Enabling disloyalty

I like the idea of having the use of a portal,this could be a thing only the leaders can do to help out there members who had the misfortune to be located hours away from the the main alliance hub.Some sort of mana donation from there fellow alliance  members could be used to open and run it.(this is kept seperate from your own mana pool)

That idea is interesting, but also very complex.  It would require a lot of work in the back end and web front alike.  And on top of that, I do worry about how full mobility, however costly, would affect balance and especially the safety of newbies.  Gradual movement would also make the changes less dramatic for the players that use it, so I'm skeptical that social engagement would be sufficiently enhanced.  Such free movement might just have a strong polarizing effect, and then the poles will die in isolation for lack of stimulation couple with lack of desire to leave safety.

It's certainly an interesting idea though.

This is more a discussion of a factor that's subverting interesting gameplay, and I don't know what would be a good solution, but I think the problem itself needs attention.  Fallout in browser games is always high.  Many approach it with very little idea what to expect, and it just isn't for them.  But it usually isn't about how much or little effort is required.  I think more players are leaving the game because they're not socially engaged than because it's too hard to play.  Without a strong community or some other emotionally engaging interaction, even warfare feels like the eleventh hour of Sim City.  Speaking as a leader of Harmless, I more greatly value a player who talks a lot and socially engages his mates in a positive manner than one who mechanically follows orders and crushes opposition.  The former is lifeblood of an alliance.  The latter is just another notch on someone's belt.

Clustering has been very effective.  It was obvious how valuable it would be from the start, and it's pretty widely employed to the benefit of those who do it.  Shared clustering is even more effective, and not even sovereignty has changed this much.

In terms of in-game struggles, this isn't necessarily a problem, but it's killing the meta-game.  In order to survive as a youngling, or establish solidarity as an elder, players must find shelter in each others' arms.  Once found, that shelter cannot be left behind.  Loyalties born out of need are becoming unshakable.  Example:

Toothless was founded as a training alliance, and was not intended to be a final destination.  But, inevitably, the members of T have clustered together.  Now they can leave in spirit, but they are bound together by this communal sharing of territory for the rest of the game.  Naturally, they all want to stay in Toothless or "graduate" to Harmless.  What they definitely don't want to do is join anyone Harmless doesn't like or even with whom H is neutral.  That wasn't the intent of Toothless.  That some will feel socially drawn to "stay in the family" is expected, but the effect of this form of account-blending goes way beyond that.  For the record, I do not speak for Toothless...I'm just sharing some observations that have been made.

Extend that to more generalized parties, and the problem is a little more clear.  Players can change allegiance, but doing so radically when in a cluster is tactical suicide.  Everyone is permanently stuck with their neighbors, even if not clustered, because distance is such a crushing factor.  Players cannot commit less fully, as it calls them into question.  They cannot move around freely once established.  In general, this is a strong stagnating force.  There are few free agents, even fewer double agents, and no shifting loyalties at all.  Alliances are territorial bubbles, and opposing factions don't get much intermingling.  Inactive or quiet players drag down the morale and social engagement of the remaining active players.  Aggressive players cannot push forward nearly so well as their opponents can bottle up, in terms of infrastructure.

Attempts to engage players with NPC activities and other baubles is laudable, but human interaction is the spice that fuels starships.  I feel that there needs to be more focus on enabling that.  For more casual gamers, better built-in communication tools will make a huge difference.  Overall, however, a given individual needs to be in touch with more players in a manner sparked by in-game intentions or possibilities.  I don't have any strong ideas for addressing that, but I do have two possibly worth mention:  reduced distance-effect, and town trades.

The question of with whom you interact is largely a function of distance.  The farther away they are, the less what they say or do matters and the less you can say or do anything about it, even if you are similar in strength.  Add in clustering, and your distance barrier may not extend far beyond the outer borders of that presumably all-friendly cluster.  So anything that brings far reaches of the game closer together (portals, faster unit speeds, bigger map view, etc.) will help a lot.  Thinking bigger is dependent entirely upon active, organized alliance leadership coupled with good intel and sophisticated data mining to identify and pursue opportunities--it's all very impersonal.

Players could gain more mobility if they were allowed to (expensively) swap two non-capital towns of similar population (keeping only their commanders).  They'd be able to shop around for a new home and "move" to a new neighborhood, as well as alter substantially their long-term strategy.  This would bring greater possibility of facing social choices with non-obvious resolution.  Subversive players could gain presence in enemy clusters, spies could place themselves more conveniently, casual players could find more talkative or open alliances that would foster them, etc.

I don't know how well these would work or if they're enough, but at least they open up possibilities (hopefully with any potential exploit handled by the non-capital, similar population requirements, and armies not changing location at least until such is enabled in a broader sense).

Thoughts?