Im quitting also
Im quitting also
“The only person you are destined to become is the person you decide to be.”
- unknown
do that after we farmed you please
Furthermore I think Carthage should be destroyed and Dryads brought back to the game
Im staying - so sadly you will ALL have to put up with more jokes from me.... sad to see older experienced players leave - I look forward to seeing you BOTH return with renewed vigour after a break
Laughter IS the best medicine - always
For one and you might not want to hear this but the Kingdoms are way too big. Your going to have to face facts and pull your head out of that hole you stuck it in. We are busy people who don't have time to play 24/7 and have no life. We love the game the 2400 or so who are left. You lack graphics and flash booms but you have a great Game. The changes are whatever, they aren't that big of an issue. You need to lower the Kingdoms province number to a more manageable size for a busy fast pace life style. I know some will hate this and threaten to quit!~ If you haven't noticed people are still quitting! Whats the one thing that is out of whack? Kingdoms size's, 15 normal size up to 20 would do nicely and make it easier for monarchs to manage. If you haven't noticed some of of have ready been doing this. BOTTOMLINE! we are busy if the game takes too much time we will walk away at some point.
Last edited by Rockie Cantais; 01-12-2019 at 18:52.
Before you can see the truth, you must be willing to accept it.
How does that even make sense? Lowering kd size have no impact on your activity in the game. Besides, you dont have to spend 24/7 not that ever was necessary not now nor back then.Originally Posted by Rockie Cantais
Under 2400 players, 15 provinces per kingdom gives you 160 kingdoms. More chance at a EVEN war and right now it just sucks. War right now is either you wipe someone out too easy or you get massacred. 2400 players divide by 10 gives you 240 kingdoms and gives the new and returning players a chance. By all means keep catering to the 25 kingdoms and soon you will not have a game to play.
Before you can see the truth, you must be willing to accept it.
And all these people that would have to lead the kingdoms would just magically pop out of thin air?
Doomsayers been around for 10 years now and still the game is around.
Say story hes came up with for years.Dropping kds numbers will make more quit since alot today place because of the people they play with.The random people who bounce from age to age it wouldnt effect.Also as mentioned more will quit because all these new kingdoms need leadership and thats even harder to find. Bad leaders destroy kingdoms faster than game changes.
Monsters
Fighting the world back Proudly since Age 35
#MONSTERS
Agree to disagree dude, the game is barely supporting 25 player kingdoms as it is. The top constantly experiences turnover and burns through a pool of the same players each age, not to say anything for the rest of the average and above average kingdoms who can barely hang on to 20-22 age-long active players without losing people to disappointment or boredom. Leadership in individual kingdom has a 3 month burden placed on their shoulders to keep 20ish players happy and interested in playing in that kingdom, heck the game itself, while the rest of a kingdom's roster is relegated to following orders, pushing buttons when necessary, and setting sitters as needed. While sitting is a much needed feature of the game, it doesn't fix the overall problem with managing that many human players for several months at a time.
Kingdoms, on average, probably contain 15ish players who like playing together. Maybe 20 for the biggest and best. But the rest of the rosters are turnover and constantly shifting slots. I think reducing the number of provinces in each kingdom would benefit in several ways:
1) It lessens the burden placed on 2-3 players (leadership) during an age. Managing less human beings is simply healthier; the game doesn't become more work than fun and this is an important thing if you want to maintain population.
2) It eases the need to constantly recruit every age just to fill a competitive roster. Recruitment should be an option, a choice, not a dire necessity that can tank an age if a kingdom doesn't get to where it needs to be to function.
3) It lets kingdoms function successfully with a reasonable number of players that doesn't have to include fringe players and unknowns, which cause stress mid-age if they don't work out or silently abandon.
