View Full Version : 10 most dangerous MP players in Dom3:Just for fun.
January 13th, 2007, 09:15 AM
Just for a bit of fun, I thought I would compile a list of, in my view the 10 most dangerous players currently playing in my Dom3 MP games.
If enough players give me there top 10 or top 1, 3 whatever, I will update this every month or so with a league table of the top ten most dangerous MP in Dom3. Scoring will be kept very simple...10 pts for someone who you nominate as your no.1 danger...9pts no.2 etc...
My top 10 are:-
2) Frank Trollman.
8) Dr. Praetorius.
This is based on the 10 MP's I have played in so far and my personal experiences in those games. I will update if it changes.
Please post your most dangerous MP lists.
Please note DOM3 ONLY, what you did in Dom2 or earlier no longer counts. Thus no quantum_mechani, as yet...
You cannot name yourself. Other players after nominate you. I am hoping to have a list of 10 players who you really, really do not want to start next too in MP games. It's of course kind of a top 10 best players as well...
January 13th, 2007, 10:09 AM
Wohoo! Top 10!
Here's my top 3 people I'll be keeping a close eye on next time I play a game with them:
January 13th, 2007, 10:10 AM
Well, thanks for leting me be on the list. But you have forgotten about yourself.
January 13th, 2007, 10:17 AM
Well, thanks for leting me be on the list. But you have forgotten about yourself.
I forgot, no one is allowed to name themselves. You after be nominated by another player ie...considered a good/threatening/dangerous player.
January 13th, 2007, 10:20 AM
Hard to say as no game is finished for me.
My list will probably include Solo, Frank Trollman, Jurri, Folket and you, not necessarily in this order (and I forget some players probably) ; as well as PDF, davidd and Alexandre from the francophone games I'm in.
But I think some of the Dom2 vets I've not encountered yet in a dom3 game ar at least as dangerous (as well as some experienced players like Cainehill, Kissblade or Reverend Zombie I've played with but who had very bad luck in these dom3 games or abandoned fast - hard to judge someone results when he plays the bugged C'Tis Miasma or start in a desertic region and near a nation becoming a boosted and agressive AI in turn 4-).
Personnally I was rather lucky in my games (except dawnstrike) and always had very good beginnings (I was the first or second power after 20 or so turns in 4 out of 5 games I'm in) but I don't think having a good starting positions and luck with surrounding indies is a matter of skill.
January 13th, 2007, 10:55 AM
Hah, didn't expect to see my name here.
The one's I've noticed to be particularly dangerous are
Can't name any others yet.
January 13th, 2007, 10:58 AM
Well, since Meglobob eliminated me (with extreme crushing) I'll certainly nominate him http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
Are we talking dangerous or likely to win? Because I'm ultra-aggressive, which certainly makes me a dangerous neighbor - but may not be the best route to victory.
I'm going to float a tournament proposal in another thread - lets see if we can make sure all ten of these people play http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
January 13th, 2007, 01:38 PM
As it's the day of "most dangerous list", ladders and tournaments proposals. I launch my own little ranking system.
The "mp forum grand prix" ranking of winners will consider that particular settings/starting positions/special rules tend to balance themselves over time, and won't try to establish fair rules. I will simply consider the results of any game posted on these forums and make a weighted list of winners.
My system will be very simple and in the dominion spirit (there can be only one winner recieving points per game) :
rule 1 - open games recruiting their players on this forum and including more than two players will be counted, no matter what kind of special settings, mods of rules they use, as long as their system allow *one* winner (cooperative/teams games won't be counted), the only other restrictions are in rule 4
rule 2 (value) - each player has a value of 10 + 10% of his actual score, the value is the number of points another may win against him
rule 3 (score) - winning a game no matter the settings add the total value of all other starting players to the winner score
rule 4 (homologation) - to simplify my work only games hosted by someone including a list of the players in the first message of their thread will be counted (I won't search hidden players lists, and so will ignore games without a list in the first message) ; as well only game reported as finished in the title of the thread will be counted (I won't follow all games to see if there is a result)
rule 5 (actual games) - for the games already started I will count the number of players actually figuring in the first message of the thread (even if more have started), for the next games to start I'll use the number of players figuring in the list when the game start
Note that it will be a grand prix system not an ELO system, so the more you play and win against many players the more you have points, you lose nothing for defeats.
(edit : another finished).
