Ammon Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Since they won't change the scoring, limit the members of an given alliance to 150 or a certain percentage of the total players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gecko Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Since they won't change the scoring, limit the members of an given alliance to 150 or a certain percentage of the total players. but why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janitor Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Because current scoring gives an alliance with poor strength but tons of inactive members a higher score than an alliance with high ns active members. The scoring system currently used doesn't reflect the actual strength of an alliance in what is supposed to be a "tournament edition". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimKongIl Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Since they won't change the scoring, limit the members of an given alliance to 150 or a certain percentage of the total players. This would be disadvantageous to alliances with already more than 150 members and advantageous to alliances around 150 members. Inactives are sometimes back collecting. Perhaps a better idea would be to drop nations that fall below 750 NS from the alliance strength calculation since they wont be of much help anyway. Or make the higher NS nations more heavily weighted and lower NS nations less heavily weighted in the calculation. Although, I will be surprised if the admin changes the alliance strength calculation or limited allegiance to 150 members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Believland Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 I agree with my LE overlor... I eh mean I agree with LE I think this idea is a lot better than most realize )): Jim )): If they want to they can be mostly Harmful alliance 2 and what not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonewolfe2015 Posted June 6, 2009 Report Share Posted June 6, 2009 Scoring can be tweaked, but not just to give an advantage to those with less nations. The more nations you have, the stronger you are. Regardless of their activity, strength or experience. Inactives serve as good decoys, the weak can swarm the strong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dulceice Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 I don't think there should be a limit to numbers in an alliance. What if a huge NS guy wants to join but you're full up because of ghosts or such? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 The more nations you have, the stronger you are. Regardless of their activity, strength or experience. Inactives serve as good decoys, the weak can swarm the strong. Naw, this is not true unless you are talking about drastic numbers. The main thing inactives do is take up offensive war slots, heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Just a silly idea tbh. If you cap alliances at 150 members, people will just form "LE 2" or "MHA 2" instead of the original to avoid the cap, and have the original defend it :/ Plus, since alliance sanctioned positions don't matter in the endgame, it doesn't help people to have the #1 Alliance spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon1 Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 (edited) Because current scoring gives an alliance with poor strength but tons of inactive members a higher score than an alliance with high ns active members.The scoring system currently used doesn't reflect the actual strength of an alliance in what is supposed to be a "tournament edition". I agree. Look at all the other suggestions... As for 150, I think that that could be a good idea, however, there would be about two alliances with 150 members, and the rest would be normal sized. Edited July 7, 2009 by eyerack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zikawe Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Membership shouldn't be capped but the score those members count for should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvenStar Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Suggestion rejected. I don't see how this will enhance the game, and its too easily avoided by creating A and B alliances under the same ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts