players with less than 40 games declared best on the site

not saying im top 12. shure they are good but best on the site??

At the time d12 game came out i had over 3000 points and 75 skill points.. on a bit of a loosing streak now but, dont know how a player with 35 games or even 65 games should be ranked higher than me.... just my opinion... i was just flabergated when i saw the top 12 list.. i figure i was close.. idk starting to not care anymore..

Good question. For one I know ppl said this from Killrick when he first was posted in the top 12, he defenitely deserved it. Not sure howmuch games he played back then, but he has 125 now, so it probably wasnt that much. They defenitely are good players though, they do have beaten quite an amount of players. And not only noobs, I see in [url=http://www.dominating12.com/?cmd=member&sec=profile&act=view&subsec=standings&id=5873]faramirs standings[/url] names like brewdog, votazap, MuzuanneAskari, and he has beaten Fendi and Jaconan once, which is a pretty achievenemt. In [url=http://www.dominating12.com/?cmd=member&sec=profile&subsec=standings&id=12483&sort=2]maafi's standings[/url] I don't see any of those names Also look at [url=http://www.dominating12.com/?cmd=member&sec=profile&subsec=standings&id=10764]HammerJo[/url] and [url=http://www.dominating12.com/?cmd=member&sec=profile&act=view&subsec=standings&id=9345]Badbunny[/url] Not sure if they play long term games, I rarely play live (no time :( ), but I'd like to play them sometime ;)

best player should be based on skill points and rank points. Simple as that.. no complicated formula.. Earn your spot.... Makes sense to me. Why have ranks when a basic could top 12.. Ranking up automaticaly should be manditory..

The reason why those players made the top 12 is because of the players they are beating. They have a high skill points per games played score. In the few games they have played, they have done well. I can adjust the numbers to make experience count more. I am always adjusting the formula to improve it. If I make rank points worth 5 and skill points worth 2 and skill points per games played worth 3 then the top 12 is full of more experienced players. 1. Vexer 2. -NoXoN- 3. nikeboix69 4. rogerfederer 5. MuzuaneAskari 6. RedHot713 7. Paddlin 8. Matty 9. killrick 10. bluebird005vis 11. sekretar 12. Thorpe 13. Fendi 14. oliver 15. jaconan 16. faramir 17. BrewDog 18. GenghisKhan 19. Koprivica 20. maafi 21. OldDogGen 22. DragonOfTheWest 23. Vitor_o_GrandE 24. sabziani 25. MadMerlin 26. Holt 27. killem-all 28. skarni 29. HammerJo If you take out vexer, noxon, paddlin, killrick, Fendi, because those players haven't gained points in 5 months then this would be the top 12: nikeboix69 rogerfederer MuzuaneAskari RedHot713 Matty bluebird005vis sekretar Thorpe oliver jaconan faramir BrewDog

skill points per games played has to be a factor and not just total skill and total rank points. There has to be some way to recognized new players who are better than old players but haven't yet had the time to get as many points. This is about who is actually better and not who has played more games. Now I admit that the system is not perfect and no amount of adjusting will make it perfect. Our entire system is crap and needs to be replaced with one based on Elo ratings.

The acronym ---K.I.S.S.--- i think applys here. "Keep it simple stupid" every one understands and easy to explain.. "skill points" and "rank points" If they are good they will get their.. No complicated formula needed..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle ... This was developed by the military so very fitting.. simplicity is the solution for the problem we are having over determining the best player. Anyone else agree.. Problem solved..

Yes but because we have players who have been on the site for years, it could take a year for a player to make it into the top 12 even though they've been beating the top players all along. K.I.S.S certainly does not apply because even just using skill points and rank points is not simple. Do you know how skill points are calculated? I will tell you what the simple solution is. Get rid of skill points and rank points and create a unified system. That way to get the top 12 players you just look at the player rank page and see who the 12 players at the top are - that is simple.

Can a player have his account deleted and start over.. Id almost prefer that..

Skill points say alot. If a two players have played 100 games each, and the first one has 200 skill points, and the other 50, than the first one is alot better. However, if one player has 100 skill points for 100 games played, and the other has 200 skill points with 2000 games played, the first one is quite probably alot better, even though he has less skill points. The same holds for battle points. But then, is it that hard to devide the amount of skill points over the amount of games? Now I know that I'm studying math, so what's simple to me is not always simple to others, but this really isn't that hard now is it? @Vexer, I hope you dont let the 'old' players out just because they stay as good as they are, but because they haven't played or have played only very little. I mean, if you are the best you can't get better, but you still deserve to be recognized as the best. Edit: The change in weight will only swap DragonOfTheWest and Maafi with Jaconan and Brewdog. 10 out of 12 stay the same (with some changes in order). Looks like this is a pretty accurate score.

New players come in and see "player ranks" tab and assume those are the top players..

@ matty, The dominating 12 are the twelve best currently active players on the site, not the 12 best players on the site. If a top player is not playing then they aren't active even if they are logging in. I am going to add a statistic to member_statistics in the database to keep track of when the player last finished a game and use that to keep track of activity instead of using the last time they logged in.

The players on top are top players. They are not the only good players though. It would be a bit unfair to reset your account - if I beat you now I'd get lots of points, if I beat you after you reset your account I would hardly get any. For the amount of points it would matter. However, resetting your account will not improve your skill, and next month you would probably come up approximately were you are now. Except that now its a bit more accurate. (I think if you reset you would end up a bit below where you are now, unless you have some lucky games). Edit @ Vexer, I agree. However, Fendi is in half my games, and has 6 games open, which is more than a non premium can pissibly have. Now a couple of these games are neverending, but its hard to say she's inactive. Edit 2 @ Vexer, what if a player is only playing fixed games? And unfortunately none of them have ended for a month (which can be quite close to reality sometimes xD)

@Matty...thaithai is one of the 12...from Vietnam and his computer is down. He does not make a lot of money and hardly anybody has computer a there...But if you ever played him you would see he is one of the top player or the top player...sorry Vexer.