The current 12 best players on the site
  • 1243 posts
  • Page 83 of 83
B4rny wrote:
AlexCheckMate
I asked because I played in 7 games over the last 15 days before the last D12 update. 1 of them being a test game. Therefore I supposed that 6 would let me qualify, but I do not see myself on the list.

I'm not trying to enforce any lawyering of rules / shenanigans. Sorry in case I cause a ruckus, it's not intentional. Currently I'm in a position with less time, yet stay with the desire to try and qualify. As the rules changed (or didn't change - but a specification that I wasn't aware of, turned out to be different), I looked for options to adept to stay within the realm of being eligible to qualify (adding "simple" 1v1 games). A year ago, I had less time constraints and with fully normal (I guess that's still a subjective thing; some may disagree) play, I managed to fulfil the criteria without actively trying.

In my opinion, one shouldn't frown upon specific playing to achieve a goal, as long as it's within the rules that are linked to that goal. I'm sure everyone tries their best to pay as few taxes as possible and get as many tax returns as possible, within legal bounds of their respective communities.

Probably the game stringing is meant and I can see where it would be coming from. Do we know whether anyone has trouble to finish 5 games in the last 30 days (increased from 15) preceeding the list, due to playing in (several) games without increasing cards? I could imagine making this change would take away the stringing thought, possibly without any negative side effects/collateral damage.

"Lead by example" (Baldoni)

Try it.
God_of_War wrote:
Matty
@God_of_war, the d12 should be achievable for non-premium members who only play long term games, including some fixed card games - in that way it's quite hard to top a lot of games played per month.

I'm not saying replace what already exists... I'm just mentioning to give others that will never make it but are very active something else to play for, to get excited about, to feel recognized, etc... there are so many players that many of us play with daily that we all know are very very good players, however, when you play with "the entire community" which involves all levels, we all know how difficult it is to climb/maintain "rank" cause so many people make bad moves to give the game away and I'm not talking about getting hosed on dice rolls.

For example, how many "domination" games have any of us been in where everyone actually knows how to play that mode well. Domination, on this site, is so similar to deathmatch games cause that's how too many people play them.... however, maybe, a lot of users would get better at their skills if there was more incentive to play that style and learn that you can't leave 1 troop on all your territories and expect to win.

Also, maybe it would incentivize others to go "premium" too. Then maybe there would be enough cash-flow to have servers that would allow 1-2 min turns to get some games faster.
Hi there!
God_of_War wrote:
I want to add that the community as a whole, all those players that play so many games every day, are the ones that keep the rest of us here so we all have someone else to play with. I think they are very important to recognize as well.
Hi there!
periwinkle wrote:
EEEEEEE!!!!!!!   Our new dominator, clarkenfeld!!!!!!!  Congrats clarkie!!!! :) :) :)
May we all have good dice, a great drop and 3 card sets!
slackbatter wrote:
Well done clarkenfeld! Double points, rank, badge, and one month free premium awarded!
AlexCheckMate wrote:
AlexCheckMate
I asked because I played in 7 games over the last 15 days before the last D12 update. 1 of them being a test game. Therefore I supposed that 6 would let me qualify, but I do not see myself on the list.

I'm not trying to enforce any lawyering of rules / shenanigans. Sorry in case I cause a ruckus, it's not intentional. Currently I'm in a position with less time, yet stay with the desire to try and qualify. As the rules changed (or didn't change - but a specification that I wasn't aware of, turned out to be different), I looked for options to adept to stay within the realm of being eligible to qualify (adding "simple" 1v1 games). A year ago, I had less time constraints and with fully normal (I guess that's still a subjective thing; some may disagree) play, I managed to fulfil the criteria without actively trying.

In my opinion, one shouldn't frown upon specific playing to achieve a goal, as long as it's within the rules that are linked to that goal. I'm sure everyone tries their best to pay as few taxes as possible and get as many tax returns as possible, within legal bounds of their respective communities.

Probably the game stringing is meant and I can see where it would be coming from. Do we know whether anyone has trouble to finish 5 games in the last 30 days (increased from 15) preceeding the list, due to playing in (several) games without increasing cards? I could imagine making this change would take away the stringing thought, possibly without any negative side effects/collateral damage.

Once again I see the same happening. I've played in 5 games that aren't test games (influence rating of the ones present in it) and yet again do not appear in the D12 list.

As such, I'd like to know what the exact qualifying criteria are. Or, in case they haven't altered, not be (manually) excluded while actually meeting the set requirements.

To reiterate... I don't mind if things change, but I do think it's fair to know about them before they go into effect, so one can contemplate about them. Whether one sees options to actually still qualify, instead of just get left out.

To me it's strange to see a game/community write down rules and apply them as they see fit.
“Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love. How on earth can you explain in terms of chemistry and physics so important a biological phenomenon as first love? Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.”

― Albert Einstein
Hoodlum wrote:
i haven't followed along with any changes and criteria, but im hoping that the qualifiers are players that are dominating in between each dominating game, and that the new criteria is about that.

d12 volunteer.
Matty wrote:
@Alex, you did receive an answer last time you asked this question. Was that not clear?
If not, what about it is unclear to you?
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strength lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria
Matty wrote:
@Alex: It's just so sad to see you like this. You used to be one of the greatest players, you achieved a real achievement. You earned your spot among the world's best players. Deservedly.

And now you just try to cling to a time gone by. There's no skill in setting up a few meaningless games, dragging out a number in a database for as long as you can. And in doing so you've blemished your achievement. No one could have take that achievement away from you, except you yourself. So why did you? Why?

Is it that hard to let go? When you can't play for real anymore, why not keep the memory alive. Untainted. Whole. And then maybe in a few years you have time to spare and visit us again? You'd have friends waiting here. People wanting to join your games just for the chance to play with a legend again. I've seen it happening.

I just don't understand. Why throw something away like that?
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strength lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria