Sticking it out longer doesn't mean you're more skilled. If you'd like to understand why I welcome you to join near me on any future world (I'll pre-register and invite you into my area).
You were rank 2 when W29 ended. I was rank 1 on W29 much earlier and was the top member in DSL during its early stages. Based on your logic you should be able to start a new world near me and beat me in a 1 vs. 1, no?
I never said I was the best, nor do I think it. Bert has said I am, but that is his opinion. In fact, I specifically stated I am nowhere near the best in any single category. I think I am a good all around player and leader, which makes me pretty good at TW.
Yes, sticking it out does not necessarily mean you are more skilled, but the opposite is also not true; sticking it out does not show a lack of skill either. A certain amount of skill must be had to have led a tribe to victory, held a tribe together when chaos was thrown into the equation, lost very few villages that were not retaken shortly thereafter, and gained a large number of enemy villages, while remaining one of the most frontline accounts in a world through the 2 biggest wars in the world's history (making up roughly 2 out of 3 years).
I know I played alongside a number of very skilled players, and fought against a large number of highly skilled players (not sure which player you are, as your world forum name does not ring a bell), so I agree if skill alone is being looked at, someone who gets bored and quits could certainly be considered. As a duke, I would rather a player with a high level of skill but maintains loyalty and is willing to see it through till the end, then someone who is fantastic for a short period of time, then goes inactive, hits delete, or asks to be nobled out. As such, I would not rate someone who is likely to quit early on as an ultimate top ten player (just my opinion).
The most skilled player I have ever played with/against is Logboss, with Mikey9Points shortly behind.
Also on the 1V1 point, I don't know how I would fare against you 1V1, but then again we are not playing individual wars are we? You are only as good as the tribe you build around you, the strategy the tribe takes, the leadership driving it, and the teamwork of those within the tribe, so why would a 1v1 prove anything. I think you are focusing on a single element of skill, being individual tactics probably around the use of scripts, timing, and simple activity. Whilst this is an easy way to judge someone's skills, it is certainly not everything; leadership, teamwork, training others within the tribe, sitting duties, diplomacy, building / keeping tribal morale, etc. are all very important elements, some I would rate as more important than knowing how to send a 150ms train, backtime, snipe, etc.
