Lower kd sizes

[VT2]

Their list of failures is extremely long, and it doesn't help that there's two years of lies, neglect, corruption, and other assorted bad stuff behind the hosting company - which may or may not still be in charge of running the operation.

You're not likely to get the community to help until we see some tangible results, or the owners pay us for our troubles.

That's neither here, nor there.

This is about needing to lower kingdom sizes.

[Bishop]

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)

I have already explained it several times :s It is temporary because for an age it will be more kds in range etc - then players leave kds due to decline in numbers and lack of happiness in ghettos and we will be back to the same ratios as we have now and the same lack of targets. It doesnt solve a problem (though the problem isnt really one that we, as players, can solve by ourselves) but merely patches it. If teh devs spend any time on uto i'd rather they spent it promoting the game than making fixes that will need continual addressing and provide no real benefit. Wolf made a good point about this.

you misunderstood me about strat and alliances though - i dont see that they are an issue at all and they are not something i am concerned about.

Their list of failures is extremely long, and it doesn't help that there's two years of lies, neglect, corruption, and other assorted bad stuff behind the hosting company - which may or may not still be in charge of running the operation.

You're not likely to get the community to help until we see some tangible results, or the owners pay us for our troubles.

That's neither here, nor there.

This is about needing to lower kingdom sizes.

All you do is whine and demand money for your time. Grow up.

[VT2]

I did.
That's why I want compensation if I'm ever to lend your masters a hand.

It's still a not temporary fix, judge.

[Yadda9To5]

How is having 25% more kingdoms (assuming filled kingdoms, 100 players fill 5 kds instead of 4) temporary? Of course, effort (by the devs) must be taken to keep kingdoms as filled as possible, but the same goes for the situation as it is now. Even assuming that player count will drop, having 20 prov kingdoms still yields more kingdoms than having 25 prov ones.

What seems to be happening now is deleted players start afresh and land in a (a few) random kingdoms. Good. Only kingdoms with extreme low player count receive new randoms. Good. Now there are two problems: Firstly, half of the randoms are inactives/scripts, this won't be addressed by reducing prov count. Secondly, there are way too many kingdoms for the player count, so kingdoms with about 18 provs don't get randoms. This is addressed by lowering province count. (another solution would be lowering the number of kingdoms, but as is often stated in this topic, what's needed to increase competition and deter stagnation is more kingdoms, not less)

I completely fail to see what makes lowering prov count a temporary solution to the problems of decreased competition, stagnation and too few kingdoms in range to war. Yes it doesn't solve the lowered number of players, but it has never been proposed as a solution to that.

[WolfDGrey]

It doesnt solve a problem (though the problem isnt really one that we, as players, can solve by ourselves) but merely patches it. If teh devs spend any time on uto i'd rather they spent it promoting the game than making fixes that will need continual addressing and provide no real benefit. Wolf made a good point about this.

I would like both a reduction to at least to 20 players, AND advertising. Please don't misunderstand me, I didn't changed sides, just concretely expanded my desires :P

This idea solves part of the problem permanently. It solves the part where you are required to recruit and manage 25 players. It solves it because you will have to manage less players.
Also permanently reduces the huge discrepancy between the max number and the feasable number of players at the moment, (15/18-25).

What the idea does not solve is the lack of fresh blood and the semi-faulty mechanism of filling up kingdoms.

That is why I added the advertising part.

[comport9]

It is temporary because for an age it will be more kds in range etc - then players leave kds due to decline in numbers and lack of happiness in ghettos and we will be back to the same ratios as we have now and the same lack of targets. It doesnt solve a problem.

I'm sorry, but I can't accept your reasoning. The way I read your argument is Utopia is losing players due to unhappiness playing in ghetto's.

Utopia has ALWAYS had "ghetto" KD's. This never caused an exodus of players. Rather, players defected from said KD's until they found one that better suited them. For years I'd been in KD's that many would call a ghetto. I didn't quit the game, I stayed with the KD to try and make it better. I'd quit when it was apparent that we'd never be able to compete with many KD's simply because we could never maintain a full KD. (Or get there actually). I know I'm not alone in this. Furthermore, many players prefer to play in the "ghetto's" as they are often far more loose with rules and regulations. They can simply play the game how they like and enjoy the camaraderie with the rest of their KD.

So I categorically reject your argument that Utopia is losing players due to ghetto's.

