Lower kd sizes

[Bishop]

Because Palem your suggestion doesn't address the issue. What will happen is for one age you will have kds with decent numbers - then as ages progress kds (ghettos) will have less and less players - until they are back to the ratios we have here (as we saw on genesis). So what then? cut kd numbers again and things are ok for an age and it repeats until it is 1 player is a kd. Perhaps with automatic attacks too. No thanks.

Also, the fact that you have to drop players is a huge issue. Kicking people out of kingdoms, imo, cannot be the sort of mechanic we need to encourage people to play.

It is, at best, a short-term measure that completely bypasses the real issue - we need more players. At worst it is a mechanic that is doomed from the start to fail and one that might actually cause players to quit.

[Palem]

the suggestion isn't a measure to make kds full again. It's a measure to create more kds. I only bring up that most kds aren't full because that means they don't have to kick out 5 people. It's likely only 2 or 3. . I know how the top works and even in your kd, you've prolly got people who just moved in within the past 2 ages. Why can't you give them the boot? Are they really going to take it so personally as to just quit the game because the people he just met had to give him the boot?

25 player kds were great when we had >100k players. But as far as even getting the game advertised, we are still technically in beta and jolt still refuses to acknowledge us as one of their games. It's likely that the number won't be rising by any reasonable number for quite some time still. Until that happens, we need a stall and I think this is a reasonable one.

[VT2]

World of legends is full of ghettos, too, and has always been.
Only a fifth of the game's kingdoms even know how to war properly.

That's not part of the discussion, unfortunately. Judge, don't go off topic now. See, that's against the rules.

Since we can't get more players - and you know this as well as everybody else - and people are bored of being stagnant, we need to reduce the maximum players allowed in each kingdom.
This only brings good things.

There's barely 50 kingdoms with 25 actual players in them.
Poor Abs will have to drop their multis with a change like this.

[Bishop]

You are still forcing people to quit their kingdoms. This is good how?

And again, you will have more ghettos to choose from in range but only briefly, cos after an age people will leave kds that dont meet their standards bringing us right back to square one, except ofc we have even less players because some have left. I don't really see any way you can say that this will not happen.

VT2, dont tell me what the rules are, i'm not in the mood for your trolling.

[Palem]

because I give utopian players more credit than acting like a bunch of 5 year olds that aren't allowed in the clubhouse anymore. Sure, they might get mad, scream bloody murder, and say they're going to quit, but odds are, they won't.

The ghettos won't be affected by the change.
The midlevel doesn't even really exist anymore. With this change some might rise again, but still pretty unlikely.
The top is the only place that will really notice because they'll have to do some sacrificing. But pretty much everyone at the top is on IRC and can easily stay in touch with everyone that he knows and likes to play with. I'm sure if this change would occur, all of the alliances would gather up volunteers to change kds, but them all in their own kd, call it 'Das Boot of ____'' and be their very own top kd.

I'm sure the top kds can muster up a whole kd full of players that got the boot. Hell, call the kd 'Das Boot!' and you got yourself yet another playing on the game.

[lichemaster]

because I give utopian players more credit than acting like a bunch of 5 year olds that aren't allowed in the clubhouse anymore. Sure, they might get mad, scream bloody murder, and say they're going to quit, but odds are, they won't.

Obviously they will. Many may not quit permanently but will probably put utopia on hold until they can play with their kingdom again.

This suggestion is based on a hypothesis which has zero evidence backing it. You think it will generate more competition, you think the players being booted will organize their own good kingdoms, you think there will be more kingdoms. I don't see why any of this must be true and until I see some evidence I am firmly against this suggestion.

[raviy]

At the moment I don't believe there is a single full kingdom through an age, where the starting players would be same as the finishing ones. The corelation between the outcry for more invites and unstable player base is easy to spot.

