ANW = TNW / # of countries in clan.

Or it should anyway.

See, DANGER, as an example.

and what's wrong in danger's anw?

Heh you can't tell?

THE MIGHTY CLAN [DANGER]! DANGER 5 $9,684,708 $968,471

If their TNW is 9.68m then an ANW 968k would mean they have 10 members... but they only have 5 according to this. I'm guessing there's a "minimum" of 10 members for some reason... because ANW is calculated based on there being 10 members for the other smaller clans too.

It has always been this way, yes?

as far as i know, ANW has always had a minimum of 10 countries. otherwise some of these guys that somehow manage 250m+ nw could detag and claim a huge anw win :P

Ya, this isn't a bug. ANW uses a minimum of 10 clan members if you have less than 10 members.

I was actually aware it has always been this way.

However, I would still consider it a bug. Just a long-standing one.

What is the logic to call something "Average Net Worth" and then do the math wrong?

even mehul calced it that way (to prevent 1-2 player tags to get anw).

boxcar etc calc it "right way".

Earthgraphs does it wrong.

apparently just using the feed from EE.

The question is, should a single member be allowed to take ANW compared to a 30 or 90 member alliance, just by detagging and making a new tag? what about 2 members? where do you draw the line?

eg calcs team-servers anw "wrong way", 2 players tag tnw is divided with 2.