I am in favour of utilizing stats, to make people more concious about their lives. With whatever effects are connected to it. However due to exploit ability I'm not much a fan of stats based on win/loss ratio on a map in general (ill get to that later).
Personally if a system for skill will be used for stats, I hope that the type of map will be accounted for. (Infantry, Tanks etc) and class (Snipers perform differently from Smg). And that the effect of time is taken into the ranking. So not only a Kill/Death ratio but a Kills/Death/Minute ratio rated on a per class basis.
Next to that a teamwork sort of ratio would be handy probably, if the point system gets a good overhaul to actually represent a person's actual help towards the team, basically in the form of Points/Deaths/Minute. However this is dangerous territory, as then a system decides how to measure teamwork, which gets really vague.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The best way how I would see such a system in place is basically, comparing how someone performs on side A on map B with weapon C against others that played on the same map side and class. With the amount of people that even still play ro: ost these days you would be able to get enough data for a pretty good working ranking.
With an increase in activity with RO:HoS you could probably even go as far as gathering stats on a per cap basis rather than a per map basis. Its important when talking about stats that you compare apples with apples, and not pears with apples, so its really important to normalize the compared situation as much as possible. As the goal is to measure and rate individuals performance, and not an individuals luck.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
also win maps to attain Victory/Defeat ratios.
I hope that no victory defeat system is in place unless teams can automatically be truly balanced. Everybody would join the team which got the best players to gain the best chances of maintaining their victory default ratios, and pretty much play on the easy side of maps.
For something like that to work, either the chance of winning for the axis and allied side must be accounted for (ideally forcing teams to play both sides). And the general skill of your team compared to the opponents team.
Imagine if a team got a good chance on loosing or at the first cap it seems that its going to be a complete failure everybody would loose then.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ideally you should reward people for what help they bring to the team. Though being in a capzone, blowing up walls and giving mg's ammo isn't the only way to help a team. Things like cutting off the enemy his reinforcements supply to a cap zone, or giving covering fire from out side of the capzone should be rewarded as well. Just like getting rid of sharpshooters and MG positions.
If a person is rewarded for his individual addition towards the teams teamwork (a measurement that might be impossible). Then automatically good players will rather join the weaker team, as they can help that team more.
It's important that if such a system is chosen that it doesn't actually force people to play in a certain way that is not natural. Like MG's when they have plenty of ammo shouldn't get any more. Generally its better if 2 people capture a cap zone with the rest pushing forward and keeping the zone clear. Than when 10 people are in the cap zone, simply waiting for a grenade to land next to them.
And that is where I would rather go to, a form of a stable balance between teams, where if one side gets favoured the strong people join the weak side. Rather than when one side is loosing, that all people try to join the winning side.