I would argue against size being the real win, it isn’t even really the traditional winning condition, as NW was the main determination of win, both fam and individual (why do you think EoR NW jumps are a thing?)
Also just because size is the current determination of the win, doesn’t make it the best, or unexplainable. The issue of farming and rape of small fams is in fact tied to the use of size to determine winners…
Size is in fact just a standin for fam that wins the most wars, which is the real score… how many wars did you win. So can we determine a way to score that?
I disagree. Like we saw last round, we were #1, and we beat #2 in a war. From that moment we were so far ahead of the rest, that other wars didn’t really make sense. We did one more, but to be fair, any more wars would by everyone directly be called farming.
So creating a score system that works by points on wars won would in this case very much encourage a fam lightyears ahead to go farming as many fams as possible.
The game works by a balance between size and infra. My reasoning is that planets support building more infra, the infra supports building and maintaining fleet, fleet supports taking and holding planets.
It all starts and ends with planets. We’re not taking infra from other fams, we’re taking planets, everyone wants other peoples planets, the currency for wars, NAPs etc is planets.
Hence, the winner at the end of the round is the one holding all the cake, being the planets.