Also there is no kingdom who could not kick/transfer to another kingdom/let go a few players. There are allways a few, who are less active, less skilled than the requirement, for this players the monarch could deny new age transfer, so they would be placed randomly or they could get a free, aditional move/invite.

Thus, reducing kingdom sizes can be made easily this days.

This.

Reduce KD size by 1 or 2 every age until you get to the desired end-figure. 15-20 prov KDs looks about the appropriate goal to me. A poll should probably be made in-game to gauge player opinion.

More KDs = More KDs to war, less waving and being waved by the same KDs. Less bottomfeeding into the same 4 ghetto KDs. The lack of KDs is pretty distressing.

This has nothing to do with filling up KDs, or helping ghettos. There simply needs to be more KDs. Or at any rate, given the decline of the playerbase, the # of KDs cannot decrease any more than it already has.

[Luc]

I doubt there are very many kd's with 25 players they're perfectly happy with. There aren't many 25 player kd's left at all.

I still think it'd be worth cutting down on kd sizes.

[WolfDGrey]

You are still forcing people to quit their kingdoms.

That is simply not true in the way you highlight it. All kingdoms, even ghettos, force players to quit their kingdoms when they don't fit the kingdom's profile. Nothing new here, yet you make it look like a genocide. Also there is absolutely no full kingdom without changing (at least) a few players trough an age.
You're riding on a false argument.

It would be awsome to have an official report on how many kingdoms are actually full and not sat at all. Because at this time most (full) kingdoms have one or more players sat for more than a week or two, until the kingdom manages to find a new, suitable player.

If Thundergore or S&B can look it up, I am very sure they can tell you, that, there are maybe one or two (full) kingdoms with no long time sitting, no inactives trough an age, just for waiting for new players.

Again I reaffirm that reducing kingdom size is not an issue in today's Utopia and it should be done prior to start revitalising the channels of getting new players..

[Bishop]

there are two problems with this suggestion - you have to get players to leave their kingdom and you assume it will solve a problem with lack of kingdoms in range. Here is why i believe this suggestion will not work.

Problem 1 - kingdoms are struggling to meet the 25 player requirement - reduce it and more kingdoms will be full

Getting people to leave a kingdom. Ways to accomplish this are:
Tell kds they need to have X players at age end
Reduce kd max and let players naturally leaving meet this number.

I believe this will not work because kingdoms, while they of course drop players and replace them as the age progresses, will not want to be the first top kd to run with 24 players. They will ensure, probably through illegal methods, that they do not lose a player advantage. So you encourage people to cheat which is bad - then when they do cheat they get caught and deleted, so you've lost a player either way. It is also possible that a kingdom will not lose a player in the timeframe you set, then how will you select someone to leave? You are kicking someone out of their kingdom. This is not a good idea.

All kingdoms will need to be equal also - otherwise it is not fair. Therefore all kds must lose the same amount of players at the same time. It is doubtful this will occur naturally, so monarchs will have to kick out players - that conversation doesnt really sound like fun and one designed to endear players to the game "hey, we gotta drop a player - we picked you cos you suck the most, gl finding another kd with the rest of the rejects though <3" - i dont see how this will not cause unnecessary issues.

This is, ofc, only one issue - and probably a side issue to what you believe your suggestion will accomplish (if i have made incorrect assumptions please tell me).

Problem 2 - there are not enough kds to war. Reducing kd player limit will increase competitiveness by creating more, fuller kingdoms.

Well, it will create more kingdoms for about 1 age. After that you will still have kingdoms with 20% less than max. Same as we have now, same as we had on genesis. People will still leave, ghettos will have trouble persuading people to say, others wont like their kd etc etc etc

Reducing KD max players does not solve the problem - that we need more new players. It will annoy our current players and temporarily give top kds more targets - remember, top kds will be the full kds and the ghettos that get reallocated players and are now full will be fed on, hardcore.

