Siege balance proposition: RU in/out
The strength of a team depends on many factors - fragging, teamwork, communication, offense and defense skills, things like that. But one such facet often very overlooked in games is how much of a difference good (or bad) building choices can make in the long-term outcome of a match. AFAIK, these skills are not factored into balancing. I propose that two quantities - RU in/out difference, and RU ratio, be used in part in the determination of a siege player's strength.
The measures are simple. RU in is any RU that the player accrues for his team from dealing damage, getting kills, upgrading the core, or killing nukes (not teammates' nukes, obviously). RU out is any RU wasted (nukes that are killed, team nukes that are killed, bombs or mines that are killed before deploying, buildings removed or destroyed) or that is lost to the enemy team (from getting fragged, -50 for loss to the enemy team and another -10 for death, getting buildings made by that player leeched, suicides when carrying RU, etc.).
The difference is just RU in minus RU out; a player with a negative value for this is either very inefficient or does more to help the enemy team than he does his own. Ratio is RU in divided by RU out, which lets a player's long-term efficiency shine better than an absolute value.
I think making balancing choices based on values like these will avoid outcomes like CHIMP or BOUH2K building leeches that would cripple an otherwise capable but not exceptional team; they would also temper players' fragging/offensive/defensive abilities against or with their building abilities.
