It's not a bad analogy. I'm simply comparing 20x to 10y. Then I compared 10x to 5y.

The ratio is the same, but the amount is different.

Nerd shut up!

Proof to back up your reasoning for SBP(x) and MAD+(y)

There's no proportions there!

Whoa whoa whoa... Churchill gave me an idea.
Epiphany! Just barfing what I got in my head onto the keyboard, feel free to trash it or discuss.

If we tried a no team limits type of deal, and fixed the team score system and incorporated size of the team pretty drastically into that, then we could set it up to where a big team could not war a smaller team unless the smaller team declared war first.

Wow. The idea sounded better in my head. But Team limits are something of a soft spot for me so I'm willing to discuss it and show a solid idea to Jeff if we can hash something out.

Limits that depend on the size of a team would definitely be interesting.

look at my POLL thread about this

My only problem with this right now is it still wouldn't stop alliances or just teams like SBP or Traders + Dark Traders breaking up into smaller groups and continuing to duke it out.

If there were ways to prevent alliances like that then maybe something like this could work.

Do you remember how many teams ganged up on Pants? I think it's pointless to try to limit alliance behavior, since it seems to be a very reasonable part of the game.

What exactly is the problem with larger teams, then? DTR and SBP have already demonstrated that not only is it impossible to keep super-teams from forming, it's also possible to manage them administratively. What advantages are we missing out on that would be afforded us if we could make one big team? War costs already scale with number of players. Imperial seals can't be distributed outside team, true, but if the main worry is large-scale collusion and abuse of the emp run system, that can be addressed on its own. The whole emp run system badly needs a revamp anyway.

If you can't beat them, join them. I don't see any practical way to prevent alliances from forming, and I don't see any fundamental way that they could break the game either. So lift team limits and revamp the emp system to rule out any chance of collusion. I'll be happy to participate in a discussion of how that would work; chances are there'd be some sort of Rebellion mechanic that would essentially require the contenders to conflict in order to receive rewards.

It is easy to temporarily lower team score if some leet team wanted to war a small team. Also, pirate teams have hardly any team score because usually they don't have bases.

Good idea though. It might evolve into something.

does this have any chance of being changed for this upcoming reset?

maybe add a new element to team score that scales inversely with number of players, so having like 30 players would give 100 points, and having 150 players would give say 50 points and having 200+ would give no points?

or a modifier where the more players you have, the less total points you have maxed out at like a .75 modifier on your final team score?

-ERMAN

Allowing the playerbase to balance itself on this issue is the best idea. Everyone on 1 team would be super boring so it would not happen.

I was thinking something similar myself.