Lower kd sizes

[Aos]

i don't see any room for the player that will be forced to leave , the 5 people we would have to kick won't go to any random getto if they keep playing.
and every kd that puts time in to the game will have 20 players , so the 5 that is forced to leave are force to play in getto's sence they can't join up with 15 other people
that got force kicked and build a kd.

So all this is doing is forcing 5%? to quit the game more or less, sence most of the kd's with 20+ players got active players that want to play with other active players.

This is like the "dice takes pool" suggestion , it will just get the top kd's in range to feed on gettos and mid tier kd's.

If you want someone new to war , just grow some at the start of the age , and you will have 10 new kd's to war.

[WolfDGrey]

i play in a kd with 25 players , and it will be hard to kick anyone.

I don't want to say this is a plain lie, so I will say it is incorrect. Your monarch kicks players every age and I am willing to bet your life on that, he would find one or two he wanted to depart for a long time, but he couldn't because he had hard time finding new players.

Also it really would be a plain lie to tell me that your kingdom has same 25 players at age start, as at age end, and you consume zero invites!

It is simple to see that, every 25 player kingdom could be at 20 players in the course of an age without those players who fit into the kingdom and who would stay in the kingdom would be kicked.
You should remember the outcry on the forums that 5 invites are not enough? How comes that people whine that they have too few invites yet they still cry that they can't lower kingdom size? That is hilarious and also very, very stupid.

Those players who would be kicked anyway, would be kicked anyway at first oportunity, so you can't bring them as argument.

i don't see any room for the player that will be forced to leave , the 5 people we would have to kick won't go to any random getto if they keep playing.

This is another fake argument, because in fact your kingdom kicks people every age, also people leave by themselves due to RL issues every age.

So your pseudo-arguments don't stay, you just want to stir the ****.

[WolfDGrey]

and then say a ton of new kingdoms will appear - That does not make sense.

What you say of course has no sense. The pro-reduction people, like me, know that there will not be many completely new kingdoms. But you twist our words.

We say there will be more close numbered kingdoms, and the difference won't be so high (aka 15vs25) so war competition will rise, bottomfeed will lower. Which is completely different.

[lichemaster]

The pro-reduction people, like me, know that there will not be many completely new kingdoms. But you twist our words.

I don't want to say this is a plain lie, so I will say it is incorrect.

[Luc]

lichemaster, who used "there will be more new kd's" as the only reason for this change? Please do show me. Because from what I can see, most people are talking about the importance of more competition, not only more NEW kd's. Unless every single player in the >20 kd's leave, and no players return at all, there will be more kd's in the game, and as a result there will be more targets on a kd level, and there will be more full kd's, at least for a while. More targets and more competition makes the game more fun and provides a better environment to get new players into.

The nay sayers on the other hand don't have much on their side. The only one I can see is that you think some people will quit. It's already been shown that we're not talking about a lot of people, and whether they will all leave or not, nobody knows. So you basically have a single argument, based on conjecture, on your side. That there will be more full kd's for a while, and as a result more competition, is not conjecture. That it will be easier to get new players into the game when you don't need as many to become competitive is also logical. In combination with advertisement, and an improved system for merging kd's and creating new kd's, this change actually gives the game a higher chance of recovery than if we stayed with 25 player kd's.

For the record, I play in a 25 player kd myself. I'd have no problem being the one getting booted if we were to implement this change. I would argue that we should go lower than 20 player kd's though, because if you stay there, you'd require people from too many kd's to come together to create something new. If we go to 15 or something instead, you could almost get 2 kd's if you were 25 before. That'd be pretty nice for the strong kd's, because they would become 2 competitive sister kd's instead, and that might keep all their players in the game. Having 15 players also puts a little less strain on leadership, which is good. Lack of leadership is a problem today, and I believe that's mostly because of people getting burned out (and having too many ****ty players is something that causes that).

[WolfDGrey]

liche' trolling or just joking around?

[WolfDGrey]

The nay sayers on the other hand don't have much on their side. The only one I can see is that you think some people will quit. It's already been shown that we're not talking about a lot of people, and whether they will all leave or not, nobody knows. So you basically have a single argument, based on conjecture, on your side. We have more.

Not even the leaving argument as PEOPLE ARE LEAVING AT THIS VERY GOD DAMN MOMENT. THOSE WHO SAY THAT, FROM A 25 PLAYER KINGDOM THEY CAN'T KICK ANYBODY, ARE FKIN LIERS, BECAUSE THEY KICK PEOPLE EVERY AGE.

People cry that they don't have enough invites, then after a month some come claiming that they have a constant 25 players. Since when? Yeah, sure, I bet since beta with mehul! C'mon, some people just need to stfu with the trolling ****.

Luc, they have ZERO arguments and they just snowballing the same stupid, pseudo-arguments.

[Aos]

So people that don't have the same problem as you WolfDGrey is a lier now? , you start to sound like VT2...

[comport9]

Lichmaster, the numbers aren't for the creation of NEW KD's. Rather, I simply too the number of players that would be forced to leave their KD, and added those players to 19 played KD's, then 18, then 17... and so on until there were no players left. So, what I did didn't create any new KD's, but what it did do is vastly increase the number of KD's with equal number of players. That's all that we were referring to. Sorry for the misconception.

[Coke]

Lichmaster, the numbers aren't for the creation of NEW KD's. Rather, I simply too the number of players that would be forced to leave their KD, and added those players to 19 played KD's, then 18, then 17... and so on until there were no players left. So, what I did didn't create any new KD's, but what it did do is vastly increase the number of KD's with equal number of players. That's all that we were referring to. Sorry for the misconception.

TheRock also brings up a good point. The barrier to KDs isn't the number of players but the number of leaders. You think that the people getting booted out of KDs that can maintain 25 active players would be willing to join up with leadership in mid tier KDs? I think your logic is a bit flawed there, if there is good leadership, players will follow and join. If leadership sucks/inactive/lazy to find 25 people then no matter how low you reduce the KD size people will leave because the leadership sucks or isn't to the players standard. Therefore the numbers you presented are misleading, this isn't a number crunching change. Everything that everyone here has argued is all based on a different set of conjectures and situations that we each believe is most likely to happen.

@Luc, assuming 0 new KD creation (I believe very few KDs will be created through this), yes there would be more full KDs but how would that be any different from now where 20 prov KDs can war 22 or 18 prov KDs, they still war within their NW range, so if they have less prov's that means each prov should have a greater NW per prov and vice versa. So in the end it is all based on activity. If capped to 20, yes the playing field would be a bit more even, but by how much? So in essence you are arguing that this change will create more new KDs and your banking on the fact that monarchs that are currently incapable of finding 25 players will all of a sudden become much better monarchs with a full 20 prov KD.

In the end if you want more war targets, then get bigger or smaller, it will be more or less the same when its capped to 20 provs. The SKDs will still be out of range with 20 provs and the ghetto's will still be out of range with 20 prov KDs.

[flutterby]

[Wild and baseless accusation removed]

Thundergore... how can you say that anything he said was a 'wild and baseless accusation', when 95% of what is posted in the forums are just that. I don't see you going around and editing everyone else's posts because ... My posts, Bishops posts, MA's posts... Anri's posts.... WolfyD's posts, AoS' posts and everyone elses are wild and baseless posts... especially when they're about jolt's incompetence....

Just my 2 cents, since I'm too lazy to figure out with inflation.

[Bishop]

take it to pm flutterby.

[TheRock]

It isn't hard to find 25 players, you just need to look hard enough, there are tons of ghetto superstars out there. There are also 12-13 player ghettos. MERGE THOSE GHETTOS.

The barriers faced by kingdoms are as follows:
1. Limited and declining number of leaders who can run kingdoms
2. Decreasing playerbase has lowered the total amount of players
3. Limitations around activity as less players are committed to the game

All of these barriers suggest that we need to INCREASE, not DECREASE, kingdom sizes. Instead of forcing lots and lots of smaller groups, let's force people to get together and make bigger ones. Leading a kingdom of 30 or even 40 provinces is not a significant jump, while forcing people to go from leading 0 to 20 (essentially, forming a new kingdom) is a massive leap.

The decreasing playerbase only suggests that we group our players together more, not less. As it stands, kingdoms of 12-15 players have to stay where they are, since they are too big to really merge and too small to fight anyone remotely decent.

Kingdoms of 20-25 players need only more players (which there are TONS floating around in ghettos nowadays, check the recruitment boards) and to rethink their standards. Spend more time educating players and learn to use the sitting feature and you really shouldn't have any problems. Before people say OMG ROCK YOU NOOB WE DO IT'S IMPOSSIBLE, I'll tell you that I had a slot to fill in the last few months and, rather than getting an experienced hire, took in a player straight off the forums. Nice guy, Malay, first name I saw, we talked for 10 minutes, I had two kdmates talk to him, then we took him in. He knew the basics of the game, we taught him all of the important things - build strats, how to random, keeping intel updated, dealing with texts at 3 am. He's been nothing short of fantastic. Took me 5 minutes to find this guy. There are literally dozens of players like him, he was nothing special.

Limiting kd sizes will only decrease the number of players. Players who get booted will just leave or play in ghettos, then leave. Unless you find some way to magically create new leaders from thin air, you won't get new kingdoms out of this. Instead, expand kingdom sizes. Let leaders lead even more people and take on even more players. Players in kingdoms with strong, active leadership stay around longer and play better, which only helps grow the game. That's even before we get into all the new strategy options it opens (did someone say 20 Avian, 10 Halfling kingdom? 30 Orcs??? Yes please.)

In short - KD@20 bad, KD@30 good, go to 30 provs per kd.

[Luc]

TheRock also brings up a good point. The barrier to KDs isn't the number of players but the number of leaders. You think that the people getting booted out of KDs that can maintain 25 active players would be willing to join up with leadership in mid tier KDs? I think your logic is a bit flawed there, if there is good leadership, players will follow and join. If leadership sucks/inactive/lazy to find 25 people then no matter how low you reduce the KD size people will leave because the leadership sucks or isn't to the players standard. Therefore the numbers you presented are misleading, this isn't a number crunching change. Everything that everyone here has argued is all based on a different set of conjectures and situations that we each believe is most likely to happen.

And leaders leave because they burn out trying to run a 25 player kd when there's such a small player base.

@Luc, assuming 0 new KD creation (I believe very few KDs will be created through this), yes there would be more full KDs but how would that be any different from now where 20 prov KDs can war 22 or 18 prov KDs, they still war within their NW range, so if they have less prov's that means each prov should have a greater NW per prov and vice versa. So in the end it is all based on activity. If capped to 20, yes the playing field would be a bit more even, but by how much? So in essence you are arguing that this change will create more new KDs and your banking on the fact that monarchs that are currently incapable of finding 25 players will all of a sudden become much better monarchs with a full 20 prov KD.

The difference is that the 20 player kd's can now hit more than those 18-22 kd's they were limited to before. Having less players with more nw is usually a disadvantage, and activity would matter even more in those situations, since having 25 active attackers is better than having 20.

I never argued for 20 as the ultimate number. As I already explained, I'd rather see even smaller kd's than that. Split kd's almost in half and you would be way more likely to see new kd's be created.

Yes, I'm banking on people being able to compete better with smaller kd's. Everybody isn't connected enough to snatch up good players. That doesn't mean they don't know how to run a decent kd. There are plenty of kd's out there with a good solid 10-15 players that will be much closer to competing if kd size is lowered.

In the end if you want more war targets, then get bigger or smaller, it will be more or less the same when its capped to 20 provs. The SKDs will still be out of range with 20 provs and the ghetto's will still be out of range with 20 prov KDs.

The SKDs will have to fight a lot more to get out of range in the first place. If I want more targets I should get bigger or smaller? Really? I never thought it was all that simple, thank you!

@ TheRock:
I really hope you're kidding. Only 1 of your 3 points actually suggest that you should have larger kd's, and that's the one about leaders. However, it falls on that it's not at all so easy to lead a kd today, and will be even worse if you make kd's bigger. Such a change would only benefit the well connected kd's with famous brand names that can get players easily. With larger kd's, activity would create even bigger rifts between kd's, and there would be even less targets than today. Again, I really hope you were kidding, because that's one of the worst ideas I've ever seen.

[Aos]

The SKDs will have to fight a lot more to get out of range in the first place. If I want more targets I should get bigger or smaller? Really? I never thought it was all that simple, thank you!

and you think that is a good thing? , i bet your one of the players that want paradice to take acers from the pool to...