I think that that is a good idea, Laurence. Certainly better than the current system. Let me throw out some other ideas just to provide discussion.
What if we used a player based rating system, in which every player left in the game at the end, or actually eliminated (not dropped) got to list the other players in the game who they felt performed best (maybe top 3 or 5). The players who received the most votes would receive ratings points. This would be likely to generate points for players who communicate actively (high points from teammates), and take the fight to their enemies (high points from other side), while dismissing the inactive players who get high vp scores, as well as late-declaring neutrals.
Perhaps "active player at game end" could consist of players who are still in play at the point when the majority of the other team is dropped/eliminated. This way, die-hards can keep hunting pop centers of the last few hold outs, without penalizing players who drop after victory is certain in order to start a new game.
It could be used to allow "Rated player only games" - where you have to
have a score of 1 or 2 or whatever to gain access. Or eventually even
championships, where the highest rated players challenge each other.It could be used by Harlequin to measure the experience of an alliance,
so that games with too many newbies don't happen. They could assure us
that the enemy team has at least 8 points between them or whatever.
I like these ideas especially.
ยทยทยท
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com