Lower kd sizes

[Palem]

The game is stagnant and one of the biggest problems is competition. Even at the ghetto level, it seems like I just keep running into the same kds over and over again. There is almost no point in warring the kds that I warred the age before because I already know who's going to win. At the top, it's pretty much always the same names because it's tough for new faces to jump into the top.

By lowering kd sizes, there will be a big displacement of players which will form new kds and make the game feel a little larger. More kds = more opportunity.

I think a reasonable number to drop to would be 20. I don't think going as low as 15 would be unreasonable, but I think a drop from 25 to 15 is just too much of a transition as far as losing people.

There is the problem with the kds that are full, so I figured perhaps giving any kd with >20 provs very large penalty like -50% ME and also freeze their kd moves. I would certainly hope that would be enough for the large kds to want to drop down to the appropriate size and best of all the choice would be theirs about how/who they want to go on with the process.

...meh, discuss.

[Magn]

I agree with smaller KD sizes, but not with the suggested method to achieve it.

Just lower the player cap per KD gradually in the following way:

First, lower the player cap to 24. Don't trim KDs that have more than 24 players, but don't allow them to use codes to get more than 24 if they lose any.

Over the course of 2-3 ages (4 tops), every KD should be at 24. If a KD is still at 25, monitor them closely and find proof of their cheating. Then, delete the offenders (to reduce their numbers to 24 or below).

Then, lower the cap at 23.

Rince and repeat until you are down to 15.

[VT2]

I agree with this.

[Bishop]

terrible idea - causing players to quit is good how?

This does not address the main concern - that of falling player numbers.

[Palem]

This does not address the main concern - that of falling player numbers.

There is only one way to address the main concern and that is advertisement, which is completely up to Jolt. It's a matter of making the game a little more fun for those of us that ARE still playing. Most kds can't even get up to a full kd anymore.

Magn - that will take a substantial amount of time to get kd sizes to the desired level.

[Bishop]

reduce kd sizes and ghettos will still have less players. It will solve nothing

[Palem]

The suggestion isn't intended to narrow the gap between ghettos and the top. It's to create more kds with the lack of players that we do have.

And it's more than just the lonely ghettos that can't keep full. It's basically everyone except the tippy top from what I've seen.

[lichemaster]

This is going to make (full) ghettos suck even more though. With less players individual activity is even more important.

[elozop]

I always liked this idea but there hasn't been a good way to implement it yet. The gradual reduction idea means those players will just quit as they are being kicked from their kingdom. The only feasible way is to halve the kingdoms (down to a size of 12) so they can create two kingdoms with the loss of one province, but this is such a huge change and we know how resistant to change we all are.

If it did happen then 1-2 ages in I believe it would be a LOT more fun. It may even be an acheivement to reach the top 50, where as now its not a stretch. As palem said, we all get sick of seeing/warring the same kingdoms and with heaps more kingdoms and diveristy it would be more entertaining. The downside is a 12province kingdom won't be an activity warhouse for irc/msn which may make it a little stagnant.

[WolfDGrey]

I always liked this idea but there hasn't been a good way to implement it yet. The gradual reduction idea...

When the gradual reduction idea was discussed, most kingdoms still had full rooster. At the moment I don't believe there is a single full kingdom through an age, where the starting players would be same as the finishing ones. The corelation between the outcry for more invites and unstable player base is easy to spot.

Also there is no kingdom who could not kick/transfer to another kingdom/let go a few players. There are allways a few, who are less active, less skilled than the requirement, for this players the monarch could deny new age transfer, so they would be placed randomly or they could get a free, aditional move/invite.

Thus, reducing kingdom sizes can be made easily this days.

It will solve nothing

I think it would TEMPORARILY solve the lack of kingdoms issue, producing interesting results, in the way people play the game. I mean more kingdoms = more competition and that is good for the game at the moment, as Utopia starts to be completely pussyfied.

It is true that because the lower numbers a single player on top would worth more, but it is also true that the chart would be longer, with more place for the less active. Some top kingdoms would profit, others would struggle, which IMO is good as there would be a bit cleared the difference between them.

At ghetto versus top kingdom war, the less players would not significantly change anything as the ghetto would make a few less attacks / war, compared to the top kingdom who would do max possible, anyway.

On ghetto versus ghetto level nothing would change, as usually (not allways) the differences are pretty high in favor of one of them so it would not be felt much.

So what? The ones who managed to be in top 20 with less activity will be in top 25 now. The 25 players, as a rooster number is, and always was, a chosen, arbitrary number, it can change. New strategies would born, new tactics would be applied. Nothing wrong in that.

And finally, the bottom line is, that, it won't solve anything on the long term, so, in less than a year there should be a serious revival/rework of the ads and the main page and the way we get new players.

It would be still better than this, so I agree with the proposal.

[VT2]

Smaller kingdoms means more kingdoms.
Ghettos will still suck, because they're ghettos. Can't change that unless they decide to invest more time into the game.

They'll still be fighting their bounce wars against other ghettos and the low-tier, blissfully unaware of the past, but they'll have more ghettos to pick on, and so a larger chance of finding a ghetto much, much worse than themselves, and beating that ghetto could give them the motivation they need to advance into the low-tier.

The top will still be the top, but the newly formed kingdoms from their tier can challenge their positions on the chart. This is really, really good for the game.

Smaller kingdoms also mean you have to do much less recruiting, much less management, and much less plotting, planning, and scheming.

I see zero downsides to a reduction at this point.

I'm so tired of warring the same kingdoms every single age.
Give me some new competition, cut my unpaid manager work down some, and I might actually start having fun again.

[Luc]

I think I'd have more fun playing in a 15 player kd right now. I can't conceive a good way of getting there that doesn't make people quit tho. I dunno if we're talking a lot of people quitting tho, so might be worth just going for it.

[Landro]

Genesis had smaller kingdoms and even there it was common for kingdoms to have room for new provinces. It still didn't stop people from warring.
Forcing kingdoms to get rid of players is just BAD. The people forced to leave will likely leave the game for good. This does not help increase the player base.

As for fighting the same kingdoms age after age: Well, that's not so different from your favorite sports league and there people just accept it. Even if the ones who rarely win because they lack the money to hire top players.

More players will solve the problem in a much better way, but that takes time.

[Bishop]

The suggestion isn't intended to narrow the gap between ghettos and the top. It's to create more kds with the lack of players that we do have.

And it's more than just the lonely ghettos that can't keep full. It's basically everyone except the tippy top from what I've seen.

maybe you didnt play genesis then. It had smaller kd sizes and was full of ghettos with half the max number.

We need more players, not measures that will be defunct after one age.

[Palem]

maybe you didnt play genesis then. It had smaller kd sizes and was full of ghettos with half the max number.

ok? What does that have to do with creating more kds and creating a bit more of a competitive environment for the game? I did play Genesis and as I recall, it was always pretty competitive and fun. There also wasn't (legal)trading in genesis and I'm pretty sure no one cared about it, because it was genesis.

I know we need more players. I've already addressed that and clearly that's been the case for years now. But I'm just trying to work with what we've got and the game is just getting stale for the people the have been around for an honest amount of time.

Landro - Sports teams are constantly changing and have a constant stream of new talent pumped into them. You still want to use that analogy? lol