The current 12 best players on the site
  • 1120 posts
  • Page 4 of 75
BrewDog wrote:
I plan on taking your "Nicer" from you in the near future... provided that I stop making idiotic mistakes during late night playing sessions. 
toyrifle wrote:
Dominating 12? Been there, done that! --> Number-7 :D

Thanks for taking the time to compile this, Vexer.
Vexer wrote:
Ok, I finally found some time to get the new list out. I have modified the formula yet again. The problem with the old formula was that a new player only had to beat players with a lot of skill points a couple times in their first 30 games and they would make the top 12. So I have modify the formula to take into account total skill points as well as skill points per games played.

So with the new formula 40% of your DXII score comes from skill points per games played, 40% from rank points, and 20% from skill points. See the first post in this thread for more details.

Here is the new list:

The dominating 12 are: Vexer, -NoXoN-, killrick, Paddlin, k_w_cheng, nikeboix69, Fendi, rogerfederer, rafcio77, MuzuaneAskari, sekretar, 1771

killrick deserves special mention for finally topping Noxon in skill points per games played. rogerfederer is the most improved player. Rafcio's score jumped a lot with the new formula since he has so many skill points. nikeboix69 wasn't even on the list last time because he had only joined the site 8 days before and hadn't played 30 games yet and already he has played 717 games and has the 6th highest DXII score.

This DXII game will be an 8 player game held on the new Westeros Map. Special thanks to Fendi for snagging game 55555 before anyone else could. As a reminder the dominating 12 are fighting for the title of dominator, double the battle points, 250 tokens, and 1 month of free premium.

The game will probably take a few days for everyone to join. I will start by inviting the top 8, then after 2 days if the game hasn't started, I will invite the rest of the Dominating 12.
Paddlin wrote:
This is an interesting list. If I was making a top 12 list, it would look substantially different. Unfortunately, we would need a very complicated formula to make a better list. My guess is that we would have to do an analysis of each player's standings. 

I think this game would be fun as an adjacent capitals game or when the card turn-in is has a fixed cap of 15 or 20. Each time I play 8 player deathmatch here, someone goes on a killing spree and ends the game in one round. So, those who were strongly positioned, by the time the 5th person is killed, have no chance. Just a thought. Thanks for putting this together.
Vexer wrote:
well you may be in for a treat paddlin because no one was able to walk the board the first time we did this as an 8p game. It was an epic battle.

It would definitely be an interesting game if we could have the capped card option ready by the time for the next DXII game.

It's interesting that you would come up with a different top 12. Of the players I know, my formula pretty much put them in the same order I would have manually picked.

Skill points are based on the standings so I'm not sure what other analysis you could do.
Paddlin wrote:
Ya, I think skill points is a good analysis. There are just variables that cannot be accounted for. For instance, let's say that I have a high loss ratio against player x, but it turns out that 40% of the time I played player x, the other players were basic level players. Or, 30% of the time I played player x, she had a second account that I was not aware of. Or 80% of my games were when I was brand new to the site. Whereas, when some other player played against the same opponent, only 5% of the time the other players were basic level players, etc. 

Or, let's say I have a few wins I don't deserve against a more experienced player because he/she let me win some when I was new to the site.

Or, let's say I lost 53 games straight because I disappeared. 

Or, let's say that I hand pick all of my games so that I could reduce the chances of losing a game because of inexperienced player's poor decisions. 

My point is simply that there are a lot of scenarios that impact the standings one way or another and chance does not compensate for the differences because people join games under a lot of different conditions. 

Fendi, for instance, has a lot more diversity in the players she has played compared to, say, Noxon or Killrick. 

Further, Holt is a better player than many in the top 12. This is a red flag to me. 

Another red flag is how disproportionately higher Vexer's rating is.

I am not saying it's rigged or a problem. I am just saying it's a messy thing to analyze. I can't provide a better way of doing so because there are way too many variables to consider. I just intuitively think there is something askew.  
BrewDog wrote:
I slipped to 15??? I ventured off of my normal game play types, I figured I'd take a beating for some time. Next time...
Vexer wrote:
@ paddlin, I agree that the measuring system is imperfect given that it doesn't take into account all the variables. But it's all we've got for now.

I would prefer that the dominating 12 be determined only using stats from the last month and only be based off of rank points and not skill points because rank points take into account who else was in the game, for example if they were all basics you wouldn't get many points. But then you would have the problem of the players who have the time to play the most games would always be in the dominating 12. So perhaps the score could be total points gained last month divided by number of games played and also divided by the number of players in those games to compensate for players who only play 8p games to farm points. Minimum 10 games played in the last month to make the list.

Something like this could take me as much as 10 hours to produce the first time. After that it wouldn't be much harder than what I am doing now. But when will I have a spare 10 hours?

This list isn't as inaccurate as you make it out to be though. Holt is only number 14 and has been in the top 12 before. People's wins and losses fluctuate.

I did notice that Diddly fell like a rock out of the top 12 all the way down to 27th. Yes he is a good enough player when he wants to be to make it into the top 12 but this is the result of him 'teaching lessons' instead of winning games. And if he is not winning games then he shouldn't be in the top 12.

Also, i am curious who you would pick to be in the top just based on experience with the players and not numbers. I would love to read anyone's opinion top 12 list. I think it would be fun.

@BrewDog, your slippage may not have anything to do with venturing out into new game types. It may just be from new players like Nikeboix bumping you because they played so many games.
Paddlin wrote:
I would be most interested in Fendi's top 12, since she has the most experience to draw upon.

Also, Vexer, I agree, the list you have supplied is pretty good.

Here's my list:

Paddlin’s Top 12

Tier I

Tier II

Tier III (Pretty much interchangeable to fill in the top 12)
Others (I’ve surpassed 12)

Tier all I do is play 2player games, so no one really cares
Sekretar (old)

Glanru has the potential to be really good if he'd play more. 

I also think Fendi could be a top tier player.
Vexer wrote:
after thinking about my last post i realized that it wouldn't work because players who have more points get fewer points per game.

Change in skill points per games played over the last month would probably be a better measure. When I get some time I will make that list and see if it's any good.
1771 wrote:
I am honored to have snuck in the top 12. I appreciate all your work, but I am in agreement that all factors can not be judged in this. Although I do like that it is being done none the less. Gives players incentive to either pick up their game some, or don't give up so quick. I am hoping that is what happens here.

I could give myself excuse after excuse about why I am not higher ranked than 12 in this, I could pick and choose my games better and not play with people that make such foolish mistakes as I have been seeing lately. But I probably won't I like to give everyone a game, and I like to play everyone. I could say I lost 59 straight games due to my disappearance as a friend of mine said :) However I think I have been back long enough that that shouldn't matter, not for sure. Know it plays hell on a guys rank...SMH. Standing, Statistics. Sometimes makes a fella want to be a dot guy again and just start all over, but I will deal with it. Maybe I am just not as good as I thought. However I know that if it makes just a couple of players set goals to get better, to not make as many foolish moves, to not just quit in a game, then I am all for it. Because I have seen many players get better here, even myself with playing the different people with various styles.

I do know that my own top 12 would be very different than what the statistics has shown. I actually would agree with alot of Paddlins top players.

Here is mine in Tiers.

thaithai (absent)

two best players I have ever seen...mean that.

Nikeboix is pretty good but havent played him enough to place him my top or second tier so I will just leave him in the middle of both. He is a definite up and comer.

Distributor (absent)
1771/ Paddlin (I think we are to close to put 1 on top of the other)
Emmdizzle (absent)
macthehack (absent)
Fendi (most improved player I have ever had the pleasure of knowing)

dsds/ votazap (to close to call) (also 2 very improved players) may I add they have always been eager to learn as well...their game will only get better because of this.
cody224 (doesn't play that often anymore)

1 vs 1 throw this in


However 1 on 1 can be tricky on some maps especially capitals, sometimes can turn out to just be luck of the draw. I am in this because I have played numerous 1 on 1 with several players. Used to anyway.

Also some players have strong deathmatch and strong capitals, some have strong 1 vs 1. A well rounded player Dominating 12 member should excel in all areas not just one. I would think.

Also new members that may just be new to me that would make my list.


also there are some players that I can see must be good but have not had a chance to play them. If I left you out, that is why.

There is one player in the Dominating 12 list that I would consider to be a dirty player, not a cheater, but right on the edge for that alone he would not make my cut.