I've looked at them, and they look ok except that it still feels like the QScore goes down too fast. Well, for some tables, such as this one, or this one none of the QScore methods except Phantom scale it right between BtS and Van/Warlords. I still believe that for most tables, no adjustment is needed, so a new scoring method that doesn't really mess with those scores is needed. In general, I think that the average date is a great scoring method...it just breaks down when there aren't enough dates in the table to give it a good sample...what if 25%+adj was used for tables without a certain number of games, say...5. After that either use the Phantom Date, or the old scoring method, since it works past a certain number of games in a table. Here, I think 25%+adj gives a better adjustment to QScore for such a small table than Phantom does, but in general, Phantom gives a better adjustment for larger tables, even as low as with 5 entries. I think that needing balance could be good, but I think that the two limits you are considering are a little overboard. Limiting to two games per table, means I can only play 2 Monarch/Normal/Diplo games. If I'm going for a Monarch level EQM, I don't see how I can get 33 Monarch games without submitting more than 2 games per table, unless I were to play 1 game in each speed/victory condition...which gives me 32 games. As for the no more than 1/7(but vanilla/warlords only has 6 victory types?) of your games can be a single victory condition, BtS has 8 victories(I think), so I can't have more than 4 victories of any type, and I pretty much have to play 4 of each type, as 5 of any type would give me an unbalanced EQM sheet and disqualify me. I'd say you can have up to 1/3 of your games in any victory condition...maybe 1/4 of your games. That way, instead of going 4 dom/4 con/4 time/5 diplo/4 rel/4 cult/4 space r/4 space c(which is 33 games, so I'm unbalanced just to get 33 games!), I can go 4 dom/4 con/2 time/4 rel/3 cult/3 space r/5 space c/8 diplo if I so desire, my diplo % there is just over 25%, and I don't think that I'm unbalanced there...heck, I think going with 10 diplo and getting rid of a couple of those space wins(or one of those time wins) isn't unbalanced. I doubt many people really want to spread out their games that much, and you'll run into the problem of people like me or jesusin or others who are 'specialists' doing well in a specific victory type and kicking out a competing victory type from a leader(after having achieved EQM already), and thus, making us unbalanced and losing our EQM status until we replace that diplo/cultural/dom or whatever with a different victory type...which could be difficult. I think balance is a good idea, but that it should be more flexible than you've suggested. I think that the 50% rule you suggested at first is too high, but the newer figures of 1/7 and 2 entries per table are too low.