What kingdom size would you like to see?

[Araqiel]

I keep seeing people posting about reducing kingdom size and I have finally come to feel the same way. Very hard to keep 25 players active for such long periods of time, let alone ones you can trust and rely on.

What size kingdom would you prefer to see?

[Mikey^Mike]

20.

[Palem]

The only kd size you're going to see in Utopia is 25. There is no reason to lower it.

[Bishop]

I keep seeing people posting about reducing kingdom size and I have finally come to feel the same way. Very hard to keep 25 players active for such long periods of time, let alone ones you can trust and rely on.

What size kingdom would you prefer to see?

The devs position is unchanged. Kingdom sizes will not be reduced.

Reducing them is a bad idea anyway.

[Araqiel]

The only kd size you're going to see in Utopia is 25. There is no reason to lower it.

Well except for the fact that the player base is a lot smaller than it used to be.

The devs position is unchanged. Kingdom sizes will not be reduced.

Reducing them is a bad idea anyway.

What are the reasons? Not seen any discussions from the devs about it.

[Bishop]

Have you looked for the discussions?

[StratOcastle]

25 because the personality/race accountance is divisible by 3 with monarch in tow. The reason this is important is you have a root balance that the game is based in. Thus any reduction in kingdom size would be met with an equivalent reduction in persona/race.
(8 each personality, 8 each race multiplied by 3 in the interest of time zones)

Kingdoms often choose lopsided strats based in some likable math, but if you've played as many games as I you know that underlying balance is what keeps things playable. Because of this balance differing philosophies carry viability and player ability is the main navigator.

That I'm not a mathematical thinker I use a virtual kingdom with equal parts each personality and race to measure the strengths and weaknesses of kingdoms in play. It helps me to be versed in the unique capabilities of each and allows me to brainstorm tactics with kaleidoscope like faceting.

[Band of Horses]

25 because the personality/race accountance is divisible by 3 with monarch in tow. The reason this is important is you have a root balance that the game is based in. Thus any reduction in kingdom size would be met with an equivalent reduction in persona/race.

Kingdoms often choose lopsided strats based in some likable math, but if you've played as many games as I you know that underlying balance is what keeps things playable. Because of this balance differing philosophies carry viability and player ability is the main navigator.

That I'm not a mathematical thinker I use a virtual kingdom with equal parts each personality and race to measure the strengths and weaknesses of kingdoms in play. It helps me to be versed in the unique capabilities of each and allows me to brainstorm tactics with kaleidoscope like faceting.

24 is divisible by 3
23 is divisible by 3 with monarch and steward in tow
22 is divisible by 3 with monarch in tow
21 is divisible by 3
20 is divisible by 3 with monarch and steward in tow.

Shall I keep going?

[topsy's revenge]

The reason is because the game lacks decent monarchs who are willing to lead more than anything. If you make smaller kd's you just increase the amount of monarchs/leaders needed in the game.

[StratOcastle]

Chess is playable in scenario, but not with equivalent elements. You must account for each race and personality with the monarch being what amounts to a manager on call. Obviously we have plenty of different sizes currently, but the basis of the game has it's foundation in a 24 player kingdom with a responsible adult as keystone.

In other words the game must account for cleric, merchant, mystic, sage, war hero, warrior, rogue and tactician as differing parts in a strategic set just as chess has it's own strategic set. Race then determines the archetypical or hybrid strength of that set.

Because this world is broken into a 24 hr day with 3 general time zones the game addresses this in a practical manner.

[Araqiel]

Have you looked for the discussions?

Yes, however I failed to see any valid points on keeping the 25, except it might annoy current 25 prov kingdoms. How about you ask them instead of assume? I know 25 prov kingdoms tend to have a high turnover rate with players in and out. Lets be honest, playing utopia (properly) is pretty intense.

I fail to believe people are going to leave because you reduce the kingdom size.

As for a lack of monarchs, leading a 20 province kingdom is going to be an easier task that doing it for 25 players.

It also tackles the problem of seeing 20-22 province war kingdoms vs 25 prov super kingdoms dividing the playerbase.

So yes, proper reasons for not reducing the numbers of players in a kingdom would be fantastic.

[Band of Horses]

It also tackles the problem of seeing 20-22 province war kingdoms vs 25 prov super kingdoms dividing the playerbase.

Then you will have 15-17 man war kingdoms vs 20 man super kingdoms diving the playerbase.

Changing size doesn't solve filling kingdoms it just changes what the difference is.

[Araqiel]

Then you will have 15-17 man war kingdoms vs 20 man super kingdoms diving the playerbase.

Changing size doesn't solve filling kingdoms it just changes what the difference is.

So you are saying there is no difference from finding 25 active players to 20?

[Godly]

Some of you people voting for less than 25 should be careful what you wish for: you're probably among the first to be cut.

[Anri]

lol what nub idea is this with smaller kds?

25 men ofc