The current formula for alliance score is ((alliance nations / total nations * 1,000) + (alliance strength / 100,000)) / 3. I think that this favors alliances with more members, rather than stronger alliances. For example, an alliance (A) has 50 members and 10000 strength, while alliance B has 25 members and 20000 strength. If there were 10000 nations altogether, this would give A a score of 1.7 and B a score of .9. TE emphasizes war and strength, so shouldn't alliance score be based more on strength, rather than score. I think that the new formula could be: ((alliance nations/ total nations * 500) + (alliance strength / 10,000)) / 3
This would leave alliance A with a score of 1.2, and alliance B with a score of 1.1, making the two closer to each other in score. Please feel free to tell me if I messed up on any of my numbers. Thank you.

Not a bad idea but the only problem with this is that the newby's wont be recruited by the alliances and will not be accepted into an alliance until they meet the expectations therefore many will be attacked and lose interest in the game rather than being mentored and guided by an alliance. But nice idea I can see where you're coming from.

Well my way basically makes it so that both are equal to each other in the alliance score.

There will always be another alliance that doesn't extort their members.

I agree with the OP. It's just not right that an alliance can have a large nation strength, but lose to an alliance that has more members.

I know. I remember an alliance last round had 38,000 strength and was behind one with 15,000 just because the latter had more members

I agree that alliance score needs changed to better reflect NS, not just numbers. Our score is artificially bloated by a large member count. I hope the almighty admin will consider this.

I think a cap should be added to the amount of score membership count and contribute.

Like maybe all alliances who have more then 100 members get a total contribution to there score of 5 points from membership count. That way an alliance with 200 members doesn't get double the score from it. Because sadly, the number one alliance is determined by membership count and nothing more. At least give other top alliances a chance. (Having the number one alliance basically predetermined I think puts an end to a lot of potential wars).

The "current formula" presented in the OP, is incorrect and out of date.

The formula was already adjusted at the start of this round.

Well thank you for the clarification, however, I copied and pasted that formula when the suggestion was posted. I am just assuming that the guide was updated a bit later than the actual change.

I support this idea.

A different suggestion, in a way. I suggest the top three alliances get listed in the Round Winners (Hall of Fame) page. This makes alliance war and fighting another goal, attracting more players. Otherwise players only play for individual gain and don't get anything out of sacrificing in war for their own alliance.

However, as I also agree the score formula gives too much credit to numbers, I suggest alliances be ranked strictly by nation strength.

I think one of the arguments made against higher weighting other elements than alliance nation numbers, is that alliances can kick people out who have low NS just to improve the NS-based numbers. Or they would limit new members to larger nations only. Yet that might work out even better though, we'd have fewer really big alliances and more in total. More total alliances might mean more competition and more alliance wars between those competing for a crown they'd now have a chance to win.

How about we limit the alliance score race to only 12 alliances - the ones who earn sanction only? This way you do have to maintain a fairly large alliance, but you'd also have to be good at building those nations and fighting using them to keep that growth. I think that might even heat up the race for sanctioning, give it more importance. Even better if we have more alliances competing for it. Then you can put a lot more weight on nation-per-nation strength and might not end up with as much emphasis on alliance membership numbers. You end with successive races: First to get sanctioned - then to win the round once you DO get sanctioned.

The way things are now it just seems like the TE alliance score thing is a recruiting battle more than anything else. I'd like the score race to be based more on how good you do as an alliance across the board, not just how good you are at recruiting new nations.

So the main argument against it is the alliance's discrimination towards smaller nations? And tell me why an alliance would throw out a nation simply because it is "too small". The way I figure it, unless the nation has 0 NS, it still contributes to the alliance's nation strength.

I was trying to get at arguments against more heavily weighting the score system on things other than number of members, which it seems to be biased towards right now. Right now, since it's based on most members, having 0 NS nations helps you get a better score. If the score system were based more on NS elements, then having 0 ns nations would hurt you a lot more.

Let's go with that.