The actual forum grand prix result is :
1. Meglobob (score 110)
2. Franck Trollman (61)
3. all others (score 0)
- Research game (Meglobob winner)
- 6 players, 150 prov. (DrPraetorius) : (Frank Trollman winner)
The following games will be counted when reported as finished here :
- Mid Era Orania (DrPraetorious) : 10 players (90pts unless one of them win a game before the end of this one)
- Undertow Random Nations (Velusion) : 12 players (110)
- Jinxed Frechdrachs (Bluebird) : 14 players (130)
- Cradle of Dominion (upstreamedge) : 10 players (90 / 101)
- Dawgies Does Dominions (Pashadawg) : 15 players (140)
- Mid Era Game (DrPraetorious) : 9 players (80/91)
- MP Game Middle Age (Graeme Dice) : 15 players (140)
- Concept of Creation (Sheap) : 20 players (190)
- Dawnstrike (Pashadawg) : 18 players (170/181)
- Newbie Game 2 (WZaboPeter) : 12 players (110)
- New Pbem Game (johnarryn) : 15 players (140)
- New Game Early Era - Glory of The Gods (Manuk) : 19 players (180)
- Faerun MA Pbem (Hadrian II) : 18 players (170)
- Newbie Game EA (Ironhawk) : 20 players (190)
- Wrath of Opposing Fates (Pashadawg) : 12 players (110)
- Late Age Game, Random Map, Victory Points (Graeme Dice) : 15 players (140)
- MP Game, Early Era, Random Nations, Victory Points (Graeme Dice) : 16 players (150/161)
(Other started games may be counted too, if the host add a player list in the first message.)
January 13th, 2007, 02:32 PM
I have only played in 4 games so far here. One has been completed (see "Looking for an early age PBEM game"), but the other 3 have been going on for quite a while.
Even so, I have not made contact with all of the players in two of these games, so my list will mostly be based on the game statistics. In no particular order, the 10 players are:
January 13th, 2007, 02:41 PM
No Quantum_Mechani? IFIRC He has been one of the top MPers in the Dom3 beta tests.
January 13th, 2007, 03:29 PM
Twan, I suspect your ranking system won't work that well, there are few games, but many players, so I'm guessing you'll end up with a pretty short list of winners with very high scores, and then a much longer list of zeroes http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif
Personally, I don't really like ranked games, since I play for fun, not to win or prove myself or earn some title, and I also don't like seeing what some people turn into if they win too much, or try too hard to win.
When games are ranked, you have a tendency to get arrogant winners, and angry losers, and sometimes a few "explosions" as well ["You caused me to lose that game! Now I won't be #1! *roar* I'll hunt you down like a dog!" etc. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif or on the other hand "Your opinion doesn't count, you only have a score of 20 (loser)"].
Though that's just my opinion http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif
January 13th, 2007, 03:36 PM
^^ I agree with your opinion. I cringe at theought of inflated egos such a system could produce. Such a ranking system would only work for 1 v 1 games anyway I think because diplomacy plays such a large role in the bigger MP games.
I would expect that you would find scores all over the place depending on who was part of a stronger alliance during their games.
On top of that, a ranking system would make certain players more visible if they had a high score. That may cause lower ranked players to gang up on that player in larger MP games to eliminate the "threat" early.
January 13th, 2007, 03:58 PM
I don't think anyone will give it as much importance as you think (it's not like an official system or one in which you may win something) and will stop if it creates a bad ambiance. But as there will anyway be threads about most dangerous players and occasionnal bragging contests among veterans in the middle of other discussions... I just see as a good idea to keep trace of the real results (of course the list of winners will be short, but if there will be just 5 or 6 players winning all the games it's anyway good to know when you play with them).
ps : diplomacy is of course a large part of the "winning a mp game with more than 2 players" skill, but is only balanced if all players know who are the best ones
January 13th, 2007, 05:02 PM
What's wrong with diplomacy? If people come into games with preformed alliances - well, that isn't cricket. On the other hand, negotiating with the other players is a legitimate component of any multiplayer game.
January 13th, 2007, 05:49 PM
Also most games are played on small maps set to blitz settings and player-kill-player victories. Because more of those games can be played in the same time period, those games would have the most answers available. Since those games create a game where certain nations and strategies have advantages, I would hate to have people think that the rating reflected an overall rating of all players.
Other than that, its interesting to see the lists. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
January 13th, 2007, 08:46 PM
Dr, I don't think there is anything wrong with diplomacy. I just feel that it has such a huge impact on multiplayer games what is the point of a tournament? The winners would be the ones who negotiated the best alliances.
And as players started winning games and gaining "points", it might become difficult for them to play multiplayer dominions because people might not make alliances with them that they would have otherwise, because of tournament standings.
I just feel a ranking system might have adverse effects on future MP games. It's all fine and good to say that when your playing a game of Dominions, you treat the pretender different than the player, but more than likely, players will be judged by their rankings and standings, and in game decisions may be affected by that.
January 14th, 2007, 12:53 AM
January 16th, 2007, 12:08 PM
I myself don't think I should be on the list. I never really played dom2 and I am only on my 7th multiplayer game of dom3. I haven't even used many of the spells.
I would say my strongest aspect is the diplomacy side of the multiplayer game. Which I think is just as important or more so than any other part of the game.
Thanks for the nomination though.
January 16th, 2007, 04:42 PM
I vote for Quantum mechanics.
I remember from dom2 also
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.