I don't find it phew to have placed people like that
I find its not phew for some which can be hurt
Let's all come together and find solutions to make cavalry phew again.
For everyone.
If we use this means, argument is better to affirm why this guys is or no tier 1 with real argument, not just "I say it" it's simple, because I don't understand everyone's location, if I think that I am worse off or better than someone who is placed in tier 1 I say so, or people who I do not find good to place in tier 3, if there is no argument, and it was, it's called an opinion, Personally, I don't care, but for certain maybe not internally, especially with 0 arguments, that's why I don't like it when you place people with 0 arguments for the tier 1, but now i understand why the admin made these choices in this way, it's easier I know and it's ok man haha
It don't wanna start a big debate here, especially like Dokletian said, it's not the right place to debate about it. But just to answer simply about some of your questions.
The list is made with a group of veterans of this community, they are skilled and have played a lot in this game as cavalry. So I think that if there are people that can judge the performances of other players, they are the best placed to do so. Of course there can always be misses in the judgement of some skills of players. But it's a global view of how people are in skills. That's why even Ciiges wanted to start with a "tier" list, and not a list like we could see in other threats were it was each player above on another. Also because players don't have the same play style, so sometimes it can be difficult to compare them directly. With the time the lists became a little more precise, but it's still in that "tier" mentality. And I think it's a good idea, but if people don't agree with it, it's okay and like no one will be offended if you disagree with it. It's just an idea of some players on the skills of other players.
I think im stuppid, it's a big probability, i don't saw a list of ciges, it's a mini tournaments one player versus one player ? Sorry i never see this list im not on fse all day my bad i know haha
It's verry cool if it's a mini tournaments one player versus one player for give a rank, but if it isn't this, mmh ...
I understand you, My friend, I myself am a veteran player for 10 years having played the whole cavalry league with the old IVe_7e_Huss and the 4e for 6 years now and having spent too much time on cav gf too, I also know the levels of the people, a lot of people that I wouldn't name, from my regiment, or else, even better than me, with an incredible score even in the cavalry league final, are neither in the tier and 1 nor in the 2 on this CFL, so who can be stronger than name like that on the tier one, ( i respect all poeple on the tier one calmos ) if you don't do not speak of score when they are often the top players of the "best regiment". How do you see the level of play of those who are currently at tier 1 if it is not with the score? with a riddle? For example, How can you say that such and such is better than a guy who is part of the best of his regiment and who has won a lot of cavelery tournaments? if you use this system, you have to say how do you judge yourself to be a good player, if it's not tournaments what is it? there are not 10,000 arguments to give, I just don't agree with certain placement. It's my opinion if we work with this system. ( I don't like this system of tier I repeat it but i know it's necessary )
I don't understand how you choose a good player if it's not through tournaments and all cavelery league and cav gf, not just the score ofc xD or a mini tournaments one players versus on player, real argument is better to affirm such a thing if we work with this system. Not just we talked about it between 2 3 veterans without taking into account the big tournaments and not just a recent 2vs2 tournament, I am also a veterans and I assure you that I would have given anothers names for example, I was not called, it's normal not to agree with everyone, there is no problem
Because I don't see how we can say that a person is better than me for example without having ever faced him in 1v1 or having never seen him have scores that i had in battle like on cav gf or finish first of this team in the final of the Cavalery league of many time or on cavgf, it's strange that people can know your background and say your less good than him, I speak on behalf of poeple when you know your level, you can't let a veteran say that such and such is better than you without ever facing them or never having a track record in equal play, i don't always mean winning or be the first in your squad, but for the most part, otherwise how do you rate a player for placing him without all of that? for me it is just logical but I may be stupid xD
but i understand more now, it's cool
