Quote Originally Posted by Coke View Post
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.