A lot of war Kingdoms aim for that amount of players anyway and its still a large amount of players per kingdom, but it pushes more Kingdoms into range of each other. More war.. etc.
Printable View
A lot of war Kingdoms aim for that amount of players anyway and its still a large amount of players per kingdom, but it pushes more Kingdoms into range of each other. More war.. etc.
25 is ok, if we lower it to 22, eventually someone will post lower it to 20...then lower it to 15 etc!
Leave kd sizes as they are, what we need to do is not make kds smaller but make the game more appealing to existing players to keep playing and to attract new players to a text based/numbers game in an age when all other games have fancy graphics that make your character look like a real person, and that's the real challenge.
Also, we desperately need a mobile friendly browser version of the game and an official Utopia app to make playing on the go 1000x easier.
Alot of kingdoms refuse to get to 25 people because they dont want to fight the higher end on kds and can stay out of range of them mostly that way. Saying they aim for 22 is part of the issue the game has.
Those are both also my reasons for why they should lower it. I get that kingdoms dont push to 25 players because they dont want to fight higher end KDs, but i think part of it is that between 22 and 25 it becomes more difficult to find consistent skill and activity levels in newer players to a KD. I mean you can also argue that they stay out of the full KD area because they dont want to compete at that level, but there are enough mechanics now that avoiding wars is pretty far more possible than a few ages ago. Not to mention the players themselves may just not want to play with a kingdom touching the prov limit that doesn't have the activity or doesnt have the skill for it, manifesting in either a kd wide or in just a few provs. The shift from 22 to 25 can be rough and volatile unless you have an active, experienced and i guess ruthless set of leaders. So i would say that finding a way to make that growth from 20 to 25 more stable would help bring kds up to fight the high end kds. Because a lot of that rests in the hands of players themselves, that'll be a difficult thing to address. Unless maybe there's some reward for not KD hopping until you find yourself in a top kd. By making KD sizes smaller, you create more KDs with players shifting around to accommodate for the new sizes - then you have more options for war, or no war kingdoms, and there's possibly less space more chance involved in KD hopping.
More kds doesnt mean more players tho. Those kds need leadership and not many care to take the time or have the time to lead a kd and train new players to play.Bad leadership leads more people to quit than most understand.New players need people to help them and without that they get frustrated by mistakes and quit.
Changing the size of kds doesnt fix that.
Yes, but the competition argument is not sound in a shrinking game. A suggestion should go further and the predictable distractions move toward solutions: if 25 is the size of competition then why not work toward that size being realistically obtainable?
For instance, I'm not going to use tools outside of the game so this makes me undesirable as a pure kingdom mate. But what if I were to offer my sword in the interest of a kingdom? Yes, I'm suggesting mercenary provinces. No voting, no trade, but subject to meter dynamics on their end while the kingdom is immune to my meter. Find 3 like me to reach 25 and we can basically function like shared electrons. My kind floating independently, maybe in a micro, ready to commit to war in the name of rock & roll.
Radical idea StratO.
I do think we need to end this 22-man era.
It's gross.
The suggestion itself(lowering kingdom size) is something I sympathize with, but doesn't pinpoint the problem.
The problem is not just leadership but followers. This is deep culture, but we have to address the fact that kids have been staring at screens, alone, much more in the generational turnstile. Note that in sports there's much more emphasis on the individual than the team..and it's celebrated. Look at the death of music bands just so one ego farmer can reap the fame. So this is the way it is.
Veteran kingdoms have basic reputation and top kingdom have generational cohesiveness that predates the unconscious narcissism of the last generation and a half. I predate most top kingdom players and can even see the wheels turning in their minds when it comes to gamesmanship and values.
So besides a lot of casual kingdom leaders stinking at strategy they lack innovative thinking patterns, and are largely apathetic to the norm: being bullied by big kingdoms and bullying smaller ones. The fact is, most will fall into this bigger fish-smaller fish system. Realistically there are going to be bad kingdoms that will continually result in a fracturing of the player base, unless we have saviors. Charity is the quiet glue of civilization and possibly the way Utopia can survive.
