Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 72

Thread: Should They Lower Kingdom Sizes???

  1. #1
    Regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    57

    Should They Lower Kingdom Sizes???

    personaly i think if u lower kingdom sizes to 15 this game would balance out... more active kingdoms can pick on these kingdom who do nothing but nap every other big kingdom and never fight.

  2. #2
    Moderator for:
    Utopia Forums
    Palem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    22,030
    That's not a reason to lower kds sizes.

    The big kds that NAP the other big kds are that big for a reason. They are better. Lowering kd sizes won't make you any better or them any worse.

  3. #3
    Post Fiend
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    264
    15 to small IMO but 20 sounds good
    1+2+3+4=10

  4. #4
    Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Somewhere between Uranus and Venus
    Posts
    77
    leave it at 25. Honestly I dont believe lowering kd size would change anything. Kds will still NAP other kds and ghettoes will still get stomped. If anything needs to be done to kds its that instead of starting a bunch of random kds with noob provs just sort them into larger more active kds so that they stay full. If you think that a large kd cant beat your ass just because they dont have a lot of wars you are sorely mistaken. If no one is waving/warring you then your kd is obviously that badass that no one wants to mess with you that or you are so noob you just arent worth the effort. Maybe making wars more beneficial or exciting, especially for the victor would eliminate grower kds but really who cares if they want to play that way that is their decision.

  5. #5
    Needs to get out more VT2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    10,880
    Yes.
    They can increase it later, when we have more players.

    Lower sizes means more competition.
    Because kingdoms are smaller, you won't have to scramble to find 25 players to compete - which few kingdoms legally have, anyway.
    Kings and queens also have a lot less management to do, so are more likely to, you know, don't leave the game after the first age that usually burns them out.
    Catwalk's crusade for legalized cheating was a stunning success, with ghettos and low-tiered teams everywhere losing their wells of knowledge to better kingdoms in the process.

    Step one: replace everything that works.
    Step two: blame the predictable epic fail on outside forces.
    Step three: keep the community informed that no progress has been made since the last update.
    Step four: thank you for your patience.

  6. #6
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    320
    Well there are kds of 10 in BF and what it changes is that role of individual province is a lot bigger, more pressure for him to log and be very active or for kd to gain via little xlog. Regarding ghettos and better kds, well basicly if u are short/dead weight/awol of 2-3 players and fight vs full kd, its like fighting 17 vs 25 in WoL, so basicly it wouldnt do any bad kds better or good kds worse, and regarding lack of player pool, it would only be a temporarly solution anyway. For example if kds were 20, then after an age or 2 mid tier kds would still be sitting on ~16, instead of ~20 they are now.

  7. #7
    Post Demon
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Lurking in the gloaming
    Posts
    1,451
    It doesn't matter if "top" kingdoms just NAP each other and spend every age twiddling their thumbs. If they find that exciting then good for them!

    I think we should lower KD sizes to 7. This is indesputably the optimum number :-|

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    45
    Might as well remove kingdoms... 20 is the bare minimum. too little will just lack kd variety.

  9. #9
    Needs to get out more VT2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    10,880
    Great, because we want it at 20.

    Again, they can inrease it when the game has more players.
    Until that happens, we need smaller kingdoms.
    Catwalk's crusade for legalized cheating was a stunning success, with ghettos and low-tiered teams everywhere losing their wells of knowledge to better kingdoms in the process.

    Step one: replace everything that works.
    Step two: blame the predictable epic fail on outside forces.
    Step three: keep the community informed that no progress has been made since the last update.
    Step four: thank you for your patience.

  10. #10
    Post Fiend
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    264
    I do sugest giveing the full KD's a Temp advantage let them keep more then 20 players intel they naturly weed out. No Randoms No Intivies the only way to stay 25 is to keep the original 25 or illigally trade. and any kd with more then 25 who illegally trade get the kd as a whole deleted. They shouldnt have to kick no one out. or perhaps lower the kd size by 1 everyage intel we are at a good compromise
    1+2+3+4=10

  11. #11
    Post Demon
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Lurking in the gloaming
    Posts
    1,451
    If 20 is really considered a good number to have you can't do it by lowering by 1 every Age. We're not talking Oak trees here. And Age lasts a quarter of a real year, which means it'll take over a year to enforce 20 provinces per kingdom if you drop 1 per Age.

