Until you make it so that factions lose points for losing you haven't really solved the problem, just created a point offset equal to the amount you *would* have given for a loss. It does create a different effect than giving, say, 1 point for a loss 4 points for a win, since the losing faction's score does not change relative to other factions. But as of right now the expected value for your faction for a game with a 50/50 chance of winning is points scored for winning/2, so it still benefits the more populous factions (or, to be more precise, the factions that play the most games). In terms of overall campaign flow, neutral locations or objectives to be achieved - rather than simply "not losing" and holding ground - would create a more interesting narrative/metagame flow, in my opinion. That said, it would be interesting to put some factions on the defensive once in a while even under that paradigm. I see what you're doing here, but this basically rewards the faction with the most played games to players signed up ratio. A better metric, in my opinion, would be to reward the faction with the best performance per games played as a general idea. You could sub "games played in faction" for "active player" in what you're doing up there, or you could make the amount of points a faction gains for a win equal to the amount it loses for a loss. Yes. The people who play 5 games a week were already going to play. You want to suck in the people who play 0-1 games a week, make them feel like *they* matter.