Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 135

Thread: 2889 provinces

  1. #46
    Moderator for:
    Utopia Forums
    Palem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    22,030
    Quote Originally Posted by DonJuan View Post
    This leads me to reiterate my question:

    Why would it be a bad idea to lower KD sizes (to 21 lets say) if the overall trend has gotten worse after doing nothing to address it?
    Because there isn't anyone to lead those kingdoms. Leading is hard work and monarchs tend to burn out and quit. When you just throw 21 random provinces together, 99% of the time, you're not going to just luck into a functioning kingdom. If you make the top kingdoms cut 4-5 players, they're still going to be the top kingdoms because they have the best leaders. Lowering kingdom sizes would do nothing to balance the competition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bananamancer2000 View Post
    "kingdoms need 25 to compete"
    "Kingdoms choose not to have 25"
    "it's easy to fill with 25"
    "if you like having **** players"
    The first and last things are untrue. The only thing you need 25 provinces to compete for are the land/nw charts. You'd have a bit of an advantage in the honor charts with more provinces, but there's no reason you "can't" win.

    And the last point was literally the opposite of what I said. Recruit quality players and they'll stay and make it easier to keep 25.

    Edit: for what it's worth, I have no problems autofilling kingdoms to 25
    Last edited by Palem; 12-06-2018 at 01:25.

  2. #47
    Newbie
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    9
    Lowering kingdom sizes directly increases competitiveness through a more equitable distribution of talent across the server.

    The fundamental problem is that a 15 province kingdom certainly panders to the waves or the imposing threat any 25 man organization may have in Utopia. When such inequities exist, there is no recourse in game-play but to accept the fact that the game becomes unplayable for the 15 man kingdom in this instance. The science you've accumulated can just be taken without threat of retaliation versus aggressor. The elites you pumped don't mean anything. Particularly more so today, where offense and military is obscene; a solo player can't even sit on turtle defense without being at the mercy of this majorly flawed interaction of power between kingdoms.

    While the top 15 continue to recruit the skill from the main body of the game, they've so kindly only returned upon the player-base acts of aggression and a culture of straight farming.

    If the argument is that there are not enough monarchs right now, or would not be enough even with smaller kingdoms; my argument against it is that there is no current incentive to be a monarch. The skill ceiling for monarchy - that is, the total province number for kingdom - has to come down to become more accessible for players to pursue.

    The T15 have to assume a new culture of mentoring and cease-firing broken kingdoms in my opinion, versus allow them be victims of your OOW hits. You never know which one of those OOW hits will or has caused a new player of varying tenure to quit the game, ladies and gents.

  3. #48
    Postaholic DonJuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    920
    I would say that the lack of new leaders is more subjective than objective depending from where you play from...and considering the sheer amount of stress and expectations in filling a KD from 22 to 25 and then leading it competitively in the Modern Uto era is much more crushing, especially for a rookie monarch.

    At least we can agree on something like the auto-fill Palem...

    I just will just go the distance and advocate for lower KD sizes to create more competition (15 is too much; 20/21 ideal)..and I can come up with logical and balanced reasoning that can make sense in the long run

    I mean we can admit that in top kd play...there will be an avg of 2 players sitting the whole war. Not ideal but its not irrational that some players would like to play OOW only and let the monarch or other players sit for them during war.

    With top KDs warring avg 3-4 times per age...a player can have enough sitting credits to do so.

    My point being KDs also never play with a full roster during crunch time anyways...which can save extra stress to any monarch running a tight war.
    Last edited by DonJuan; 12-06-2018 at 02:11.
    "Respect the one who defends his land with bravery;
    Honor the price he pays to fufill his duty."

    -DonJuan, The Legendary KaMiKaZe King
    WhatsApp +16264286874 | SC2/D3 BattleNet: DonJuan5420 | PSN: DonJuan5420

    Age 54: #1 Land KD (HaLL of Heroes)
    Age 54: #1 NW KD (HaLL of Heroes)

    Age 81: #1 Honor KD (The Faery Circle)
    Age 81: #1 WW KD (The Faery Circle)
    The Tactical Technical Institute

  4. #49
    Dear Friend Korp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    8,837
    The only thing lowering kd size would do would make more active and dedicated players quit. Those that get shaved off from the kingdoms they played in wont go "Oh yea, lets go create a new kingdom!"

