[Zotnam]

Originally Posted by lokken

Define performance. Also the game has changed, as when it was bigger it was more of a team game. For example, sliekas win in r6 was down to all of LDK sacrificing itself to defend his planet. Obviously, he was an extremely good player but he had a lot of extremely dedicated help. They deserve the credit as much as him. Truly impressive. I'd say you have to judge people's all round qualities in terms of ability to organise, personality, political nous for want of better terminology, as well as their ability to do well in game.

One observation I've made is Hasu and Wishmaster waiting 17 rounds for their second round win. That second win must have been pretty special for them.

While I agree that this discussion warrants you to take more into account than pure planet rankings, you could also argue that many of the traits you mentioned are needed to get a top planet. This is very much still a team game, even if the respective teams have gradually gotten smaller.

Also, your proposed definition could be viewed more like the most complete player. But is that the right way? I'm pretty sure nobody would use the argument that "Messi can't any position in defense" as a reason why he isn't the best football player in the world. So maybe the best PA player can be shit at hc'ing or have a terrible personality too.

I've played with everyone on the lists, nearly been in gal with all of them too. I consider most of them useless

(Wishmaster was totally carried and not very active during his 2nd planet win, so not sure how special it was for him)