Players like that aren't new. And the #1 cause is long time friends from my experience & what I've seen in other kds. Xlogging used to remedy that. Banning it killed Utopia imoQuote:
Originally Posted by Palem
Printable View
Players like that aren't new. And the #1 cause is long time friends from my experience & what I've seen in other kds. Xlogging used to remedy that. Banning it killed Utopia imoQuote:
Originally Posted by Palem
Number of players gained using this response: 0
Number of players lost using this response: +1250
The fact this that this game started its success in a system where teams are constantly populated to 25 and it fed the growth of a kingdom by cycling through tons of players
Now those tons of players dont exist anymore and trying to sustain the magic number "25" have blinded the purpose of having full kingdoms in the first place.
The reason why no new players stick is because the actual team-building part of the game is entrenched to enrich the 10%-20% of total kingdoms.
New players that do decide to stay quickly realize that unless they are playing in those 15 or so highly organized kds ...game play must revolve more around smaller local goals (100% WWs) than bigger goals (winning crowns).
Plenty of new players of games are competitor...but will not compete if there isnt a way to gain an edge.
There are great players out there in this world that can pick up any game very quickly but unless they have a chance to find a place to grow in Utopia...they will not be attracted to a meta-game designed to suppress player growth in lieu of safety of the kingdom.
Its like telling Michael Jordan not to go 1v1 on people he knows he can beat to the rim because his team isnt as good as he is and if they don't win...they don't have to play a high-seeded team in the playoffs.
This leads me to reiterate my question:
Why would it be a bad idea to lower KD sizes (to 21 lets say) if the overall trend has gotten worse after doing nothing to address it?
"kingdoms need 25 to compete"Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
"Kingdoms choose not to have 25"
"it's easy to fill with 25"
"if you like having **** players"
it is also easy to be judgemental of others and thus scare them away, better to try and improve everyone rather than to toss them aside.
@DonJuan you can get crowns on few provinces, it is simply a matter of what crowns, I've done it and so have others, some are still trying to play that way (7:2), also who is to say personal goals are bad, you can have all sorts of goals like 200 hits an age, get bigger than I've been before or get to 500 scientists, or simply challenge yourself to play an unlikely combination or try a new race. Far from everyone prefer to be in 25 man kingdoms and wake up wednesday morning at 4 to attack an opponent. I've had science goals and attack goals and growth goals all, I believe a variety of personal goals makes me able to improve in a lot of diffrent areas as opposed to having the same goal every age, and while I sometimes get up wednesday at 4 to make a hit, I do so on my own iniciative, I could never play in a kingdom that had this as a requirement. The entire problem with top kingdoms is not that they have 25 or 21 provinces, but that they ask of you to get up at 4 every wednesday if needed be, this chases players away no matter what number of players your kingdom has.
There are plenty of 22-player kingdoms that ask/call people to wake up at 4 am during war for a wave...thats not the issue here.
The reality is that thanks to the current meta...unless those kingdoms specific state they plan to go for NW...they will most likely never fill those last 3 spots "organically" unless they plan to play competitively vs other 25 man KD.
This dumb system of filling to 22 and forcing to recruit the last spots has contributed to the notion that a KD needs to be "evenly sized" and "fair" to war anyone (which everyone hates). Just giving a KD any chance to have doubts in comparison to other kingdoms has always resulted in gridlock when looking for war.
If you force all kingdoms the same size (realistically it would go down) and put them amongst each other...the most competitive will rise.
If you stack the chips on some KDs more than others...only those with the advantage will be the most competitive.
The other kingdoms will be less inclined to be competitive overall and thus the cycle repeats.
Why do you think there is so much drama in the Top about dealbreaking?
The same groups of people are playing in the same group of KDs age after age...which proves the recruiting elitism going on in top tier.
Essentially you're supporting a fractured social class that doesnt help the society overall.
Because there isn't anyone to lead those kingdoms. Leading is hard work and monarchs tend to burn out and quit. When you just throw 21 random provinces together, 99% of the time, you're not going to just luck into a functioning kingdom. If you make the top kingdoms cut 4-5 players, they're still going to be the top kingdoms because they have the best leaders. Lowering kingdom sizes would do nothing to balance the competition.Quote:
Originally Posted by DonJuan
The first and last things are untrue. The only thing you need 25 provinces to compete for are the land/nw charts. You'd have a bit of an advantage in the honor charts with more provinces, but there's no reason you "can't" win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bananamancer2000
And the last point was literally the opposite of what I said. Recruit quality players and they'll stay and make it easier to keep 25.
Edit: for what it's worth, I have no problems autofilling kingdoms to 25
Lowering kingdom sizes directly increases competitiveness through a more equitable distribution of talent across the server.
