Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Because all those people appear in more than one era. Longevity was taken into account as well as other factors (it says at the bottom of the thread).
Not sure what you are trying to say there 
Thing is I don't know why you're using me as a comparison when even though I wasn't as active I used to be back in the days, I still won tournaments here and there (RGL with 85e, NWWC in 2017). I'm sure you would have better understood my case if you did bother to check the past tournaments results in 2020-21 beforehand.
He is using you as a comparison because you both are in top 10 in one era only. Pretty self-explanatory if you ask me.
Yeah that side makes sense but the eras were only used in relation to the all time in a few ways. E.g. if you were top 10 in 2 eras you instantly go to tier 1, if you were top 10 in one era you're instantly into tier 4 or above, etc (this excludes the early eras in some cases if those players were not active after).
Just to point out some eras are longer than others, I.e. if there was an era for 2015 and 2016, I probs would of made it to top 10 in both era then somehow that would automatically make me tier 1. That does not seem right to me. Doing it by year would of been more consistent and fair.
The fact you took activity into consideration makes things very debatable and very hard to judge. For example, a player could come to NW scene, and play competitively for 6-12 month and absolutely dominate the NW scene by winning everything. This player could be the best player to ever play NW but then because he/she decides to quit, after a short period of time for whatever reason, they do not deserve a high tier? In that case, the tiers do not truly represent players skill, does it? Now on the contradictory side, I do see your point, as players activity duration demonstrates for how long and well a player can upkeep their skill which is a fair point however if you refer back to the example I mentioned few sentences back, if a player leaves NW when they are playing well, then who are you/we to change them for how long they would have upkept being in the top 10. This has to be judged based on their prime.
You say all of this is based on facts... but Axiom was not around in 2015-2016... So I am very confused as to why he is on top 30 even. It makes sense to follow a list that was made back in 2015 by Haze, Lebrave and about 7 other players because it was done based on facts back then.... P.S Axiom you are a legend so nothing personal here.
I know it may look like I am moaning about being in tier 3 and not tier 2 and in all honesty there is no way to please everyone with their score (unless we give everyone tier 1 but even then people would probs still complain xD). I just dont agree with methodology used. There is not a lot of consistency here. As I said before, solely based on the front page, I, Nosswill and Clash appeared only once in Era's and therefore I have the same right to claim tier 2 as they do. Now you did defend it by saying they were in top 40 in other era's but solely based on the front page.. there is no top 40... so that defeats the point you made.
Don't take any of this as an attack on your Herishey, because what you have done here is amazing. This probs took you and others many weeks and hours to do.
If you want a list without any subjective opinion from other players and unbiased stats, you should probably go to the Historia Continuum thread made by Tardet and Tiberias. But taken into account how much work and how many people worked on Gibbys and Herisheys list, it is safe to say that there are some minor things to discuss about, but all in all it represents the overall competetive state of NW quite well.
I agree with you Nosswill
Spoiler
The reason why Nosswill and Clash are in a higher tier kinda makes sense so I don't understand the confusion.
Whilst Nosswill and Clash might have the same type of era rating as you had (top 10 in one era), they kept playing and picked up some medals here and there afterwards as well. They might not have been considered top 30 players during the time after their peak, even though that is always highly subjective, but they continued playing and therefore kept popping up in the tournament archive of Tardet and Tiberias after their "peak era". This archive is what was mostly used for this list as seen here:
Resources
The primary resource for this list is Tardet and Tiberias' tournament archive, which we are very grateful for being given access to.
It thus makes sense that they will have a higher rating. Where they had a peak where they reached top 10 in an era, and kept playing and thus kept appearing in tournaments. You reached top 10 in an era and stopped playing. You argue "how can you say that I wouldn't have kept playing at this high level", but at the same time I could argue "how are these list makers going to be able to evaluate your skill through periods where you didn't play". You can hardly expect them to pretend like you would've kept up the same level as you had back then when you weren't around to show it.
I never said "how can you say that I wouldn't have kept playing at this high level", it was just an example. My point was not to evaluate skill through periods where a player did not play. As it is an unknown how they would of performed if they decided to stay or could stay.
In terms of tourneys won, I suppose that's also not the best way of recording individual skill. So for example, if you put any tier 1 player in a shit team (aka they play with their friends), they will never win anything because 1 player cannot carry the whole team therefore does that make tier 1 player a bad player because they did not win anything? Saying all this, tourneys won is the only way of judging an individuals skill I suppose... I personally cannot think of another way of recording someone skills apart from their tourney achievement...
Spoiler
To be fair to Manda he did play the occasionally tournament for TBE even in 2017/2018 and now he is playing again however on the contrary he was never regarded as a top 20 player during those times.
I would say for Tier 2 you have to have to have a decent amount of tournament wins across a couple of different years, all-time is always going to be biased towards longevity not raw skill or talent as there is no point comparing that across eras (later will always be better).
I agree with everything you said there Golden. but apparently, I do not need to be top 20 to be in tier 2... You have to be top 40 according to Herishey's comment earlier. I was even in GB team in 2018 (even though I left the game again as soon as I got into the team (My Bad)) .
In regards to longevity then the list is not "All Time Player Ranking" it is more like "All Time Tourney Winners" as it simply demonstrates how many tourney they have won throughout the duration of their time on NW. As you rightly said, later era's will always be better than the older ones due to them bring new styles to the game.
