Spoiler
Could be fun although I would try to get several people involved to get a coherent average of someone's rating.
People like Dokletian, Remao, Aless, Bedoyere, Thorvic, Octanidas, Goodest not only master their crafts like few others, the have also proven being mostly impartial in how they rate their pairs and shown a good critical sense in their approach to community-based dilemas. In short, they are not cretins and know a lot about cav so I believe their opinion is worth being consulted, would they agree on giving it. There are probably a few other I didn't think about but I don't know cav as much as most of you guys do so I will let them be mentioned by people who know better.
I especially think that nobody wants to see this kind of list in cavalry. It's unpopular with us and clearly, if people have opinions, they can keep it to themselves.
if you really want to work, write things, you can contact me on Steam : I have things to offer you. No need to make a list that no one is expecting.
I am not sure if you are talking to me or just using what I said to answer to Ciiges but I wouldn't go as far as saying that nobody wants to see this kind of list in the cavalry scene. You guys are absolutely no different to the infantry community in that regards, each one of us is human and it's very likely a fair margin of the community is curious about how other good players rate them. You'd be highly delusional to think otherwise. If people have opinions, they can share it with the rest of the community and it's the community's role to judge whether that opinion is coherent/relevant.
At the end of the day, it's up to you to give any of this the slightest of credits. What a disturbingly sad community we would be if everyone had to keep their opinions for themselves.
we are all human, but our relationship to the past and to our experience makes each of us different. I'm sorry if you felt you were aiming at Tardet, but I really wanted to react on this point which was, in my opinion, important.
the infantry and cavalry community are different in my opinion. The infantry community is much more active in terms of competition and can easily accommodate Native players. What is rarer in cavalry is competition (they are also longer in time) but also we have very few new players on a competitive level. Our competitions are rarer and our competitive players in cavalry are only half as competitive. They don't play every day with the aim of becoming the best. There is not a title hunt (some have palmares with at least a hundred medals) as there is in infantry. There are also very long off-peak periods during which nothing happens. Seeing two major competitions emerge was very unexpected.
classify for me players who do not necessarily want to be at all costs. So why not? But to what end? How do you classify them?what is the impact on our community?
If you want more activity from cav people on the forum: Yes.
Will people be happy with the score they get assigned?: No.
I agree on having this back, drama is always welcomed.
If I understood Aless correctly, this will create two things. The first is interesting, creating activity. But for whom? Hype is already very strong at the moment with the arrival of the CL & SNC. Wouldn't creating another ranking influence the choices of the captains who have to choose a team according to impartial tests? Will a player who is well ranked but who turns out to be less good than a player who has been less well ranked have "won" his place even before the selection?
the second thing is that players with level are mostly not interested in being ranked. Indeed, some of them play the big competitions but are not interested in playing all day long in order to become the best. As I said, in this community our players are semi-competitive. Especially since we are more at the end of the game.
Maybe some of them are not interested but they will care. Indeed, I expect a drama. As Aless says, it won't be a joy to see someone better ranked than you when we have the firm conviction that we are better than he is. So some will justify the fact that this is just an opinion not to be taken for something official or serious. Yet it will be presented as something official and serious. Some friendships will surely be broken and there will be a lot of debate.
However, we could avoid this kind of debate by placing an authoritative argument: statistics or the opinion of the best players. Statistics first. Well, what statistics? The ratio at the end of a match? Is it the number of kills? Assist? The number of times he was last standing? and even if we had them, how can we look at the statistics when we know that it's harder to get a good stat against a strong team than against a weak one. how can a player who has played more rounds than a player who has played fewer rounds be considered in the same way? I mean, let's say you're a top scorer in a match where you had a 3-round overtime. So the statistics are far from being infallible, even if we would like to believe it.
About the opinion. As I have already explained, whether you are a good player or a bad one: an opinion is still a subjective opinion. Who can speak for the community? Everyone speaks on behalf of the person they represent in the community and everyone is entitled to give their opinion, be it one of the best or the weakest players. I see no reason why the players should have legitimate advantages. The choice of these players who will be asked for their opinion is also a choice that I consider subjective and that will not necessarily reflect reality (I am not aiming at anyone, of course).The result will inevitably be influenced by the experience of the person giving the opinion. Zlatan himself said with his own ego, the year he almost got a golden ball, "Zlatan doesn't need a golden ball to know that he's the best".
so statistics and personal opinions do not always reflect reality. so I think it is important to base yourself on rules that are known to everyone and that clearly define what is a good player and what is a bad player. by this means and in a very optimistic way, the players will concentrate on this to find out the reasons for their ranking and try to improve if they want to.
now, what is the impact on the community?
The problem with this kind of classifications is that they appear as an absolute truth for some who see themselves hurt in this way or worse, who, wanting to prove that they are the best, become real madmen ready to do anything to scratch places and points. There are many examples in the infantry that I could cite. This can lead to quite toxic situations in a team where the majority of the players are of a very high level. However, it also has its advantages in terms of competitiveness. Maybe new tournaments will be created in order to improve its ranking, which is possible if the list is regularly updated, as it is the case for this
one. I won't hide the fact that more competition leads to the creation of teams rather than regiments. This is logical since teams are more flexible for a player than a regiment. The big regiments can count on their best players only in big competitions, otherwise these players play with their teams. This is what happens in infantry but it seems difficult to me to see it in cavalry because our community is only half-competitive.
to sum up, I think that you have to be careful with this kind of lists which are often sources of drama (I'm not saying that the one you want to do Ciiges is going to be a drama, I'm just saying that in the infantry, there is very often drama and no one ever agrees).
The idea of making the community more active is charming but, in my opinion, this is not the best way to do it. Creating tournaments, events, topics of conversation, are all useful and fun things to make our community live and even thrive. I don't want to improvise myself as a judge of what should or shouldn't be done. No that's not the point, here I want give my opinion on the matter and if you make the list, I'll look at it, but I'm not going to bother you about it because I would have already said what I had to say here
Edit : I did not read myself again until after posting this message and I noticed a potentially confusing sentence which I corrected. now that I've reread my message, it's ok. English is not a language that I fully master, I apologize for that.