    I haven't seen a good argument for dropping to 20 yet, but if it is considered the best thing then it has to be done straight away, not over such a long period that the game may have died off by the time it gets phased in!

  12. #12
    Post Demon Spliff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,923
    this sug is fail

  13. #13
    Post Fiend
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    264
    Good argument um we only have 450 kingdoms droping it to 20 would potentially give 20% more kingdoms. and that would Give more insented leftovers from the upper kds to join a lower Tier and try to establish a new better kingdom. not only training people alonge the way but also put more competition for the top of the charts as better kds are formed. i do feel that no one should be kicked from a kd thow so perhaps a stay with kingdomA and stay with kingdomB option. so the kingdom can split in half stick together and use thier invites to go from 12-13 to 17-18 pre round and leaveing 2 slots open for noobs or whatever
    1+2+3+4=10

  14. #14
    Post Fiend
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by pmyraje View Post
    I haven't seen a good argument for dropping to 20 yet, but if it is considered the best thing then it has to be done straight away, not over such a long period that the game may have died off by the time it gets phased in!
    What argument would convince you? Reducing the KD limit and redistributing players over that limit would result in nearly 300 KD's of all the same size. As it is now, 17 province KD's have the most equal size competition. And that's at a bare 60 KD's. The number of KD's the same size drop dramatically after that.

    Having more KD's of the same size is the starting point to increased competition. Of course some KD's will be better than others, but that doesn't reduce competition. For even THEN those KD's will have more competition because there will inevitably be more KD's that have both their size and ability.

    This isn't conjecture or wishful thinking, these are the facts. Arguments about it not being a "long term solution" are irrelevant as that isn't what this change is to solve.

    Argument against:
    "We'll be back where we are within an age, with KD's of 15 - 16 players and only some at 20 players". - How is this argument backed up? I haven't seen a single logical statement to support this. On the contrary, an argument can be made against it with the logical progression that people leave because the game is less fun because of lack of competition, increased competition is exactly what this change will address, and thus more people will remain, and therefor KD's will be able to keep players more easily.

    "Players will leave if they are forced from their KD.". - Again, this we do not know. We can assume that a percentage will be so pissed off that they'll quit altogether. But this percentage would undoubtedly be very small as the players affected by such a change are those who are most dedicated to playing it, and enjoy playing it the most. As we're talking about only 5% of the players to begin with, even if 10% (which I suggest is a very high number) of players leave because of this change would be just .5% of the total. Of 6000 players that would mean just 30 players would leave due to this change. Hardly a game breaker... Compare this to the number of players leaving each age due to lack of competition. Only the most intransigent would suggest that we'd lose more from this change than we already are.

    "This won't create any NEW KD's." - We know that. Was never suggested that it would. By "create" we simply mean that the KD will go from whatever size is was to being the same size as most others. Total number of KD's will remain virtually unchanged, what would change is how many KD's of the same size there would be.

    "This isn't going to save Utopia." - This is the most used, and tired, argument used IMO. I'll reiterate it again, this suggestion isn't to SAVE Utopia as we know it, this suggestion is to simply staunch the flow of people leaving the game by creating a more competitive, and by extension FUN game to play for those that are still here. Without big fixes, performance upgrades, and yes, advertising, Utopia will continue to shrink. That isn't the point of this suggestion. The point is to make the game as fun as possible for as many people as possible for those who continue to play it. Nothing more.

    "This is suggested by "whiners" who simply want to bring down the top KD's." - Whether this were true or not is completely irrelevant as it doesn't change the facts at all. In the end, even these top KD's should enjoy the game more with this change as it'll increase competition for them.

