Feature - Alliance Member Limits

#1

We have all been used to the limits set previously 50/100 members.

Previously this was done to try and cut down on multis, to try and stop one alliance dominating too much and I expect in part due to server issues at the time.

Whether this ended up reducing the player base from the large numbers at the start of DG I don’t know but the end result was generally to create a system where 3-5 organised alliances, usually with less than 50 members, dominating.

Even with the split of good and bad planets it was rare a new alliance could make gains or establish themselves without experienced players mixed in.

As DG is going to be restarting, and with how much more open and accessible the internet is compared to when DG began, I think it is a good idea to either scrap the limit at least initially or increase it to 500-1000.

With an increased limit and better admin tools it gives an opportunity for new alliances to start and develop beyond the current player base and without being too small/disorganised to fight the better alliances which I don’t think is really possible with the current limit.

I believe an increased limit also means established alliances can take more of a risk in recruiting as they can take on unproven players without worrying about limits and see how they work out.

Ultimately we are a reduced community and as fun as it is, I am sure we don’t just want to fight the same people all the time or farm and this might be one way of adding more options for all players.

1 Like
#2

its a good idea, i wish to see 20k players playing again in the same server :slight_smile:

#3

I think it’s a good idea. Let’s get everyone back, get the game growing again and then see what’s what. Starting with limits wouldn’t be a good thing

#4

I’m not sure increasing the member limit of an alliance will help the game, but probably harm it. I say this not as someone who wanted to avoid fighting before.

For me, one of the biggest problems with the game was the politics. You had NAPs and power blocs, dividing galaxies, etc. Small alliances mostly got eaten up, or if they fought well, merged in. Then farm for several hundred turns. By the end of the round it’d be major alliances A, B, C vs X, Y, Z. All calling the ones on the other side lame for farming for several hundred turns.

All increasing member limits will do is make that easier.

#5

Yeah let’s all get in 1 big alliance; we’all all be a winner and live happily ever after!

No I’m not sure a larger member limit will help.

In the past, all high ranked alliances had external tools to communicate, gather intel and create stragegies (building lists, battle calculators, …) etc. With or without member limits, those things will remain and will have improved compared to 10 years ago.

Personally. I prefer small member limits. I like fighting against the alliances with many members even if it is a war you cannot win.

The goal of the game, for me at least, was to get the highest combat score individually AND as an alliance, rather than the highest score, which just shows that you’re good at farming… I’m curious if others have different goals, especially the creators of the game…
One of the tactics to reach the highest combat score was to farm until the end of the round, have the highest score most of the round and in the endgame, participate in a phew grand battles. Of course I would like to earn it another way.

What I’m trying to say is that I’d like it if the game would focus on battle, rather than on farming; and I think a large member limit promotes farming and grouping together to bash smaller alliances; while a small member limit promotes battle because there will be a lot more alliances to be part of and fight against; especially new players will feel that they can achieve something in a small alliance and that they do not have to join a big alliances to not be crushed.

I hope that the game can be improved to discourage farming, maybe monitor the activity of one’s fleet and give big bonuses the more you move and win battles. Probably lots of other things possible for which another topic can be created.

1 Like
#6

I would have to agree with some of the others here, I think raising the limit would actually harm new players rather than help them. New players already tended to form bigger alliances to stand together, making it harder for others to choose not to join them.

We should aim for a game that is enjoyable at all levels, without newer players being bashed by experience too much, but having engaging battles to gain such experience.

Perhaps different areas of interested can be raised in the galaxy, more experienced players will go for the more challenging and rewarding areas, while less experienced players can get an equally decent experience rumbling over less challenging and rewarding areas.

Obviously they are free to venture into the other areas, but that brings inherent risk.

#7

While I do have opinions on this subject, I’m gonna sit back for now and observe the discussions :slight_smile:

#8

What would the game be like if we went the opposite direction with team limits? Make the limit of players smaller? Might that encourage more battles? Or would it just make it impossible for anyone to dominate?

#9

That’s the question isn’t it @grapey . Perhaps we should have a max size of day 5-10 until all the kinks have been worked out (at least during beta testing and first round, then perhaps revisit max limit for each of the next 5 rounds until numbers have stabilized and quantity of players have increased where we can sustain 20+ clans each with 20 members.

