size has a direct relation to people would leaving.

---

No, he can't. And you can't prove him wrong either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lichemaster

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.

---

You seem to confuse your own opinions with the truth. If we thought you had identified the real cause, we wouldn't still be here arguing. You believe it won't increase competition, and we believe it will. Neither side can show any proof. We don't buy your arguments, and you don't buy ours, and that's why we're not getting anywhere. Or maybe you think you're obviously right and we're just dumb?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunder TA

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 .

---

Wrong. They don't make money because there aren't enough players to get enough from advertising to do more than cover the server costs. It has nothing to do with there being some bugs in the game. People were leaving fast long before that. Fixing the bugs is not gonna bring back 5k players to make the game pay for itself and a dev's attentions again.

Quote:

---

No, he can't. And you can't prove him wrong either.

---

I dont know about you, but where I come from we use facts when we argue and not speculations. But if go by your logic there is no point in aruging at all cause nothing can ever be proven according to you. But, lets look at what he wrote again, he claimed didnt say "I think" but claimed that if not lowering the kingdom size people will leave. People have been leaving the game for quite some time and it certainly havent been due to kingdom size. That suddenly it will be due to kingdoms being 25 and not 20 is not a plausible argument. Your above line is quite childish.

Quote:

---

They don't make money because there aren't enough players to get enough from advertising to do more than cover the server costs.

---

And why isnt there enough players? ...

Wolf :
your throwing what you wish out. No where can you honestly say 1 person has quit because kingdoms are at 25 people as they have always been.new people come and go as always.


Palem:
wrong, a working game gets players. when they took over players started coming back. thats been proven,when the new code was brought in people came back also. when it didnt work people left. simple.

both of you can continue to say game issues are not causing people to leave.thats fine. new games that have been coded in a couple of months that work better are gaining players daily. they are advertising and correcting bugs. its the product that sells .bad working products get replaced with better working ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

I dont know about you, but where I come from we use facts when we argue and not speculations. But if go by your logic there is no point in aruging at all cause nothing can ever be proven according to you. But, lets look at what he wrote again, he claimed didnt say "I think" but claimed that if not lowering the kingdom size people will leave. People have been leaving the game for quite some time and it certainly havent been due to kingdom size. That suddenly it will be due to kingdoms being 25 and not 20 is not a plausible argument. Your above line is quite childish.

---

It's reasonable to think 25 player kd's is part of the reason why people leave. I know several people who quit because they thought it was boring that you had to fight the same kd's over and over because you could never fill the kd and move up a level. Many good leaders have also left because they couldn't fill the kd. They got to around 20 and then they gave up.

Claiming that 25 player kd has no effect at all is what I think is childish.

Quote:

---

And why isnt there enough players? ...

---

Because the game is boring as hell. The same kd's end up in the same positions every age, most of the kd's are not full, and you always fight the same people. Among the other reasons

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunder TA

Wolf :
your throwing what you wish out. No where can you honestly say 1 person has quit because kingdoms are at 25 people as they have always been.

---

Nowhere you can claim they don't. Fact is that the current state of the game makes people leave. We are less than 7k here. And yes, boredom and status quo makes people leave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunder TA

new people come and go as always.

---

Which new people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunder TA

both of you can continue to say game issues are not causing people to leave.

---

Don't be a tard. Nodody said that. Stop twisting what people say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunder TA

they are advertising and correcting bugs. its the product that sells .bad working products get replaced with better working ones.

---

AGREED. (Partially. Because some times only the ad sells, the product is bad, yet still sells. There are countless examples for that.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

I dont know about you, but where I come from we use facts when we argue and not speculations.

---

- Fact: people are leaving because the status quo. Same kingdoms up, same kingdoms warring. Same kingdoms.
- Fact: Keeping the status quo SURELY WON'T HELP.
- Fact: More full kingdoms offer a richer gameplay, more excitement and more challenge.
- Fact: Most landwhores who are interested in keeping the status quo (read: ABS and alike) are against the suggestion regardless of arguments.
-Speculation: A stirrup, a mild change might help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

Right, like you can prove that not lowering kd size has a direct relation to people would leaving.

---

I can reasonably argue that the present state of the game makes people leave. I can reasonably argue that the game structure at the current state is boring. I can reasonably argue that lowering kingdom sizes affect allmost no players, as every kingdom change a few players during one age. That, you come back with the same old broken record, like a parrot, is another thing.

And I don;'t have to argue that it has a DIRECT RELATION, an INDIRECT RELATION trough boredom and status quo is just as good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luc

Because the game is boring as hell. The same kd's end up in the same positions every age, most of the kd's are not full, and you always fight the same people. Among the other reasons

---

Reducing kingdom size will not change any of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lichemaster

Reducing kingdom size will not change any of this.

---

Yes it will. Creating more full kd's will give more kd's a chance to compete, as a consequence learn from better kd's and become more competitive later. Lowering kd sizes will also make it easier to create new kd's, which is essential for being able to spread out the little knowledge of how to lead a good kd that's left in the game.

How can you possibly argue that having a full kd instead of an 80% full one doesn't increase your chances of competing? Not saying it will make you win the NW crown all of a sudden, but seriously?

