Since they won't change the scoring, limit the members of an given alliance to 150 or a certain percentage of the total players.

but why?

Because current scoring gives an alliance with poor strength but tons of inactive members a higher score than an alliance with high ns active members.

The scoring system currently used doesn't reflect the actual strength of an alliance in what is supposed to be a "tournament edition".

This would be disadvantageous to alliances with already more than 150 members and advantageous to alliances around 150 members.

Inactives are sometimes back collecting.

Perhaps a better idea would be to drop nations that fall below 750 NS from the alliance strength calculation since they wont be of much help anyway. Or make the higher NS nations more heavily weighted and lower NS nations less heavily weighted in the calculation.

Although, I will be surprised if the admin changes the alliance strength calculation or limited allegiance to 150 members.

I agree with my LE overlor... I eh mean I agree with LE I think this idea is a lot better than most realize

Jim

If they want to they can be mostly Harmful alliance 2 and what not

Scoring can be tweaked, but not just to give an advantage to those with less nations.

The more nations you have, the stronger you are. Regardless of their activity, strength or experience. Inactives serve as good decoys, the weak can swarm the strong.

I don't think there should be a limit to numbers in an alliance. What if a huge NS guy wants to join but you're full up because of ghosts or such?

Naw, this is not true unless you are talking about drastic numbers.

The main thing inactives do is take up offensive war slots, heh.

Just a silly idea tbh. If you cap alliances at 150 members, people will just form "LE 2" or "MHA 2" instead of the original to avoid the cap, and have the original defend it :/

Plus, since alliance sanctioned positions don't matter in the endgame, it doesn't help people to have the #1 Alliance spot.

I agree. Look at all the other suggestions...

As for 150, I think that that could be a good idea, however, there would be about two alliances with 150 members, and the rest would be normal sized.

Membership shouldn't be capped but the score those members count for should be.

Suggestion rejected. I don't see how this will enhance the game, and its too easily avoided by creating A and B alliances under the same ruling.