Instead of having a list of who has won the most games under the rankings, why not have the percentage of games won, that's games won devided by games played, then timed by 100.
Having won over 1000 games doesn't always mean your good, it just tells everyone that you play a lot.

Nah, you can see from the winner board who's record is better if you do the division yourself. You'll get people like canter who create accounts and just play guests for 50-0 records.

Yep well said raiden, the percentage win method is flawed.

The idea is that rankings show how good you currently are, and most wins shows your accumulated totals.

However the rankings could probably do with some minor adjustments.

i think the percentage won idea is a better reflection of a players ability rather than simply who's played the most. Perhaps, it should only start after say your first 100 games??

No offense but I'm sure many can easily get 100-1 wins/losses. Then they'll retire at the top til someone comes along and gets 100-0 then that guy will retire at the top forever.

lol i agree any system is open to abuse in some way or other but i think its got to be better than simply who's been on the longest!!

According to nick's sign up date the site started 1 year before I joined..

i like it.

ye didnt no that