I remember at the beginning of n2, there was a mechanic where if one side in a siege was hugely outnumbered by the other in total population, that side would get extra points, however, it got removed because people said it wouldn't help small nations and would only benefit the pvp clans. Not so surprisngly those people were also being disadvantaged by this.

Well i think those people need to take a hard look at the server today. Everyone is converging into a few supernations, these supernations have so much manpower and resources that they cant be challenged by anyone except each other, so they get stuck in endless wars. God help a new nation if they get attacked by one of them. The supernations and their mega alliances have more soldiers, more resources, more grinders, more sets, more cross timezone players for night capping, dubs upon dubs of pots, more of everything that gives an advantage in a siege. A small nation has no chance of winning.

At this point people are going to argue that the small nations should just ally with a big nation. However this encourages people to coalesce into mega alliances which makes for boring and stale politics and repetitive wars. Is that something ccnet wishes to encourage. For the sake of keeping the server interesting there needs to be a way for new nations or alliances of smaller nations to fight against mega alliances and supernations without joining one of them.

This mechanic was a good thing, it is a very crude but simple way of easing the point scoring problem for very outnumbered nations which tend to be new nations, looking at the server political state now i can think you can even call its removal a short-sighted, populist move to appease the big nations who wield the most power over suggestions.

I'm suggesting to readd the point adjustment for sieges where one side is at least 2.5x smaller than the other in population size, in this case the smaller side earns 2x more points. You can say that population isnt the perfect metric of measuring power but that's missing the point, it's a damned good proxy variable and raw numerical superiority alone helps in night capping and grinding.

This wouldnt disrupt the current Nordic-Coalition war because both sides have roughly equal numbers and neither outnumbers the other by 2.5x. It's for the benefit of the smaller nations and future upstart alliances.

Below i am going to address some of the arguments that got the mechanic removed all the way back in may.

Argument: People will be more careful allying each other because it will raise the population of their side
Response: Good, people are getting in the habit of allying everyone and interfering in every siege, it's getting old. Maybe there will be more regional sieges without the whole world getting involved.

Argument: It will buff the "pvp clan nations"
Response: As if pvp clans fight on ccnet alone. They only fight to play for the big nations at sieges. It would only empower a pvp clan thats independent and has no allies. And having a force like that disrupt the status quo is a good thing, not bad, even though one like that doesnt exist and probably never will. It was an imaginary problem back in may and it's still an imaginary problem now.

Argument: It will nerf the big but inactive nations/alliances.
Response: The collapse of declining empires should be accelerated, not prolonged, if a huge alliance can't get enough people online to defend their territory from smaller and fresher opponents, they don't deserve to hold it

Argument: New nations need to cope harder and grind more if they want to win
Response: What the arguers don't realize is how insurmountable this task is, no new nation wants to spend 69 hours a day grinding and sweating pvp to stay afloat, let's make it easier for them, not harder.