Lower kd sizes

[Darkz Azn]

Forceful merge isn't recommend ... we should just drop this nonsense of lowering size =)

[Palem]

I see more arguments towards kingdom merging than anything else here. If the current kingdoms can't get full they need to be merged.

So you want to just merge 2 kds with 18 provs?

Putting aside the fact that that's impossible, you would rather upset 36 players who are far more likely to not want to play with each other and are being forced to rather than the 5 players who likely made the decision to leave and made their own arrangements with other kds?

Mergers aren't needed. If WoL was run amok with 12-13 player kds, then I would be all for a large-scale kd merger, but that's not the case.

[Aos]

So you want to just merge 2 kds with 18 provs?

Putting aside the fact that that's impossible, you would rather upset 36 players who are far more likely to not want to play with each other and are being forced to rather than the 5 players who likely made the decision to leave and made their own arrangements with other kds?

Mergers aren't needed. If WoL was run amok with 12-13 player kds, then I would be all for a large-scale kd merger, but that's not the case.

So kd's with 20 or less people refuse to accept new people? , that's your arrgument.
But kd's with 25 players should accept that we need to kick 5 players , can't add words to this that don't ban me.

18+7= 25 , not really impossible...

[WolfDGrey]

ROFL @ landwhores hurrying to defend Status Quo!

[lichemaster]

ROFL @ landwhores hurrying to defend Status Quo!

Who's trolling now Wolf?

Basically I see 2 people passionate about kingdom reduction. You a troll and comport9 that defected for unknown reasons from a 24/25 player kingdom and is now the monarch of a 5 player ghetto.

[Palem]

So kd's with 20 or less people refuse to accept new people? , that's your arrgument.
But kd's with 25 players should accept that we need to kick 5 players , can't add words to this that don't ban me.

Forced mergers historically do not go well. There's usually a powerstruggle as both monarchs don't want to give up their leadership (even though they can just be co-monarchs and work together, but hey, people are dumb), which eventually leads to a split kd and ultimately, you're left with either a civil war, or people just start leaving. Which brings you back down to a 16-18 player kds yet again.

The only thing that's happening with a kd reduction is that you are being forced to drop your numbers.
No restrictions on who.
No restrictions on how.
No restrictions on where those other players go.

So how is forcing 2 kds to try to get along a better option then a kd reduction?
Oh that's right, because your kd wouldn't have to deal with it.

[lichemaster]

Who the hell said it was to be forced...it could be an option at the end of the age for the monarch.

[x] Merge our kingdom with another small neighbour

[Palem]

Any of the kds that have actually been through a merger know that it's more than likely just completely not going to work and pretty much waste an age for them. Why the hell would ANY monarch want to do that with their kd? So the big kds don't have to hurt anyone's feelings cus they kicked them out of their clubhouse?

Mergers might help a couple kds get to 25 players, but it won't help Utopia be any less stale.

[lichemaster]

Any of the kds that have actually been through a merger know that it's more than likely just completely not going to work and pretty much waste an age for them. Why the hell would ANY monarch want to do that with their kd? So the big kds don't have to hurt anyone's feelings cus they kicked them out of their clubhouse?

Mergers might help a couple kds get to 25 players, but it won't help Utopia be any less stale.

It's like arguing with a brick...

So you rather *force* kingdoms to kick people than having everyone in a kingdom stay together and *voluntarily* joining with another group of people?

It seems you people are not interested in making any effort whatsoever to reach 25 players so you decide to make rules against the players who do make the effort.

[Ethan]

@ General question of how to lower players to X (20, then 15?!) smoothly:

Have no randoms into above target (duh), and apply a penalty of X*(players over cap) to ME. Start X at 1%, increase by 1% each age. So first age a 25er is at -5% ME across the board (worth it), next age it's -10 ME, third age it is -15% ME... and now it surely isn't worth it.

It moves slowly enough people can leave at their own pace - and because it is known beforehand how mean the penalty is, the "market" will decide when it is mean enough. Before that it will slowly close the gap between those over cap and those at, so those aspiring to the top can just stay at the eventual target and watch the difference slowly melt away.

Edit: once an age ends with no-one over (soft) cap, change the "Hard cap" down to the "soft cap".

I don't know if I actually like the goal - but this seems like a reasonable way to achieve it. I certainly don't want to go below 20... 20 or 25 (current) are my two preferred values.

[Palem]

It's like arguing with a brick...

Likewise.

So you rather *force* kingdoms to kick people than having everyone in a kingdom stay together and *voluntarily* joining with another group of people?

I'm not sure how much "forcing" is really going on here, other than saying that something MUST be done. As Ethan posted, there are plenty of ways that this can be done through persuasion.

And I can tell you've never been through a merger. It's not like a marriage where everyone is happy and having a good time. It's more like getting a new inmate in your prison cell. You either get along, or one of you dies.

It seems you people are not interested in making any effort whatsoever to reach 25 players so you decide to make rules against the players who do make the effort.