    "This won't increase competition because "ghetto" KD's lack leadership." - I have trouble understanding this argument as it seems like it should be used in FAVOR of smaller KD sizes, not against. Assuming the "best" players all play in the top KD's, the leadership would be spread out among more KD's (This assumption must be made as this argument makes no sense otherwise). However, I've played in many KD's, and in my experience, I haven't found that there's a great deal of difference in leadership or ability between the players of smaller KD's and full KD's. It mostly comes down to activity. The KD with the most active players generally wins. (And the KD with the most players to begin with starts with an advantage...)

    "Ghetto's will still have 8 - 10 players." - This is a variation of the first argument. Reducing KD sizes to 20 players wouldn't properly address this issue, that's true. For KD's of these sizes, mergers would have to occur for them to enjoy the benefits of increased competition this change would ensure. This change is more about pumping up KD's that are 14+ players up to 20 players. So again, this change isn't to solve all of Utopia's problems, but it will help in solving one of them.

    "KD's will still war the same KD's all the time, this change won't affect that." - This argument really showcases how little reasonable thought is put into arguments against lowering KD sizes. Those that make this argument are suggesting that a game with 300 or so KD's with the same number of players would be NO DIFFERENT than a game with 20, 30, 40, 50 KD's of the same sizes. That, even if you increase the number of KD's of the same size by a factor of 10(!) that KD's would STILL be warring the same people each age? Must we really get into the math of how unlikely this is?

    "KD's of less than 20 players are ghettos and are disorganized." - This really isn't an argument used against this suggestion, but more of a rational used to justify other arguments. This shows how little respect some people have for others. It's the same as saying, "Because you're in a smaller KD, you're not as good a player as me..." It's as childish as it sounds. And should be given all the respect such a childish argument deserves. I was in a KD of 25 players. I'm now in a KD of 9 players. Am I now a bad player? Fact is, we don't know the abilities of every player so we can't go assuming that small KD's are made up of bad players, while big KD's are made up of good players...

    For my perspective I feel we have to leave intangibles out of the equation. Leadership, activity, quality of player, cheating... None can be properly quantified, and everyone will give a different weight to each. (Some will see cheating as a major problem/activity, others won't... no way to prove one way or the other) So in the interest of a constructive discussion we should leave such unanswerables out of the discussion.

    Utopia as is is losing players because the game simply isn't as fun as it used to be because the player base has deteriorated to the point that competition has stagnated. Few Kingdoms of the same size to war resulting in the same KD's warring each other all the time. Managing to build a KD up to 25 players has never been easy, but is all the more difficult now with the reduced player base. Reducing KD's above 20 players down to 20 players and redistributing those players to other KD's would affect a tiny minority of players but would result in a dramatic increase in the number of KD's of equal size. The resulting increased competition would increase the fun of Utopia for the vast majority, hopefully reducing the number of players leaving the game.

    The change would have to be done at once, not over a period of time. Reducing KD sizes a little at a time would have little effect each age, thus the number of players leaving wouldn't diminish, thus competition wouldn't increase...

    Merging smaller KD's should also be considered, but is beyond the point of this discussion.

    For those that continue to object, I have a question - At what point, or under what circumstances, would it make sense to you to lower KD sizes?

  15. #15
    Postaholic
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    944
    What about all those KD that really did a great effort recruiting up to 25 provs?
    Because they did what they should in this team game, they would get punished by removing 5 players?
    If you guys can't do the effort of recruiting hard, than just stay at that size, but don't make those who can/did, choose which friends/provs they can keep...
    especially for warring KD who have really fun with ALL 25 provs.

    It also won't solve the 'problem' of those big KD being better at dicing whole age. Let them do so, i just think it's kinda boring. But everyone can choose what they like...
    When they have only 17 provs max, you really think ghetto's will get better? they will still be ghetto's where people come and go, with inactive people.

    I'm pretty sure when you change it to 17 it will make just people quit, because they can't play in their beloved KD anymore... You will just end up with the same amount of KD's, but with even less players.
    The competition will be the same at the end, cause ghetto's or non-recruiting KD will end up with lower provs anyway

    EDIT: If it's really a problem about KD not being the same size, they should make full KD's by just putting those 'half KD's' togheter. Shouldn't be that difficult imo
    Last edited by Red; 22-08-2010 at 18:58.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •