Any good Engineer will tell you "you get what you measure". If you measure a production line's worth by the number of widgets it produces, it will absolutely churn the things out.
And the number of rejects they produce will be enormous.
So you measure the number of "usable" widgets they produce. Simples...

My point is, any chance of another balancing round on the points awards guys?

1. Remove points awards for destroying neutral structures

Many matches, some genius will decide that it's their job to blow up every turret in sight before their allies have a chance to press them into service for the team's benefit (they'll often try the CRU or equipment depot as well, but they have enough armour that they attacker usually gives up and looks for softer targets before they blow. Usually...) I now firmly expect to hear a bunch of voices saying "ahhh, that's so they don't fall into enemy hands". Aha. Right - that's why they blow them up while their team-mates are actively hacking them I guess? The truth is nothing of the sort, it's just selfish me, Me, ME!!!! gameplay, where someone is grabbing any and all warpoints he can, to the detriment of the overall team effort, without exposing himself to significant danger. It's also frequently followed by a column of enemy vehicles rolling (largely unopposed) into the team's end-zone, but that's by the by. What is beyond doubt is that a neutral control point is no threat, and is a potential aid. No points should be awarded for destroying it.

2. Make the points rewards reflect the objectives.

I generally play Skirmish games. For me, having no objectives makes Ambush games just feel like they lack depth of gameplay. Now and then I have a quick blat in Ambush, and there are some great players out head-hunting there. And I do my bit to make sure my K/D is high. Because killing people while conserving your clones is how you win Ambush...

I think you all know where I'm going with this...

And then I go back to Skirmish, and I see... exactly the same thing. There's a small minority of players "putting ourselves out there" to take control points and win the game. Because that's how you win Skirmish - you destroy the enemy MCC, and that requires you to take, and hold, control points. And yet, even now, many players are sitting in the hills sniping, or running round in HAVs collecting kills, not taking those control points.
Now, I'll agree that I'd rather have a decent sniper on my side than against me, and I acknowledge that a small minority of Skirmish games end when one side runs out of clones. But far more end in failure because insufficient players had the strength of character to support a press forward to take a control point. Or because the "snipers" aren't covering the ground infantry, so every attempt to take a control point (which, after all, requires you to stay in one place for quite some time) results in their being killed by unopposed enemy snipers.
(3)So the question is, why is a sniper kill worth as much in Skirmish as it is in Ambush? Players, it seems, will cheerfully ignore their objectives if it pays for them, and while that's a very New Eden concept, who the hell is rewarding these idiots who report in after the battle "oh, yeah, I completely ignored what you asked me to do, and sure, we lost like dogs, but check out these scalps I collected! Can I get paid now?".

And looking at some of the higher-rewarded players in Skirmish, it's pretty clear they didn't put themselves out to meet objectives. Shouldn't the actual objectives of a match guide the rewards?

Or, as any good Engineer will tell you, "you get what you measure".
Thanks for reading.