The Greatest and the Rest

[Earthling]

You never won a game, but had the game high score twice, correct?

 

30 points.

[Guest Spongebob]

Just worked out the score for Ken Rozhon, the guy who has completed 14 games. Using the scoreing system as described, 10pts for first 1pt for 10th any 11th and beyond gets no score.

 

This means Kens Score is 55 pts. I am going to do a few more as I have nothing better to do awaitinng the results of 88 and the start of 89. Yes I know its Sad but if anyone wants to do there own do it and see if your score is better than the 55 Ken has scored.

 

Christian Schmitter - 37

Sander Anneveldt - 23

Charles G. Clark - 55

Dale Richie - 7

Michael Burchard - 9

Richard Reece - 29

Donald Link - 29

 

A few more scored, it seems 55 is joint top between Ken and Charles

[Guest Spongebob]

Ken.... Buddy.... want to be my friend in 89? Pleeeeeeezzzee

[Kurassier]

You never won a game, but had the game high score twice, correct?

 

30 points.

 

Yes, that is correct. 'Lost' because of alliance structure.

[Kurassier]

Just worked out the score for Ken Rozhon, the guy who has completed 14 games. Using the scoreing system as described, 10pts for first 1pt for 10th any 11th and beyond gets no score.

 

This means Kens Score is 55 pts. I am going to do a few more as I have nothing better to do awaitinng the results of 88 and the start of 89. Yes I know its Sad but if anyone wants to do there own do it and see if your score is better than the 55 Ken has scored.

 

Christian Schmitter - 37

Sander Anneveldt - 23

Charles G. Clark - 55

Dale Richie - 7

Michael Burchard - 9

Richard Reece - 29

Donald Link - 29

 

A few more scored, it seems 55 is joint top between Ken and Charles

 

Actually, there ought to be a 'weighted' score since some nations are harder to survive than others, while some are 'easier'. Sooo, just to make things even more complicated, I would suggest the following.

1st place = 200 points/# of survivors

2nd place = 190 points/# of survivors

...

10th place = 110 points/# of survivors

....

20th place = 10 points/# of survivors

 

This means the normal 'high score' would be 20 instead of 10, and gives points to anybody who survives a game.

For example, Guido von Stebut would receive 28.6 points for his 1st place finish in France (200 pts/7 survivors) one of the harder nations to survive, while Raymond Adams would only receive 11.1 points for his first place finish in Northern Russia (200 pts/18 survivors)

 

Thoughts? comments?

[dageraad]

Any system assigning "points" to a player has drawbacks. What score to count?

As I can see the most succesfull player ever was Raymond Andrews in game #23.

But even that score could have been achieved by weak opposition.

 

If a player plays conservatively over 20 games in a row He or she could rack up a whole lot of points despite being only a mediocre player.

I rembember Dutch game 2, 6 and 8, but the elvel of competition in those gaes was far lower as in game #87. They had a lot of n00bs, the average player in #87 seems to now at least what he is doing. So attaining a high score in those games was probably not so much of an achievement.

 

Reputation however is often based on expert opinion of experienced and respected players. When we started in game #87 my TA's and I were warned that a certain Kurassier was playing in hte middle East too. We were advised to ally with him. We were also warned against Des Feeney. So far both of their reputations seem to be based on fact.

[Guest Spongebob]

I think the points system as it stands now is okay, no point in over complicating things. Ken in 14 survivals scored the same as Charles in his 5 wins. Seems to me fair. There is never going to be a perfect system but it seems to me to be weighted as good as it can be.

 

Charles is on the face of it the better player. If you want it more accurate then you divide the points by the number of games joined but that information is not available on the RTG website.

 

Leave as is an if anyone wants to post there scores then let it be. When enough have posted then a league table can be drawn up and updated say once a year.

 

I need to win the next 6 games in a row as the best nation to take my rightful place as the best. but if i divide it by the number of games joined then I will still be a low ranking player.

[Super Mario]

Ken.... Buddy.... want to be my friend in 89? Pleeeeeeezzzee

 

 

I don't think Ken EVER reads the forum...so that might be a good tip for you Sponge...focus on the game instead of the BS that everybody spreads around here

 

on the otherhand i personally would find that very boring...

[Guest Spongebob]

Ken.... Buddy.... want to be my friend in 89? Pleeeeeeezzzee

 

 

I don't think Ken EVER reads the forum...so that might be a good tip for you Sponge...focus on the game instead of the BS that everybody spreads around here

 

on the otherhand i personally would find that very boring...

 

Whats your score Mario? put a name to the face

[Pharaoh]

Any system assigning "points" to a player has drawbacks. What score to count?

As I can see the most succesfull player ever was Raymond Andrews in game #23.

But even that score could have been achieved by weak opposition.

 

If a player plays conservatively over 20 games in a row He or she could rack up a whole lot of points despite being only a mediocre player.

I rembember Dutch game 2, 6 and 8, but the elvel of competition in those gaes was far lower as in game #87. They had a lot of n00bs, the average player in #87 seems to now at least what he is doing. So attaining a high score in those games was probably not so much of an achievement.

