What improvements would you bring to the score system?

I've been watching online pro games online for almost a year. My understanding is that the score can be used as a proxy to assess players' strength. If that's the case, then it can be improved, while keeping just a bit of mystery. Here is what I propose.

Score should reflect (so no change here I believe):

• buildings and units fielded (that is, still alive/standing, the moment they are 100% built or created)
• tech researched are considered always fielded (even if no corresponding unit is on the map)
• converted units or buildings grant points to the same level as if they were created
• a little bit for map scouted (although I'm open for this one)

In other words, score would mainly reflect resources spent that still have an impact on the game. That's it. That's your strength, here.

So I would get rid of:

• points for enemy units killed & buildings destroyed; your reward is that they lose score, not that your permanently get some
• points for tributes (your team gets points when the receiver effectively spend the resources)
• points for resources gathered (these are merely potential points, let's not confuse the two)

For the latter: this allows for a bit of mystery, when a player would stockpile resources. It could slightly alter the strategy (if you don't want to alert your opponents about how much strength you could have) but I don't see it as game changing because it's quite poor, strategy-wise. Pro players mostly spend resources as soon as they can (for their intended purpose), and low elo players struggle the spend their resources anyway.

However, the most striking change is that you wouldn't know when someone clicks to the next age (in the current system, one loses some points doing so). This could indeed alter many things! It could be a plus or a big no, which side are you? And if it is not popular, we could replace for something else, I don't know.

Another downside of my proposition is for free-for-all games, where it's nice to have the score tracking who gets the most kills, who is the most annoying. At the same time, it's interesting that the most offensive player would be more hidden (because they would likely lose points during their offensive).

Of course, this could lead to a situation where a player who was behind on score nevertheless wins the game. Well, this is already happening, and what else to say besides congratulations. We do not compete to get the more score, but to win the game.

While we're at it, I'm not sure we need the distinction between military/economy/tech/society scores. Who cares lol. I've never seen anyone boasting for being the first in tech while losing the game.

And you, would changes would you make to the score system?