In my opinion, this cap *must* remain. Eliminating it would yield a colossal advantage right back to the big teams, which is exactly what these reforms are trying to eliminate. I'm sorry, but just have no sympathy for that position. If a player can't finish in the top 8 in his own team, why does he think he should contribute points for that?

I apologize. I am not trying to create controversy. I support the 8/6/5/4 caps. I think there are players that have expressed a desire to change those numbers though.

I think I and one other person suggested changing it from 8/6/5/4 to 7/6/5/4, as it it still gives too much of an advantage to a larger team to have 8 scores count.

But those additional people adding a point each swings the total points available in favor of bigger teams, who are already at an advantage because they are more likely to have 8 good players than is the case for a team scrambling to get 8 players.

Those who don't make the top 8 should be encouraged to see it as an incentive to hone their skills. Perhaps they could pick one particular game and play it as much as possible. When I first joined my team, I recall playing the Mixed Game endlessly, and getting a badge as much for the number of plays as for the actual scores per game. I got much better over that month! Same strategy is no good for the Easy Game - my internet connection is simply too slow - but I plan to work on my other weakest games now that they are part of the team competition. (Have I ever said how much I hate Fill Me In, as a single accidental hitting of the key beside the one I wanted destroys the whole thing? Still, ...)

I agree with Looney. Just because one large team isn’t necessarily competitive doesn’t mean that all large teams are uncompetitive. I can see how giving what essentially amounts to “points for participating” to all players of a large team is unbalanced and unfair to smaller teams who have to scrape together enough scores to count. Small teams are already being “penalized” by having fewer chances to have top scores simply because they have fewer people. Large teams don’t need another advantage on top of that by giving everyone who plays a point. Some large teams are competitive and some aren’t. Some small teams are competitive and some aren’t. The current system of limiting the number of qualifying scores seems to me like the best way of attempting to keep the playing field even for all.

[font:Book Antiqua]Personally, I thought ten was a good number.

My thought on the large number of players playing but only eight counting was that it would be nice if all those additional people playing contributed to our score in some way, like an additional one point per person or something like that.