Jeeooh Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 Yeah, 200. TOP should've gotten it ages ago, really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vurgas luhaka Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 I believe it's Polaris Applicant. AA has 5 nations with a total of .06 score Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 tbh our sekret is getting everyone's nation strength level over 9000.....again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iamrecognized Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 Well, there was the removal of the 'sanction' status of the time from LUEnited Nations, despite the alliance still meeting the regular criteria. Other than that, no, I can't think of any other time where it has happened. Perhaps it's finally time to redefine what gains an alliance its sanctioned status. I'm new (relatively) to this so why did they get their sanction taken away? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoomzoomzoom Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 I'm new (relatively) to this so why did they get their sanction taken away? GOONS also lost theirs while they were number 11 or 12 I believe. The reasoning then was having less than 50% activity rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 We lost a great opportunity of do a double pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ojiras ajeridas Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 Yeah, 200. TOP should've gotten it ages ago, really. The member count doesn't count very much for TOP. More important is that the new applicants are known by somebody and that they are active and cool. (Hey.... I'm cool!!! ) That's also why our applicants have a total NS of over 500,000.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 GOONS also lost theirs while they were number 11 or 12 I believe. The reasoning then was having less than 50% activity rate. Actually, the reasoning was more that their NS was dropping catastrophically quickly, and so Admin decided to pre-empt the what was then certain outcome of the war. Hmm, a loss for LoSS. What happens if Invicta wins the NATO/LoSS challenge? OK, the odds are against us, but we're still moving in the right direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonknight1000 Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 that was a close call at least white will get a few points now that Defcon's returning home Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vurgas luhaka Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 Wow! Who resigned from NpO? They are suddenly .18 below us with no real effort on our part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeooh Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 The member count doesn't count very much for TOP. More important is that the new applicants are known by somebody and that they are active and cool. (Hey.... I'm cool!!! ) That's also why our applicants have a total NS of over 500,000.... I know why you aren't past the 200 member mark, and I wasn't saying that you should've passed it a long time ago. I meant that the current sanction requirements are silly. Membership already has a large effect on score, and only in the past was it an issue (one man alliances could get pretty high, for example). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 (edited) Wow! Who resigned from NpO? They are suddenly .18 below us with no real effort on our part. looking at our aid screen I think reps were due. Edited November 12, 2008 by Finch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cakeman32 Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 (edited) Wow! Who resigned from NpO? They are suddenly .18 below us with no real effort on our part. A night for rep payments and one resignation. EDIT- Finch already got it. Edited November 12, 2008 by Cakeman32 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saber Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 I know why you aren't past the 200 member mark, and I wasn't saying that you should've passed it a long time ago. I meant that the current sanction requirements are silly. Membership already has a large effect on score, and only in the past was it an issue (one man alliances could get pretty high, for example). 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowen70 Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 Can't believe IRON's and MHA's growth. IRON will no doubt be the biggest alliance soon but how long before MHA is snapping at everyones heels who are above them. Hmm wish we had their recruiters! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drai Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 (edited) Currently:TOP 30.88 Fark 30.86 Has it ever before happened that the #7 alliance was not sanctioned? I think before they changed the average nation strength contributing more points to score, \m/ was pretty high. Although maybe they were actually sanctioned at the time? I can't remember if they had the required # of nations or not. Edited November 12, 2008 by Drai Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Grinch Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 I don't see the point in the member limit. Member count is a variable in Alliance Score. What good is alliance score if we're going to use the member count variable twice... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffro Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 Guys, watch out for DE today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor Noldorin Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 (edited) To be completely honest I prefer to remain unsanctioned while continuing to pass alliances in every category of strength even thought they have well over two, three and even four times as many members as we have. Just like the platypus we're a Paradox. Edited November 12, 2008 by Feanor Noldorin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Grinch Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 To be completely honest I prefer to remain unsanctioned while continuing to pass alliances in every category of strength even thought they have well over two, three and even four times as many members as we have. Just like the platypus we're a Paradox. Sure, but it's still crazy that member count is a variable in score, and score + member count are variables in sanction status.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 Sure, but it's still crazy that member count is a variable in score, and score + member count are variables in sanction status.. Member count is itself an achievement. It's quite a lot more difficult to run an alliance of 250 members compared to 100 members. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
im317 Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 Member count is itself an achievement.It's quite a lot more difficult to run an alliance of 250 members compared to 100 members. i don't think it would be that bad, the issue is managing 250 members when only 100 of them are more then semi forum active. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boondock Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 Lets not have a member count argument here. I agree with Feanor. Nothing feels better then being up at the top, when you have less then half the members of other alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
President Obama Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 Lets not have a member count argument here. I agree with Feanor. Nothing feels better then being up at the top, when you have less then half the members of other alliances. Indeed, that's why it would be so awesome if we passed GGA while having less than 1/4th of their membership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeooh Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 Member count is itself an achievement.It's quite a lot more difficult to run an alliance of 250 members compared to 100 members. I've never been in TOP, but I'm pretty sure that it's tougher to run an alliance filled with 100 active members and a few inactives rather than a few actives and 100 inactives. Mass recruitment is overrated. 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.