I definitely like the idea of smaller clans.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think it would be too easy to make a new account to bypass that issue.
I do agree that smaller limits will make “core” alliances without any new players, which will always be the flaw in any alliance-based system.
It’s for the benefit of all the vets that we recruit new people in the game and grow the playercount to ensure an enjoyable game.
How about something new and radical:
you sign up as a new player (again, risk of inviting potential spies,…)
you get a tutorial with basic info to start the game.
Once you succesfully finish the tutorial, you are automatically “appointed” to a random alliance.
It will be up to the alliance to “nurture/grow” the new player.
Upon show of inactivity within the first couple of days: removal from the game/alliance without penalty.
If said new player is not welcomed => risk some sort of penalty game-wise? (this might be a bit too directly involved but we need to figure out some sort of carrot vs stick here)
Also an excellent idea.
However, how do you prevent new players from ending up in 1-man alliances, or inactive alliances…
How about when you are new but were invited by a friend who’s already in an alliance and you’ld like to join him?
Some of these are rather simple to fix, others are not.
(last issue could be fixed by giving the new player the choice to either apply to an alliance of their choice, or a random alliance. If the alliance does not accept the application after a week, the new player could be assigned to a random alliance anyway)
I’ld like to know what @FrostyCoolSlug thinks about all of this. In the end we will need to reach a consensus somehow
as for the alliances you end up in as a new player, i propose we use the average score-idea i mentioned earlier as a measure of “activeness” , and possibly even easier if you would revive some type of combat score and use that as a reference of “activeness”.
For that last issue I suppose alliances could also send out invites to new players instead of having them randomly assigned.
1-man alliances: set a minimum member-count for any alliance? alliance is only actually created when at least 2-3 more “active” members join in? Membercount dropping below the bare minimum = automatic disbanding of the alliance?
It will obviously be anything but ideal to force a person into any alliance, where they’re not necessarily waiting for that person to arrive… This is something we need to thourouhgly discuss about as a community.
i still feel like the ideal solution would be something with “teams/corporations” , banding together in an alliance (think EVE Online). This way you can have seperate teams and an umbrella structure to “govern” those teams and band them together. Within an alliance you can have teams of newer players where vets take care of those newer players, and it removes the hard limit cap.
However alliances should not be something you can start in the very early stages of a short game, but be more of a “late game” perk, to allow for some more balanced play vs powerblocks right from the start.
How about having an option where alliances can flag whether or not they want to take in new players?
This way the new player doesn’t end up in an alliance that has no interest in investing in guiding a new player.
Hence the randomization with penalties vs rewards for alliances that do / don’t help the new players.
If you make it voluntarily, you’ll end up with “elite” alliances and “noob” alliances, which is what we would like to avoid somehow?
I’ve still been following the discussion here, but obviously, it’s a difficult one…
There are definitely merits to having larger alliance sizes, as mentioned, it can help nurture new players and provide guidance for them from experienced players without the alliances having to worry about ‘we need to kick this new player for a more experienced one’. While at the same time, creating giant conglomerates which everyone is fighting against can also be problematic, I want to avoid the game descending too much into ‘everyone vs. one’ or worse, just 2 real alliances, as it fundamentally shifts how DG should really be played.
On the flip side, smaller alliances, while ensuring a good number of wars, will eventually be focused too heavily on being the ‘best’ alliance, regardless of the players. New players will feel excluded from the game as they’ll never have the opportunity to feel like they’re contributing to the wider experience. There will be loads of war reports from the big alliances, and they’ll be sat on the fringes watching, not feeling like they could in some way swim with the sharks. The new navigation is supposed to attempt to fix that (more experienced alliances are unlikely to colonise outside of Gal 1, allowing smaller / newer alliances to have a separate experience in there), but it’s still not ideal from a learning perspective. In addition, experienced alliance will just create 5 different alliances and agree to cooperate (in 2019, communication channels are so much easier to manage than they were 12 years ago), so you’d end up with ‘Super NAPs’.
As far as motivators are concerned, I want to (at least currently) avoid making decisions on things like the age of the account, or resource contribution, they can both be heavily manipulated by players (bonuses for having ‘new players’ in your alliance could result in experienced people creating new accounts to take advantage, for example).
With that all said, I appreciate that this is a relatively non-committed reply, I’m still personally not sure about the general answer to this question. There has been a huge amount of great feedback and ideas in this thread, which I’m going to need to evaluate from a balance and technical perspective. I definitely think it may be possible to strike a nice balance between the two. At the end of the day, no solution is going to be perfect and all of them have detractors of some description, but the key is finding the solution that harms the game least, or at least discourages ‘bad faith’ play.
having multiple accounts is a bannable offense
I also think that it will be hard to strike a balance for newbies and veterans at the same time.
Still I’d like to offer a few ideas from a veteran’s perspective.
From my perspective, the goal of the game - apart from having fun - is to become the best, i.e. most dominant alliance. In my opinion, it would currently boil down to controlling galaxy 1.
To encourage the fight over that galaxy, one could rank alliances by the amount of planets owned/controlled in galaxy 1. This would be similar to a shooter game with a domination mode.
If you want to further encourage battles between players and alliances, I think the space to live/operate in needs to be restricted just enough so that without war you as a ruler and/or alliance cannot expand properly. That means the size of the universe needs to be a function of the amount of (active) players.
Furthermore, as an alliance you want to be able to win a war by pushing some other alliance(s) out of your desired territory. That means, you need to be able to absorb pretty much all of their planets in that territory. In the past this could be really hard simply due to the planet limit constraint.
As soon as an alliance hits its total planet limit (as the sum of all alliance members planet limits), there’s no real incentive to fight any longer because you cannot defeat anyone. Only farming score is left then. That’s why I’m not sure the upper planet limit is a good idea. However, it also depends on the length of the rounds whether you can actually get there or not.
As far as alliance size goes, I think that it does not need to be limited to a certain number if larger amounts of alliance members would come at a cost.
I imagine something like an effiency drop to all planetary resource production which increases with the size of the alliance. You can think of it like the cost of the bureaucracy to manage all the players and planets of the alliance.
This would be the cost for the safety of better protection or higher contribution in attacks.