16
Regiments / Re: ♞ 4e Régiment de Hussards [EU]
« on: December 31, 2020, 08:50:42 pm »
Happy new year, mates 
Flying Squirrel Entertainment
News:
Over The Top: WWI Steam Store Page
New Game announced! Add Over the Top: WWI to your Steam Wishlist!
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
17
The Mess Hall / Re: Historia Continuum - Christmas Update
« on: December 26, 2020, 12:36:20 am »
Even though I only really played inf in Mount&Musket, I love the extensiveness of this list, especially the medals counts. Thanks for the effort!
18
Six Nations Championship / Re: ♞ [SNC-2020] Discussion Thread
« on: December 22, 2020, 06:08:00 pm »
So, I was procrastinating and saw the nice data table in here. My conclusion was that I wanted to plot the columns by teams (in boxplots).
Results are mostly boring, but there are a couple funny twists and perhabs some hints about teamstrategies overall.
e.g. France did not only win, but also show a trend for the most teamkills (the winning strategy?).
I would guess that a lot of effects here are moderated by rounds won which usually means that more players are alive and can do stuff for longer in a given round. However, I can not really control for that, as the table doesn't give me data about rounds played.
I didnt plot bumpassists, as they were not numerous enough.
Results are mostly boring, but there are a couple funny twists and perhabs some hints about teamstrategies overall.
e.g. France did not only win, but also show a trend for the most teamkills (the winning strategy?).
I would guess that a lot of effects here are moderated by rounds won which usually means that more players are alive and can do stuff for longer in a given round. However, I can not really control for that, as the table doesn't give me data about rounds played.
Spoiler
[close]
19
The Mess Hall / Re: ♞ Hussars Rated (EU) ♞ UPDATED 15-12-2020
« on: December 17, 2020, 06:32:59 pm »Spoiler
I'm fucking dying, how you can still find the keys on your keyboard with your head so far up your own ass is truly magnificent.
I have a miniature keyboard in my ass. And all my arguments are valid while you have none.
And it would be nice if some guys stop spamming Dutch on English speaking forum, you guys didn't fully take over NW quite yet.
doubt, most of ur arguments are useless since you misinterpret everything Dokle said. You blame the creator & raters because you only get rated "properly" if you are in the top 4 regiments which is klinklare onzin. We can't do anything about it that smaller/worse regiments only fight other regiments at their level so we don't get a proper look at their skill level.
For example: Players from 33rd like Giorno, SirLegion, Uganda are rated worse than they would be in regiments which are more competitive, simply because their regiments don't allow them to show their skill by not organizing a training match vs a higher skilled regiment.
You are correct. As you keep confirming my point, which is that this list's ranking concept allows players to rank up only if they fight in big 1v1s, thereby they have to be a member of one of the very few big competitive regiments.
Therefore, initially including so many players who are not members of these regiments, without even asking them, gave this list all the qualities of a recruitment scam, that hooks the players by showing them an initially low rank that will be fixed once they join one of few regiments.
If something has qualities of a scam it is a scam, and rather than defending it you should think about how to fix it further. I can't say for sure to what extent this was planned, or was it even on purpose, but some facts remain:
1) The list started with a claim that *all* active players who were forcibly added, no matter what regiment they are in, will be rated according to their skill. This is a naive claim and an impossible task, therefore the list has quickly deformed into what it is now.
2) To believe that members and captains of a tiny amount of regiments who are giving out ranking will have the accuracy of the list in their dearest concern is naive. Since this was "fixed" by involving an equal number of members of a few regiments, the list is still just a recruiting tool whose power is shared among a small number of regiments.
3) By its nature, the list will be autistically defended by those who were given high rank in it.
4) Not quite a fact yet but an important point, Ciiges is in my opinion not fit to run such a list, apart from being seen acting like an angry kid in some occasions, in my personal case I can say his refusal to fix Parigon's regiment label shows that he is not a servant to all that he is supposed to be, but rather forces his will on the list whenever he sees fit. Yes, he may have done the work of starting it, but if he is the only guy who can use excel sheets then this corrupt list should just stop.
One constructive solution I can offer is stop pretending this is an all encompassing ranking list of active hussars, and turn it into some sort of a major league player ranking that is clearly limited to only a certain number of regiments. Then it will stop being a scam, even though it started as one, and will evolve into a toxic but valid ranking list.
[close]
Trying to make the list more valid by just including only some regiments (while not being a bad idea) would not elivate your hypothesized recruitment issue, as then one would only get listed by being in said regiments to begin with. It would also not eliviate validity too much, as then one could point out, that regiments still differ in quality ( I guess scores could be normalized by regimental performance, but then we would need a regimental performance measure).
Lastly, I am defending this list even though I am listed in Tier 4... Is this ruled under implied exceptions in your argument?
20
The Mess Hall / Re: ♞ Hussars Rated (EU) ♞ UPDATED 15-12-2020
« on: December 17, 2020, 05:08:08 pm »
Many discussions on validity mostly boil down to the inherent subjectivity and/or bias of a list based on ratings. Peoples opinion and reason for assigning a specific ranking to a person is a complex interaction of factors related to 1vs1 performance, probably caf gf performance (as some players in the list also do not really actively participate in 1vs1), and/or other personal experience (performance in trainings, or private play). It is true that people with less exposure or less "exposure friendly" regiments will be inherently disadvantaged here, but this is also why this list did not really claim to be objective, but only as objective as it can be (as such Dokletian's remark to a Framework is more the admittance of bias, not a cover-up).
In my opinion, the reason why Grozni seems to despise the idea of such a list is essentially why these lists are only tolerated in off-topic. They cannot be fair and are potentially easy to be misinterpreted and/or misused (ok probably also because they generate lots and lots of salt). For me, it certainly is just a fun off-topic thread in a topic that I find interesting (plus I also like data, dont judge).
I do not think that the rankings here likely do influence people's decision making for recruitment. It is not difficult to find the strongest cav regs by looking into competition results and people who do not care about this will not be interested in this list either.
The argument against Ciiges as manger of such a list is controversial. Can you ridicule a product by misbehaviour of its creator? I personally also think Ciiges could be more diplomatic with critiques, but this thread is still Off-topic, so as long as the Moderation does not move in, I see no problem. (maybe to clarify here; I feel like people overstate the importance of this list. Eventhough this is the only list of its kind, I see it as 'a' list, not 'the' list, which I think should be a good approach with any list or statistic in general)
I feel that this list never claimed to be just nor do I see a measureable benefit to its creator (apart from self-exposure I guess, but thats not necessarily a benefit), thus I do not see a need to be removed from it.
In my opinion, the reason why Grozni seems to despise the idea of such a list is essentially why these lists are only tolerated in off-topic. They cannot be fair and are potentially easy to be misinterpreted and/or misused (ok probably also because they generate lots and lots of salt). For me, it certainly is just a fun off-topic thread in a topic that I find interesting (plus I also like data, dont judge).
I do not think that the rankings here likely do influence people's decision making for recruitment. It is not difficult to find the strongest cav regs by looking into competition results and people who do not care about this will not be interested in this list either.
The argument against Ciiges as manger of such a list is controversial. Can you ridicule a product by misbehaviour of its creator? I personally also think Ciiges could be more diplomatic with critiques, but this thread is still Off-topic, so as long as the Moderation does not move in, I see no problem. (maybe to clarify here; I feel like people overstate the importance of this list. Eventhough this is the only list of its kind, I see it as 'a' list, not 'the' list, which I think should be a good approach with any list or statistic in general)
I feel that this list never claimed to be just nor do I see a measureable benefit to its creator (apart from self-exposure I guess, but thats not necessarily a benefit), thus I do not see a need to be removed from it.
21
The Mess Hall / Re: ♞ Hussars Rated (EU) ♞ UPDATED 15-12-2020
« on: December 16, 2020, 03:07:39 pm »The snc isnt over yet. Some people like to cut their ties themselves.Funny you were ok being in the list when you were 2.9, but now you're 3.2 you want to be removed
I think in terms of St0m, he kinda announced to retire from competitive nw after the snc, so his request does make some sense to me.
----
Nice points Dokletian.