However, one of the benefits of lowering KD sizes is to spread out the talent of top KD's to the bottom KD's. This would in theory reduce the effect you're describing as these veterans would teach their new KD mates how to compete and hopefully at the same time show them how competing can still be fun.

My argument is that Utopia is losing players due to lack of competition. Lowering KD's will increase competition. This really can't be argued against as a major aspect of fair competition is equal KD sizes, which I've shown would be significantly increased by lowering KD sizes to 20 players.

There will still be SKD's and Ghetto's. Regardless of the KD size. But the fact that there will be doesn't at all diminish the fact that there will be greater competition overall.

Now, you could reject my argument if you also reject my assertion that players or leaving Utopia principally due to lack of competition. If so, what do you believe is the primary reason people are leaving the game, and would lowering KD sizes accentuate that problem? (If lowering KD sizes doesn't make matters worse based on your reasoning of why people are leaving the game, then what is your opposition to lower KD sizes?)

[Wallfly]

Reduce Kingdom Size by attrition by not allowing new Provinces into Kingdoms larger than 13.


Intra-Kingdom combat

1. -25% causalities for attacker.

2. 50% gains only - 50% wasted destroyed from Gains both Land and Resources

[Thunder TA]

Reduce Kingdom Size by attrition by not allowing new Provinces into Kingdoms larger than 13.


Intra-Kingdom combat

1. -25% causalities for attacker.

2. 50% gains only - 50% wasted destroyed from Gains both Land and Resources

Only if you will post your location and be the first victim

[Pikamina]

Please lower them.

[Coke]

However, one of the benefits of lowering KD sizes is to spread out the talent of top KD's to the bottom KD's. This would in theory reduce the effect you're describing as these veterans would teach their new KD mates how to compete and hopefully at the same time show them how competing can still be fun.

You assume the people from the top would be willing to go to a lesser Kingdom, which under ideal conditions would happen, but currently it probably would not. I can say for one, that I have no intentions of ever playing in a ghetto again, unless my old KD mates came back which is unlikely.

My argument is that Utopia is losing players due to lack of competition. Lowering KD's will increase competition. This really can't be argued against as a major aspect of fair competition is equal KD sizes, which I've shown would be significantly increased by lowering KD sizes to 20 players.

There will still be SKD's and Ghetto's. Regardless of the KD size. But the fact that there will be doesn't at all diminish the fact that there will be greater competition overall.

This is the jist of the problem and hence why Bishop argues that this fix will be temporary. With any feeding Hierarchy it is shaped like a pyramid in order to sustain itself, with the bottom (ghetto's) being in the largest quantity and the top (SKD) being the least. The mid KDs will feed on the ghetto's and everyone will get fed on by the Top. Now, no one likes to get fed on age after age after age, hence people in the ghetto's tend to be the first to either quit or find a better KD. Which means the numbers of ghetto's decrease IF THERE IS NO NEW PLAYER INFLOW. When ghetto's decrease, then mid-tier KDs have no one to feed on and the top tend to feed on more mid-tier KDs, causing mid tier KDs to transform into Ghetto's, and so on and so on. Thus reducing the KD size doesn't solve the underlying problem, hence a temporary fix.

Now, you could reject my argument if you also reject my assertion that players or leaving Utopia principally due to lack of competition. If so, what do you believe is the primary reason people are leaving the game, and would lowering KD sizes accentuate that problem? (If lowering KD sizes doesn't make matters worse based on your reasoning of why people are leaving the game, then what is your opposition to lower KD sizes?)

Your right players are leaving, but players left utopia even during its glory days. But the difference is that more players joined, hence the ghettos were always full. By making this change you hope to increase competition and because of that people will not leave. People will always leave even with the most ideal conditions, this would make them leave slower, but because we have almost no new player base growth this doesn't solve the underlying problem. Which is we need more players.

[WolfDGrey]

You assume the people from the top... bla bla bla bla

Look at the numbers Comport posted. You CAN realize that the realistic approach this days is to have up to 20 players in the kingdom. All other arguments are futile and just blurb to fill space. You CAN see the numbers and you COULD see that there is no argument good enough to stop reducing kingdom size. There are countless arguments and facts in this thread to open your eyes. There are numbers. There are ratios. Do you find that the shrink from 1/40 to 1/10 (full to not full KD's) while full kingdoms numbers didn't changed much, is not enough?

