Victorious Nations/Hall of Honor

[Psycho]

True, I can't play much either, due to RL commitments. I try never to be in more than 2 games at the same time. I've finished 5 complete MP games and won 4 of them (lost only my first - Figment). The 6th is still ongoing.

But, I also like to take over weak or already defeated nations, to check out the nation and to help keep the game interesting for others. So, I've subbed like that several times and, naturally, lost all of those games. I can't remember how many there were and I didn't play them as seriously as those I started.

Ano, I can help with processing some games, if you organize something. Just bear in mind that various subs can be a big problem here.

[Executor]

Yeah I also support the wins/loses system.
It isn't very accurate also, but it's better than what we have now. but bear in mind if someone lost several games it doesn't mean they're a bad player, there's just that fact that better players tend to be killed early just because they ARE better players are a threat like Baalz or someone, I know he's a great player but I prefer to kill, or try and kill such players early on to improve my chances latter on, and I'm in similar situations myself.

[GrudgeBringer]

Speaking from a player that tries to play a lot and never played SP to learn the game, I look FORWARD to the day I am included in this List of Victors.

The closet I came was Blitz where I was arguably second, While Executor was so far ahead he was just toying with us while he tried out some new things (Congrats BTW Executor).

I have gone from not having a clue at all to just not having a clue after the middle game.

I would hate to finally get my name on the list and see it as 1 win and 104 losses.

The Stanley Cup (Hockey Championship Trophy) for our non hockey playing friends only lists the Winner.

Why downplay a win with stats that don't mean anything.

Good/Great players will see thier name on the list FAR more than average players....

And average players will see thier name on the Rolls of Honor more than bad players.

As far as good players getting taken out first.....why wouldn't us slugs try and take out the threats first.

It just adds to the prestige that thier names continue to be listed despite the odds.

For the rest of us...iF we where lucky enough to take out Baalz (or 1 of 50 players on here) that may be as close as we ever get to this list.

I say leave the list of winners as 'A list of WINNERS'.

When I look down that list I see who is on there, I also look to see which Nations and Era they played....and I marvel at the diversity of the game and the skill of the player that took several nations to the win.

Since it is unlikely that I will ever be on there I am just voicing an opinion of the cannon fodder.

You COULD put up a different site that people could sign up for and report in (kind of like a site called Leadeaters for Strategy War games)and get points for wins and how hard the settings or players in the games where.

Just an opinion...

[Micah]

Hmm, looks like I'm 7 for 14, including 2 losses where the game didn't finish, but I was eliminated.

Losses: Swarm, Rand2, The Gold Lion, War Is Hell, Eventide, and then the other 2 that didn't finish were Coming Storm and New Horizons.

I'm 3 for 3 on team games though, aside from one that was destroyed in a server crash (the first PPP).

[Tyrant]

First a history note- this thread was originally just a tally of winning nations, not players. When Dom3 first came out there was a crop of new players who had not played much, if any, DomII, and they had not groked the scope of the game, the roll of luck, or the diplomatic aspect. They played alot of small blitz games, announced that they had mastered Dominions and began spewing silly opinions about game balance. IIRC someone actually began doing a balance mod before a single regular net game had concluded. Many vets, including me, pointed out that the data sample was ridiculously small, that since a "normal" net game takes months it would be years till we had a decent data sample, that in DomII the evolution of tactics had caused the consensus opinion about which nations were strongest to change considerably over time, that there's a difference between easy nations and a strong nations,etc. Eventually i started this thread so that we would have some data to inform the discussion. I added the HoF later mostly 'cause it's fun, but partially to give newbs a heads up on some of the less scrupulous vets who kept trying to sneak into newbie games under false colors. For me, the nation data and the HoH are primary, and the HoF is a bonus feature.

