Lower kd sizes

[Bishop]

wolf - if the kds are not full then you will have less people in range - meaning you have less targets - in fact, you'll have the same ratios of targets you have now. That is the problem with this suggestion - it is not sustainable.

[WolfDGrey]

wolf - if the kds are not full then you will have less people in range - meaning you have less targets - in fact, you'll have the same ratios of targets you have now. That is the problem with this suggestion - it is not sustainable.

The players numbers are constant or lower every age.
Of course that on player level you will have same targets.
But on kingdom level you will have more targets, as there will be more kingdoms for same player base.

Looking at the numbers comport9 posted, I see the majority is able to maintain at least 15-18 players with the current game/account mechanics. I would incline to have kingdoms with a max of 15 or 18 players since those are the realistic numbers for Utopia at this time.

[pint]

I'll try to make my statement clear some more times. I'm not talking about relative damage done to a kd. I am talking about the fact that a lot of the currently used tactics will be a lot harder to perform with good success. Reducing the number of players in a kd makes it harder to chain a single province. Anyone who sais this is not true? Wether the chain consists out of massacres or razes or trads or ns, nm or fb, kn, or prop or aw or ... The less players in a kd, the less chaining will be a tactic. If you want all wars decided even more on #uniques made then you should lower kd sizes.

[Yadda9To5]

I'll try to make my statement clear one more time. I'm not talking about relative damage done to a kd. I am talking about the fact that a lot of the currently used tactics will be a lot harder to perform with good success. Reducing the number of players in a kd makes it harder to chain a single province. Anyone who sais this is not true? Wether the chain consists out of massacres or razes or trads or ns, nm or fb, kn, or prop or aw or ... The less players in a kd, the less chaining will be a tactic. If you want all wars decided even more on #uniques made then you should lower kd sizes.

Of course you're right, being simultaneously hit by 25 provinces hurts more than being hit by a mere 20. At the same time, precious few kingdoms can currently depend on even 20+ provinces (about 5% (300) of all players (6000) are in 20+ kingdoms) so the effect you're talking about only affects a tiny part of the playerbase. From your argument i'd conclude that it's an absolute necessity to reduce kingdom size, as currently 5% of utopia holds an enormous advantage over the other 95% of utopia.

Having said that, i doubt that, even for those players used to tactics based on 25 players, an entirely new style of play will be created. When going as low as 10 or maybe even 15 player kingdoms, the game dynamics could change, as it can indeed be argued that 5 strong mystics are needed to nightmare one province down, leaving only 5 strong attackers (assuming 10 player kingdoms) instead of the current 20. Yet, would it really be that bad if tactics/dynamics change? I honestly don't think that would be a big issue. In your example a choice would have to be made between having 50% support provinces so your remaining attackers can make easier hits, or less support provinces where attackers have harder hits (few double/triple/quad taps). In relation to chaining i don't see an issue, instead of spending 50% of your provinces to disable 4% of the opponent, you need 63% to destroy 5% of your opponent.

[Luc]

I'll try to make my statement clear one more time. I'm not talking about relative damage done to a kd. I am talking about the fact that a lot of the currently used tactics will be a lot harder to perform with good success. Reducing the number of players in a kd makes it harder to chain a single province. Anyone who sais this is not true? Wether the chain consists out of massacres or razes or trads or ns, nm or fb, kn, or prop or aw or ... The less players in a kd, the less chaining will be a tactic. If you want all wars decided even more on #uniques made then you should lower kd sizes.

It's entirely clear. And there's also no reason to think like you are. Yes, of course it takes more time to chain a single province. But as I've said multiple times already, one province is now worth more than it was before, so you can't compare it to what it's like with 25 provs. More time, more value, it evens out in the end. So chaining will still be a tactic, just like it is now. Everything in this game is relative, and scales. I'm not gonna waste my time trying to explain this again. You SHOULD be talking relative damage, because that's what matters in this game.

[pint]

you won't do the same relative damage because chaining, if performed properly, causes more damage the better you do it.

like it's not worth trhowing one massacre on a prov for example.

[Luc]

So you're saying you can't chain with 15 provinces?

[WolfDGrey]

Reducing the number of players in a kd makes it harder to chain a single province. Anyone who sais this is not true?

Yes, I say it is NOT true. I can't remember the day when chaining a single province was done by 25, or even 20 players. We usually chain 2-3 provinces/wave. So the effect against one single province is zero.
Your math is wrong.

On the other hand, there is nothing wrong if people will need to find new strategy and tactics.