#10

I definitely like the idea of smaller clans.

#11

I think the problem is that we (people who played in the past) like the idea is small alliances. I would include myself in that.
However, for now, we have to think of what’s best for the game. If we want the first couple of rounds to be successful then we need everyone to have fun and have a good game. I think that’s more likely with high limits

#12

Hmmm… maybe just do a couple speed games with small alliances when it’s back? Like weekends or something? Until things get going. I can’t remember how long normal rounds lasted for.

#13

what you don’t want is creating a few large superpowers able to squash everyone , or sitting on opposite sides farming.

A lot of alliances broke up into small teams for the early game.
In my opinion learning the game as a new player goes faster in a smaller, more “manageable” environment. The downside however is that it can be more daunting, because you’ll be more “exposed”, whereas in a huge alliance you’ll be “one of many”, safety in numbers, etc.

Some random ideas we could apply:
could make member limit increase gradually over time
could change the basic structure of alliances, for example by creating an extra layer in the form of “squadrons” / “teams” / whatever you want to name this type of group.
These “groups” can, at a certain point in the game, form an alliance with other teams, meaning they become “blue”, and can fight together.

Alliance forming should be an expensive / heavy cost for the group activating it, making them vulnerable. (again with a member limit that could gradually increase over time?)

You could go completely overboard and designate a “capital” planet as the seat of the alliance.
Lose the capital = alliance/team/group breaks apart. should make for some interesting fights :wink:

4 Likes
#14

Interesting idea about the headquarters planet . Not sure if that’s been done in any online game I have played (cities yes due to sabuk wall in lom2 but still

#15

An afterthought:
make member-limit a reflection of the players average score, based on the “all players” average score?
lower average = high cap
higher average = reduced cap

Will probably need to tweak slightly to ignore “inactive” players , but could make it so strength in numbers can actually make a difference for newer people :slight_smile:

3 Likes
#16

Im with ragabash on that topic, it would be good to have a system that noobs and not so active players can unite more than active and experienced players

#17

The ideal scenario is newer players joining a group of experienced players, right?
With low alliance limits (10 for example) do you think a competitive alliance will take in inexperienced players? No. Because even taking in one means you have a 10% disadvantage.
Have big massive alliances worked in the past?
Yes, but only in insane numbers. Also, they usually get hit really hard by skilled alliances.
I think the conclusion here is to find a balanced limit.

  • How many alliances make for a fun and exciting game?
  • How many players are registered for a game?
  • …

These are all questions one needs to take into account before setting up a limit.
Considering our low player base at the current time I believe “fun” resides somewhere in the range of 10-20 alliances competing against each other.
Alliance limit could then be calculated from the player base, leaving some extra room for newly joining players.

Comparing last alpha to the old games:
We were ALL toying around in galaxy 1.
We used to meddle in maybe 1 to 3 galaxies. While there were plenty more.
Each round different alliances would meet each other in the galaxies depening on registration time etc.

#18

I don’t think increasing alliance limits is a good idea. It used to be horrific for small alliances to progress in any form against the multinational conglomerates of people. Alliances will find a way of getting around any limits anyway, it wouldn’t be hard to have an alliance, for arguments sake, called ‘New Alliance’ (NA), with 100 members, then having NA1, NA2, NA3 etc all with 100 members and on the same discord, each controling their own sectors of space. During attacks you could have the fleets turning up in waves, with the first and second knowing they will be sacrificed to reduce numbers so wave 3 can capture the sector.

#19

I like where Ragabash was going with his thoughts here. If there were a way to make the Alliance Member Limit reflective of a % of Average Player Score, I like that idea. Of course, with every idea there’s a downfall…like if an Alliance starts losing ‘spots’ because their average raises are they going to constantly be having to kick out members? Still, interesting concept.

#20

How about this: keep track of how many games a player has played and devise a ranking system.
(For example: veteran, experienced, inexperienced, new)
And add a reverse point system (1,2,3,5) for example.
A starting limit could then be 10 players. Before this limit increases the alliance needs to reach 20 points for example. An all veteran alliance would then have to take in 3 new players before their limit increases. Or 5 inexperienced players. Of course the values could be tweaked.