1
Over The Top: WWI Steam Store Page
New Game announced! Add Over the Top: WWI to your Steam Wishlist!
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.
The fuck was i kicked from UK. Just cause i couldn't make a couple of training cause of life doesn't really say that i won't attend.
The problem I'm currently facing is that most regimental commanders who know their respective communities well, are listing out-dated players, which then again means that the rest neither know them nor can rate them. Opinions about other players vary, a lot. We need to balance cavalry groupfighting up to tournaments, leagues, 1 vs 1s, and so forth. I depriotise cavalry groupfighting scores over 1 vs 1 (regiment vs. regiment, btw) or tournament/league scores, whilst others think it is a major part of being considered a good cavalry player. And it's also hard to receive non-biased opinions about own/former members. Also, many of the former good cavalry players have outdated knowledge of the same players they used to play with (something I noticed quickly). Hence I decided that I will only use peoples' current skill level to rate them; not their previous unmatched glories. So yah, it's a big and demanding project.
So Rival, Majestic etc. wont be included because they dont play cavalry anymore?
I have so far worked closely together with Rival regarding the matter. However, I'm comparing people up to each other and including scores from various events, leagues and tournaments, etc.. I don't just go "He was good. 94. Yah, no, wait, I'm feeling more like a 95." I am trying to base the ratings upon something, not just gut-feeling. In addition, I've also had several problems with rating some players because opinions vary a lot around them. This is normal. You might experience Majestic (just an example, as you mentioned him) as amazing whilst someone else tells me that they easily rekt them in a 1 vs 1. But to answer your question more precisely, if it proves too complicated to compare former cavalry players with more recent or still-playing cavalry members, I will focus on recent times instead, yes. When in TS with Erik, Cooper and Rival, we already discussed this issue. Should we add players that won't even know about the fact that they are referred to in the rating list or are really inactive? We concluded: No, it would be a waste of time/effort.
I hope this somewhat answered your question.
Why not ask the melee guys how they did it? They have a lot more players compared to cavalry and they have players that dont play anymore in their list. As far as ive seen no-one is complaining either. Surely it must be a lot harder for them to do it yet they seemed to manage fine with all time ratings.
You're free to take over the project if it so easy. -_o_-
The problem I'm currently facing is that most regimental commanders who know their respective communities well, are listing out-dated players, which then again means that the rest neither know them nor can rate them. Opinions about other players vary, a lot. We need to balance cavalry groupfighting up to tournaments, leagues, 1 vs 1s, and so forth. I depriotise cavalry groupfighting scores over 1 vs 1 (regiment vs. regiment, btw) or tournament/league scores, whilst others think it is a major part of being considered a good cavalry player. And it's also hard to receive non-biased opinions about own/former members. Also, many of the former good cavalry players have outdated knowledge of the same players they used to play with (something I noticed quickly). Hence I decided that I will only use peoples' current skill level to rate them; not their previous unmatched glories. So yah, it's a big and demanding project.
So Rival, Majestic etc. wont be included because they dont play cavalry anymore?
I have so far worked closely together with Rival regarding the matter. However, I'm comparing people up to each other and including scores from various events, leagues and tournaments, etc.. I don't just go "He was good. 94. Yah, no, wait, I'm feeling more like a 95." I am trying to base the ratings upon something, not just gut-feeling. In addition, I've also had several problems with rating some players because opinions vary a lot around them. This is normal. You might experience Majestic (just an example, as you mentioned him) as amazing whilst someone else tells me that they easily rekt them in a 1 vs 1. But to answer your question more precisely, if it proves too complicated to compare former cavalry players with more recent or still-playing cavalry members, I will focus on recent times instead, yes. When in TS with Erik, Cooper and Rival, we already discussed this issue. Should we add players that won't even know about the fact that they are referred to in the rating list or are really inactive? We concluded: No, it would be a waste of time/effort.
I hope this somewhat answered your question.
The problem I'm currently facing is that most regimental commanders who know their respective communities well, are listing out-dated players, which then again means that the rest neither know them nor can rate them. Opinions about other players vary, a lot. We need to balance cavalry groupfighting up to tournaments, leagues, 1 vs 1s, and so forth. I depriotise cavalry groupfighting scores over 1 vs 1 (regiment vs. regiment, btw) or tournament/league scores, whilst others think it is a major part of being considered a good cavalry player. And it's also hard to receive non-biased opinions about own/former members. Also, many of the former good cavalry players have outdated knowledge of the same players they used to play with (something I noticed quickly). Hence I decided that I will only use peoples' current skill level to rate them; not their previous unmatched glories. So yah, it's a big and demanding project.