Second, I would caution against putting too fine a point on the data from this thread. I do think this thread provides some useful data, but it's long long way from perfect. For starters, all victories are not equal. Some games have victory conditions, others do not. Back in the days before the Pankrator sent us the blessed Llamabeast, many games ended prematurely for host related reasons and the leading player was awarded victory long before the issue was truly decided, and others were denied glory in games they had in the bag. Some players are whimps and concede winnable games. I know of at least one player who declines to submit his victories (i presume he does not want a reputation for diplomatic purposes). The excellent Velusian used to be one of the top hosts and many, or even most, of his his games had random nation assignment- in my book winning with a random nation carries much greater glory, and really competitive players do not join games unless they get a powerful nation. Likewise the guy that won with Man is either an effing genius, got really lucky, or faced some weak-*** opposition. Similarly, most of the early victories are cheap in comparison with the more recent ones- with all the excellent info now on the forums newbs are generally much better players than in the early days. I could go on at length, but I hope i've made my point. Wins and losses are not created equal and records are incomplete.

IMO, the HoF/HoH are kinda like the SAT, a high score means something, but a low one does not always. Lingchin has already checked in on this, and i agree with him, there are lots of top players who's strength is not obvious from the halls- Dr. P has but one win, same with Maltease and Llamabeast just to pick four off the top of my head. Ever play those guys? Let me assure you they got game. I don't usually talk smack, but heck, i'll throw myself in there. I've played alot of games and my W/L percentage is just horrible, yet i count myself as a excellent player. I guess what it comes down to is this - and i'll admit a bit of veteran's pride here- when you look at the roster of a new game you join, are you more worried about a grisly vet with one win in a dozen games, or Bill, the newb who is one and three 'cause he won the newbie game? Yea, there's such thing as an ubernoob- heck i fought Amhazair, Xietor and Llamabeast in their first forum games- but i'm still gunna worry more about Hadrian II than Bill. So for me, the HoF is fine the way it is, a guy with three wins, even if it it took him 104 games, has still earned his glory without an asterisk. Unless there is a huge public outcry, I'm leaving the HoF as is.

That said, if anyone wants to mine the data and provide W/L, percentage of nation played, most popular maps, or any other useful info I'll say thank you and post it. I'll also post a second category of glory based on W/L if people want it- we can call the the Legion of Merit or some such thing.

@Micah- ya know, I've kinda suspected for awhile that your batting average was as gaudy as your win total, you are truly an amazingly good player. I've mentioned to my friends but not posted till now that if you manage to make it 2-1 over the next guy I am going to rename it to "The Hall of Micah" :>

[Executor]

Originally Posted by Tyrant

Likewise the guy that won with Man is either an effing genius, got really lucky, or faced some weak-*** opposition:>

Yeah, and the guy that won with Mictlan also...
But seriously, I'm always up for a more challenging game with more vets but there just aren't many of those games.
MA Chronicels was one of them for example, with Calmon, Baalz, Don Corazon and even KO, but half the players stopped playing.
So if anyone makes a random assignment game with stronger players count me in.
Oh and I do believe there are some very good players outside the HoF too.

[Micah]

Heh, no danger of me going 2 for 1 without team games counting. I've been sticking to vet games for the most part lately and they simply take too long since there's no one to steamroll. Arti will be breaking turn 100 easily before it's done, and its on a 96 hour host now. (Maybe if you count the team games in the ratio...that'd put me at 10, if I win the 2 I'm in now I'd hit 12, though both of those are still uphill battles by far) Thanks for the complements though, they are much appreciated.

[Tyrant]

Yea, Calmon's keeping you in line, but if it weren't for him you'd have a good shot. Wonder if he's still active?

[AreaOfEffect]

Originally Posted by Tyrant

Likewise the guy that won with Man is either an effing genius, got really lucky, or faced some weak-*** opposition:>

Its likely that none of those applied to my victorious solo run with Man. LA Man can be a powerful faction after some significant landscaping. Like so many factions out there, they are very vulnerable at the start of the game.

[Trumanator]

I think he might have been refering more to MA Man, definitely weaker IMO