[pint]

let's make another example. Nightstrike.

when is ns most usable?
- to reduce a provs def from unbreakable to breakable
- to reduce a provs def from breakable to double-tappable
(- or to reduce offense for the opposite)


if you have less provinces that can nightstrike, you're less likely to get one of the above - to be performed. So ns becomes less valuable the more you drop kd sizes.

another thing to add: I'm speaking in general decrease of kd sizes. ofc 20 vs 25 won't make a HUGE difference, only a small, but still one to be considered imo. some people here are talking about 15 prov kd's, and there you'll feel it a lot more.

[WolfDGrey]

lif you have less provinces that can nightstrike, you're less likely to get one of the above - to be performed.

If you would have added: "in the same timeframe" your sentence would have been true.
But this way I can say: It just will take slightly longer and maybe more people will use thievery due to necessity.

So ns becomes less valuable the more you drop kd sizes.

That is ok. We will have one age of more attacking/less magic and ops, then we will have people suggesting strenghtening the key ops/spells that need to be tweaked. It is all numbers and changes are kinda good at this moment. We even might have a few ages where a good mage/thief will be valuable again.

[pint]

If you would have added: "in the same timeframe" your sentence would have been true.



That is ok. We will have one age of more attacking/less magic and ops, then we will have people suggesting strenghtening the key ops/spells that need to be tweaked. It is all numbers and changes are kinda good at this moment.

You are right about the timefactor. But I don't think you have all the time you want during wars. It's always bad seeing that you were close to opening someone for dt when opponent kd withdraws and goes running with your honor.

and you are also right that if they tweak some other stuff it'll be about the same then it is now.

[Luc]

That's true, in some cases you don't care about the relative damage. Even though you've made the same relative damage, it could still be that you couldn't break. I don't really see what anyone would do different though. You'll attempt to scale down, so that if you were able to ns 2 provs before you can do 1 now. If you care more about being able to ns down unbreakbles, you'll run more a/t's comparatively. The basic strategies are still the same, because this game mostly scales well, and when it doesn't there really aren't a lot of alternatives anyway.

I do see your point with ns and nm, but I still don't think there will be much change for most of the players in the game. And yeah, you can tweak numbers if you want things to remain exactly the same. I dunno if that's even needed unless we see that strategic choice has become more limited than before though.

[Coke]

What I don't understand is why this point has been overlooked?

If you reduce a KD from 25 to 20 prov's which prov's are gonna get kicked out (in SKDs at least)? Not the good players, not leadership, but the players are that are there simply to fill space to reach 25. So each Top KD kicks out 5 players that are just hanging around, suppose they form a new KD, as what would ideally happen, what kind of KD would they form, with mediocre players and no leadership?

How does that create more competition (at the top at least)? The good KDs (the ones that kicked people out) will still fight the same other good KDs (other KDs that kicked people out), and the KDs formed from the SKD rejects most likely wont be a SKD. End result? No change.....

Now it is possible that the SKD rejects would form a KD that is comparable to a mid-tier KD, however most have been playing a SKD style for a long time. It is a pretty far stretch to think they all of them would stick around. Thus there would be a fairly large exodus of players in a time when the player base is already small.

In Theory, this would be a good idea if everyone stayed around and accepted their new positions, but this is a game and people can quit or take a break. So maybe there might be a few new KDs with this change for a age or two, but the biggest result would be a far smaller player base and similar numbers of KDs.

Also, while i detailed it out for a SKD, the same applies for Ghetto's, how many decent (was gonna use good, but the number is even fewer) monarchs are their in ghetto's. The ones who are willing to plan out strats and organize wars. The answer: Very Few. Now you want to remove the worst players in a Ghetto and mix them with other Ghetto rejects and you hope for what? For those players to stick around?

Edit: You don't just go around forming a good KD that can challenge other good KDs in one age (unless your Sonata) unless you have unusual circumstances. And for ghettos, making the people that even Ghetto's rejected form a KD.....that just seems futile.....even while typing it.

[Luc]

@ Coke:
What you're missing is that the kd's who had 15 good players before couldn't compete then, but would now be able to. More competition.

Another point is that it'd be easier to bring new player into the game, because it's easier to invite 5 friends to max out the kd than to invite 10 (I mean finding them. If you don't find them, you won't bother to try anyway, which means we'd miss out on new players).

Ghettoes don't have 25 players, so they don't have to kick especially many.

[Coke]

@ Luc

But on the flipside, full KDs at the moment (which are mostly established KDs) would be kicking out 5 people. 5 players that know how to play the game although they may not be up to par with their KD. Those people would try to find another KD like their past KD to join, but surprise their all full. Then what? You think the leadership of those KDs are gonna get booted? Not that many people want to lead KDs. I for one know I never want to be monarch ever again. How many KDs can be formed together on the go so fast, that will actually last?

How can you say for certain that this would be a net positive gain in terms of players? If we execute a change that reduces the player population even lower, how is this game going to continue on?