no one said pick one. you can do bothQuote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
Printable View
no one said pick one. you can do bothQuote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
In Bishopland, which is very close to OMACland, you can only do one thing, and it always ends in failure.
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?
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of Utopia, most come and go, the ones who are key to Utopia are the ones who have stayed on even though the game is outdated and OMAC's failure.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.
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?
[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?
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.
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.
1. There really isn't alot of people we're talking about in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coke
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by comport9
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??????
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aos
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aos
So your pseudo-arguments don't stay, you just want to stir the ****.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by lichemaster
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.
I don't want to say this is a plain lie, so I will say it is incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by WolfDGrey
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).
liche' trolling or just joking around?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luc
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.
So people that don't have the same problem as you WolfDGrey is a lier now? , you start to sound like VT2...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by comport9
@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.
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....Quote:
Originally Posted by VT2
Just my 2 cents, since I'm too lazy to figure out with inflation.
take it to pm flutterby.
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.
And leaders leave because they burn out trying to run a 25 player kd when there's such a small player base.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coke
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.Quote:
@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.
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.
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!Quote:
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.
@ 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luc
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...
I'm sorry to say, good leadership KD don't have too much of a hard time filling out KDs. Players respond to the right type of leadership and hence there is less player cycling thus no need to go recruit constantly. If your KD is rotating players like crazy, then you should look to fix your own KD leadership issues. This isn't to say your Monarch is doing badly, but maybe he/she isn't getting enough support or what not. Leadership isn't just the monarch, there are a lot of other people that need to competently step up as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luc
I'm saying SKD's will STILL be out of range as well as Ghetto's. You'll still end up hitting the same people your hitting now except with possibly even numbers, but then your NW/prov will also be equal assuming you look for roughly equal NW KDs. The only way that you would find more KDs to hit is if the people who were kicked out of their KDs were willing to go to lesser leadership KDs to fill them up or to find new leadership and form new KDs. But if they left their previous KDs because they were unhappy with the play level or leadership, what are the chances they would stick around if they are now kicked out? and all the other KDs that suit their style are already full since they would also have to kick people to make 20.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luc
KDs rotate people because their players are unhappy with some aspect of the KD, if the leadership was strong enough they would not have such a hard time finding people since their would be less player rotation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luc
That may be true, but I still doubt they wouldn't OOP with the better land whoring strat than pure warring KDs, thus outgrowing everybody very fast anyways. This won't change just because you now have equal KD sizes. SKDs still grew out of size fairly fast even during the prime days of Utopia when there were a ton of 25 player KDs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luc
I apologize that I worded this badly, I meant if you wanted DIFFERENT targets, you should grow bigger or become smaller. A lot of people here are arguing that the game is boring because they've already fought all the people around their size every age over and over.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luc
All talk about "leaders" and "leadership" is simply a Red Herring argument. No one here knows how many good leaders there are in the game, nor where they are, and certainly can't give any concrete evidence (You know, FACTS) as to what their impact on the game is. It's nothing but a weak attempt to muddy the waters of the issue.
Keep it simple people;
Does competition increase with more KD's being of equal size?
Does increased competition result is a more enjoyable game?
Does a more enjoyable game result in fewer players leaving the game?
These questions need to be agreed upon before any meaningful discussion can occur with regards to lowering KD sizes. If we can't agree on these three questions to start, talking about the benefits of lowering KD sizes will prove fruitless.
Once we agree on these, then we can further break down arguments for and against lowering KD sizes based on these principals.
For the record, I say "yes" to all three.
Funny comport9 you demand facts from everyone while your opinion is supposed to be enough for everyone. Leadership is obviously important to many players and the lack of leaders is quite obvious by the FACT that you haven't seen a new SK appear in ages.
Probably not. Networth and explore pool limits already balances stuff, a 25 player kingdom can't explore more than a 20 player one nor can it fight with it if it's out of networth range.Quote:
Originally Posted by comport9
* here I assume size means number of players.
Sure. That happens when there are more players playing the game, not when you decide to ruin teams of players just because you're jealous and no one wants to be on your team.Quote:
Originally Posted by comport9
No argument here, I just don't see how a more enjoyable game comes from this stupid reduction. Probably we will have a less enjoyable game since VIPs(very important players) will be the ones leaving (everyone in a 25 player kingdom is definitely a VIP). Let's kick the people that pay for the servers with their sitting credits out of the game, that's a great idea...Quote:
Originally Posted by comport9
No, increasing number of bad kds just makes more kds for good kds to farm out. Competition increases with stronger kingdomsQuote:
Originally Posted by comport9
Yes
Yes
The goal should be to have a greater number of players in good kds. There are two ways to do this - make more good kds or get more players into existing good kds. Since the number of good kds has decreased with each passing age, it should be clear that you aren't going to magically make more good kds. Concordantly, we will all agree that getting more players into existing good kingdoms is the only way to get a greater number of players playing in good kds.
No. I have already explained this. SKDs will always pull away because they have better OOP strats tailored to grow fast and out of NW range of KDs built to war. Ghetto's will still be too small because their ghettos. You will still be competing against the same group of people as you are now (those around your KD NW range), whether your currently a SKD, mid-tier or ghetto (there might be a slight shuffle here or there, but mostly will be the same), UNLESS new KDs emerge, which then you go into arguments such as leadership and such.Quote:
Originally Posted by comport9
As I said before your numbers are greatly misleading as to the impact it will have on the game (which is the inferred intention of posting said numbers), but you use them as if they were facts.
Competition increases with more kingdoms of equal talent, not size. Your 20 player ghetto is still a ghetto, expect now it will be farmed slightly longer before the skds outgrow it. Then, when people leave it during the course of the age to go to better kds, it will start the next age with 15 players. Then someone will make a post about kd sizes not being reduced enough.
