You'll never know who was the best. There are many different phases in this game. You have your people that excel at startup. They delete or give their accounts away after 15 or so villages, just so they can go start a new world. Then you have the mid game players that usually stick around to 3 - 5 mil pts. and end up getting bored with the world. Last comes the late gamers, imo the most boring part of the game. Who's to say that if those early/mid gamers didn't delete they wouldn't still be on top of the world?
Well, while it is interesting to ponder how players COULD have done, I don't believe we can make the assumption that they would do well all the way to the end. Like you said, different types of players excel at different parts of this game (Tribal Wars), and perhaps there is for a reason for this. Many players simply can't handle the struggle of world-defining war, or the activity needed. And so, for that reason, they excel at the beginning perhaps, or the middle, perhaps even the end. While the best players might never reach their full potential, they cannot assume they are the best if they've only played the beginnings of a few worlds and never the end or middle. All require different skills, and a "start-up" player cannot assume they are better then the late game players or those that play all the way through. In my honest opinion, I don't feel that a player can be defined correctly by only a half year of actual gameplay, but rather the three or so years it takes to win a world. Thus they can prove their skill in every aspect of a game, not just start-up or a few months after.
To be honest, it's even more than just rank though Jidge.
Are you all talking the best all around player? The best defender, the best attacker, the most efficient (accomplishes the most while playing as little as possible), the best manipulator, the best strategist, the best team player?
I've seen a lot of really great players in my time, but a lot of them are great due to the amount of time they spend in the game, and often burn out around mid game due to it. Is the best really someone who burns out because they put too much in? Or someone who knows how to pace themselves, and can succeed through many stages of the game?
The "best" players are really the ones who have put the time in to really excel at this game, however they are not the burns out.. In my opinion, the best players need to prove that they can excel at EVERY part of the game, and show every skill that is needed. Most players who excel at start-up cannot handle the activity needed and "burn out" like you (Kidden) said. The middle players sometimes face the same demise. And while the end-game players are not the best, they can certainly say they player the world through. The activity of a late-game world is hard, and I see very active players take on massive (10m+) sits, and defend/snipe/dodge them while still maintaining their account. Players all have their different skill sets, and those who perfect those skills are truly the "elite" of this game. However, these skills require late game play to prove more than often, hence the time factor play its role. A player who burns out and has a lot of skill lacks the activity of this game, and is a great player, though not the best. I do believe that a player who proves themselves throughout the time they play and quit when their final world ends just to retire is the best player.
-Duncan