I've been thinking about this topic recently, and it seems to me that the best systems for multiplayer games are those that reward winning without overly penalizing the losers (since there are many more of them than winners).
A very simple way to do this with SEIV would be to tally points per game played. The total number of points for a game would be the number of players, and that total would be divided by the number of winners. So, in an eight player game with two winners (an alliance victory), each of the victors would get 4 points. A solo victory in the same game would get 8 points. These points would be added to each player's previous total and divided by the total number of games played, resulting in a points per game score for every league member. The league standings would then be based on the points per game score.
There would need to be a minimum number of games played to qualify for league ranking (otherwise you could have anomalous high scores for infrequent players (like the 1.000 batting average in baseball you sometimes see in April)). This system would allow, I think, for a valid comparison of those who play alot and those who play fewer games - without simply rewarding frequency of play (it seems to me a player that only plays ten games and wins 5 of them is better than a player who plays 50 and wins 10). And it would allow for players who like games with lots of players (Fyron) to compete in the same league with one-on-one players (who may all be over at KOTH by now...).
Anyway, just some thoughts. Because of real-life time constraints I can't play KOTH (as much as I'd love to!), but I would jump into a league like this one in a minute. So, I hope you do decide to start one, Geoschmo.
[ December 14, 2002, 06:09: Message edited by: Chronon ]