When you've got a full kd, you can fight other full kd's without having a disadvantage in numbers right from the start. Meaning it's up to strategies and activity how well you do instead. Meaning you have a chance of learning about strategies if you happen to lose. Also, building a kd with 20 active players is easier than building a 25 player kd with 25 active players. So even if you lose, you have a great chance to learn something new, and also you've been able to do something new (fighting someone that you haven't fought several times before). The status quo is what makes people leave.

In my opinion it will make the game more boring as people would only have 19 mates max.

It will not give you new kingdoms to fight with because the positions will all be pretty much the same anyway.
It will not spread out any knowledge because people with knowledge that aren't leaders by now will not be leaders with 20 players either since they just don't want to.
Your disadvantage from numbers is highly overrated as it is balanced by networth, explore pool limits, etc.
You will not learn from competing with better kingdoms because if you aren't competing with them right now this change won't make you do it.

Agreed on the status quo and what we need to change it is more players and advertising.

I fail to see how this would have any radical effect on Utopia at all. It seems to be being put forwards as some magical way to improve the game, but for who? I don't see who benefits from this at all. A few KDs with over 25 players will get trimmed down to have 20 players. That is just about the only "fact" involved in the suggestion. Is this suddenly going to mean that disorganised kingdoms who have 20 players at the moment are suddenly going to start going to war with top kingdoms who would be even stronger with their weaker members removed?

If most kingdoms don't have anything like 25 players at the moment then that is as much an argument of how pointless this change would be as it is an argument that it will have little bad effect. Moving a few pebbles around a beach doesn't change anything. Reshuffling the entire of Utopia into tightly packed kingdoms, all of 20 people, might do, but very few people want so radical a solution.

It would have a massive effect on the game.
Since so few can even get 23 players, it's natural to limit the maximum to 20.

That way, all those that can somehow keep shells of 25 will not have an instant advantage over the majority of the game, and all those kings and queens who hate recruiting, and find being unpaid managers not worth it, will have a much, much easier time keeping their kingdoms filled, because 20 is indeed 5 less than 25.

"Reshuffling the entire of Utopia into tightly packed kingdoms, all of 20 people, might do, but very few people want so radical a solution. " What are you talking about?

VT2 you would still have 17 people while the other had 20. it wont change your recruiting. Then the next step people will be screaming the kds with 20 people are to big and no one can get to 20 so what then ? a crusaide for kingdoms to be dropped to 15? 10 ? Once you open that box its hard to close it again.remember when the legal trading box got opened ,its hard to shut it.

It changes a lot of things.
I've told you why multiple times. Others have done the same.

Read the thread. Don't whine and moan when you're presented with arguments you can't beat down with claims of being elite, and everybody else being 'n00b,' or 'wanting to dumb the game down.'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palem

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VT2

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

---

Here is the proof:

http://imgur.com/P0zTZ.png

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by comport9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

You've said nothing of use in this thread.

20 player kingdoms.
The future.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pmyraje

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

---

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

I'm saying it is an extension of the same argument. People would need a lot more facts to back up their argument if they are going to start saying 20 is the optimum number whereas 19 or 18 would be detrimental.

VT2 said that. He's had virtually nothing to do with this whole thread, yet you're choosing to respond to him.

i can say its horrible with 25 player kingdoms... so bad that my kingdom which has 16 players is in top 50... thats sad..

Everybody who argues for keeping 25 provinces per kingdom has zero actual arguments, and pretends to not understand the situation.

As I said, as the status quo people don't need to provide overwhelming reasons to keep 25 province kingdoms. The fact that no-one has given a truly winning argument for changing it to 20 is more of an issue.

Yes, they do, because the staus que is an arbitrary number, and those are bound to change sooner or later

So bound to change that kingdom sizes have been the same for 10 years.

At the moment there is an average of just over 16 provinces per kingdom anyway. If the aim is to have more kingdoms nd more competitive kingdoms then we would need to drop to more like 15 provinces per kingdom and really fill up all the kingdoms that we have rather than just move an average of fewer than 1 province per kingdom as things stand. With that solution we still need to reduce the number of current kingdoms to make them competitive which seems to go against the argument of increasing the number of kingdoms to give a more competitive edge.

I'd rather just see the game advertised and see if it can get more players first rather than drop kingdom sizes without even attempting to bring in more players.

How many kds do there need to be before we start addressing kd sizes then pmyraje?
100? 50? 10?

I would rather just see the game advertised too, but it's not and it's likely not going to be for awhile.

The top might be ok with constantly participating with the exact same people age after age, but no one else is.

I managed to recruit a 25 player kingdom in 4 ages. Work hard, and it can be done.
Since then, we have recruited further, and started a secondary Kingdom.

I dont see why kingdom sizes should drop. I would not like to have to choose which players to leave, we are a team.

Given advertisement, why would any of the new players want to remain in the game? It just seems incredibly naive to me to believe that if we just advertise, all our problems will go away. Why do you think people left in the first place? Could it possibly be because the game is outdated and boring, and because the community is completely against any new ideas?

Do you really think that new players would enjoy ending up in a half full kd that will never get close to competing with anyone at all? Would they enjoy playing a game with a silly amount of randomness that you can't have any clue about when you start playing?

Get real. Advertisement isn't gonna do **** unless we have a game worth playing. Currently we don't.