Lower kd sizes

[lichemaster]

Your other points don't make any sense... "scaling down"? What is that supposed to mean?

You need to read more posts too, everyone in this thread is saying reducing kingdom size doesn't change the game tactically because it scales down (I contend it doesn't).

"Alliances will be stronger"? I don't see how you come to that conclusion, or how it's at all relevant even if it is true.

You don't? Consider the following, if we reduced kingdom size to 1 player per kingdom; you can bet your ass there wouldn't be a single player that wouldn't be in an alliance. 1 player kingdoms might seem ridiculous but it is the endpoint of a recursive thought experiment where you can see all the consequences of reducing kingdom size.

[raviy]

Why is everyone talking about this like it is a good idea and ignoring the bad side effects?

By the logic of the people in this thread the ideal would be 1 player kingdoms so everyone would have 6862 kingdoms to war with - Lots of variety - and the best thing is it doesn't change the game at all because "it scales down".

Ah. The straw man argument, I was wondering when it would show up in here. By your logic, the ideal would be a single 6862 player kingdom so that everyone can play with people they like.

The point is that reducing the KD size to 20 or 15 gradually over every age has minimal detriment, and sufficient positives to outweigh the negatives.

Obviously reducing the KD size to 1 would tip the balance in favour of the negatives.

Everything is is a weighing of pros and cons. The pros of reducing KD sizes to 20 outweighs the cons.

[lichemaster]

Ah. The straw man argument

See the post above. I admit it is ridiculous but just like your 6863 player kingdom it is an useful thought experiment, that was used only because people were dismissing valid contrarian positions outright, without considering any of them valid. It becomes quite obvious when taking this to the absurd that they are valid.

[raviy]

As with all issues, there are idiots on either side of any aisle.

Just because there are idiots supporting this suggestion speaks nothing to its invalidity, just as idiots against this suggestion speaks nothing to its validity.

You are correct in saying that there are downsides to reducing KD sizes, but as many have expressed, the downsides are insignificant when compared to the upsides, in such a small reduction.
Now, this is a matter of opinion, and cannot be proven, but what's important is the perception of the players, having had regard to all the factors in consideration.

As far as I can tell, the only person passionately against ANY decrease in KD size is Bishop, and so I will conclude that his view is a minority view, and must yield to that of the majority, in light of the factors presented.

[lichemaster]

As far as I can tell, the only person passionately against ANY decrease in KD size is Bishop.

And me.

[WolfDGrey]

You need to read more posts too, everyone in this thread is saying reducing kingdom size doesn't change the game tactically because it scales down (I contend it doesn't.

Uhhhmmmm... sorry but YOU are the one who needs to read more. We concluded that the tactics will change, but not significantly, because the different used tactics' number is nowhere near to 25^25 or even 20^20.
Also we concluded that, the effect of the ops and spells do not scale down, though it is easy to be tweaked in next ages, still the size reduction would not have significant effect on chaining, as 25 attack chains are not usual.

Considering the plain and dry fact that only 32 kingdoms maintain maximum players (and I have doubts on that too, as long time sitting is usual these days), the looking glass should be focused on the realistical aproach that it is harder and harder to maintain max.

Until we had more kingdoms, the many, who had less players than 25, could live easily beside the full ones, but now the burden is huge. There were never too many kingdoms with 25 players, I remember from NOX days that map (don't remember the guy's name) with player numbers: usually 25-60 kingdoms.

But the fact is, that, the ratio was much lower, from 2000 kingdoms, 50 full means only 1/40, while now the number is 1/10. That is a huge difference.

Anyway, the biggest thing that doesn't scale down and is today's utopia's biggest problem is: targets.

[Bishop]

i'm not sure how you can think that causing some players to quit for what will be a temporary fix is "minor".

[WolfDGrey]

i'm not sure how you can think that causing some players to quit for what will be a temporary fix is "minor".

Considering that at the moment there are no constantly full kingdoms around, we can't talk about "causing some players to quit" as the current grinding is "causing some players to quit" aswell.

So our inactivity in changing anything causes losses, the activity causes losses too. I see no argument here. People quit anyway. It is a given fact. You can do something so more people enjoy the game for longer time, until the devs finally decide to advertise, or you can just sit and wait to die. Why the status quo is so important for you?

I would choose to act. What you choose, Bishop?

[Bishop]

i dont think trying to improve the game is bad wolf - i'm always moaning because i feel people sit back and wait for someone else to do things. I understand the reasons for this suggestion, i just do not consider it a viable longterm improvement - i'm pretty confident that after a couple of ages we'll be back to square one - top kds will be full at 20 or whatever, and ghettos will have 75% of that number.
I am also aware that Palem, and i assume the rest of you, accept that the best thing for us is to get more players in so i am extremely wary of any idea that might potentially remove players from the game. I accept the validity of your argument that the current situation could be causing more players to leave than a reduction in kdsizes though.

