Going forward, I'm going to put adjustable alliance member limits on worlds. I noticed that Jaxarto turned into two massive alliances before the world even started.

[uimg=1285130403-jaxallies-0-640x320.jpg]

I think it really hurts gameplay. A member limit will force people to choose their teams more carefully.

Just to clarify, I'm not faulting the players in those large alliances! It completely makes sense from a strategy standpoint. Safety in numbers and all that.

It's really a design flaw in the game, which is my own fault!

Meh, I'm in the process of stealing few members from both massive alliances.

How many players as the limit are we talking about here?

It would probably depend on the size of the world, but I'm thinking five at the moment.

Heh, I'll admit I started it on this map. Though, I will point out that Iguano is far more polarized than Jaxarto and that there is far more diversity on Jaxarto, comparatively speaking.

Ouch, I understand where you're coming from, but 5?

I think five is a very reasonable number for the map size that Jaxatro is using.

However, I would say if you do apply alliance limits, it should be post-Jaxatro. Maybe start it up on either Lexovis or the next free world.

Iguano had the same thing. Although Manaco did want to make it East vs West, everything was quite balanced until one side started recruiting, well, everyone, and the other side had to recruit everyone else to have a chance. Kind of like what's happening once again in Jaxarto.

Also, Johnny, the reason why I don't agree with Alliance Limits is because of placement. If you have two alliances, one with a lot of open space and one without, then the one without, to be able to be a match, would need to recruit more members. This limit gives a huge advantage to alliances that get lucky with map placement.

Because of this, instead of Alliance limits, consider my tournament map idea.

How about a variable member limit? Alliance A (largest on the map) can only have 3 members more than Alliance B (the next largest alliance). When Alliance B recruits a new member, then Alliance A can also add another. This allows bloc configurations to grow like europe, china and the US colonies without throwing the game out of wack with premade large alliances.

This means that when a map starts 4 would be the max membership in an alliance. As a map matures, the number can grow larger.

-IC

Wouldn't that just result in a the same polarization but at a slower pace?

If we allow them to grow slower, I think more alliance would form from local necessity. Some older maps may end up with 2 giant alliances but that is fine. However, no new world would be 50%/50% right off the bat with solo players immediately outgunned.
-IC

I like IC's idea, I find it infinitely more palatable than a hard cap.

What about a 1 week moratorium before alliances can form, with the hard cap in place?

I also really like IC's approach to this. I don't imagine the coding would be much more difficult either.

It's a very organic approach, alliance sizes would mature as the game progressed. If the concern is that there will be two large alliances then perhaps add a third and fourth (or more, depending on map size) conditions. For instance, Alliance C and D must also be within certain threshold to allow A and B to recruit more.

I have an idea that can be considered:

From another thread by Johnny:
"Currently, all countries get $8,000 plus 0.15% (0.0015) of the materials in the sectors they own during each Daily Cycle.
I've started playing with different values. So far, I'm thinking of dropping the mining value by 0.00005 for every 5% interval in land ownership."

How about we drop the mining value by an extra % based off of alliance members' land. So if you belong to an alliance that owns half of the map, your income will be greatly reduced.

I also like the 5 member limit idea too.

I second (third? fourth? fifth?) the idea of limited alliance membership. Kadath's addendum to Iron Cowboy's suggestion seems to make the most sense. The question that arises, then, does this create an end-scenario where you've got five or six alliances and no further movement on the map?

As to BlakeDS's objection, I think that can be overcome by waiting until a map starts to join an alliance (which I maybe should have done on Jaxarto... maybe).

We can't add too many, or else you'll have one guy with a one man alliance cock blocking everyone else.

There would be nothing to prevent alliances from working together to fight another large alliance, though. It wouldn't be official, but it allows that strategy.

With a hard cap, many more players would have a fighting chance. And in the end, only one alliance can win, so people would have to be more careful with their recruitment.

Yes, I agree. I'm not seeing the advantage of the incremental approach. It just means the world would be split into two massive alliances over 48 hours instead of 24. Even if it takes a week, it's still either before the world starts or right at it's start.

It's your game, so it's your choice. However, I'm just gonna say that I am against a limit of 5.

Multiple alliances will ally and coordinate.

I say you should allow a certain number of members per alliance to start off with( about 10), but as the game progresses, limit the strength of the alliances by sending the owners warnings that they have about 3 or 4 days to eliminate however many members, or you'll delete them on your own.
BUT THAT'S ONLY IF YOU HAVE TO LIMIT IT!
Of course I'd ask you exclude Jaxart.

I don't think that's an issue, though. The problem I have with the system now is that players who have already played together gravitate towards one another immediately, so you end up with massive alliances before the world even begins. New players or players who aren't allied with the massive alliances don't have a chance.

If alliances are limited to five, there will be many more teams for players to ally themselves with and people will be forced to choose allies much more wisely. For example, it wouldn't make sense to team up with a country on the opposite side of the world just because you played with him once before.

I have a few people I've played with. However, I have many more who I have not, several of which are first time players.

Perhaps, but If it's a person whom you've played a couple times and they are running an alliance on the other end of the world, then there is a good chance that your alliance and theirs will work together.

As a new player thats what I experienced on Iguano, seems most of the people here have been playing for quite some time together and it was a bit frustrating they had decided that there was a east and west Island and thats the way it went. I do enjoy the game though.

I am in favor of the limit of 5. I for one am part of the large alliances, which is fun too; but a limit of 5 would definately add more strategy to the game.

Yeah, I can easily support a limit of 5 for a smaller sized world. Even if two alliances work together to win the world, you still end up with a 5 on 5 - or big vs big. Also means that they'll be jostling for position while removing everyone else.

I set an alliance limit of 7 countries on Lexovis, since it's a larger world.

I still have to go through and make the limit more intuitive when I get a chance (where it won't let you request or invite people when the limit is reached), but right now it's updated to not allow the actual accepts/approvals once the limit is reach.

Will this be applicable on Majunga?

Can we please? {:^)

I love the idea of more smaller, competitive groups. It should result in more early-stage fighting, and many more small battles in the struggle for global dominance instead of the immediate massive polarization we keep seeing. It should also reduce the need for "Rear" countries to have to travel for weeks just to get boots on the front (where it really counts). Rear-countries also tend to get bored the quickest: they're the first to start missing turns because frankly...they can.

Can we consider a 5-nation limit since it's half as small as L-Map? Given the current 40+ registrants that could result in 8 equally relevant alliances out of the gates. Won't that be a cool change?

(_8c(|)

We could try a limit on this one.

Hey, you made a Homer! Awesome!

I'll go on the record (again) in favor of limits to alliance sizes. On Iguano, for example, once a couple people on the front lines (in the west) decided they didn't stand a chance, they abandoned the game, basically spelling doom for everyone left in the Einherjar alliance. I'm fighting on, but it doesn't look good. Smaller alliances wouldn't preclude this, but it might even the playing field a bit for the remaining countries if one player leaves the game.

So I just notice that the alliance limits got set on Majunga! Thanks for letting us try it out Johnny!