Instead of calculating dominance by the number of territories, why not calculate it based on number of dice out of the total possible? For example:

Number of dice you have / (number of territories on the map * 8)

This would implicitly account for having more territories (more connected territories the more dice you get at the end of your turn), but it would also more accurately reflect true dominance in the following situation:

Who is more dominant? A player with 5 territories with one die on each or a player who has one territory stacked with 8 dice?

I think I can rest my case with that example there, but I’d like to make one more point:

Dominance could then be a fixed number equal to the total number of dice possible on the map instead of points put in each round. This would allow for players to fight for better position instead of having to flag for fear of losing points by staying in the game. Points could be distributed like this:

Average of ((number of dice the player has at the end of each round / total possible) * 100)

When a player flags out he takes the points he’s earned out of the pool and is gone. A simple: if points earned > points left in pool then points earned = points left in pool.

Coding wise, points would have to be distributed from the bottom up with the leader getting what is left over (which would still be more than anyone else got).

This idea would smooth the points earned per game such that longer games would not mean more points, thus leading to quicker end games. Farming would be completely impossible with a fixed number of points per game.

With a fixed amount of placement points per game and a fixed amount of dom points per game, this would solve a lot of the issues we complain about with respect to farming and flagging and strikes a good game balance for risk/reward. It also solves the silliness of people suiciding for dom before they flag.

Thoughts?