VOTE FOR SMALLER KINGDOMS / MEMBER LIMITATION

That's not the point. Being fucked and struggling to be promoted into top kingdom is something completely different. But you just proved what I said, you will only add what you consider right but you don't give a shit what others consider right, because your (yours and Deacon's) truth is the only one allowed.

This is my last reply about this case, I'm tired of fighting with people refusing to accept other's opinions. Don't bother answering

It's not a decision to be made, but a clear, obvious and very simple conclusion, that you're simply refusing to see. Concerning your question, wether I mean all pro-dudes or just you, to be honest it depends.

You all didn't provide wellfounded arguments against my conclusions and yet say I'm wrong and this idea is top. You, former StarX, in particular behave extremely biased and therefore corrupt any chance of constructive discussion. You ignore every point, that anyone ever made about this, if you're forced to, you euphemize a counter-argument and add it unwillingly to this topic's start post. But yet again, only one of the many we made.

Deacon, I already commented on most of the points in your pro list and elaborated on why they are not true or no pro. And I also pointed out, that this list is missing a lot of mentioned points and euphemizing other points. And sorry to say this, but your comment makes me question your ability to read. That new players will get bashed to the ground was one of the many points I provided. Whether I have personal motives depends on your definition of personal motive. I wouldn't be affected from a member limit, I already mentioned, that I rarely exceed 40 members, including confederacies, if at all (unlike what I heared from some other people here *cough*), if you mean that. But I like the game, and think this proposal is trash, and therefore don't want to have it implemented. Which is the main reason for my postings here.

By the way. We were 22 vs 83 once on comx3, having another warfront with another kingdom on the other side whose members I didn't even count into the 83 - and killed most of the hammers, that were ever sent against us. So no, I'm not afraid. But why are you and op so afraid of being wrong, that you have to sweep everything speaking against you under the carpet and far-fetch reasons from whereever?

• New players will take some time to get recruited in top kingdoms.

Have you lost your mind? How can this con be enough. If anybody reads this he will think something like: "Ok, newbies will have to work harder" - which I admit is true. But do you really expect them to work harder? They will not work at all and rather accept their defeat and never play the game again. Maybe it's your goal after all to get rid of newbies from this game because this implementation will literally cause that. Can't you see that? How many players from any kingdom you ever played in actually tried to work their way into leadership or atleast any respected role? 5 out of 500? I can guarantee you that more than 5 out of 500 will delete and never play again.

So If you don't want to add a con: "Newbies will delete more often than now and the whole community will get smaller" atleasrt edit that one to something like: "Newbies may have really hard times and without their 100% commitment will never get into any better kingdom" (=will delete after some unsuccesful attempts when they will be destroyed in every single round in a kingdom ranked as 20)

Quote from ⭐❌

I'd suggest going back and reading through all the discussions and arguments and counter-arguments provided , most of us have even tried to quote your points and addressed those, including one of the point from your very early posts which was thereof added in the cons list. You do need to realize that you have stated your opinion and others have stated their opinions, you don't have to target everyone else and label their arguments as "trash" or invalid. Well, it's freedom to speech and you can still do so but it is still going to be just your opinion and not a fact.

I am biased, yes, because this whole thread was started to push forward Deacon 's vision of limited kingdom size so I cannot in my right senses be unbiased and say that nothing is wrong with current system , that defeats the purpose of having this argument in the first place. Also hiding behind the argument of New players finding it hard to get a place is repeated several times now and even after people from pro side accepting that argument as valid, including myself it is tossed around every other day for no obvious reasons. It is in Cons, it is a valid argument, and severity of it can be seen in a real game.

Lastly, regarding your example of OP, it was again discussed previously that VP and Defense count is directly proportional to the size of kingdom. You succeed in taking down a 83 ppl kingdom, yayyyy, now imagine a scenario and replace those 83 people with 4 x your team and run a simulation in your mind. You argument does not prove anything except that 83 player kingdom you are talking about is disgrace.

What? First, I call the proposal trash, not the arguments. The arguments are unconvincing or no arguments at all. Sure, you and others quote stuff of me, saying I'm wrong, saying how obvious it is, that I'm wrong, saying that they could proof, that I'm wrong ... but don't say why and don't proof anything, thus providing no argument, let alone a wellfounded one. With this I mean a post a few pages ago in particular.

