Drai Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 Wow, that would be interesting to see such a huge gap between the #11 and #12 sanctioned alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucas Perry Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 (edited) Yes, 3 days in a row of +.01 score! We keep losing small inactives. Welcome back NADC, glad to have you back. Edited June 20, 2008 by Lucas Perry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe87 Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 (edited) Given the way the formula is calculated, having a 300 member requirement no longer makes sense. It's been a long time since a few 60 k + ns nations could have score which would even register on the radar. So we don't have worry about fake alliances getting a sanction. Basically, TOP deserves the sanction, they have like the 8th highest NS and 2nd most nukes (not to mention their high average NS). Edited June 20, 2008 by Black Death Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperion321 Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 (edited) It stopped being obscured when they decided to make a movie. Unfortunately. A horrible movie at that also, yes it would be nice to see TOP get a sanction after all this time. Edited June 20, 2008 by Hyperion321 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weiss von Toten Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 Poor TPF....it saddens me to see you like this. So very, very sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freek Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 Given the way the formula is calculated, having a 300 member requirement no longer makes sense. It's been a long time since a few 60 k + ns nations could have score which would even register on the radar. So we don't have worry about fake alliances getting a sanction. Basically, TOP deserves the sanction, they have like the 8th highest NS and 2nd most nukes (not to mention their high average NS). This man speaketh the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virillus Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 I like the 300 member requirement. We have far to many alliances as it is, this requirement gives incentive to merge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freek Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 I like the 300 member requirement. We have far to many alliances as it is, this requirement gives incentive to merge. Why should there be any incentives to merge? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erikz Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 (edited) I like the 300 member requirement. We have far to many alliances as it is, this requirement gives incentive to merge. Merging is just a cheap trick to get sanctioned. Thats why it would be great if the 300 member requirement gets dropped to lets say 150 or so. TOP deserves it more then mergers, because they have reached this level on their own strength. edit: for the spellz Edited June 20, 2008 by erikz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geiseric Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 I think the 300 requirement should stay,... it's a merit badge for organizing that many people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulstartrek Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 Welcome back NADC, glad to have you back. Thanks, we're glad to be back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulgrim Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 TOP deserves it more then mergers, because they have reached this level on their own strength. This is so true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machiabelly Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 Given the way the formula is calculated, having a 300 member requirement no longer makes sense. It's been a long time since a few 60 k + ns nations could have score which would even register on the radar. So we don't have worry about fake alliances getting a sanction. Basically, TOP deserves the sanction, they have like the 8th highest NS and 2nd most nukes (not to mention their high average NS). In your post you say a few high strength nations can't affect the score, and then say that the sanction should be given to an alliance who has a high score from having a, relatively, few members with high Nation strength. My one man alliance is .23 score...I am on my way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Principe Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 I think the 300 requirement should stay,... it's a merit badge for organizing that many people. I agree with you completely. Actualy I think the requirement should be at 500. That really is an achievement to be proud of. 300 is a little bit of an odd number. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Lord Moth Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 I agree with you completely.Actualy I think the requirement should be at 500. That really is an achievement to be proud of. 300 is a little bit of an odd number. If it was 500 members, there wouldn't be enough sanctioned alliances to fill all the slots. That's sorta silly from an IC point of view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thor gold Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 NADC is back, baby! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avernite Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 In your post you say a few high strength nations can't affect the score, and then say that the sanction should be given to an alliance who has a high score from having a, relatively, few members with high Nation strength.My one man alliance is .23 score...I am on my way. It used to be that OBR had twice the score of NPO, then it made sense. Nowadays, when the nr 8 alliance in NS and nr 2 in nukes is excluded because of it... not so much. I dare say TOP has slightly more importance to the goings-on of the cyberverse than Monos archein, if they were indeed to be sanctioned due to TPF's losses. With TPF/FOK it can be argued that they're on the same field as TOP at least, so there's no need to reform, but when TOP, TPF, VE, Gre and TOOL might be skipped because of it it just seems a bit weird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROMMELHSQ Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 I think the 300 requirement should stay,... it's a merit badge for organizing that many people. having more than 300 people doesn't mean that the alliance is really organized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hansarius Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 It does set a goal to strive for however. And I for one believe that sanctioning is something that should be difficult to achieve, so I don't think it should be made easier my taking away the 300 member requirement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Principe Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 (edited) If it was 500 members, there wouldn't be enough sanctioned alliances to fill all the slots. That's sorta silly from an IC point of view. Maybe there would be more alliances with 500+ members if they had an incentive to reach te 500 members point. It could help to clean up the mdp-web. Could it be that before the Unjust War there were more large alliances that used to tech raid or attack small alliances for fun like FAN and Goons. Maybe thats why there are so many small alliances now? Large alliances are to nice to them by signing a lot of protectorate treaties? Edited June 20, 2008 by Il Principe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cylon Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 (edited) having more than 300 people doesn't mean that the alliance is really organized.p. So true, that's why the real organized survive and the chaotic fade away after some time. It does set a goal to strive for however. And I for one believe that sanctioning is something that should be difficult to achieve, so I don't think it should be made easier my taking away the 300 member requirement. It is, BUT, I think it's better to give sanctioned alliances slight benefits against alliances who are not sanctioned. This will level down the various number of 20 - 60 people alliances in the game. Because everyone wants to benefit from being sanctioned. Everyone (Well a lot of you) here's screaming that the 300 member level should be maintained as a requirement to get sanctioned. But if you'd gave High NS alliances like the Grämlins and TOP a shot at being sanctioned, the only way to catch up with those insane high Avg Strenght for other alliances is to recruit. This would make the game "fair" You can get sanctioned with a low # of nations, but it's so much easier to get the benefits of a sanction with more nations. Alliances will be recruiting anyway. Edited June 20, 2008 by Cylon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingsIndian Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 (edited) I don't see any mistakes, great first update! Nice update (although I didn't check the math) Thanks for the compliments - I may do more in the future. However, there was one error: Dracule Mihawk of Rogue Nation has notified me that Greenland Republic should've been on the list. Of course, it's a bit late to add them now, and a bit early for today's update, but here's a minidate for him: Greenland Republic: 10.28 Sons Of Liberty In Defiance: 10.21 ---------- Add Line: 10.04 --> 10.03 (-0.01) Finally, you may now mock me: instead of halving the 12th-placed alliance's score, I actually searched for the "Add Line" AA before remembering how the system worked! Edited June 20, 2008 by KingsIndian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayzell Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 (edited) If only there were any actual benefits to being sanctioned besides the "status" of it, then perhaps we the way alliances were structured would change for the better. And I don't mean spam recruiting inactives to inflate your stats... Also, congrats to the NADC. Edited June 20, 2008 by Hayzell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 Finally, you may now mock me: instead of halving the 12th-placed alliance's score, I actually searched for the "Add Line" AA before remembering how the system worked! I lol'd. Great job though, hope to see more updates from you. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickenzilla Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 o/ Greenland republic and NADC for making it up here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.