Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
Getting round wins. That may sound like a circular definition, but it's one that makes sense: to find out who does best in the individual rankings, you look at the individual rankings. I mentioned the word 'performance' in the OP an my first reply to you in an attempt to duck the (totally legit!) discussion about the definition of 'best'.
In the real world, you want players with a variety of skill sets. Some people are good at organizing, some people are good DCs, some people are politically astute, some people are willing to go entire rounds just scanning, some people are good at figuring out novel ways of playing the game, and some people do well in the individual rankings. Not all of those are equally prominent, but saying they are mere 'tools' is a fundamental misunderstanding of what this game is.
|
I can think of a player who:
- has won a round
- has had several top planets
- led at least one galaxy to victory
- led multiple alliance victories
- is capable of organising defence and attacks to an extremely good level
- is proven to be resilient in unfavourable situations
- understands politics
- understands the stats to an expert level
He's not on this list, better than everyone on it, and possibly isn't the best ever (he's also not on the list). There are probably a handful of players in this category but in my eyes, the true legends of the game. It takes a bunch of qualities to be really good at pa and individual score is a really crude way of measuring it.
From my point of view I'm stunned no one has stated the obvious.