Lower kd sizes

[Thunder TA]

Vt2 are you just trolling because you know better than this.

Most kingdoms if they drop it to 20 people it will have 0 effect on.they dont have 20 to begin with so it wont matter to them or make a difference.Make a list of how many kingdoms actually have more than 20.then figure those people move to make the kingdoms with less than 20 get up to the 20. You wont gain a single new kingdom and will probably have some quit because of it. and no im below 20 and still know it wont help .fixed bugs and advertising is what will help utopia,not stupid ideas.

[TheRock]

Again, I want a 30 prov kingdom next age, the rest of you can do whatever you want. Until anyone gives me a good reason not to let people who want big kingdoms not to have them, I reject your propositions.

Remember, you can always have less than 30 players - you can even have 20, like now :) People who only have 20 players now are only trying to penalize those who have more. Concordantly, I declare them ninnies.

[Luc]

I find the leadership argument funny. The people who are arguing there will be no new kd's all seem to be very interested in the possibilities of advertising the game. So what you're hoping for is that when we advertise, we'll get new awesome leaders into the game? Because no game knowledge is needed right? If we don't have any potential good leaders today, we won't have any later either, even if we advertise and somehow bring more people into the game. We'd just get more half full ghettoes. Why don't we just shut down the game instead? Because if your arguments are to be believed, there really is no way at all to save this game.


How do great leaders emerge? Do they gradually hone their skills, or do they just appear from the mist one day? Of course the good leaders we have in the game today have become as good as they are by competing with others. You attempt to build a kd, you fight better kd's, you learn from those better kd's. Is it possible that the game no longer supports that behavior? People building kd's rarely get over 20 players before they give up, which is completely normal given that it takes a lot of time, and it's very hard to recruit from the dwindling player base. The new kd's we see today are usually mergers. When all you can manage is reach 20 players, you're not gonna get close to the kd's you could potentially learn from. No new leaders are gonna be created, regardless if we have more players in the game or not, because they will not have anyone to learn from.

Or is it possible that good leadership can come from people who have played for a while under another good leader? If so, shouldn't they be encouraged to strike out on their own, so we actually can create more good leaders? Is that likely to happen when people know there is little chance of them ever being able to fill a kd of 25?

Simply put, if you're interested at all in attempting to save this game, you should also be interested in creating the right circumstances for actually keeping whatever new players we can get into the game. All I see in this forum is conversatism. The steep learning curve is fine, because it's always been that way. Too large kd's is fine, because it's always been that way, and there are no leaders anyway. Well, none of that is ever gonna change, if we just keep treading the same old tracks. No new leaders will be created, so nothing will change, and the game will just be on repeat until it dies.

My suggestions are to create a better atmosphere through:
1. Creating a user friendly guide for new players.
2. Lowering KD sizes and making it easier to build new kd's (i.e. more invites). It's crucial to encourage the few talented players we have left to strike out on their own and spread their knowledge in the game, and also to attempt to create a situation where mid tier kd's at least have some possibilities of learning from the better kd's.
3. Attempt to make the game more intuitive and easy to get into, but pay attention to still make it hard to master.
4. Don't forget the social aspect of the game. Players should be encouraged to talk to each other, and communication should be made as easy as possible.
5. Help small kd's merge (don't force, but help).
6. Advertise only when the game actually has a chance of keeping new players, or it's just wasted money.

[Korp]

Why don't we just shut down the game instead?

Why shut it down? Its still enjoyable for alot of us, nothing wrong with enjoying it as long as it last. There will be a time when there is no point in running the game anymore and then its okey to shut it down.

Because if your arguments are to be believed, there really is no way at all to save this game.

Its a realistic view on things, Utopia is outdated game, these kind of games dont hold as much playing value for people these days as it did back in the good old days.

Or is it possible that good leadership can come from people who have played for a while under another good leader? If so, shouldn't they be encouraged to strike out on their own, so we actually can create more good leaders? Is that likely to happen when people know there is little chance of them ever being able to fill a kd of 25?

Ofc its possible but the thing is that there isnt enough players to make good kds from scratch anymore, well at least not dedicated enough players. Most arent willing to spend the time that is needed to achieve something it doesnt matter if its 25 people kd or 20 people kd.

Simply put, if you're interested at all in attempting to save this game

Utopia is like a terminally ill patient, its beyond saving and Utopia know its going to die. So isn it better to enjoy it while it last and not clinge to a naive hope that it will be cured some day.

2. Lowering KD sizes and making it easier to build new kd's

By lowering kd sizes you destroy other kds, they aint gonna go out and build new kds cause they are forced out of their old kds they just gonna quit instead cause they cant play with friends anymore.

[VT2]

Oh, no all those 300 out of 7000 players.
The precious 300.

How ever will the game manage to live without 300 'top' players?

[Korp]

Oh, sorry I thought the idea was to bring more people into the game not making even more people quit. I think 300 more people quitting would quite hurt the game atm.

[Luc]

Sometimes you have to accept that a few will quit to leave place for more to join. Unless you accept that fact, you're gonna find that everything you ever do is doomed to stagnate really fast.

Utopia today is very close to being shut down. The income streams barely cover the server costs, and people keep leaving because the game is in repeat. The devs have no reasons to keep running the game if they don't think they'll ever make money on it. They're not gonna pay any more out of their own pockets just to see it live on for another few months.

There's no doubt in my mind that utopia could sustain 10-15k players if it was renewed properly. With that many players it would at least be self sustainable. It doesn't have to beat WoW in amount of players. I mean, just look at how many people play Farmville. That game is absolutely retarded, but it's much better suited to today's public. Utopia is a much better game, but it's been painfully devoid of new ideas for several years now. Mehul refused to do anything, and after that, focus has been mostly on actually getting the game running again.

Strategy games don't need flashy graphics to survive, but they have to be somewhat exciting and provide some sort of change every now and then. Utopia is just rinse and repeat today. It's the same kd's up in the top, and the others are fighting the same people every age. The community actively works against any change that contains any novel ideas, simply because they would be unable to play exactly like they used to. They want changes to be contained within the frame of what they already know, so only minor adjustments are needed. The utopia community is like a bunch of grumpy old men.

Do you truly enjoy playing the game as it is today? I sure don't. I've despised the game itself for a couple of years already, and I'm only still here because some friends are still playing it. It's just depressing to see more and more people leave, and people working against changes that would bring something fresh to the game for once. It's the same old goals, against the same old kd's. So boring. But I don't know why I even react to it, people are the same everywhere. Change is bad!!!!

[VT2]

If they want it to make money, they need to aim for reliability, ease of use, accessibility, and a much, much improved in-game atmosphere.

Intel should be quick to get, and easy to use.
Bullying (alliances) should not be ignored.
Kingdoms need to be smaller, and the page - or a new class of user - should be given shared, but limited, monarch powers.
Simple calculators are needed in-game. Merely having a little tool that displays how much the units you're putting into each box are worth for offense and defense would do wonders.
Magic and thievery need to be balanced versus each other, and made very different.
The game needs to be marketed towards a certain age group, or at least an age band.
Cheating and superkingdoms need to be taken out, so new players feel that they can compete. Without the feeling that you have a chance, it's simply not worth 'playing' the game.

[Korp]

[quotes] Sometimes you have to accept that a few will quit to leave place for more to join.[/quotes]

Thats retarded, quality always beat quantity.

There's no doubt in my mind that utopia could sustain 10-15k players if it was renewed properly.

10-15k would perhaps been a good start but wouldnt be enough.

The community actively works against any change that contains any novel ideas, simply because they would be unable to play exactly like they used to.

Like SoT! But I dont see why you want punish your faithful customers just to try and bring in some new people that leaves one week later.

They want changes to be contained within the frame of what they already know, so only minor adjustments are needed.

Yea, you should open your mind about SoT! ...

Do you truly enjoy playing the game as it is today?

Yes, I mean more players would be wonderfull but I have no problem with the gameplay itself.

[VT2]

If quality equals 2100, and quanity equals 900,000, number two wins.

Case in point: tiger tanks versus T34.

[Korp]

If quality equals 2100, and quanity equals 900,000, number two wins.

Yea, have fun with your players that login perhaps once every day, then after a week quits! I am sure it will be alot of fun playing!

[VT2]

I will.
I get 899,999 targets to pick between hitting, you know, and 899,999 potential players to make a good kingdom with, while you're stuck with the same 2099 players forever.

Nice to be owned in two threads, isn't it?

[Korp]

While you being stuck with a quantity i enjoy playing the game on a competitive level. I realize you dont have it in you to be sucessfull in utopia as others do so you are happy with being in ghettos.

[WolfDGrey]

Korp, quality is not ALLWAYS better than quantity and that is especially true in today's Utopia. Why? Because interactivity often requires quantity for function well. The quality of the game actually decreased with less people as there are less new ideas and challenges in the game. Utopia is the perfect study case.

And it's normal to be like that...

[Korp]

I didnt talk about quality of the game thou, i did talk about quality of the people. I rather have lesser group of people that is ac tive and provides me with something that is worth my while than a ****load of people that hardly bothers playing the game.