  5. #50
    Postaholic DonJuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    920
    "Oh yea, lets go create a new kingdom! Its easier now that we only need xx players!"


    That actually sounds reasonable thinking compared to:


    "we only got 22 players right now and everyone our size up here has 24-25...should we keep eating these waves or just find someone to land drop?"
    "Respect the one who defends his land with bravery;
    Honor the price he pays to fufill his duty."

    -DonJuan, The Legendary KaMiKaZe King
    WhatsApp +16264286874 | SC2/D3 BattleNet: DonJuan5420 | PSN: DonJuan5420

    Age 54: #1 Land KD (HaLL of Heroes)
    Age 54: #1 NW KD (HaLL of Heroes)

    Age 81: #1 Honor KD (The Faery Circle)
    Age 81: #1 WW KD (The Faery Circle)
    The Tactical Technical Institute

  6. #51
    Dear Friend Korp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    8,837
    Quote Originally Posted by DonJuan View Post
    "Oh yea, lets go create a new kingdom! Its easier now that we only need xx players!"


    That actually sounds reasonable thinking compared to:


    "we only got 22 players right now and everyone our size up here has 24-25...should we keep eating these waves or just find someone to land drop?"
    It's more like they are too bad so they keep themselves on a lower size cause unable to compete with the good kds. I mean would such great accomplished leader as yourself unable to recruit additional 2-3 people?

  7. #52
    Post Fiend
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Palem View Post
    Because there isn't anyone to lead those kingdoms. Leading is hard work and monarchs tend to burn out and quit. When you just throw 21 random provinces together, 99% of the time, you're not going to just luck into a functioning kingdom. If you make the top kingdoms cut 4-5 players, they're still going to be the top kingdoms because they have the best leaders. Lowering kingdom sizes would do nothing to balance the competition.



    The first and last things are untrue. The only thing you need 25 provinces to compete for are the land/nw charts. You'd have a bit of an advantage in the honor charts with more provinces, but there's no reason you "can't" win.

    And the last point was literally the opposite of what I said. Recruit quality players and they'll stay and make it easier to keep 25.

    Edit: for what it's worth, I have no problems autofilling kingdoms to 25
    Mate, for what it is worth, you have always been pretty garbage at this game.

    Your the person that every community has that talks alot but is not very good. Its good that you keep you around for entertainment. However, no one takes you seriously.

  8. #53
    Moderator for:
    Utopia Forums
    Palem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    22,030
    If I was garbage what does that make you?

  9. #54
    Moderator umajon911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Maryland, US
    Posts
    2,045
    Quote Originally Posted by Palem View Post
    If I was garbage what does that make you?
    Dont make me moderate the moderator!! <3
    “The only person you are destined to become is the person you decide to be.”
    - unknown

  10. #55
    Newbie
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    9
    What brings the perception of value in game-play, is the perception that the player actually stands a chance of success at said game.

    To use an allegory; how many times do you have to lose a game of Monopoly before you just choose to stop playing? Utopia is like monopoly. The T25 can represent your buddy who invites you over to play. However, in this game of monopoly, you know for a fact your friend begins with serious property advantages. After losing several games and realizing there's no competitive parity, how many times will you rejoin your friend for a friendly game of Monopoly?

    Utopia is monopoly. The T25 is your buddy who invites you over to play and always stomps on you. Also, in this case, your buddy also starts with a stacked bank every-time. It's pretty clear to me, why no one want's to visit Mehul anymore.

  11. #56
    Dear Friend Korp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    8,837
    Quote Originally Posted by KingTyrant View Post
    What brings the perception of value in game-play, is the perception that the player actually stands a chance of success at said game.

    To use an allegory; how many times do you have to lose a game of Monopoly before you just choose to stop playing? Utopia is like monopoly. The T25 can represent your buddy who invites you over to play. However, in this game of monopoly, you know for a fact your friend begins with serious property advantages. After losing several games and realizing there's no competitive parity, how many times will you rejoin your friend for a friendly game of Monopoly?

    Utopia is monopoly. The T25 is your buddy who invites you over to play and always stomps on you. Also, in this case, your buddy also starts with a stacked bank every-time. It's pretty clear to me, why no one want's to visit Mehul anymore.
    But the top 25, they trained, hard they dedicated time to become good at Monopoly then we have you. The one that casually plays Monopoly but dont wanna spend the extra time to get really good. Ofc you will get stomped then cause you are lazy and you dont wanna work for it.

  12. #57
    Sir Postalot Pillz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sinners NA
    Posts
    3,351
    Quote Originally Posted by Korp View Post
    But the top 25, they trained, hard they dedicated time to become good at Monopoly then we have you. The one that casually plays Monopoly but dont wanna spend the extra time to get really good. Ofc you will get stomped then cause you are lazy and you dont wanna work for it.
    This^

    Utopia is more like basketball, or any team sport, than it is like monopoly.

  13. #58
    Forum Addict RattleHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,267
    Yes, most 25-prov KDs, that are perennially at that top, will whip some newer KD thats trying to just grow up from 22 or less, unless lower KD had some great luck recruiting. Even with equal number of players and exact mirror KDs, the perennial t25 will likely mop them up.

    The reason, I guess, that it is hard to get/keep 25 for a 'casual' KD is that they either don't/cant put the time/effort required in to be competitive, and thus they lose, and have quitters, or they put in all the time in the world and the rest of their KD doesn't, and thus lose, and have quitters.

    You need to be able to explain to people why you lost, how you will rectify the root causes of your loss(anywhere from diplo, to target selection, KD comp, or activity), and convince your people that it is worth trying to take a lesson from your losses, and improve for the next outing.

  14. #59
    Newbie
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    9
    The allegory still stands and the fundamental problem is accurately highlighted in my opinion. The player-base of the game has evaporated due to the excesses and abuses of those who have played the game to the best of it's competitive spirit. In turn, i concur, it's more of a team game, but the conditions for player churn as described are real.

    While it's easy to use such arguments such as "get good"; it does little to remedy the gradual descent of the game into non-existence.

    I do agree with the dedication the full 25 man roster takes. It can't just be disregarded or so easily changed. However, at below 3,000 players, it's a worthy topic of speculation in regards to the decline of kingdoms and players.

    Ultimately, there has to exist two Utopias. In the past, we had Battlefields and WoL. I want to see competitive utopia continue in spirit, however, recognize that a more casual level of play has to be accessible to players to foster an environment where Utopia may create a player-base with growth potential.

    Bring back Genesis at smaller kingdom sizes, normal tick rates. Foster the competitive scene in Utopia in a renewed "Battlefields", and use a new "Genesis/World of Legends" as a test realm for the implementation of changes that may impact positive player growth.

    No, this won't simply split the existing player-base. Of the ex-players in Utopia, I'm fully confident we'd see a massive spike in new and returning players if there was a more casual option. The players who play this game have aged and many don't want to come back to the super kingdom life.

    There's a good game in Utopia; a great simulation that could attract players, but the game bends under it's own competitive weight. Players want to just run their provinces and exist. Other players want to compete.

    The owners of this product - Utopia - should want to potentially increase their monetitization through giving a server option more catered for each demographic of player.

  15. #60
    Dear Friend Korp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    8,837
    The allegory still stands and the fundamental problem is accurately highlighted in my opinion. The player-base of the game has evaporated due to the excesses and abuses of those who have played the game to the best of it's competitive spirit. In turn, i concur, it's more of a team game, but the conditions for player churn as described are real.
    It doesnt really cause Monopoly isnt a team game its a individual player vs player game. So you miss the whole team aspect of it all.

    While it's easy to use such arguments such as "get good"; it does little to remedy the gradual descent of the game into non-existence.
    Punishing good players and holding the bad players hands isnt going to be productive either.

    Ultimately, there has to exist two Utopias. In the past, we had Battlefields and WoL. I want to see competitive utopia continue in spirit, however, recognize that a more casual level of play has to be accessible to players to foster an environment where Utopia may create a player-base with growth potential.
    There isnt big enough playerbase for that and you cant make anything happend when you have all the bad people stuck at one place being bad with no incentive to get better.

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
  •