 

Reputation however is often based on expert opinion of experienced and respected players. When we started in game #87 my TA's and I were warned that a certain Kurassier was playing in hte middle East too. We were advised to ally with him. We were also warned against Des Feeney. So far both of their reputations seem to be based on fact.

 

I played in 23 until turn 60. In the days when games were started monthly, people dropped when things started to go even a little bad. There were few players left turn 60 and only 3 at the end obviously. In game 5 our team was all that was left by turn 37. Same almost in game 11. No point in playing the computer for 30+ turns although our scores could have been really nice.

 

I see problems with any system as each game, country, and player has its unique characteristics. To me, there are two players of all the folks I have seen that I would not want to go one on one with. Charles G Clark and Sietse Van Der Wal. I never faced Des Feeney I must admit though.

[Pharaoh]

Any system assigning "points" to a player has drawbacks. What score to count?

As I can see the most succesfull player ever was Raymond Andrews in game #23.

But even that score could have been achieved by weak opposition.

 

If a player plays conservatively over 20 games in a row He or she could rack up a whole lot of points despite being only a mediocre player.

I rembember Dutch game 2, 6 and 8, but the elvel of competition in those gaes was far lower as in game #87. They had a lot of n00bs, the average player in #87 seems to now at least what he is doing. So attaining a high score in those games was probably not so much of an achievement.

 

Reputation however is often based on expert opinion of experienced and respected players. When we started in game #87 my TA's and I were warned that a certain Kurassier was playing in hte middle East too. We were advised to ally with him. We were also warned against Des Feeney. So far both of their reputations seem to be based on fact.

 

I played in 23 until turn 60. In the days when games were started monthly, people dropped when things started to go even a little bad. There were few players left turn 60 and only 3 at the end obviously. In game 5 our team was all that was left by turn 37. Same almost in game 11. No point in playing the computer for 30+ turns although our scores could have been really nice.

 

I see problems with any system as each game, country, and player has its unique characteristics. To me, there are two players of all the folks I have seen that I would not want to go one on one with. Charles G Clark and Sietse Van Der Wal. I never faced Des Feeney I must admit though.

 

Sorry. Just remembered I contributed some air power to Des' demise in 80. Doesn't really count though as Algeria was between us.

[Rogue Leader]

I nominate Des Feeney as the best!

It's hard to really quantify the best player because of differences in style. For example, myself, I am generally not as concerned about me winning as I am enjoying the game and helping/working my allies. Normally, I join the game solo and find allies when I get there. As a result, I have never 'won' any of the games I've been in. I do not consider myself a great player by any means, but slightly above average. Surviving is a very important factor in determining 'quality'. Even the best player will be knocked out with 2 to 1 or more odds, when fighting quality or at least coordinated opponents if help doesn't arrive soon. The good player may last longer, but the end is usually the same.

That being said, I'm game, and I'll use your rating system. Be back.

 

 

He is WAY too paranoid and Rossmango kicked his butt in 83 with 3 to 1 odds against him. I nominated you Tim!

[Saint Michael]

There were some early players that were awesome players and do not play anymore. It is hard to count when some of the great players do not play anymore and players that play alot can add up more points by just playing more

[desfeeney]

I nominate Des Feeney as the best!

It's hard to really quantify the best player because of differences in style. For example, myself, I am generally not as concerned about me winning as I am enjoying the game and helping/working my allies. Normally, I join the game solo and find allies when I get there. As a result, I have never 'won' any of the games I've been in. I do not consider myself a great player by any means, but slightly above average. Surviving is a very important factor in determining 'quality'. Even the best player will be knocked out with 2 to 1 or more odds, when fighting quality or at least coordinated opponents if help doesn't arrive soon. The good player may last longer, but the end is usually the same.

That being said, I'm game, and I'll use your rating system. Be back.

 

 

He is WAY too paranoid and Rossmango kicked his butt in 83 with 3 to 1 odds against him. I nominated you Tim!

 

 

I agree that Tim is a most worthy nominee.

Another player worthy of consideration is Peter Schmitter.

In Game 65 he played N. Russia.

At the end of the Game, our group was locked in a life-and-death struggle with him in SPAIN!

A tremendous achievement.

 

Again, in Game 73 he played Italy.

Early on, he was ambushed by 3 countries who kicked the sh.t out of him.

Ten Turns later, they were in headlong retreat and he advanced into Turkey

where our group fought against him in battles that I will never forget.

 

Cheers

[Spaceman]

I think the toughest opponent that I have faced is Russ when we had a team game and RTG had their own team. Actually that might be a good way to resolve this debate is to have another team game. Even cooler would be to have the final game of Victory an invitational for the top players of the last 88 games. You could start by inviting the winners of all 88 games and throw in Russ and Pete, then move down to 2nd, 3rd place etc if you needed more to fill it. Also use random setups so that some of the groups that always enter games together actually have to do some diplomacy.