The truth is that for one to even speculate who is the best there needs to be statistics taken. Since 1 game does not determine anything, and the actual skill of a player fluctuates within games and within opponents. At best one can only make 1 comparison at a time when the skill levels are close. The true skill of a player can only be determined between 2 players at a time. This limits the domain of subjects, but it's the most accurate way of determining talent within 2 individuals. Another thing one can do is say that a 1st player literally annihilates a 2nd player, then the 2nd player literally annihilates a 3rd player, then it does follow logically that the 1st player is also more talented than the 3rd player. However, this isn't demonstrated; only inferred. To even begin to conclude who is the best, there needs to be large quantities of games played. This of course never indicates the absolute truth, but it approximates it as the amount of games approaches infinity. Thus I propose the following;
Knowing with complete confidence that I am the best current Doom 3 player on the face of the earth, I challenge any single person at a time to a 15 game series. Maps are picked at random by assigning numbers to each map, then reading numbers off of a random digit table and proceeding to the map that correlates to the number. The selection process should be done by a 3rd party and hopefully unbiased in any respects. The server to be played on should be that which provides for an equal of pings. If both players have to play with 200 ping just so that they have equal pings, then so be it. Respond to this thread if you want to play against me for 15 games in a row to determine who is currently more skilled. I completely agree that more games is a more valid determinant of talent than fewer games. If anyone wants to play 20-30 games instead, that is also fine. In the event that extending the period would alleviate your losing, you may continue to do that as long as you want. For instance, I am winning by 9 frags to your -3 in the 7th game of a 15 set. With 10 seconds left you may say, "best of 21" to which I will agree and play the remaining 6 games. Thus the validity of the test is self reinforcing as the amount of games played approaches infinity. I do, however, think that a 15 match set of games does show something. Even if it isn't the absolute truth, it is likely very close to it.
Until I have been beaten 7+ games out of 15, I will and do still contend that I am better than all of you at Doom 3.
while I completely agree with the statistical point, it is my belief that all top 4 placers in the 50| tourney could beat you 7+ times out of 15.
you also didn't take into account actual individual system specs. My 3dmark06 score of 6.5k plus implies that in theory, you should be able to perform, at your peak, higher on my computer than your own, at your peak. (due to the steady 64 fps with use of shadows and wall marks as clues to your opponents whereabouts.)
the threads about who you feel personallly are the most impressive players you have played .Either their skills or stratergies,techniques what ever you reguard as WOW !!! this guy is dam good !.or dammit I cant do anything against this mofo here WTF !!!. You know what I mean .
This does not include yourself as a truelly good player does not haft to blow his own trumpet .
why dont you make a list like everyone else ?.
I for one would be interested in who you respect\reguard as a Bloody good player .