Even Bishop agreed that it is VERY POSSIBLE that less players would quit due to changing kingdom size, than now, due to recruitment and PR nightmare.

We came to a point when must balance things. Hopefully, may be a temporary thing, but it needs to be done IMO.

You guys cry that nobody is there to teach people anymore... No wonder. Now, monarchs and leaders burn out fast, with recruiting and managing 25 players from the few we have. Monarchs and leaders, aka the bunch who could carry a kingdom further, who have the knowledge and the skill. The trouble with keeping a kingdom together is huge at the moment.

Yes, one of the goals is to ease the leaders job. I am a certain level in Utopia where I can see their struggle, Utopia wide. Yes, I think we can to some sacrifice on players who don't fit perfectly into some kingdoms. But putting in balance, if the leaders quit and the whole kingdom will scatter, as so many kingdoms until now, many more will quit than if we transfer some people to other kingdom where they fit better.

Another other goal is to have more kingdoms with closer numbers of players, wich means more competition in warring and means lenghtening the charts, so top is further from bottom, in numbers. Because after all numbers matter in this game. More similar numbered kingdoms mean less burden, the whoring bottomfeeding hits trough and age, spread out on more than a few kingdoms.
Both playing styles benefit from the reduction.

Finally, the people who would quit at 20 players sized kingdoms, would quit anyway... there are people who do it every age. Go ask your monarch and he'll tell you the exact numbers. There are absolutely zero kingdoms who do not loose players every age.

So the argument about top players willing or not to go to lesser kingdom is irelevant. We are talking about people who would quit or would change kingdoms anyway. And they are plenty every age anyway!

[Coke]

Wolf, did you even read my post?

I'm quite certain I said that this would most likely lead to people leaving slower. But slower is still much more compared to nearly zero player increase. Hence it's a temporary fix and a few ages down the road people would want 15 player KDs and so on. Thus it doesn't fix the underlying problem.

[Luc]

Wolf, did you even read my post?

I'm quite certain I said that this would most likely lead to people leaving slower. But slower is still much more compared to nearly zero player increase. Hence it's a temporary fix and a few ages down the road people would want 15 player KDs and so on. Thus it doesn't fix the underlying problem.

Ok, so we have 2 choices:
1. Lower kd sizes, make people leave slower and have more fun while giving the devs a few ages more to sort things out and get more players into the game.
2. Stay where we are now, with more people leaving, and with less chance of bringing new or old players into the game since the kd's are too big.

This "it's only a temporary fix" is a BS argument unless you can develop it further and show how it'll result in negative effects later on. I mean, why would you choose bad when you can have better, even if better isn't perfect?

Smaller kd's doesn't have to solve everything, or even anything, it just has to be better than what we have now.

[Bishop]

i prefer wolfs idea of voting on sites to get Uto some exposure myself.

[WolfDGrey]

Wolf, did you even read my post?

I'm quite certain I said that this would most likely lead to people leaving slower. But slower is still much more compared to nearly zero player increase. Hence it's a temporary fix and a few ages down the road people would want 15 player KDs and so on. Thus it doesn't fix the underlying problem.

I can ask same. Did you even read my posts?

Of course it doesn't fix the underlying problem, I know that and everybody supporting the idea knows that!

That is why I have a pretty long post on "some help" on voting sites, which are pretty cheap. I mean yes, as you see on the sites, the "IN" clicks are more than the "OUT" clicks ("IN" means somebody went to the site, "OUT" means somebody clicked that link from the site), yet still on one site I randomly picked (the one with 6 usd/month), the top 10 games had a grand total of 18397 clicks, the lowest being 422 "OUT" clicks. Which means if S&B can get a monthly 6 USD for advertising, PLUS enough votes to be in top 10, more than 400 people will check out the game DAILY.

I repeat: a potential of 400 new people checking out Utopia DAILY!

From ONE SITE AND 6 USD MONTHLY!

If you check the site, you will see that from the top 50 games, only one has less than 100 "OUT" clicks. And one hundred is WAY MORE than how many people are checking out Utopia at this moment!!!

Give Utopians enough benefits, as I suggested and EVERYBODY will vote, just as we all took the free 5 acres daily land.

And IMHO, even if we get new people, we can lower kingdom sizes without any problem. There is absolutely no real, irefutable argument to hold it up to 25.