Lower kd sizes

[pint]

I am not the one that is afraid of changes. I adapt every time if needed. Like I said, I'm just pointing out a side-effect of the idea that was the basis of this thread getting started. What's wrong with pointing out everyeffect on the gameplay when you change something?

[VT2]

Easy.
Because it doesn't have that effect on the game.

[pint]

oh no? 25 DE kd that likes to do nm vs 20 DE kd.

1) you're more likely to have enough players with high enough wpa to be able to cast it on the target
2) you're more likely to have more DE in nw range to do max damage nm's
3) so you got the targets def lower => you're more likely to be able to have more people able to dt, tt, qt.
4) you're more likely to have more people online to perform the one hour chaining
...
12) you're more likely to be able to use the nm tactic then if you have only 20 player kd's.

[VT2]

Poor you, having your one move destroyed.
Truly, I mourn for your loss.

[pint]

k, thx for admitting I was right from the start ;)
I can asure you that there are more things like that, but I'm not going to write down a wartactic guide in here.

[VT2]

It never struck you that this would apply to everybody else, too, since it's a global change?

No, I'm sorry - you still haven't said anything of worth in this thread.

[pint]

I know it is a global change, but it still affects the gameplay like I pointed out already. This is a strategy game, so why limiting the possible tactical moves?

[VT2]

Where's the strategy in warring the exact same teams, age after age?

[olAllan]

I mostly agree with the poster. The only thing that concerns me is it may drop some blank eyed, sheep, elitists from some SKD in my newly founded kd and ruin it with thier brain washed BS.

PPL should also consider how many of civil wars that would cuase. It would help to make more kd's that is for sure.

[comport9]

If a forced reduction in KD sizes is to be considered we must first understand how many people such a change will affect.

How many KD's have 25 players? More importantly, how many of those KD with 25 players aren't cheating...? Even if you assume there is no cheating (yeah right) how many players would be affected (forced to leave) if the KD cap was lowered to 24, 23, 20?

I've compiled a list of the number of kingdoms for each number of players.

The first number is the number of players, the second number is the number of KD's with that many players.

1 0
2 2
3 1
4 4
5 2
6 1
7 0
8 0
9 1
10 0
11 2
12 1
13 6
14 9
15 28
16 33
17 65
18 43
19 28
20 31
21 26
22 22
23 19
24 17
25 32

As you can see, the vast majority of KD's fall into the 15 - 21 player range. The next is a comparison for the number of affected players (those who would have to be moved) for the given KD size restrictions.

The first number is the KD size restriction, the second is the number of affected players.

24 32
23 66
22 123
21 211
20 341
19 527
18 723
17 1067
16 1652
15 1928

No regard has been given to the quality of the KD's involved. Would reducing the KD size to 20, affecting 341 players, make Utopia a more competitive and fun game? Maybe maybe not. But at least now we have some numbers to work with to understand the ramifications of such changes.

[Palem]

Thanks for the numbers comport

[Luc]

oh no? 25 DE kd that likes to do nm vs 20 DE kd.

1) you're more likely to have enough players with high enough wpa to be able to cast it on the target
2) you're more likely to have more DE in nw range to do max damage nm's
3) so you got the targets def lower => you're more likely to be able to have more people able to dt, tt, qt.
4) you're more likely to have more people online to perform the one hour chaining
...
12) you're more likely to be able to use the nm tactic then if you have only 20 player kd's.

1. Yes, if you count actual provs, which you obviously shouldn't be doing. You should be counting percentage of the kd available, and that would not be smaller than before. I.e. FAIL
2. Same again, this scales down. Less provs, less targets. Everything stays the same. FAIL
3. Yes, and you shouldn't be able to do it as fast without sacrificing something, as 1 prov is now worth more than it was before. If it was as easy to disable it, wars would be more destructive comparatively, and that would actually mean something had changed. FAIL
4. Again, no. You'd have the same amount of % online as you did before, or even more, as you'd keep your best players. FAIL

12. You're 80% less effective, which is 100% normal, and gives 0% support for your argument that things change. FAIL

Try again, because all your arguments failed to support your claim. Things scale down, just as they should, and as long as they do, nothing is "changed".

[WolfDGrey]

lowering the number of players in a kd, will most likely drop the number of possible tactics you can run properly.

That is simply not true. If you take the permutations and combinations of 25 players + the number of spells + ops + attacks the number is so enormous that you will never use all. The sad part for you is, that the number, realistically is just as unbelievably high with 20 players, a.k.a. you will never-ever use all the possible actions.

Thus, it is safe to assume that if you used 20-100 different valid tactics before, after the change the valid tactics will be around same number. And yes, there will be different tactics, so we're coming to this:

I'm pointing out that there is a difference in tactics if you change to 20 player kd's.

And different tactics is bad, how? By giving people something new? By making people less bored? By making them to adapt and learn? By making them to invent new things?
I always thought that the above things are good.

Would reducing the KD size to 20, affecting 341 players, make Utopia a more competitive and fun game? Maybe maybe not. But at least now we have some numbers to work with to understand the ramifications of such changes.

Thank you comport, awsome post. At least we know that with the data we have now, ~0.5% of Utopia would be directly and negatively affected by the change.

Now we only need to find out how many of those are not real provinces, sat, abandoned, inactive, waiting for a long time for new players. Because I have a feeling that, from the 341 we would substract another good chunk if we'd know the real numbers.

As I said it would be awsome to have those numbers from Thundergore or S&B.

[Bishop]

you wont get info on other peoples accounts, that is private data.

And you keep failing to address what will actually happen - those kds will be full for about 1 age, then they will decline to the same ratios we have now.

[WolfDGrey]

those kds will be full for about 1 age, then they will decline to the same rations we have now.

No we don't fail to address that, because we don't really need to address that as it is not the goal.

Stop derailing the idea please with non-issues.
We don't needd full kingdoms, we need more kingdoms, the goal is to have more targets to lift the burden from the same kingdoms who are being hit again and again, to offer more war oportunities. There are only a few full kingdoms now, and that will continue to be just like that. It is a non-issue, because nobody asks for FULLNESS, just more oportunities.

Also it is more easy to recruit and keep 20 players than 25, so at the end I think it still be more full kingdoms than now.