Jump to content

Proko

Members
  • Posts

    883
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Blog Comments posted by Proko

  1. ... yeah, and I am questioning the logic of this rule. Of course I know what the current rules are. But you could say: Why 200? Why not 150? Or 250? Or 300? Or 500?

    Thats the whole case: Its artificial, god-given, indoctrinated. It makes the system flawed and weak for attempts to trick and abuse it, is distorts strength reflection and serves no real purpose.

    If this rule shall "enforce" that only the "largest" alliances are sanctioned - then go and make the 12 "largest" alliances sanctioned or value membercount in the score formula just higher to ensure that large alliances always have a way higher score. An artificial number to pass just hurts, and does no good at all.

    If I remember correctly, the membership requirement was implemented when membership wasn't factored into the score, sometime around the Second and Third Great War, when the "score" feature was added for the first time (before Great War II, I think, sanctions were given only for raw Nation Strength). Score was calculated based primarily on Average Nation Strength, so small alliances with six members of 50k Nation Strength would have a score upwards of 70. The sanction limit also used to be 300 members.

    Because membership is currently factored into score, I agree with the OP in that it is an artificial limitation that serves no particular purpose, apart from a vestige of an antiquated system.

×
×
  • Create New...