OK, I've solved teaming!

Actually I am really good at reading peoples emotions, strengths and weakness...

I have also noticed that..

If you do the same thing to your friend again and again, your friend will then go.

For example here in this 4PC situation :

You said : ''reporting is never solution as long as creating a new account is for free.''

Same case here.. Do it again and again until that person quits making new accounts and thus follow according to the rules.

We can give it a try. 

@jesssica   Also,   admins cannot be analyzing thousands of teaming reports.  Alot of situations are grey areas and it's impossible to tell if it constitutes teaming of good strategical play

Oh well in that case..

I lost..

Well I gave my best.

So um...

What will be the solution?

Should we just let it flow?? 

they are going to ruin maybe hundreds games until you make them obey the rules. Even some decent people might leave game because of such bastards. 
also when it is easy to break rules, many new players will attempt to try braking rules. But if you have strong precaution system, most of new players are not going to attempt to break.

Welp..

Congrats for defeating me 

So what will be the solution? Will there be a solution for this situation?

@Bill13Cooper teaming and good strategical play are not mutually exclusive. Actually teaming is the best strategy. It violates the game rules, and it's hated and perceived as unfair and unsportsmanlike by most players, but other than that it's great!

A lot of comments under the bridge, I will respond when I have time. One now tho...

"Teamers with mathematical degrees..."

If someone has enough to understand the math of what I have proposed, they will cease being a teamer. That is the point. It makes teaming mathematicaly unfeasible. In order to gain points you have to balance what you take from other players, at each stage of the game. Thus before anyone is checkmated you need to get pieces from *each of the other players*. Then once one player is checkmated, you need to get points from *both of the other players*. Then, when two are, obviously your points come from the other player.
This makes teaming unviable. And it does it in an objective way.

Nahh. Two teamers will beat two solo players 95% of the time. Teaming can never be a disadvantage, and can't be neutral either.

Not sure you understand the math I have proposed. Obviously two teamers will 'beat' two other players... but when the score comes out they might end up with a lower score. And if the teames are smart, they will see that teaming might let them 'beat' the other players (as in eat more of their pieces and get checkmates) but it won't rack up the score.

Two teamers will beat two solo players on points, and on checkmates, and on every other level and dimension. They have better control together of what is happening on the board than the solo players. I don't feel the need to prove it for the specific scoring system you suggested for two reasons:
1) The system is terribly convoluted and will never attract anyone.
2) You will then come up with an even more convoluted system involving square roots and powers of Pi. And then you'll maybe add some trigonometry functions also, to make it even more team-proof.

>> I don't feel the need to prove it for the specific scoring system you suggested for two reasons:
Well, given you can't do it, that's good for you.

>>Two teamers will beat two solo players on points, and on checkmates, and on every other level and dimension.

Obviously. And just as obviously missing the point. The way that this scores thing, in order to get a lot of point, you have to balance your points and checkmates against the other players. A player who does 'less well', yet does so more in a more balanced way, will do better on the score.


>>1) The system is terribly convoluted and will never attract anyone.

Well, it's actually rather simple mathematically, but it is a bit trick to explain. But its trivial to implement on the computer, and it will then be easy for players to see. As they see the points mount they will begin to get the picture, and will play accordingly.
The rules of American football are actually rather complex, but the players learn their parts and their limitations. Few passes are accidentally caught by the center (an ineligible receiver, if I understand the rules correctly). So when a player learns that gaining points against all the other players literally more than doubles his score... he'll learn to take those points.

All other things being equal, a player having a cooperative opposite will be able to «balance his points and checkmates» better than a solo player with a non-cooperative opposite. It is common sense.

Yes. The way to do that would be a form of cannabalism. They would need to start eating each other's pieces. That is obviously possible, but it carries its own threat, obviously. It would need to work like this:
A and C make it so A can eat a piece of B.
Then A and C make it so C can eat a piece of B
Then A and C make it so A can eat a piece of D
Then A and C make it so C can eat a piece of D
Then A and C make it so A and C can eat one of each other's pieces.
Then A and C checkmate B or D
End of first phase of teaming

Now, all that is possible, obviously, but it isn't easy. And while their doing it B and D are likely to get some points of their own, since they don't have to go through all of that complicated dance. Most like they would get some of A and C. Then all four players need to try to get a piece of their opposite.

Possible, but very, very tricky to pull off... and A and C trying all that leaves them vulnerable to someone who doesn't have such ambitions.
Let's face it most teaming right now focuses on little touches along the way, mostly ad hoc. And then it relies on double teaming for a checkmate. But double teaming for a checkmate will not bring near the number of points in this system as the current one. And the first checkmate has the potential to be a lot more valuable than the second or third.
A lot, lot harder to make work.

The only reason for people wanting to try this scoring system, would be for experiencing how awful it is. It's so terrible that it may be actually interesting to try it at least once.

I think you would have to try it a few times to get the feel. But by then you would be hooked

I bet my pet snake that after trying your creation I'll want to kill it with fire, even more than I do now.

I'll take your snake, and raise you a hamster... but you have to try it at least ten times.

Ten times? No way! I prefer to be tortured by music!