Lower kd sizes

[Luc]

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

no one said pick one. you can do both

[VT2]

In Bishopland, which is very close to OMACland, you can only do one thing, and it always ends in failure.

[comport9]

Bishop, Coke, and whomever else; this isn't about, and has never been about, correcting the "underlying problems" with people leaving. This is and always has been about reducing the number that do leave, increasing competition for those that are playing, and thus increasing the fun of the game as it stands now.

Of course, over the long term, if nothing is done to encourage new players, this, and any other suggestion, will by definition be "temporary" solutions. But that in no way diminishes their... "usability" (Sorry, couldn't remember the damn word I want ATM...)

So again I ask you, what is your real opposition to this suggestion?

Lower KD size -> Increased competition -> Increased fun -> slower player loss.

That sums up the logic; how is this bad?

[Coke]

Lower KD sizes -> people who were happy in their KDs get kicked out -> a good portion of those people leave -> large instantaneous player(core) loss in order to achieve slower player loss later on.

You can argue that according the the numbers the numbers of players affected is small, but those people that are affected are also most likely the ones who are playing because of their KD and part of the core that keeps utopia running. Not every player is equally important to the survival of Utopia, most come and go, the ones who are key to Utopia are the ones who have stayed on even though the game is outdated and OMAC's failure. You think kicking those people out of their KDs would keep them in the game?

@Wolf
First of all, I never responded to your post and you directly responded to mine, while ignoring all but the first paragraph. But yes I did read it and I agree that those sites you listed are a good idea. However I didn't respond because it was off topic, this thread is about reducing KD sizes and its benefits not advertising Utopia.

[Smokapotamia]

Why is Bishop so ardently opposed to a good idea? Everytime I read a new suggestion or a complaint all he does is bash it. C'mon mate...open your mind.

And why do all the whiny top players cry about losing a few players? Wouldn't you get another kd or two out of it? Especially ABSies having another 4 or 5 kds to gang bang with. Cannot fathom why this is so very disturbing to the powers that be. Or would it be even more difficult to deal with the up and coming kds?

[VT2]

[Wild and baseless accusation removed]

Losing players isn't the problem. They don't have 25 players, and haven't had 25 players for half a decade.
Losing slots is a problem.

We have the numbers already, Coke.
There's almost zero people who are affected by this.
Or are you going to argue that the numbers are wrong, and just lies?

[Bishop]

because i think its a bad idea obviously.

"Or would it be even more difficult to deal with the up and coming kds? "
^^ not very likely. You dont drop your best players but your worst.

[Thundergore]

Plenty of feedback - positive and negative - has been supplied here. The end decision lies with the developers (who we'll forward this thread to) now.

If anyone - I'm looking at you VT2 - tries to tie a poster's opinion on this change to in-game cheating, or attempts to stir up ill feeling, or tries to ignite flames again their posts will be deleted and the whole thread will be closed.

It's about time this community as a whole learned to conduct mature discussion about their passion (the game) without unnecessary nonsense*

Everyone is free to express their opinion without fear of baseless accusations.


*Granted some of you are already the epitome of mature community members. We want everyone to be of this mould.

[Luc]

Lower KD sizes -> people who were happy in their KDs get kicked out -> a good portion of those people leave -> large instantaneous player(core) loss in order to achieve slower player loss later on.

You can argue that according the the numbers the numbers of players affected is small, but those people that are affected are also most likely the ones who are playing because of their KD and part of the core that keeps utopia running. Not every player is equally important to the survival of Utopia, most come and go, the ones who are key to Utopia are the ones who have stayed on even though the game is outdated and OMAC's failure. You think kicking those people out of their KDs would keep them in the game?

1. There really isn't alot of people we're talking about in the first place.
2. Most, if not all, kd's are having troubles keeping their kd's full, even the top ones. Most, if not all, have to settle for players they would not be keeping if they could find better ones. Sure, they're friends, but the really competitive kd's will kick low performers if they can. If going from 25 to 20, we'd likely see most, if not all, kd's only lose people they wouldn't cry about losing anyway. I don't really consider those players the core of anything, even though I of course would like them to remain in the game also.