You'll have an age of having a few more kds in range and then those kds will struggle again to keep their players at max and we are back to square one - < 10 will be the new ghetto instead of < 15 or whatever. You cannot keep reducing the KD max players number age after age.

[Yadda9To5]

Exactly why will reducing kingdom sizes only work for a single age? Are you so sure Utopia will continue to lose players? Even if that is so, then with 25 prov kingdoms the problem would be bigger still, less and less kingdoms to compete with.

However, to keep the kingdoms filled the devs have to take measures to keep kingdoms filled; making sure that every age, or even during an age, half filled kds are merged together. (As i mentioned in another topic, deleting "cheaters" is all fine, but when that results in a kingdom loosing half its provinces the entire kingdom is virtually dead (I'm sure this causes more players to quit than reducing kds to 20 provs, sure it wil generate more provinces as deleted ones, with nothing to loose, create new provinces hoping to land in a decent kd, but does utopia really need these ghost provinces). Thus care must be taken that such kingdoms get new players (players, not just scripted provinces or multies/farms whose priotiry lies with their main province) fast)

As for the lucky few 25 prov kingdoms that are forced to loose players, just give the dropouts an invite that doesn't use the host kingdoms invite. That way, 20 dropouts can be used to create a new top kingdom of choice in a single age. Taking into account the way the top is currently trading/rotating players amongst itself i seriously doubt many players would rage quit. Instead i assume we'll simply see one or two new abs kingdoms formed and a few "independent" top kds.

Personally, I'd prefer a full reshuffle and a strict limit to the invite system (maybe 2 per age). Then start afresh with a few ages without shuffling the player base. But i'm pretty sure that really might cause players to quit.

[Bishop]

Exactly why will reducing kingdom sizes only work for a single age? Are you so sure Utopia will continue to lose players? Even if that is so, then with 25 prov kingdoms the problem would be bigger still, less and less kingdoms to compete with. .

Because after the first age you will have kingdoms that are not full as players quit or choose not to stay with their kingdom, bringing you back to sqaure one. I dont really see how this is hard to understand - we've already had an idea that this will happen on genesis. Yes, Utopia will continue to lose players unless the devs do something to encourage new players.

[Luc]

Bishop, look at it this way:
Why is it good to only have a few kds?
Are people more likely to be able to find 15 ppl than 25?
If it's easier to find 15 players, won't that mean they have less reason to cheat?

More kd's is good, and less cheating is good also. Building a kd of 15 ppl might actually get ppl to come back to the game. Ppl that quit because it's hell trying to get 25 active players today.

The issue of kds not being full should be solved by the devs through other means. The choice here is between having few kd's and half full ghettoes, or having many kd's with half full ghettoes. Why is less kd's preferable?

[Bishop]

they cannot attract players - because there arent enough. 15 or 25 wont make a difference. Player will still leave ghettos cos they aren't what they want. You need new players coming in - they might actually wait in a kd as they learn.

If you drop kd numbers to 15 then you should be dropping invites proportionally - so they are just as hard to fill.

[Luc]

Again, it's easier to find 15 players than 25, meaning you can create a real good kd that is now competitive, but wouldn't be if you only had 15 reliable players in a 25 sized kd. People cheat to cover up for the last players they couldn't find. Instead of having 10 competitive kd's in the top, you'd get like 30 or so. Yes, there is no difference for the ghettoes, they would still be half empty, but that doesn't mean there's no benefit for the rest of the game. You're looking for this idea to solve problems it isn't aimed to solve, and since it doesn't do that, you dismiss it. Take the idea for what it is rather than force it on problems it isn't trying to solve.

15 player kd's would keep more players in the game because they'd have a bigger chance of creating a competitive kd than they did before. Few kd's actually have 25 good players, so few stand to lose much at all. And of course you'd have more targets you could hit without actually having to fight the kd they're in.

You should be asking yourself why we have such big kd's when there's so few players left. It's a relic of the past when the game had lots more players.