The fundamental problem is that a 15 province kingdom certainly panders to the waves or the imposing threat any 25 man organization may have in Utopia. When such inequities exist, there is no recourse in game-play but to accept the fact that the game becomes unplayable for the 15 man kingdom in this instance. The science you've accumulated can just be taken without threat of retaliation versus aggressor. The elites you pumped don't mean anything. Particularly more so today, where offense and military is obscene; a solo player can't even sit on turtle defense without being at the mercy of this majorly flawed interaction of power between kingdoms.
While the top 15 continue to recruit the skill from the main body of the game, they've so kindly only returned upon the player-base acts of aggression and a culture of straight farming.
If the argument is that there are not enough monarchs right now, or would not be enough even with smaller kingdoms; my argument against it is that there is no current incentive to be a monarch. The skill ceiling for monarchy - that is, the total province number for kingdom - has to come down to become more accessible for players to pursue.
The T15 have to assume a new culture of mentoring and cease-firing broken kingdoms in my opinion, versus allow them be victims of your OOW hits. You never know which one of those OOW hits will or has caused a new player of varying tenure to quit the game, ladies and gents.
I would say that the lack of new leaders is more subjective than objective depending from where you play from...and considering the sheer amount of stress and expectations in filling a KD from 22 to 25 and then leading it competitively in the Modern Uto era is much more crushing, especially for a rookie monarch.
At least we can agree on something like the auto-fill Palem...
I just will just go the distance and advocate for lower KD sizes to create more competition (15 is too much; 20/21 ideal)..and I can come up with logical and balanced reasoning that can make sense in the long run
I mean we can admit that in top kd play...there will be an avg of 2 players sitting the whole war. Not ideal but its not irrational that some players would like to play OOW only and let the monarch or other players sit for them during war.
With top KDs warring avg 3-4 times per age...a player can have enough sitting credits to do so.
My point being KDs also never play with a full roster during crunch time anyways...which can save extra stress to any monarch running a tight war.
The only thing lowering kd size would do would make more active and dedicated players quit. Those that get shaved off from the kingdoms they played in wont go "Oh yea, lets go create a new kingdom!"
"Oh yea, lets go create a new kingdom! Its easier now that we only need xx players!"
That actually sounds reasonable thinking compared to:
"we only got 22 players right now and everyone our size up here has 24-25...should we keep eating these waves or just find someone to land drop?"
It's more like they are too bad so they keep themselves on a lower size cause unable to compete with the good kds. I mean would such great accomplished leader as yourself unable to recruit additional 2-3 people?Quote:
Originally Posted by DonJuan
Mate, for what it is worth, you have always been pretty garbage at this game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
Your the person that every community has that talks alot but is not very good. Its good that you keep you around for entertainment. However, no one takes you seriously.
If I was garbage what does that make you?
Dont make me moderate the moderator!! <3Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
What brings the perception of value in game-play, is the perception that the player actually stands a chance of success at said game.
To use an allegory; how many times do you have to lose a game of Monopoly before you just choose to stop playing? Utopia is like monopoly. The T25 can represent your buddy who invites you over to play. However, in this game of monopoly, you know for a fact your friend begins with serious property advantages. After losing several games and realizing there's no competitive parity, how many times will you rejoin your friend for a friendly game of Monopoly?
Utopia is monopoly. The T25 is your buddy who invites you over to play and always stomps on you. Also, in this case, your buddy also starts with a stacked bank every-time. It's pretty clear to me, why no one want's to visit Mehul anymore.
But the top 25, they trained, hard they dedicated time to become good at Monopoly then we have you. The one that casually plays Monopoly but dont wanna spend the extra time to get really good. Ofc you will get stomped then cause you are lazy and you dont wanna work for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by KingTyrant
This^Quote:
Originally Posted by Korp
Utopia is more like basketball, or any team sport, than it is like monopoly.
Yes, most 25-prov KDs, that are perennially at that top, will whip some newer KD thats trying to just grow up from 22 or less, unless lower KD had some great luck recruiting. Even with equal number of players and exact mirror KDs, the perennial t25 will likely mop them up.
The reason, I guess, that it is hard to get/keep 25 for a 'casual' KD is that they either don't/cant put the time/effort required in to be competitive, and thus they lose, and have quitters, or they put in all the time in the world and the rest of their KD doesn't, and thus lose, and have quitters.
You need to be able to explain to people why you lost, how you will rectify the root causes of your loss(anywhere from diplo, to target selection, KD comp, or activity), and convince your people that it is worth trying to take a lesson from your losses, and improve for the next outing.
The allegory still stands and the fundamental problem is accurately highlighted in my opinion. The player-base of the game has evaporated due to the excesses and abuses of those who have played the game to the best of it's competitive spirit. In turn, i concur, it's more of a team game, but the conditions for player churn as described are real.