No one has any answers of course, but there's no doubt in my mind that the positive effects from this change would greatly outweigh the loss of the few individuals that would quit over it. If the devs are willing to commit themselves to this change and helping form new kd's (as well as support Wolf's ideas about advertising), this game could actually become fun again, at least for a while, while keeping the losses to a minimal.

[Aos]

I don't see how this is a good idea (i play in a kd with 25 players , and it will be hard to kick anyone - and most of us , if not all don't want to build a new kd) we are friends some been in the kd for years and some are new , but we still respect everyone in the kd , and we hav'nt lost any players so far this age and from the looks of it we won't.

I agree that 20 prov kd's can be a good idea. but i don't see why we should punish kd's that got 25 active players.
This feel more like a jealous witchhunt from most of you then a serius discussion - only way to implement this in a good way is to let the kd's go down to 20 players by them self, and that
will just lead to cheating and more whine.

[comport9]

I don't understand you Coke, your own post said this would result in fewer players leaving the game... so what's the problem? "How" they leave?

Aon, I respect your position, and it is the one downside that we all agree on. Unfortunately, what we can't seem to agree on is how great a disturbance this will cause, and if the benefits outweigh the positives. You can go back and look at the numbers, fewer than 5% of players would be negatively affected by this change. While the benefit is creating a Utopia with a vastly greater selection of even competition.

The fact is, no one here knows how many players (if any!) would leave Utopia altogether with this change. No doubt people will post here, "If this happens, I'll never play again!". But you know what? We here that all the time, every age, with just about every major change that comes along. You know what happens? They continue to stay. It's the silent players who leave the game far more often.

Comes down to this: 5% of players are moved to new KD's. We get some 280+ KD's of the same max size. This is up from 63 KD's of the same size at 17 players each.

Those are the facts. How much benefit, or problem, you assign to each fact is obviously subjective. I for one, see the benefits here outweighing the negatives.

And just for the record (again) as Bishop will do doubt point out, this will not necessarily stop players from leaving the game. This isn't the point. The point is the staunch the flow away from the game, while at the same time making the game more enjoyable for the majority of those still playing.

[Coke]

It's who leaves that's my argument.

Like Aos said, by lowering to 20 provs it would punish the KDs that still have 25 active provs. Those KDs that can manage 25 active provs are most likely the super established KDs, thus their members are more likely to be the ones who have played for many ages and have supported the game through credits and such.

Now the KDs that benefit are the ghetto's and the mid tier KDs, who's members are less likely to have played or supported the game as much.

By punishing the established KDs their members are the ones who are more likely to leave due to this change, but after the change is implemented I do believe it would slow the reduction of the players still playing at that time (post exodus). So the people who leave initially are the ones who are most likely more experience and support, and benefits those who are more likely to be less experience and less likely to have supported the game.

As I had said before, not every player is equally important to the game's survival. So yes it does matter who stays and who leaves.

[comport9]

Ahh, ok. I now understand where you're coming from.

But your argument is based on conjecture that those forced to leave their KD's will leave the game. I prefer to stick with facts...

However, the flip side of your logic could be argued the opposite way; that those who've put the most into the game will be least likely to leave.

Regardless, while I feel bad for those who'd have to leave their KD, I still think the sacrifice, and the risk associated with that sacrifice, is worth it.

[lichemaster]

But your argument is based on conjecture that those forced to leave their KD's will leave the game. I prefer to stick with facts...

Is this sarcasm?? The argument for kingdom size reduction is completely based on conjecture. A conjecture that doesn't even make any sense if you people read your own words.

Pro-reduction people say the number of affected players (players in >20 kingdoms) will be very small and then say a ton of new kingdoms will appear - That does not make sense. If the number of affected players will be small, the number of new kingdoms will be necessarily even smaller (as many won't even go into new kingdoms).

So at best the effect of this change will be negligible/None for the majority and very hazardous for a minority.

How is this worth it??????

[TheRock]

The biggest barrier to running kingdoms is number of leaders, not number of players. Reducing the number of players decreases the player:leader ratio, but won't make new leaders appear. Go as small as you want, kingdoms will always need multiple leaders. Those leaders can support 10 players or 20 players, but decreasing size will just make leaders kick out good players.

If you want to do something productive, INCREASE kd sizes. Let competent leaders handle 30 players instead of 25 and give ghetto players MORE opportunities, not less, to move up in the world.