An interesting, although complicated system. It's quite different from the current assault scoring system, which is bascially all or nothing, with the fastest team to beat the level getting points. This means that the second round is no longer than the first round, and often shorter.

This method on the other hand (correct me if I'm wrong), puts both rounds at an equal length, and assigns a point value to each round seperately, rather than both as a whole. The points obtained can also be quite variable.

Both systems have advantages. The advantage of the traditional system is obviously that it is simple and not dependant on a bunch of factors. Because of this it's bascially impossible to get it wrong.

The advantage of sers' system is that it rewards players even if they lose. This is a good thing, although the reliance on a bunch of details (the set length of a match and that whole percentage buisness in particular) makes it a lot harder to get right. It would still work without fussing over details like that, but arguably not as well.

I like the innovation behind this new system, although for practical purposes I ultimately have to chose the traditional system as the better one. What I would like to see is the simplicity of traditional assault scoring with some method of rewarding points to the losing team for their performance. I have a number of ideas but don't feel like typing these out for now.

As for 2vs2 games, I don't think assault should really apply to them. The reason is simply because of how 2vs2s are scored. Assault is a VERY different gametype from CTF, with the main problem being that the point value of an assault match is arbitrary. CTF points on the other hand are much more consistant.

What I mean is that you can decide to make an assault match out of 10, 20, or whatever. A CTF match on the other hand, is worth however many points were scored. The JDC duel scoring system was designed with this in mind.

2vs2 assault games are still acceptable, but I believe they should stay qualified as "small events" mostly due to technicalities.

Oh and wr's spreadsheet makes NO SENSE