Please stop telling me what reality is like. I live there too. Your opinions of how things are don't match what I've been experiencing. How well you manage to recruit depends on how well connected you are and your kd's background. If you can show that your kd has been successful before, you are more likely to be able to recruit good players. Newly started kd's, or kd's that attempt to get better don't have any advantages there, and rarely have the contacts to pick up players leaving other kd's. I.e. them being worse at recruiting doesn't follow from their lack of leadership abilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coke
As for players leaving, my experience is that the most common reason for leaving is real life interference, not bad leadership. Many also leave because they're simply bored of the game. That's players that could easily get a spot in a really good kd if they wanted, but they don't even care to try, because it's the game itself they're tired of. And that's not hard to understand seeing as how the game really is boring. It's all rinse and repeat. Ghettoes are ghettoes, the mid kd's are stuck where they are, and the top grows away because there's no competition.
And I'm saying that you're wrong, because there will be more kd's competing with the SKDs. The SKDs of today are weaksauce compared to what they were a few years ago. Most of the talent has left the game. There are only a handful of really good kd's left, and sure, they would probably be able to grow away as usual. The difference would be that the rest of the top 25 would not have it nearly as easy anymore, because there would be lots more kd's that could compete now that they don't have the player disadvantage anymore. There's no doubt in my mind that there are plenty of warring kd's with around 20 players that would beat the current top 25 kd's in war if they had the same amount of players. And if they can, they will.Quote:
I'm saying SKD's will STILL be out of range as well as Ghetto's. You'll still end up hitting the same people your hitting now except with possibly even numbers, but then your NW/prov will also be equal assuming you look for roughly equal NW KDs. The only way that you would find more KDs to hit is if the people who were kicked out of their KDs were willing to go to lesser leadership KDs to fill them up or to find new leadership and form new KDs. But if they left their previous KDs because they were unhappy with the play level or leadership, what are the chances they would stick around if they are now kicked out? and all the other KDs that suit their style are already full since they would also have to kick people to make 20.
Wrong. People leave for lots of reasons, and most of them do not depend on leadership.Quote:
KDs rotate people because their players are unhappy with some aspect of the KD, if the leadership was strong enough they would not have such a hard time finding people since their would be less player rotation.
SKDs rarely want to war oop unless they have an obvious farm target. They're not so super awesome that they grow away before a brave slightly smaller kd can hit them if they'd like. I think you overestimate the abilities of most top kd's, and underestimate the ability of the warring kd's on the bottom half of the top 50. Strategies would change, things wouldn't just be the same. If a smaller kd now is full instead of missing 5 players, why would they not try to do something new?Quote:
That may be true, but I still doubt they wouldn't OOP with the better land whoring strat than pure warring KDs, thus outgrowing everybody very fast anyways. This won't change just because you now have equal KD sizes. SKDs still grew out of size fairly fast even during the prime days of Utopia when there were a ton of 25 player KDs.
And the problem is that they can't just grow bigger if they want to. As soon as they try, they run into full kd's that rape them for land. Stimulate competition or nothing will ever happen.Quote:
I apologize that I worded this badly, I meant if you wanted DIFFERENT targets, you should grow bigger or become smaller. A lot of people here are arguing that the game is boring because they've already fought all the people around their size every age over and over.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of the boring game that makes sure things are the same over and over each age. I actually want to at least attempt to save the game. By making more kd's competitive, there will be more action in the game. The lack of action is what makes people leave.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aos
Also, the only argument I ever saw from your crowd is that all that will happen is that SKDs will rape the smaller kd's more. Thing is, I didn't see anyone complain that that actually happened. But sure, I understand that you want to keep your dice so you never have to do any work after 1 week oop. NAP everyone and just dice away. So much fun? I really don't care about the people who only want changes that makes life easier for themselves.
Top 25 have it easy? Don't you see the incongruity in your reasoning? Top25 are just about the only ones with targets in range of the people above them. They don't have it easy at all. You clearly do not understand what happens at the top... Maybe you don't see anyone complaining because the Top 25 is not made of a bunch of whiners.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luc
I think the next thing you should promote is that people are only allowed to login 3 times a day because the evil super kingdoms have people that login almost every tick and that isn't fair. There would be more "competition" and "fun" if people were only allowed to login 3 times a day. In fact I might make the thread myself because it will really help competition.
That's not a bad idea , you know how perfect you got to login to use those 3 daily logins in a good way? , that is adding something to the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by lichemaster
I'm right there, and I don't understand what's happening there? Whatever dude. Most kd's in the top are allied to at least half the other kd's up there, and the rest rarely dare to hit the others for fear of retal wars.Quote:
Originally Posted by lichemaster
I wasn't talking of the top kd's complaining, I was talking about the argument FROM the top kd's that for example paradise taking from the explore pool would mean worse kd's would get raped more. I didn't see any ****storm of people complaining that the top kd's were raping them more than usual, and if they were, obviously people didn't think it was too bad.
Appeal to ridicule with a ridiculous example. Try again.Quote:
I think the next thing you should promote is that people are only allowed to login 3 times a day because the evil super kingdoms have people that login almost every tick and that isn't fair. There would be more "competition" and "fun" if people were only allowed to login 3 times a day. In fact I might make the thread myself because it will really help competition.
I can do the same thing you did there:
Let's make all kd's have 100 players. It's great, because then the good leaders aren't as spread out as they were before, so everyone will be happy and no one will quit. That the kd's will have to intra to have anyone to hit is not a problem at all, because the only thing that matters is how many players we have in the whole game, not how big the kd's are. That most kd's will not get close to 100 players is not a problem either, because that's how the game is today, and it will always be that way regardless of what we do.