It's because 25 player kds is the problem. There are not enough players to reasonably keep kd sizes this large and still maintain a fun, competitive environment. Thanks for reading the thread and understanding that this is whole ****ing point.

And you say, I'm like talking to a brick. At least I know wtf the discussion is about.

[Yadda9To5]

Even if there was the possibility to merge all kingdoms into 25 province ones, there still would be low competition because there'll be too few kingdoms. The whole reason for reducing kingdomsize is to create more kingdoms.

Having said that, once kingdom sizes are reduced, i'm all for the possibility to merge. Like last age, this age again my kingdom got omaced (partially deleted) and once again, all that's left to do for the kingdom is enjoy being not competitive at all, filled with non committed randoms. But it's not only in the best interest of omaced kingdoms to create as many filled kingdoms as possible. It's also in the best interest of the game as such. Especially when trying to attract new players it's no good to have them land in half empty ghetto's. Does anyone really think people will stay if they first end up in a kingdom with less than 10 non green provs that claims to be disbanding and that says "defect or we kill you", then after defecting ending up in a kingdom with 12 players without any sign of leadership and then, after another defection in a kingdom with 1(!!) non green province and 11 green ones coming oop??? (true story, sadly) A new player should land in a nearly filled kingdom, so his first taste of the game is a positive one. (And no, the recruitment forum doesn't help. For every noob that uses it, i'm pretty sure at least 5 others that just create an account and get the worst first impression possible). The devs realy must do the utmost to keep kingdoms filled, having these near empty kingdoms in the game is killing. (From comports9 numbers there are now 29 kingdoms with 14 or less players, the way account creation and defection seems to work, a new player has a huge chance to land into one of them. I'd much prefer if these 29 kingdoms were put together. I don't belief a 10 or less prov kingdom has any solid intra kingdom ties (left) to make it impossible for it to be merged with another kingdom)

Another thing i'm reading here is that top kingdoms are oh so happy to accept new players. It's only half of the truth. When my kd disbanded a few ages ago i was indeed asked to join some top kds, and some of our players did. I didn't. I wanted to play more relaxed, not wanting to set my alarm to attack in the dead of night. During these ages I've had three invitations from top kd's in my in game pm box, i always answered i'd be happy to join but would not set my alarm to attack. Needless to say, i was rejected by all of them. What this clearly shows is that the current top kd scene is an elite group, if they know you, they might want you. But if they don't you have no chance to join them unless you're willing to make utopia a way of live. And this is simply not the way the better part of the player-base wants to play utopia. For casual players i'm pretty sure having a 20 player kingdom is currently a luxury and having 25 nothing but an unreachable dream. The casual players simply don't have the ingame connections to attract new players. My kingdom moved some players in, true, but they were all players from kd's we warred against that switched sides. Good for us, but as a whole, not helping the game at all.

[lichemaster]

It's because 25 player kds is the problem. There are not enough players to reasonably keep kd sizes this large and still maintain a fun, competitive environment. Thanks for reading the thread and understanding that this is whole ****ing point.

And you say, I'm like talking to a brick. At least I know wtf the discussion is about.

I know perfectly well what the discussion is about and it isn't the bull**** you guys keep saying it is. What you want is to destroy competitors that are better than you, not to improve competition per se. You want better competition try harder and better and get your kingdom to the 25 player kingdoms level.

[edit]

Even if there was the possibility to merge all kingdoms into 25 province ones, there still would be low competition because there'll be too few kingdoms. The whole reason for reducing kingdomsize is to create more kingdoms.

Yadda this fallacy has already been shown wrong. If there are very few kingdoms with more than >20 players like pro-reductionists claim, there will obviously be even fewer new kingdoms (since many will simply leave or stand aside waiting for spots to open in their kingdom). Basically, with luck, you would get 2-3 more kingdoms out of this change.

[Yadda9To5]

Yadda this fallacy has already been shown wrong. If there are very few kingdoms with more than >20 players like pro-reductionists claim, there will obviously be even fewer new kingdoms (since many will simply leave or stand aside waiting for spots to open in their kingdom). Basically, with luck, you would get 2-3 more kingdoms out of this change.

Which is excellent! No more kingdoms but instead all kingdoms get filled. Then atleast competition on an equal footing would be possible. No matter how you try to twist this proposed change, having x players distributed over 25 - y kingdoms gives you more kingdoms than having x players distributed over 25 kingdoms.

[Palem]

I know perfectly well what the discussion is about and it isn't the bull**** you guys keep saying it is. What you want is to destroy competitors that are better than you, not to improve competition per se. You want better competition try harder and better and get your kingdom to the 25 player kingdoms level.

this is why I usually don't like people who play in the top kds. They think everything is always about them.

If I was so very desperate to win a crown, I'd get in touch with ABS. If I wanted to help improve the enjoyability of the game, I'd do what I'm doing right now.

Get your head out of your ass and stop thinking about yourself.