Most importantly, developing new players capable of leading kingdoms would be easier. Right now, how many players can comfortably say they WANT to lead a kingdom? Out of 2500 players, is it maybe 75? Many of you are math junkies so you know that's only 3% of the population. Sure, for new leaders it looks appealing from the outside, you have all sorts of ideas and a serious strategy itch, but once you're inside, the burden of keeping 20+ other players satisfied and having fun starts to drain you. The game mechanics are only half the equation of a player's enjoyment; the other half is the social aspect and how the community of one's kingdom feels. That's where a leader is more important and you can't foster a strong social and successful environment if you're burning out from the weight that only a small portion of the game population can handle. This needs to change and kingdom size reduction is the answer.
It is kind of lose/lose. Need smaller kingdoms to create more "gameplay units" and reduce the strain on leaders. But smaller kingdoms also means more monarch-type provinces are required, and at some point the smaller kd size starts to change the meta (see, e.g., Genesis).
And again how is lowering kd sizes going to fix anything. As you said people dont want to be monarchs,Managing 20-25 isnt as bad as you make it when you have multiple stewards now who can help and things are delegated unlike years ago.Forcing people out of kds only makes even more quit.I can maintain 22-24 people every age without even trying to recruit,Its not that difficult to do.Most smaller kds lose players because of just what yall are trying to do,bad monarchs and no structure. The game needs as i and many have said for years.A app and advertising that might bring in new players to a antique text based game.
Monsters
Fighting the world back Proudly since Age 35
#MONSTERS
Lowering the KD size as a solution to game longevity and enjoyment seems suspect at best. People will step up to lead sure, but most won't do well. More than likely, the leadership teams that exist will stick together. They enjoy playing together, so they'll continue to do so, just with less grunts to manage. And now there's a bunch or kingdomless grunts with nowhere to go. Not being kept by their old kingdom when the sizes get cut is going to sting, and demotivate them and we'll lose players.
| Blade of Dragons Mate | Mythos | S 1 3 3 7 Y | Desolated Mythos | Pandas | Barcoloco |
I'm just coming back after a few years away
all our players stayed, 12 out of 12, most likely will go back to warring after this age though, we shall see, the options are endless unless you only want to play in a specific way. Mixing things up means you don't just have to play with the same goal age after age.
Furthermore I think Carthage should be destroyed and Dryads brought back to the game
1) Not anyone else's responsibility, especially not the devs, to get new leaders to perform well. Yet how else do you think new leaders develop at all? Your solution is to stick with existing capable leaders and have no new players develop into good leaders through practice, trial and error, learning, etc., which doesn't help growth at all. It keeps the status quo and keeps the stale game that only veterans stay into. Your thinking is backwards.
2) I'd be willing to bet there are very few kingdoms with a full complement of consistent players from one age to the next. There already are a bunch of kingdomless grunts, they're in a pool and they are picked through each EOA and convinced to come play for a top kingdom just to fill a province slot and push buttons when told to. That's how most 22-25 player kingdoms exist these days. Why not eliminate the stress of scouring the pool of players who are "taking a break" or "looking to merc" and trying to get them to fill your button-pusher slots?
3) Honestly, about the sting and the demovitation? That's only going to happen to players who are already not actively playing the game to acceptable standards. Maybe being let go will help them figure out why they are even still trying to play this game in the kind of kingdom they've been let go of. Maybe we lose lazy players, so what? What are they contributing to the game and its growth? Too many players are just "going through the motions" in their otherwise busy lives. You want to keep your busy friends? Reevaluate your kingdom goals. You want to improve your kingdom? Reevaluate your busy friends taking advantage of your enabling allowances.
Utopia is not hard to succeed at and enjoy playing. To grow and gain active players, you have to be willing to shed the lazy players. You have to show new players an environment of proper activity demands to succeed. IMO one of the biggest reasons for fringe players is that many lesser kingdom leaderships don't always hold them to a high enough standard. They aren't forced to learn what the game demands for success, they just come in and play how they feel like playing.
Smaller kingdom sizes will let leadership focus on developing a more reasonable number of players to function as a team and grow their own leadership skills in the process.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote