Lower kd sizes

[Coke]

Forced mergers historically do not go well. There's usually a powerstruggle as both monarchs don't want to give up their leadership (even though they can just be co-monarchs and work together, but hey, people are dumb), which eventually leads to a split kd and ultimately, you're left with either a civil war, or people just start leaving. Which brings you back down to a 16-18 player kds yet again.

I've been through mergers before when I was Monarch of one of the halves. I can tell you for sure that there was no power struggle and the other monarch was fairly useless the whole age. That what happens when Ghetto's merge, their a ghetto to begin with because they have little history or attachment to their leadership. Most in ghetto's have drifted around for ages hoping to end up in a winning KD. Its when their KD starts to lose wars or not attempt to war enough, that people begin to leave.

So how is forcing 2 kds to try to get along a better option then a kd reduction?
Oh that's right, because your kd wouldn't have to deal with it.

I'm not agreeing that forced mergers are good, but the option to merge with another KD of your own choice might have merit. You get to choose who you want to merge with, You get a full KD, You get STRONGER leadership because it was a mutual decision.

Which is excellent! No more kingdoms but instead all kingdoms get filled. Then atleast competition on an equal footing would be possible. No matter how you try to twist this proposed change, having x players distributed over 25 - y kingdoms gives you more kingdoms than having x players distributed over 25 kingdoms.

You would think that competition would be of equal footing, but I doubt it would happen. I have explained this in my earlier posts but I will explain it again:
Right now there are a bunch of KDs int he 16-22 prov range that war each other (for Mid-Tier). Assuming you war around equal KD NW, the KD with fewer provs will have greater NW/prov than the KD with more provs. But in the end you are still warring those group of people. Now lets assume a cap to 20, and those 16-22 prov KDs are all 20 provs. You would still be warring the same group of people. Why? because the ghetto's are still too ****ty to compete with a mid-tier, and the SKDs even at 20 provs will still be out of range before mid-tiers are ready to war. In the end your still warring the same group of people as you are now.

this is why I usually don't like people who play in the top kds. They think everything is always about them.

If I was so very desperate to win a crown, I'd get in touch with ABS. If I wanted to help improve the enjoyability of the game, I'd do what I'm doing right now.

Get your head out of your ass and stop thinking about yourself.

I don't like playing in my KD for winning crowns. I like the leadership structure that is present in my KD, which is why I stick around. And this is my argument. KDs disband NOT because there is a lack of players, its because the Lack of competent leaders. If your KD has a good leadership structure you tend to win more, by winning more you have more player retention and a easier time to find active players. Competition only rises out of KDs facing other KDs of equal leadership, not because the KD prov's are imbalanced. Hence as I said earlier in this post, you will still be fighting against the same group of players except all KDs will be of 20, if you lost to a KD before over and over, you will still lose even post change. Why? because their leaders are better than your leaders. People, especially new players will always want to move into a ever improving KD situation until they find a KD their comfortable with. Hence KDs with weaker leadership will find a hard time recruting people, its not the KD sizes' problems that created this current situation. Therefore with this change your really looking to punish KDs with better leadership. This is why I argue that voluntary mergers (not forced) might be a better solution, since if the 2 monarchs both agree before the merger how they will merge, it could potentially create a much stronger leadership core than either KD had before, and because the leadership is now stronger they will become much more competative.

[Palem]

I've been through mergers before when I was Monarch of one of the halves. I can tell you for sure that there was no power struggle and the other monarch was fairly useless the whole age. That what happens when Ghetto's merge, their a ghetto to begin with because they have little history or attachment to their leadership. Most in ghetto's have drifted around for ages hoping to end up in a winning KD. Its when their KD starts to lose wars or not attempt to war enough, that people begin to leave.

You're lucky then. I've been through a couple mergers and not one has ended well and to my knowledge, they don't typically end well. Both times we merged, it was with a kd that was established, but falling apart and still had a few pieces left, including leadership. Those are the kind of kds that would be merged with forced mergers.

I'm not agreeing that forced mergers are good, but the option to merge with another KD of your own choice might have merit. You get to choose who you want to merge with, You get a full KD, You get STRONGER leadership because it was a mutual decision.

My only problem with mergers are that it's more of a temporary measure that would decrease the number of kds. None of these are really desirable traits.

I don't like playing in my KD for winning crowns. I like the leadership structure that is present in my KD, which is why I stick around. And this is my argument. KDs disband NOT because there is a lack of players, its because the Lack of competent leaders. If your KD has a good leadership structure you tend to win more, by winning more you have more player retention and a easier time to find active players. Competition only rises out of KDs facing other KDs of equal leadership, not because the KD prov's are imbalanced. Hence as I said earlier in this post, you will still be fighting against the same group of players except all KDs will be of 20, if you lost to a KD before over and over, you will still lose even post change. Why? because their leaders are better than your leaders. People, especially new players will always want to move into a ever improving KD situation until they find a KD their comfortable with. Hence KDs with weaker leadership will find a hard time recruting people, its not the KD sizes' problems that created this current situation. Therefore with this change your really looking to punish KDs with better leadership. This is why I argue that voluntary mergers (not forced) might be a better solution, since if the 2 monarchs both agree before the merger how they will merge, it could potentially create a much stronger leadership core than either KD had before, and because the leadership is now stronger they will become much more competative.

I agree. The top are where they are because they have the absolute best in the game leading them. That's why I've never had a problem with the top. That's also why I don't see why this suggestion is getting so much opposition. The best will most likely still be the best. The worst will remain the worst. The suggestion lies with the possibility of new opportunity within the whole community. I'm sure quite a few of the players at the top that would be spectacular leaders if they had their own kds under them, but there's no way they'd be doing any leading while they're still under their management. It's not like I'm suggestion Jdorje quit abs and start up something new. But I know there are fabulous players who could do good things on their own and this would be a good opportunity to do so.

I'm not saying that the top aren't the ones that will be doing most of the sacrificing here. They will. Anyone who denies that would be an idiot. But the top will really be doing a lot of sacrificing when the game dies underneath them and they don't have a game to play anymore. But to think that this whole suggestion is intended to knock the top down is absolute bull**** from a paranoid little pissant that's far too worried about losing status in Utopia.

[Yadda9To5]

It might shock the top kingdoms, but the largest player base, the casual players, don't care about competing with the top kingdoms. If anything they want to be left alone and not be farmed (http://forums.joltonline.com/showthr...-This-Strategy). They just want to play the game in their own way, and fight with opponents that are their equals.

As I said again and again, the devs should take care that kingdoms stay filled. At the same time, having kd's filled with fewer players than the current 25 creates a more targets. There simply aren't enough players to fill 25 player kingdoms. The far majority already plays in < 20 player kingdoms. What's wrong with making 20 the norm, and fill those 20 instead of sticking to the 25 norm?! reducing size to 20 (5 per 100) creates 25% more kingdoms then there would be with 25 (4 per 100, 4 + 25% = 5).

For all i care it'll be optional to accept a 20 player limit, choosen by the monarch at end of age. The only drawback will be that a kingdom that doesn't accept the limit will not be able to attack into a kingdom that did accept. (And yes, I know this will feed the top kd's cry "you don't us to be able to compete", but then, top kd's can still choose to accept the 20 player limit ;))

[Coke]

My only problem with mergers are that it's more of a temporary measure that would decrease the number of kds. None of these are really desirable traits.

By trying to force lower KD sizes as a measure to increase KD numbers, you disperse the quality of leadership in those new KDs. Weak leadership = less competitive, which in the end would not increase competition in the game overall even if the gross number of KDs increase (which I also disagree with).

I agree. The top are where they are because they have the absolute best in the game leading them. That's why I've never had a problem with the top. That's also why I don't see why this suggestion is getting so much opposition. The best will most likely still be the best. The worst will remain the worst. The suggestion lies with the possibility of new opportunity within the whole community. I'm sure quite a few of the players at the top that would be spectacular leaders if they had their own kds under them, but there's no way they'd be doing any leading while they're still under their management. It's not like I'm suggestion Jdorje quit abs and start up something new. But I know there are fabulous players who could do good things on their own and this would be a good opportunity to do so.

Players in Top Kds, if they wanted to create a new KD would leave to do so, they don't leave because they have no desire to lead or ever leave their current KDs. By forcing them out, most would probably take a couple ages off the game and return when their KD has a slot open.

I'm not saying that the top aren't the ones that will be doing most of the sacrificing here. They will. Anyone who denies that would be an idiot. But the top will really be doing a lot of sacrificing when the game dies underneath them and they don't have a game to play anymore. But to think that this whole suggestion is intended to knock the top down is absolute bull**** from a paranoid little pissant that's far too worried about losing status in Utopia.

This change is a reactive change and doesn't solve any problems. Competition only increases when you have KDs of equal leadership, you don't get there by capping KD sizes. In fact fewer KDs of 25 provinces, with stronger leadership cores would be the only way to increase competition. Assuming you want to close the gap between SKDs and mid-tier KDs. Even if you temporarily boost KD numbers by capping KD sizes, in a few ages we'd be back to where we are now, because a lot of those KDs leadership would still be weak, and even if given a full KD they would still be less competitive and hence after a very bad losing age, they would lose players.

The only way to strengthen leadership is to get more NEW players, with more incoming new players, the potential that there are good leaders in that group would increase. Only with more good leaders would competition arise.

[Coke]

It might shock the top kingdoms, but the largest player base, the casual players, don't care about competing with the top kingdoms. If anything they want to be left alone and not be farmed (http://forums.joltonline.com/showthr...-This-Strategy). They just want to play the game in their own way, and fight with opponents that are their equals.

As I said again and again, the devs should take care that kingdoms stay filled. At the same time, having kd's filled with fewer players than the current 25 creates a more targets. There simply aren't enough players to fill 25 player kingdoms. The far majority already plays in < 20 player kingdoms. What's wrong with making 20 the norm, and fill those 20 instead of sticking to the 25 norm?! reducing size to 20 (5 per 100) creates 25% more kingdoms then there would be with 25 (4 per 100, 4 + 25% = 5).

For all i care it'll be optional to accept a 20 player limit, choosen by the monarch at end of age. The only drawback will be that a kingdom that doesn't accept the limit will not be able to attack into a kingdom that did accept. (And yes, I know this will feed the top kd's cry "you don't us to be able to compete", but then, top kd's can still choose to accept the 20 player limit ;))

How would making SKDs equal in prov's lessen the farming? In fact the opposite would be true. Right now farming is capped because SKDs have 25 provs farm into KD with under 25 provs hence there is a big KD NW gap which caps gains. If those farmed KDs had equal players as SKDs there would be a lessor KD NW gap hence their farming gains would be EVEN better. Your logic is backwards in this case.

2nd those people who are complaining about being farmed, are the ones who are TURTLES, who have NO desire to compete with anyone but themselves. Hence they have No offense and all defense.

But yea, the closer to bring SKDs to the mid-tier KDs the more farming will occur not less. Nowadays SKDs hit out of range fairly fast and STOP hitting and resort to dicing. When they stop hitting = when they stop farming, hence mid-tier KDs are then left alone. You want to make that farming period longer?

[Yadda9To5]

Coke, you really don't want to understand do you. When I say this change has nothing to do with SKD influences in the game, you manage to reply that reducing kd size won't reduce SKD influence in the game?!!?!! SKDS are not an issue to the casual utopia players. This proposed change has nothing to do with SKDs. They exist in an entirely different realty as far as most kd's are concerned. This proposal, reduce kingdom sizes to be able to have more equal kingdoms, in terms of casual players means: more casual kds to war, not having 16 v 22 wars, not seeing the same few kd's in your nw range time and time again.

Edit: Same goes for the leadership argument. It's a problem envisioned by top KD's, one barely experienced by casual KDs (atleast the ones I was in). And as such it's indeed a strawman argument. Many casual kds indeed lack good leadership in SKD terms. But well, for their reality they do well enough and don't want to become a SKD.

[Palem]

By trying to force lower KD sizes as a measure to increase KD numbers, you disperse the quality of leadership in those new KDs. Weak leadership = less competitive, which in the end would not increase competition in the game overall even if the gross number of KDs increase (which I also disagree with).

I have to disagree with this. The quality of leadership won't be dispersed. Ideally, the leadership will stay with the kd (otherwise the whole kd would just disband, as you yourself has pointed out) and allow those who aren't currently involved in leadership to go and try that. But, if a member of leadership did want to leave and try his/her own thing, I don't think the old kd would be losing a significant chunk of leadership unless it was like the head honcho.

Players in Top Kds, if they wanted to create a new KD would leave to do so, they don't leave because they have no desire to lead or ever leave their current KDs. By forcing them out, most would probably take a couple ages off the game and return when their KD has a slot open.

I understand this. I also understand that playing in a top kd is a privilege, maybe not so much anymore, and that building a kd is difficult. However, it won't just be 1 or 2 kds having to lower their sizes, so there will be a nice pool of available, good players that these guys/girls could choose from. That is quite a rare opportunity and I'm sure there's a few guys at the top that see a good opportunity to start up a good new kd, and quickly.

This change is a reactive change and doesn't solve any problems. Competition only increases when you have KDs of equal leadership, you don't get there by capping KD sizes. In fact fewer KDs of 25 provinces, with stronger leadership cores would be the only way to increase competition. Assuming you want to close the gap between SKDs and mid-tier KDs. Even if you temporarily boost KD numbers by capping KD sizes, in a few ages we'd be back to where we are now, because a lot of those KDs leadership would still be weak, and even if given a full KD they would still be less competitive and hence after a very bad losing age, they would lose players.

The only way to strengthen leadership is to get more NEW players, with more incoming new players, the potential that there are good leaders in that group would increase. Only with more good leaders would competition arise.

Yes. This suggestion is nothing more than a stall. No one is denying that. The only way the game will be saved is if we get fresh blood, but this suggestion is for those who have stuck around for a long time and are just bored of each age being nearly identical to the next.

[Coke]

I have to disagree with this. The quality of leadership won't be dispersed. Ideally, the leadership will stay with the kd (otherwise the whole kd would just disband, as you yourself has pointed out) and allow those who aren't currently involved in leadership to go and try that. But, if a member of leadership did want to leave and try his/her own thing, I don't think the old kd would be losing a significant chunk of leadership unless it was like the head honcho.

Ofc the current leadership would stay with their KDs, I'm arguing that even if new KDs would form, their leadership would be weaker (as they would either be new, or trying to sync their leadership styles together). With a SKD and possibly other KDs as well, the window to successfully build a long lasting established KD is fairly small, as people tend to get disenchanted fairly fast especially with a new KD. If they don't experience success relatively fast the new KDs would not have the deep players history to maintain their bonds and would disband quickly.

I understand this. I also understand that playing in a top kd is a privilege, maybe not so much anymore, and that building a kd is difficult. However, it won't just be 1 or 2 kds having to lower their sizes, so there will be a nice pool of available, good players that these guys/girls could choose from. That is quite a rare opportunity and I'm sure there's a few guys at the top that see a good opportunity to start up a good new kd, and quickly.

This does have some merit, but it would require 2 things. 1, a person ambitious enough to seek leadership even while already in a SKD and possibly already in leadership. If that person was not already in leadership he wouldn't be exposed to the leadership side of SKD play and thus reduce his/her effectiveness. 2, it would require the pool of people who were asked to leave to actively search out new KDs to play. I cannot speak for the other KDs, but I know that in my KD the majority of players wouldnt seek out another KD and would rather just hang around IRC waiting for a spot to open up.

Now needing those 2 conditions to combine, i'd expect a very limited amount of new KDs forming, with a tiny few surviving beyond 1 or 2 ages.

[TheRock]

As long as you increase my kingdom to 30 players, you may do whatever you want with any others. Thanks.

[Palem]

Ofc the current leadership would stay with their KDs, I'm arguing that even if new KDs would form, their leadership would be weaker (as they would either be new, or trying to sync their leadership styles together). With a SKD and possibly other KDs as well, the window to successfully build a long lasting established KD is fairly small, as people tend to get disenchanted fairly fast especially with a new KD. If they don't experience success relatively fast the new KDs would not have the deep players history to maintain their bonds and would disband quickly.

Well sure they won't be 100% quality, but it's not like they're going to be a total ghetto. I would hope that in the time of playing with the top that the players have picked up some things about kd management and such. I'm sure the new kds would find success quickly enough. They would probably be NAPed with all the big dogs and be small enough to pick on some mid-tiers to generate some enthusiasm.

This does have some merit, but it would require 2 things. 1, a person ambitious enough to seek leadership even while already in a SKD and possibly already in leadership. If that person was not already in leadership he wouldn't be exposed to the leadership side of SKD play and thus reduce his/her effectiveness. 2, it would require the pool of people who were asked to leave to actively search out new KDs to play. I cannot speak for the other KDs, but I know that in my KD the majority of players wouldnt seek out another KD and would rather just hang around IRC waiting for a spot to open up.

Now needing those 2 conditions to combine, i'd expect a very limited amount of new KDs forming, with a tiny few surviving beyond 1 or 2 ages.

I'm sure there would be a lot of communication about kd dropping if the suggestion were to be taken. My guess is the communication would be fairly open between kds, especially if they were to make some kind of a penalty for kds above the cap, where it would be in the interest of everyone to have a place to dump off spare players.

I know Sonata is a bit a rare case, but just look at them. That got up pretty quickly, at least to my knowledge, and found success nearly immediately, again, to my knowledge. Now I know the new kds won't exactly have Realest running them, but still, it shows it's possible for new kds to be successful.

[VT2]

Why is this about 'the top?'
The top has nothing to do with this.

The top isn't a collection of special snowflakes, deserving of special attention.
The game needs more kingdoms, and smaller maximum sizes - that's fact.

Aww, poor babies! Your legacies are gonna get wiped out by the evil developers! Poor, poor you.
Cry some more.

It's a needed change.
What 'the top' thinks has no effect on whether or not it's needed.
If the top leaves, and we also get smaller and more kingdoms - hey! That's a double-victory.

[Thunder TA]

pull your head out VT2 ,you wont get more kingdoms by doing this.most kingdoms are not full to begin with or even close if it dropped to 20 per kingdom id bet it would cost kingdoms not make more suddenly show up.

[VT2]

Yes, this will create more kingdoms.
Yes, this will limit kingdoms to 20 players..

Yes, those are both good things.

Real men and woman - who aren't as 'elite as 'the top,' have lives, and cannot, or do not want to, sit online 24/7.
We just want to play our game by the rules.

Don't like it? Go away.
No one's forcing 'the top' to stay - and if they leave reduced kingdom-size, we win twice.

[Aos]

This is getting out of hand , how can people say this got nothing to do with the top when it's the top that will have to force kick people? , the people in the top that will get kicked are people with no intention to lead i kd , that's why they are sheep provs in top kd's.

They like it that way , and want it that way.

Nexus - Seasons - Sonata a new kd? LOL , sure but look at the players they hade... your clueless if you use them as a example.

And giving negative ME to kd's that got 25 players? , whats next , give less gains to kd's with war wins?

And how can it be bad to have alot of leaders? by merging kd's you give them atleast 2 leaders that have shown to a group of people that they can handle it.

You think any top kd got 1 leader?

I don't think anything of this will solve the problem Utopia got today , if i would give a serius suggestion on how to fix kd size , id say they have to rework the way randoming works.
Insted of filling kd's with less then 15 players they should fill bigger kd's first , and sence you all say you don't play for charts you should'nt mind random noobs.
I know this will kill smaller kd's , but that effect less people then force kicking people out of 25 prov kd's, and it will bring more 20+ people kd's to the game.

And in the end of a age , monarch should get a option to merge kd's.

[Aos]

Yes, this will create more kingdoms.
Yes, this will limit kingdoms to 20 players..

Yes, those are both good things.

Real men and woman - who aren't as 'elite as 'the top,' have lives, and cannot, or do not want to, sit online 24/7.
We just want to play our game by the rules.

Don't like it? Go away.
No one's forcing 'the top' to stay - and if they leave reduced kingdom-size, we win twice.

NO one is forcing you to play with the existing rules , so go away?