UtzChips wrote:Are you serious about Prince? You really think he is so freakin' good, that if he played the 2nd-51st seeded expert here, 1 game as allies and the other as axis [for a total of 100 games], with a 90/5 time limit & regular dice, that he would win 80%+ of his 100 games?
Another part of the issue is each game setting can change the game and means each specialization will have its own best players. It really is more about preferences sometimes. For example. NecOne was one of the best pbem players. FP was one of the best live players. Neither would even want to play the other in their specialization, especially not competitively. One minimizes time and allows for more thought (strategy). The other is more about studying, memorization, and who trained the best/most.
If you are good enough and have it down to a science exactly what you will do in most cases then just lower the live timers even more to ensure a win. I can see a live player putting enough time into practicing and such that they could easily win 80%+ against talented players in a live setting. But that has a lot more to do with time than strategy/skill. Time is a limiting factor to many and does impact the game. Another example is LL or regular dice. They are drastically different games that can't be played in the same fashion. OR if you try to play regular dice like LL you will likely be a huge dice whiner and be more likely to lose against skilled regular-dice opponents (because you attempted to ignore risk). There are many other examples concerning specializing for high-level play.
Forcing a set bid can restrict strategies and makes the game more inflexible while also possibly giving a player an advantage over another before the games even start. We are talking about the "best" here where every little thing can make a difference. For example. G6 and above gives axis an advantage and why many expert axis almost never lose with a G6. It can also force a more aggressive allied strategy. That means the victor is more likely the one that can play the allies better or the one that dices the axis early. By allowing them to bid you will see lower than G6 bids in the top games and strategies will be more flexible, same with game-play. The issue shouldn't be about forcing players to play both sides. At the top players will already know how to play both sides very well. Having flexible bidding allows more specialization too.
You want to see the best AND what the win % is? Create a tourney with a couple hundred dollar reward and make time no issue. PBEM with decent timers. Only allow players in if they say they are one of the best at the game under those game settings and at least a 100 coin entrance fee. Also force the players to do important battles live. Maybe tell them they can each declare up to 10 battles live that the opponent can't say no to. Also say no gaming the system and such. For example a PM should be sent to the opponent during a pause in a battle if a player is attacking a stack and thinks it's time for the other to kill the bombers. Same goes for subs and such. And of course regular dice is a must or once again it's more about studying, practice, and memorization than it is about adapting/strategy. Anyone if they have the time can study/practice/memorize. Few can adapt or strategize well, no matter how much time they have.
It's about preferences and semantics though. Opinions on the above will drastically differ depending on their preferences and semantics of certain topics. So of course the above is just my opinion too.
If you put the money up and define very well what your looking for and under what settings, you will see one of the best for that specialization and of course in a tourney setting it would probably be 80%+.