Change the rule in Antichess Team Battle: All points should count, not only Top 6

Personally, I'm fine with the Top 6 Leaders Rule. But I can see that the Top 6 Leaders Rule can be frustrating and demotivating to many players in larger teams. However, I think that some form of limit like it is necessary to keep the "Team Battle" from becoming a "Team Massacre", where big teams hopelessly crush any smaller teams, and quantity is much more important than quality.

While smaller teams don't usually make top 3, at least it feels reachable to them, which keeps them playing. If the Leaders Rule was simply removed, there would be no hope for smaller teams, so the Team Battle would probably turn into 2 or 3 huge teams fighting, with a couple of weirdos playing on random different teams for fun. Or possibly one team would be large enough to be unbeatable, causing most other people to give up, and clogging or stopping the pairings (since players on the same team can't be paired against each other).

Perhaps, Jack, you can ask those who are in charge of the Team Battle to change the Top 6 Leaders Rule to something like this idea:

IDEA: There are still Leaders (maybe still 6, maybe some other number), and their points still count towards the team score as normal. But then the total points of the non-leaders are divided by 5 and then added to the team score. This means that anyone who isn't a leader still contributes to the team, just at 20% efficiency. Although that might seem demotivating to non-leaders, it's better than 0% efficiency. Note that this would require decimal or fractional team scores to be displayed, unless rounding is involved.

@CaptainPencil said ^

Personally, I'm fine with the Top 6 Leaders Rule. But I can see that the Top 6 Leaders Rule can be frustrating and demotivating to many players in larger teams. However, I think that some form of limit like it is necessary to keep the "Team Battle" from becoming a "Team Massacre", where big teams hopelessly crush any smaller teams, and quantity is much more important than quality.

While smaller t...

Yes, but with our record of 633 points, our actual record was 1245.

Everyone who helped us from 7th place onwards. They fought hard, but the points they earned were deleted.

And that's demoralizing people.

@JACK_RUDNICK said ^

Yes, but with our record of 633 points, our actual record was 1245.

Sure, but then the actual record from other teams would probably be even higher. If you're trying to change the rules, they would only apply in the future, anyway.

@JACK_RUDNICK said ^

Everyone who helped us from 7th place onwards. They fought hard, but the points they earned were deleted.

And that's demoralizing people.

I agree, and I offered a solution to their points being deleted in my idea above; did you read it? My idea tries to balance making everyone count and keeping things competitive. I explaned above why simply removing the Top 6 Leaders rule would cause problems.

As I said, the top 6 rule isn't that great; top 20 is better—that way, people feel they haven't let their team leader down.

@JACK_RUDNICK
Can't you see I'm not defending the Top 6 Leaders Rule? I am opposing removing it without anything to fill the void, but I'm not defending it.

As for your Top 20 idea, I think that in a small community like Antichess, a Top 20 Leaders Rule is basically equivalent to no Leader Rule at all, so I don't think that would work until the Antichess community grows significantly.

Have you actually read my IDEA? Please tell me what you think of it.

I’ve read through everything, but I’m wondering what the smaller teams actually gain from a top-6 setup.
They have no chance of winning.
A top-20 format is essentially the same thing to me—just with more players involved.

Once again, Jack, I'm not defending the Top 6 Leaders Rule. My idea is different, since it includes everyone else too. Which would you prefer: my idea, or how things are now?

your suggestion