He still shows up to 1v1s tho. If he really is "Retired" cringe btw he will surely get removed after his 1 month hiatus when ciiges does a next update?
22
The Mess Hall / Re: ♞ Hussars Rated (EU) ♞ UPDATED 15-12-2020
« on: December 16, 2020, 02:58:18 pm »Funny you were ok being in the list when you were 2.9, but now you're 3.2 you want to be removed
I think in terms of St0m, he kinda announced to retire from competitive nw after the snc, so his request does make some sense to me.
----
Nice points Dokletian.
23
The Mess Hall / Re: ♞ Hussars Rated (EU) ♞ UPDATED 15-12-2020
« on: December 15, 2020, 06:28:22 pm »the math doesnt check out yet.Statistics4e has 22 players on the list: two tier 1s, two tier 2s, eight tier 3s, nine tier 4s, one tier 5.
8th has 24 players on the list: one tier 1, six tier 2s, seven tier 3s, seven tier 4s, two tier 5s.
1er has 33 players on the list: three tier 1s, four tier 2s, seven tier 3s, ten tier 4s, seven tier 5s.
Nr4 has 16 players on the list: zero tier 1s, one tier 2, three tier 3s, five tier 4s, seven tier 5s.
2Lr has 13 players on the list: zero tier 1s, one tier 2, three tier 3s, five tier 4s, seven tier 5s.
6e has 18 players on the list: one tier 1, four tier 2s, two tier 3s, six tier 4s, five tier 5s.[close]
8th = 1+6+7+7+2 = 23
1er = 3+4+7+10+7 = 31
2Lr = 1+3+5+7 = 16
( or maybe the numbers are wrong, I didnt cross check with the tier list)
24
Events: EU / Re: ♞ 2Lr Tuesday Linebattle♞ | New Thread *Looking for Line(s)*
« on: December 14, 2020, 11:16:28 am »But we appreciate them the most!Don't you appreciate everyone the most?
25
Six Nations Championship / Re: ♞ [SNC-2020] Discussion Thread
« on: December 13, 2020, 11:43:44 pm »We can also replay the match if you would prefer that?replay the round, i think ger won that one :pMy apologies again for my unitentional fauxpas in the public chat.biggest rule break of whole snc
Swissy, between us, how many points does France get in compensation for this terrible outrage?
interesting...
26
Six Nations Championship / Re: ♞ [SNC-2020] Discussion Thread
« on: December 13, 2020, 10:47:37 pm »
The amount of discipline and sheer will to win was awe-inspiring.
Thank you for the great match!
My apologies again for my unitentional fauxpas in the public chat.
Thank you for the great match!
My apologies again for my unitentional fauxpas in the public chat.
27
Regimenter / Re: 2. Leib - Regiment [03.06.2016] *Rekrutiert*
« on: December 09, 2020, 03:49:21 pm »
Wie sonst im internet gilt auch hier: Wenn du was nicht witzig und/oder interessant findest musst du es dir nicht geben.
Bsp. schaue ich mir auch nicht jedes video an das mir youtube empfiehlt.
Bsp. schaue ich mir auch nicht jedes video an das mir youtube empfiehlt.
28
The Mess Hall / Re: ♞ Hussars Rated (EU) ♞ UPDATED 08-11-2020
« on: December 03, 2020, 10:07:43 am »nice update ciigesIs this official?
all those lovely 1er tags there!
How can the community believe this if it wasn't posted in a newspaper like the previous developments?
29
M&B: Warband - Napoleonic Wars / Re: TEAM GERMANY Cavalry Six-Nations-Championship
« on: November 28, 2020, 04:47:03 pm »
Ich wuerde sagen, dass die meisten Spieler Lancer als unbalanced (gegen andere Kav) ansehen. Als Beweis wird hierzu gerne der Sieg von Spanien im letzten Nation Cup zitiert, welcher wohl auf der Tatsache beruht, dass Spanien als Lancer gespielt hat.
30
Regimenter / Re: 2. Leib - Regiment [03.06.2016] *Rekrutiert*
« on: November 26, 2020, 11:50:12 pm »Schönes Zitat, jetzt läuft es wieder!
SCHÖÖÖÖÖN
SCHÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖN!