Wouldn't it make more sense to calculate the VP/Player ? If the wolves are already more players in total then it's easy to always win isn't it?
They probably are changing the score to be local based. In that setting number of players has much smaller effect than it has on global scale.
I disagree. The game might be new in my area. * It helps illustrate my point.
With small numbers of people, e.g. having 2 wolves and only 1 eagle, means the eagle has to do twice as much work just to keep up with the wolves. On a global scale, if there are 5% more wolves than eagles, then the average eagle only has to do 5% more than the average wolf to match scores.
*I have yet to find a community settlement where anyone has built anything for my faction. 80% of the VP in my local area for my faction this month are from me.
I agree. VP/player or per 100 players or setting would be good if the teams are different sizes.
As the numbers in my faction in my region are tiny it's hard to compete. I'm not getting any help from others work. Like from them upgrading and building at settlements which I get to benefit from and vice versa. a positive feedback loop. It would give us each more resources from harvest dice, so we could upgraded more buildings so we could get more resources... etc