KD Size

[Korp]

Stop being condescending korp. You can explain why a suggestion is bad without insulting people.

I'm just returning the attitude. He obviously won't respond well to arguments since he consider everyone disagreeing with him just being wrong and "don't want to their powerfully kd broken up"

[Pillz]

I'm just returning the attitude. He obviously won't respond well to arguments since he consider everyone disagreeing with him just being wrong and "don't want to their powerfully kd broken up"

This. There is no correcting terrible suggestions, just squashing them with dismissal and condescension.

How on earth is increasing the number of elected monarchs by 20-40% going to breed new leaders? You're just going to thrust a few moderately interested individuals into high stress situations by spreading the # of terrible ghetto players across more kingdoms.

The terrible players won't improve and the unlucky folks that get thrust into monarchy aren't going to have the opportunity to learn how to be good leaders (if they even want to be, many many leaders exist now that are terrible) because they're going to be stuck with fewer good players in proportion to better kds. Since there isn't such a large hortage of skilled players in the 25 prov kds that exist. Those kds will suffer from losing players and the new kds that form from them are going to either continue at approximately the same skill level or flounder and fail because of it.

The net result of this being that more people suffer in bad kds, more people burn out due to having to lead trash players, and the top kds merely get more opportunities to **** play each other through their sheer numbers.

And of course, the ghettos will keep whining the game is unfair like they do no matter what changes are implemented because they don't know how to play, don't want to learn, and are probably never going to bother trying.

[Madchess]

@Rattlehead

In that case I would rather see the limit to be set to 10 as some full kingdoms occasionally drop below 15, and also prioritize to fill kingdoms over 10 provinces before filling shells.

But as things are at the moment I'm happy to trade +20% wages for -30% gains vs us and keeping the numbers of inactives at 0.

[StratOcastle]

In a vacuum I agree with RattleHead, but we need to see what the devs see. This is in regards to potential guerilla satellites using the mechanics to hobble enemy kingdoms in the greater competitive arena. By inducing a penalty the potential is curbed within reasonable limits.

We should as veteran forum members grant some room for newer forum members to express themselves. @ korp and steel, you guys should practice a little grace. Putting up with frustrated players isn't such a labor and we don't have to be hard asses 24/7. Do you think they're better people now? Are you better for it?

The answer is no. Let these people vent. Be reasonable and fight in your own weight class; at least in forum. You could give them the curtesy of a link to your other posts to demonstrate your standards of practice. It's not asking much.

And thank you.

[RattleHead]

I dunno, if the choice is between some sadistic game of whack-a-mole with those who are able/willing to subvert the rules or spirit of the rules, and giving new players/KDs a fighting chance to develop... I would rather give those who need it a hand. The competitive KDs to whom you refer are quite capable of policing this type of nonsense themselves, let them.

People can already game the system as it is, and when you stop them doing it, they will just find another way. So why waste the effort for minimal gain, while with very little effort we can give a good amount of help to the ones who need?

[Kido]

In my relatively short experience, 20+ size kingdoms come from having several involved players in your KD that then invite their friends to the game... then those friends stick around.. then the random active players in your KD leave (cause you lose 1 war and they get pissed) or vacate for some other reason, so you end up with several groups of players who are also rl friends. By then, bonds between the friend groups have started to form. So essentially, you end up with a KD of people who just like to play with each other. It's less about the King/Steward forming a top notch team, and more just guys and gals that want to play together. In my view, this is the way it should be when building a greater community for the game.

The other thing is, if you say cut the prov count down to say 15, that's 5-10 players you need to remove from the kingdom. But if the bonds with the other kingdom mates are there, its not like the King would would be asking 5-10 random players to leave, they'd probably ask a group of players that like to play with each other to go start another Kingdom. Then through alliances, or maybe some recruiting, they'd get it to full strength. Then you might just get a bunch of kingdoms with A or B tagged at the end. Like not a truly separate kingdom, but basically a B team with the King of the A team becoming more like an Emperor. I know its kind of taboo or not relative to talk about the Other game here, but this is exactly what happened when they reduced KD sizes by 4. A bunch of 2 kingdom alliances that supported each other when unexpected stuff went down, setting acre caps and growth times for both kingdoms instead of just for one - like i didn't see any war interference stuff, but....

[Crazyguy]

Reduce by 5-10 to 15-20 provs per kingdom. Tighten up. Creates more kingdoms, more competition. BUT, may give rise to more conglomerates. I'd prefer the change anyway.

I don't like it. My KD has been together for 12 yrs.... No offense intended.

[Mike^]

funny its the same old guys who keep making same old arugment and the truth is its all bull****, and they have no idea what they speak off, yes less players pr kingdom might have a few players leave, but it will also have alot of new players join up try and form kingdoms with players who cant manage to lead a 25 player kingdom or wont, but will do just fine on 10-15, so the likes of korp who think he is all that clever, can go FU them self they are just here to try and inforce nothing changse for the sake of it, and he has no danm idea about anything.

[Zombies are people too]

More kingdoms def have the potential to make MORE, better kingdoms. Creating more opportunity allows people the ability to learn monarchy/stewardship. It's trial and error learning this game.

I think that anyone against this idea is probably loving their established powerful kingdom positions...

Some are born to great, some acheive greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them.
Aside from being a nerd of the Bard, I do get what the OP is saying here. Objectively, more KDs would create better leaders eventually, due just to the fact that more people are in the seats and have to progress. Same time it could take ages, and the ratio of bad leader:good leaders from this effort would still be higher in badness. SO let your notion flag fly high sir! Don't let our lovely negative-nellys shooting it down get to you and post away!

Maybe I am bias, but it has nothing to do with "established power position" that makes me not want to change to smaller KDs; 23 of us are close in my kd, so shrinking below that threshold means we lose a friend or 3. Not liking that idea.

[TommyB]

funny its the same old guys who keep making same old arugment and the truth is its all bull****, and they have no idea what they speak off, yes less players pr kingdom might have a few players leave, but it will also have alot of new players join up try and form kingdoms with players who cant manage to lead a 25 player kingdom or wont, but will do just fine on 10-15, ....

Mike, would you like to elaborate on how it is significantly easier to lead a 15 player kingdom compared to a 25 player kingdom?

I mean, you will probably still have people not showing up when they're supposed to or messing up in any number of creative ways. Except, in a 15 player kingdom everyone not showing up on wave time will have a bigger effect compared to one of 25 not showing. Fighting with a casual 15 player kingdom against a 15 player top kingdom doesn't seem to improve the odds for the casual kingdom very much compared to a casual 25 playing kingdom fighting against a 25 player top kingdom.

So, what do you expect to be the positive outcome of forcibly lowering kingdom size?

[Elldallan]

Stop being condescending korp. You can explain why a suggestion is bad without insulting people.

I can sorta understand Korp tho, this suggestion gets posted every single damn age and repeating the same arguments over and over again gets tedious. Can't we just sticky a thread on kd size so we dun have to keep bringing it up over and over again.

[Zombies are people too]

Never a right time to be rude.

-DM <3

[Thunder TA]

It wont help as has been said many times. The ones wanting this now need to learn to recruit. No ones stopping them from getting out and recruiting people to fill their kd. I played at 22 players for years just because i wanted to. When it got old i got off my ass and recruited people to get to 25 and basically stay there till i get tired of it again.

Many kingdoms need players yes. Many players in small kingdoms want to join other kingdoms. Go find them.

[umajon911]

And many players like playing in small kds. Its why the devs built trumps wall!! Even if it does increase wages.