Second, if you create a poll, it is supposed to be representative. I could easily ask 50 people to vote for a gold feature, which costs 1.000 € and instantly wins the round. They would probably do that for me, especially if I telll them, that I just want to proof a point. However, this poll wouldn't be representative and despite being 50 - 0, 99%+ of the community would be against this. This is why votes are supposed to be representative. If you're biased, talk people into voting, ignoring every point against you, refusing to write counter-arguments in a proper wording, refusing to write most of them at all, and so on, only the smallest part of people will actually think about it and vote representatively. Thus, your poll is unrepresentative and therefore useless.

Third, OP = original poster, not offpoints in this case. I can't see your name, it's only two empty boxes for me. And if I saw it, I probably couldn't write it. Also we didn't take them down, we were only two off accounts. But we defeated any threat, that was ever sent against us. I wrote this, because Deacon subtlely accused me of being afraid of competition. And 4 * my team size = 88. Not much difference to 83, huh? Whatever this random number is supposed to point out here.

Then again, I even summarized plenty of my points in my last post. New players isn't the only one. Please read carefully, and not only what you want to read. Incredible, really. Also, I pointed out, that you euphemize counter-arguments, new players being fucked is one example of this. They don't have it a little bit harder to find a kingdom, it's not the difference between lifting 15 and 17.5kg as you want to obfuscate it. It's more like the difference between lifting 15kg and getting shot in the head. The reason why Snorri and I repeat this, is because you obviously don't understand this or don't want to understand this, which yields in your question why we still talk about that point.

And again, please read carefully. I never said, that I like the current system, that it's good or that there shouldn't be changes. I even pointed the rootcause of the overpoweredness of metas out. I say, that your "solution" is bad. Not that there's no problem. How can you not understand this, after I posted this several times? If you have a papercut in your finger, you don't chop it of, because the solution is bad, you rather take care about it otherwise, don't you?

Jeezus guys, so many comments, so much text, do you win something doing this? All of you?

Don’t get me wrong I love forum debates and discussions but once they get this long, I am out.

Gotta agree with a few statements tho, a team can’t come to forums backing each other to get something implemented, it’s not the way guys and specially not the content.

This thread as far as I can see is pointless, sorry Stars.

I would love to see a few developers opinions on this thread xD

That's just your opinion again which only proves that your truth is the only right. Let me evaluate your Pros here in my point of view - not like it could change anything, but to prove that my points are valid and that I can disagree with every single of your points and yet it will not be enough for you to change the original post, because as I said earlier, your truth is the only one here but if you have anything against anybody else's con, you will simply not include it...

Pros :

• Unbiased game due to size restrictions.
  • Wings will make sure it will be as much unbiased as its now (Legends as a proof)
• More competitive
  • Bullshit, people will be saving their armies for WW and will be afraid to lose it too early, no fight for top spots will happen until late game
• More kingdoms fighting for top spot.
  • Not really (wings as a reason for that)
• More players in leaderships
  • Not really (Kings of main kingdoms will rule their wings too). But honestly this is the best "+" of that list which has a potential
• Easier to manage kingdoms.
  • Even harder, because you will have to maximize your effort, every player of your kingdom will have to be looked after. Whereas now some people don't care about people who don't practice teamplay but still send deff to WW later.
• More room for diplomacy and strategies.
  • Again wings will deny this

Singularity

Quote from ⭐❌

I've tried to revert back to all the points raised in different color, hope it's clear enough to read.

My point is that your opinion is the only right. (Sorry, can't highlight it more)...We clearly can't agree on this and even the poll is basically even (and not representative) and yet only what you consider true is stated there but what others point out you don't even include as a "possibility" or something like that. And that's why players who only read the initial post will rather vote "Yes" because you clearly are not listing all the Possible Cons, but you listed ALL the possible Pros in your opinion. You can't be sure your way is the way it would work if implemented and so neither you can't be sure my (or anybody's who is opposing your idea) way would not work.

What a way to reply, talking about unimportant stuff rather than admitting you could be wrong. Its clearly been another waste of time for me here today. Enjoy your last words here as you always must have them, I'm not commenting back

I guess there's no point in arguing with The Advocate of Travian Kingdoms Community. I was talking about your ways of choosing what Pros and Cons are and you kept talking about those Pros and Cons (which should only work as an examples), that's what I unsuccesfuly tried to highlight, perhaps I should really make the text size bigger next time -_-