Saber

I know, but just like a platypus, we don't have a flag. Call me when you are ranked #7 in CN in NS, with only 168 members. It's silly to talk that 250 members is a success, when #7 in NS, and #2 in nukes is not? Do you honestly think we CANNOT manage 32 more members?

We appealed to the admin a few times. Result of one such appeal was putting down the limit from 300 to 200 members. I wonder what will take him to remove this final requirement, will he implement it when TOP becomes number 4 alliance in total NS in CN? (We are less then 1M behind #4 , and we're going to get there!) Admin and moderators, loose this remnant of flawed score formula, remove the membership requirement!

Also we hit 2500 nukes today. Paradox Vult!

I remember when TOP made an announcement, that we've reached 5k NS average. First post in the thread was: "proof", as back then, there were no real time stats, and it had to be done by hand if you are not sanctioned. Heh, I should find that thread eventually.

ODN, we're coming for you .

I'll buy, sending you an offer.

Indeed, admin is right in saying it is an exploit. When in peace mode, you cannot do harm to other nations, nor can they do harm to you (try spying away nukes or killing tanks while someone is in peace mode). The same should apply to sanctioning as well, as it is an offensive actions that causes harm to other nations. I'm glad to see the change, and even would welcome it immediately.

I believe UE is right now on a business trip, so he is not around as much and cannot provide all sorts of war tracking. So, sit tight , when he can he will surely fix us up with something sweet.

They are 31 members away from losing their sanction.

Steady as she goes. It is not the brightest or the biggest star that will outlive the others. It is the one that shines evenly and constantly that wins in the end. We're on a huge gaining streak, great to know, stability and progress is way we roll .

I think 200 rule is quite bad infact. No significant alliance has chance to challenge top 12 in Score, if it is not as powerful in other regards. Only one alliance of all is able to challenge it right now, and it is TOP. Putting rule at 200 is in my opinion unnecessary, and too restrictive of successful alliances with stricter entrance criteria. But, I can assure you. We will take what is ours!

4 Orange alliances in top 12 > 10 blue alliances in the running.

We've had a simple, fluid system which allowed for maximum flexibility in the war. Having extremely complicated systems, that emulate RL is not something that makes your alliance military immediately superior, infact I'd say that creating a too rigid system is a major mistake, and that too much organization in that way can be hurtful. Yes, we had probably less organization then some other alliances, but it was still an organization, and one that worked as was expected (fluidity was key back then). Now we have more complex system, but our basis is still being flexible, and self sufficient. I'd say that we who gained, and kept 160 people who are all pretty amazing , is proof that we can get that many people, and keep them. Infact, I'd say it's harder to get 160 high NS people, then 320 low NS people.

Nah, we were the better team, more chances, controlled the game, true weren't most effective and passed the ball a lot in our back line, but Turks really could not challenge us. Too bad we didn't score earlier, then we wouldn't be so shocked.

Let's see, if TOP got suddenly 160 more members, we'd need form few additional military units, create new squads, recruit couple more commanders/diplomats/bank staff, and that's it. At least if there are no secret hard to deal with issues, that emerge when you are over 200 members? (this is a joke).

I'm going to guess you are an Italian. Well, you'll have right to complain, when you win against us. OK, thanks, bye. I'm still proud, Lady Luck wasn't on our side though.

Your argument is seriously failing. Please tell me, how does someone tell from number of members whether that alliance is successfully organized or not? Wouldn't a 400 member alliance of 5M NS with pathetic organization, still have better score then a 400 member alliance with 4M NS. Organization can be observed from retention rate of alliances, from their growth, and their adaptation to the times. Also, please tell me, what is the difference between managing 160 member alliance, and a 320 member alliance? How is it something radically different that is so hard to do, that it should be directly honored in alliance sanctions?

Incredible that you being such an old player, are so ignorant of way CN works. Please, tell me, who has more impact on world politics, TOP, Gremlins or Monos Archein? TOP has 6.4M NS which is higher then sanctioned alliances Ragnarok 6.4M, Fark 6.1M, GGA 5.6M, FOK 5.4M, and TPF 5M. Next in line is VE 4.7M, TOOL 4.2M, and Monos Archein, with mind boggling 3.8M. We also have 2nd highest amount of nukes (ahead of IRON by a few nukes, but they have 800+ members, and 500 behind NPO who as well have 900+ members). Our potential is much higher then any of the alliances under us (as they do not have the hitting power in upper ranks we do), and I can't see how their large number of smaller nations can be an advantage over TOP. Also, it's important to mention that nations (large number of them), already factor in the equation, for example Ragnarok who has roughly same NS as TOP, but 300 members more, has 3 points more score, in my opinion that is enough (since numbers of newbies alone don't make you a powerhouse). I did not want to bring this up due to our allies TPF currently holding the 12th place, but as it was mentiond I felt I had to. Requirement for 300 members is a remnant from before new score equation, for those who remember, back then average NS contributed to Score by a fair bit, which meant that small alliances with high NS had insane scores. I remember that even one member alliances with high NS had really high scores, so at that time admin/moderators implemented the member cap rule. After it was changed, and after average NS no longer factors in the equation, 300 member rule only artificially punishes alliances that are not mass recruiters, and alliances that prefer to work in a smaller group. I hope that admin will realize that this requirement is no longer necessary, and that he will make necessary changes. I will probably push this forward as a suggestion later on.

Infact, you're the one who brought "it's realistic" argument, I said that we should not look at it from a RL perspective, and that instead we should look how it affects the game. Also I said that if we want to, we can find some kind of excuse to justify that possibility.

I'll repeat myself, removing tech dealing would remove a very significant part of the game, and reduce complexity of the game. You shouldn't trouble yourself with reality of tech dealing, we can say that it's infact "importing educated experts", which happens in most modern countries (they come in search of a better job), what you should look is at how this affects the game, and in my opinion tech deals are only positive. Infact, I am trying to find a way how to make an additional layer of cooperation possible, but I'm so far out of good ideas.

Removing tech selling from the game would take away a great asset this game has, and it's possibility of people to cooperate for their mutual advancement. The game should never aim to reduce coordination between players, but instead it should look to improve and increase it. It is what makes the game interesting, as we all want to play multiplayer, singleplayers are boring. I could say that a certain game based on moon abolished aid, and many strategies went out of the window. In my opinion that is major reason that game sucks balls : Tip to admin, do not reduce potential for smart people to cooperate, aim to increase it instead. It gives alliances meaning, and gives incentive toward good playing. Key in this game is the alliances, and benefits that are achieved from good cooperation, let's not throw that away to make it into a rudimentary single player game that interests no one.

Not true, you need to grow more because you ABUSED the system. Those who were at 5.1%, and did not abuse the system before this change now sit safely inside 5%. You all are crying because you cannot abuse the system anymore.

Only thing that was changed it that people who did not abuse the system, who did not boost their nations by artificially buying tanks/soldiers, are no longer discriminated and infact forced to buy them to stay above people who did it. I did not have that problem for a long time, but I was at 2%, when realistically, looking at my infra and tech I am lot higher (right now 1.3%). To those who are crying because they can't abuse the system. Booah.

Military expenses are minimal. I mean, you are saying that you suffered in your growth, because you held what, 300k worth of soldiers+tanks?

75%-133% may be too big of a change, I'd rather go with 66%-150% for a start, we can see how that changes the mechanic and then potentally move down to 75%-133%. It's true that 50-200% may be too wide of a field. About 50k border, I'm not sure. It all depends on how many people are in upper ranges, with only 300ish people above 50k, it's quite possible that in some wars certain people will be unreachable. That could be annoying/problematic.