In real society we can't sustain a culture by continuos genocide on the least of my brother. They require a respite. My suggestion is to get some grease on the wheels of a problem which goes largely neglected.
You see that I'm perfectly happy to function in a micro and fearless of the server. When I join full kingdoms I feel constricted by their fear of losing position or resources. I feel constricted by their bottom feeding and unwillingness to embrace a challenge; not just the gall to war a good kingdom, but the insight to seek victory.
I've tried to impress upon lower tier kingdoms the philosophy of best players in critical roles. The concept of top feeding. The meter is Dio concept(listen to Dio). The fat guy actually wins the fight when the pumped guy hits you first concept. Chaining is a loser strategy concept(it is). The dragon is a Cadillac SUV and you work at Walmart concept....these things don't work. People don't listen.
So, if me and a couple of guys that live to eat waves are invited to cojoin some hapless 22, I can present the concept of zone nw tactics to the war. They can continue chaining their 22 provinces into the dumpster and wasting UB time and blowing their gold on dragons that never fly. Everybody is happy. We war 25 on 25. You can't start a fire without a spark. The hope is that each time we engage that somebody learns from someone else.
It's like people refuse to enjoy the game on the merrit of the concept. Great kingdoms stand before you begging for war. If you get to 25 you can observe them and dissect their brilliance in battle. It's sad to say I've seen so many kingdoms first hand completely miss the opportunity to learn. Even with a war secured against a great war or top kingdom they just blame inactivity and never watch the grace of the best kingdoms to learn how to play.
My suggestion is to offer a glimmer of hope based in the charitable nature of myself and others who would go merc, but can no longer fit in with the herd. It's not an elitist thing: I'm not going to use munkbot and chatterblah because I already have and it renders so marginal a benefit I find them pure distraction. It's not "team" to wait your turn to be chained and never hit an enemy t/m. Yes, I want to help, but no longer from inside.
You don’t have to use any of that to play at 25 . When as was said already , it’s not that kds can’t get to 25 . It’s that they refuse to. By that alone there is no need to drop the rest to 22 just because someone else refuses to bring in people. If you as a monarch can’t handle 3 more people , your probably not able to handle the other 21 either .
quite an interesting suggestion from StratOcastle there, would not have minded teaming up with a 22 man kingdom if only merging for the war, to try and beat a 25 man kingdom.
Well Hipmunks showed everyone this age a 22 vs 25 can be won, but they are more the exception than the rule.
I like the idea strato. Merc provs that can hop into another kingdom. Though limiters of similar prov numbers and similar size would probably be factors that would need to be taken into account. It could also be a more chilled way to introduce newer players - allow them to start in a smaller kingdom and then merc as part of a war. Or conversely, vets who dont want to consistently run in full kingdoms, but occasionally have the time and motivation to fight a war.
Thunder, yes they refuse to, but its probably not really that simple. The monarchs i've been under that hold together 25, mostly its about kicking mismatches until they have another prov that fits their goal and method. So less about "Handling" more just finding the one they want. But that would mean only specific types of players are leading kingdoms that are reaching higher prov counts now. So that limits the pool of players that want/can lead at higher prov counts - running back into the issue that fewer players want to lead anymore.
I don't think has much to do with the 'difficulty' of managing +3 provinces.
I think it has more to do with the fact that once you invite over 22, if you want to maintain your new player-size, odds are you will end up paying for recruitments.
If you stay at 22, when you lose a guy you will get filled back up to 22 for free.
Once you make the commitment to try and be a 'full' (22+) kingdom, you are at the mercy of each and every one of your players to stick it out. Real-life issues are suddenly extremely inconvenient because you don't want to lose any guys and be forced to invite more. This changes the atmosphere within a kingdom.
I don't want to eliminate revenue streams for the game, but this one is garbage.