So, I got stranded somewhere in RL today....long story, and basically irrelevant, but whilst waiting to be 'rescued' and having nothing else to do, I turned to my thoughts. Yes, I know......dangerous thing to do, Carrie, especially if you have my thought processes Anyway, I got to thinking.....with what was posted on the blog and the Crash the EA house thing, it struck me. I've been sort of campaigning for a revamp of the current top 100 list, to be counted some other way than VH, since to me this has very little to nothing to do with the quality of a given house or host. It occured to me while thinking of this proposed raise in max capacity of a lot, and letting the house owner determine what the house's cap will be when they open it, that doing this would almost *necessitate* the revamp I've been hoping for all along. If not, then houses that have their max cap set at 200, for instance, will always be at a greater advantage to those with a max capacity of 60, for instance, even if both houses stay 100% full for the same amount of time, because the current system isn't based on percentage full, its based on the total number of hours unique guests spend there. But if they did make it based on percentages, then if both houses stayed at 100% capacity, no matter what number max capacity equalled, they'd each have a better chance at equal footing and fair competition. It still would not be perfect to me, because I don't think VH should be the central issue, but if they are determined not to give us rating systems because of the potential for exploitation, then calculating the VH using percentages rather than actual time seemed to be more fair to me. Sorry if I've lost anybody with this description...I'll try to be more algebraic in clarification if anybody wants it, I just wondered if anybody else who's been able to participate in the discussion on the blog (I still can't) has thought of this....so far I hadn't seen anybody say anything similiar, but I might have missed it. Thoughts?