A faction that only has a non-functional guard tower remaining and was forced on full defense for the final 15 minutes is declared the winner because...they have a bigger number?
It's these kind of results that devalue actually trying to win in an AOW match, because if you just hold down the fire button on a building to no effect, you will generate score like nobody's business.
But if you actually take down a building, that's one less point generating punching bag for your team, ironically making you worse off if you're unable to finish the job.
In this case, I took down the GDI power plant on my own, and put faith in the other 19 players to make some sort of attack that would culminate in a victory. Buildings did fall down, but the last five minutes were GDI stuck in their base.
So for cowering inside a defunct tower, GDI wins? How does one even define a win at this point?
If we've removed the silliness of stopping a nuclear missile when its 5 metres from impact, why have we not removed THIS silliness? A team that suffers losses so severe from an onslaught of weaponry cannot win in any possible reality.
Now my idea to rework the score is to grant the team that destroys a building a score multiplier for the rest of the match. Something small but noticeable, like x1.05 for each building or so. This would be applied to the team's total, rather than to everyone in the team. It's still possible for the enemy to win if by some chance they are vastly superior, but lost a building to someone emulating Solid Snake (the act of taking down a building alone and silently). I do not discount these kinds of games.
I am open to any change to the score system, so long as games like this are fairly evaluated beyond some arbitrary number that fails to account for it.
The "play marathon" argument doesn't account for the fact that I am a mortal and have a finite amount of time on this planet.