[Luc]

Ok, so for the nay sayers. The arguments I've seen from you are:
1. Players will quit.
2. There will be less strats to choose from (I assume that's what you mean, because if you think just different is bad, you're not worth listening to).
3. Alliances will be more important.

Our replies:
1. More players will quit due to a lack of excitement, and it's less likely that people will join or come back when there are so few kd's and so hard to find enough players to become competitive. Please respond to this rather than just repeat that players will quit, because we've understood that already.
2. Please give examples of strats that will no longer work when kd's have 15 players, and convince me that no new ones will be available instead. And don't just point back to pint's posts. If you want to bring down a big prov, yes it will be harder. So because of that you're not gonna use ns at all? Also explain why 25 is so important. If strats are dependent on having lots of players, why don't we raise the number to get a more diverse game?
3. I'm gonna ignore the straw man here and ask what's gonna change with 15 players per kd and why it's bad. Does an increase in alliances mean lots of people will quit? Or will they welcome some excitement? Please elaborate.

[Bishop]

you missed

4: this is a very temporary fix

2) - strats change, this isnt a big deal
3) - meh, their importance or lack thereof will be unaffected.

[Luc]

Temporary fix isn't better than no fix? Is it better to just sit on our asses and wait for death than to at least temporarily add some excitement and in the worst case go out with a bang? There are also long term effects that you ignore by saying that (easier to get ppl to join or come back).

[VT2]

It's not a temporary fix.

Currently, you know what every single kingdom on your tier is capable of, beceause they haven't changed in a very, very long time.
With smaller kingdoms, we directly gain more kingdoms. More kingdoms equal more targets, more targets mean we have more competition. More competition is fun. Since you only need to look out for X players, as opposed to Y, it becomes easier to compete with the rest of the game, and monarchs will have to do a whole lot less recruiting, managing, and plotting.

There's nothing temporary about that.

Once we have more players in the game, you can decrease or increase kingdom sizes again.
If you want the game to survive until that happens, you need to affect this change.

It's that simple.

[comport9]

you missed

4: this is a very temporary fix

.

You're giving the same argument again with a different variation. While at the same time not explaining your reasoning.

Also, arguments about strats not being viable without 25 players is rather moot as most KD's don't have 25 players to begin with. (Most are under 20 players...)

Also, it was mentioned that you can reduce KD sizes only so far without losing what Utopia is all about.

And, again, you haven't described why or how alliances will be more powerful, or why this will make the game less fun if it does happen. (Seems to me, the fewer KD's there are increases alliance power as it requires fewer KD's to aquire a larger portion of the community into your alliance)

[WolfDGrey]

i assume the rest of you, accept that the best thing for us is to get more players in.

Yes that would be the best course of action. Unfortunately NOW it's not much the players can do here, except people to people advertising.

If at least the devs would put up some ads at the usual MMO list sites we could go and vote for Utopia...

Some popular voting sites, at many of them 1000 votes daily would bring Utopia to top positions!!! Some games are on all of those sites!
If the voting would give 10 free acres/site, or maybe hourly income... many people would go to all of them daily.

And if you would vote on ALL the sites, you would have a plus 10% more income for 24 hours. Yes, people would love that and would vote pretty often.

Also, it could be added that if the whole kingdom votes all sites, every day, for a whole month, they get 3 more invites or 5 days free sitting credits, used by anybody in the kingdom with the monarch's approval. Or other ideas...

Some sites, and some prices I could find, without signing up anywhere:

www.onrpg.com
http://mpogtop.com
www.toppbbgs.com
www.mmorpg100.com - $6.00 a month
http://top-game-sites.com - flat fee of 5$ per month
http://top50.onrpg.com/
http://www.mpogr.com - The minimum buy is $50 USD.
http://www.gamesites200.com/mpog/ - $15.00 per 31 days:

I mean under 200 USD advertising / month can bring Utopia into the tops. If we can get people to vote, of course. But we can make them vote if we offer them something tangible in exchange.

Also, S&B have NO CLUE how much the community could help them. I have no idea why or how they didn't realised that.
I mean companies with 6-7 milion users can organise user artwork contests for everything from a sword to site layout, but Utopia devs do it all by themselves? That's a lol.
I am sure the users who in the last 10 years made banners for their kingdoms could easily make the ads for those sites above. And I am sure they would not charge S&B for that. They would be glad that they can help.

Gah, I am again starting to be disgusted by the general numbness, so, will stop writing now... :(