While it's easy to use such arguments such as "get good"; it does little to remedy the gradual descent of the game into non-existence.
I do agree with the dedication the full 25 man roster takes. It can't just be disregarded or so easily changed. However, at below 3,000 players, it's a worthy topic of speculation in regards to the decline of kingdoms and players.
Ultimately, there has to exist two Utopias. In the past, we had Battlefields and WoL. I want to see competitive utopia continue in spirit, however, recognize that a more casual level of play has to be accessible to players to foster an environment where Utopia may create a player-base with growth potential.
Bring back Genesis at smaller kingdom sizes, normal tick rates. Foster the competitive scene in Utopia in a renewed "Battlefields", and use a new "Genesis/World of Legends" as a test realm for the implementation of changes that may impact positive player growth.
No, this won't simply split the existing player-base. Of the ex-players in Utopia, I'm fully confident we'd see a massive spike in new and returning players if there was a more casual option. The players who play this game have aged and many don't want to come back to the super kingdom life.
There's a good game in Utopia; a great simulation that could attract players, but the game bends under it's own competitive weight. Players want to just run their provinces and exist. Other players want to compete.
The owners of this product - Utopia - should want to potentially increase their monetitization through giving a server option more catered for each demographic of player.
It doesnt really cause Monopoly isnt a team game its a individual player vs player game. So you miss the whole team aspect of it all.Quote:
The allegory still stands and the fundamental problem is accurately highlighted in my opinion. The player-base of the game has evaporated due to the excesses and abuses of those who have played the game to the best of it's competitive spirit. In turn, i concur, it's more of a team game, but the conditions for player churn as described are real.
Punishing good players and holding the bad players hands isnt going to be productive either.Quote:
While it's easy to use such arguments such as "get good"; it does little to remedy the gradual descent of the game into non-existence.
There isnt big enough playerbase for that and you cant make anything happend when you have all the bad people stuck at one place being bad with no incentive to get better.Quote:
Ultimately, there has to exist two Utopias. In the past, we had Battlefields and WoL. I want to see competitive utopia continue in spirit, however, recognize that a more casual level of play has to be accessible to players to foster an environment where Utopia may create a player-base with growth potential.
And if we lower kingdom sizes probably nothing much will happend cause we still lack the people willing to lead additional kingdoms and there will be the top and then the rest will stay artifically small to avoid reacher higher up in the charts cause too good competition.
^ This is why the game is in it's current state.
I'm not here to argue. You have players that you have marginalized from the game, that's a pure fact. Be constructive and try to solve it versus pushing the elitism that makes this game so painful to play or even discuss and you may make progress with building a player base, mate.
Edit; by argue; I mean banter. I am of course posting here because I seek to make arguments and propositions in favor of changes that could increase the player-base or potential growth of players. No one wants to see Utopia go! Building on that point, just be constructive. "Get good"; "holding the hands of bad players", and such statements aren't conducive to setting an inviting tone to new players. My point stands, further proven.
There is no elitism, there is people willing to dedicate more time and then there is lazy people like you that want to do everything but dont want to dedicate the time and effort to do it properly. There is supose to be effort behind success.Quote:
Originally Posted by KingTyrant
There are people like you - who may measure their success in Utopia War Wins - and there are people like everyone else - who measure success by how they spend their free-time outside of Utopia. There are people like you - who think it's reasonable to demand a monarch spend 24/7 online to run a kingdom in this "game" - and there are people like everyone else, who see a smaller time commitment as being more reasonable, while being no less dedicated.
What I'm saying is fact. You have many Utopia players. Many don't play because they have become marginalized by the above subjective views. Utopia can be a game for both views, but simply isn't in it's current state.
Bro gotta stop with the straw man arguments if you want to make some sorts of serious argument. I have mentioned none of the things you just brought up i just think people that dedicate more time shouldnt be punished cause there is lazy people that dont want to make the effort.Quote:
Originally Posted by KingTyrant
Nothing you said was a fact they are opinions. Opinions that are wrong but opinions.
Bro, you'll have to stop neckbearding me by putting Utopia and success into the same sentence and being serious about it before accusing me of being, quote " lazy people like you that want to do everything but dont want to dedicate the time and effort to do it properly."
It is a fact. Players are marginalized because they think it's ridiculous and unreasonable to spend so much time in Utopia. Count me as one, for sure. It's a fact that if a game demands 24/7 activity, that it's too much, given the fact that people have lives outside of Utopia. Mostly. Most people. Fact.
You dont have to spend 24/7 in Utopia, thats rather dumb you cause you cant do **** most of the time. You could play in a successfull kingdom and spend as little as 20 minutes per day in Utopia for example. Dedication isnt spending hours and hours in Utopia its being willing to commit when things get real. But its obvious that you dont have any actual insight in Utopia and work from some outdated assumptions about Utopia. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by KingTyrant
I can concede that my views may be outdated. It's true, or so I've heard, that it's both legit and commonplace to have 5 sitters for 25 provinces nowadays - definitely makes the micro a bit easier than when cross logging was a bannable offense in the past. No one really actually plays Utopia anymore, Korp, you're right, mate! Players have more spare time than ever before!
You can seek to undermine my points, but I'm sharing my insight as a potential player and customer by extension. If the company wants to monetize via a larger player base, they need smaller kingdom sizes and a second server as I've described in posts above. I've offered some food for thought.
I don't think it's even debatable at this point based on this exchange; the environment for new players and potential growth in players is terrible. It's further compounded by the behavior of players with 9,000 posts openly making poor attempts at blocking progressive proposals based around personal attacks with arguments such as "get good" and accusations such as "you're lazy". Way to make the entire community look good, mate!
You can't also expect "bad players" to get better if players from good kingdoms don't play with them.
Most great players want to stay in competitive KDs. (And do).
If they arent...they are probably not actively helping their ghetto get better to their full capacity as if they were in a good kd.
Like if it was realistic to think that we can wait for top kds to accept noobs to their roster for mentorship..
Pfft
It's true. In ghettos I am much less involved. But i try.Quote:
Originally Posted by DonJuan
As for this dude arguing with korp, lolololo
for all the calling people lazy or bad my bet is Korp don't even have a province currently.
I'm perplexed by the number of kingdoms that require bot usage and 3rd party com systems and get virtually nothing out of either. It appears they think they need this stuff to compete yet don't pay attention to what actually gets the most out of team effort.
Targeting is a quadrant of an objective. When kingdoms want to target without stating objectives it becomes difficult to understand what they think they're seeing vs what's really going on. Can't get players to understand the idea of retaliation and meter strategy. Can't seem to convey the idea of watching honor as a status indicator. Few understand the relationship in dragon funding and economy. Few understand that relatively lower activity and predictability compounds their problems. Few kingdoms understand the importance of intel, from SN to Survey. If they did then the bot would be significantly more important and a 3rd party com system would be a strategic virtue.
There's nothing wrong with a kingdom being content where they are, but I'm not built to eat waves surrendering resources to kingdoms that are ripe for healthy gains through retal. The fact is, there are maybe 5 kingdoms that can wave or random and can come out ahead, if the victimized kingdom play their cards right. I'm including phone-a-friend provinces and multis. There's simply too much capitulation infecting the majority of the server.
Stop strat0
Im sure he does...and he is a great KD mate if you know how to use his style of play right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Madchess
I do also value his thoughts too just that its about time we break down some more walls
lol, the decline of utopia has nothing to do with the new owners, elitism, stupid changes or marginalizing players. It's a game developed in the late 90's. It is an old, outdated product that can no longer attract a new crowd in fiercly competative gaming market. The product is simply at the end of its life cycle. Utopia will decline until the point that the owners are no longer willing to put in the money, time and effort required to keep things running.
It's reverse psychology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pillz
Yea but reverse psychology is just psychology, so the jokes on you
...if I can crawl back to tick-life I'm starting a kingdom called
~ you had 1 job ~
1. Meter OCD
2. Dragon = Ferrari in Rush Hour
3. Bullies are Rich Targets
4. Retaliation Revelation
5. Utility Fat
6. Amnesia Works
7. Go When They Don't
8. Honor = Evil Index
9. Bots Confirm What You Know
10. One Point Zero Four Four
11. Chains are Spearheads
12. Zones are Flanks
13. Acres are Oxygen
14. Unbreakable is Virtual
15. Pay Attention to Rogues
16. Know Your Clamps
17. Run Faeries like Rednecks
18. Flypaper Analogy
19. Diplomacy Meta
20. Slop Counts
21. Top Kingdom Messages
22. Soldierball
23. Wave Stall
24. Attacker Economy
25. Micro your Macro
I hope you are joking with that response haha.Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
On topic:
Although most people wouldn't admit it to themselves or others, this game has been on a steady decline ever since Bart got forum banned. Many people haven't posted anything for a while now. Where are BandOfHorses, Octobrev, protector, Elit, flogger, Judge and many others posting now? Is Bishop still alive? Even though Bart assumed the role of the villain he connected more people in that role than many ever will trying to be the heroes.
Strat0castle is a true champion as always though.
Feel free to take what I say with a grain of salt, for I've only experienced the Utopia of recent years and haven't been keeping too much track of the other different types of social media (Discord mostly I assume).
It's like 90% joking. I think I have a fairly solid history of understanding how good/bad I was at utopia. It's not like I strut around here acting like Realest or something lolQuote:
Originally Posted by MyNameIsMatija