[Tyrant]

First a history note- this thread was originally just a tally of winning nations, not players. When Dom3 first came out there was a crop of new players who had not played much, if any, DomII, and they had not groked the scope of the game, the roll of luck, or the diplomatic aspect. They played alot of small blitz games, announced that they had mastered Dominions and began spewing silly opinions about game balance. IIRC someone actually began doing a balance mod before a single regular net game had concluded. Many vets, including me, pointed out that the data sample was ridiculously small, that since a "normal" net game takes months it would be years till we had a decent data sample, that in DomII the evolution of tactics had caused the consensus opinion about which nations were strongest to change considerably over time, that there's a difference between easy nations and a strong nations,etc. Eventually i started this thread so that we would have some data to inform the discussion. I added the HoF later mostly 'cause it's fun, but partially to give newbs a heads up on some of the less scrupulous vets who kept trying to sneak into newbie games under false colors. For me, the nation data and the HoH are primary, and the HoF is a bonus feature.

Second, I would caution against putting too fine a point on the data from this thread. I do think this thread provides some useful data, but it's long long way from perfect. For starters, all victories are not equal. Some games have victory conditions, others do not. Back in the days before the Pankrator sent us the blessed Llamabeast, many games ended prematurely for host related reasons and the leading player was awarded victory long before the issue was truly decided, and others were denied glory in games they had in the bag. Some players are whimps and concede winnable games. I know of at least one player who declines to submit his victories (i presume he does not want a reputation for diplomatic purposes). The excellent Velusian used to be one of the top hosts and many, or even most, of his his games had random nation assignment- in my book winning with a random nation carries much greater glory, and really competitive players do not join games unless they get a powerful nation. Likewise the guy that won with Man is either an effing genius, got really lucky, or faced some weak-*** opposition. Similarly, most of the early victories are cheap in comparison with the more recent ones- with all the excellent info now on the forums newbs are generally much better players than in the early days. I could go on at length, but I hope i've made my point. Wins and losses are not created equal and records are incomplete.

IMO, the HoF/HoH are kinda like the SAT, a high score means something, but a low one does not always. Lingchin has already checked in on this, and i agree with him, there are lots of top players who's strength is not obvious from the halls- Dr. P has but one win, same with Maltease and Llamabeast just to pick four off the top of my head. Ever play those guys? Let me assure you they got game. I don't usually talk smack, but heck, i'll throw myself in there. I've played alot of games and my W/L percentage is just horrible, yet i count myself as a excellent player. I guess what it comes down to is this - and i'll admit a bit of veteran's pride here- when you look at the roster of a new game you join, are you more worried about a grisly vet with one win in a dozen games, or Bill, the newb who is one and three 'cause he won the newbie game? Yea, there's such thing as an ubernoob- heck i fought Amhazair, Xietor and Llamabeast in their first forum games- but i'm still gunna worry more about Hadrian II than Bill. So for me, the HoF is fine the way it is, a guy with three wins, even if it it took him 104 games, has still earned his glory without an asterisk. Unless there is a huge public outcry, I'm leaving the HoF as is.

That said, if anyone wants to mine the data and provide W/L, percentage of nation played, most popular maps, or any other useful info I'll say thank you and post it. I'll also post a second category of glory based on W/L if people want it- we can call the the Legion of Merit or some such thing.

@Micah- ya know, I've kinda suspected for awhile that your batting average was as gaudy as your win total, you are truly an amazingly good player. I've mentioned to my friends but not posted till now that if you manage to make it 2-1 over the next guy I am going to rename it to "The Hall of Micah" :>