European Community Lists - Another List Added!

[Rhen]

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 Also, many of the former good cavalry players have outdated knowledge of the same players they used to play with (something I noticed quickly).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.

[15th Archer]

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.

[Rhen]

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_-

[Herishey]

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.

People will always complain, we used a criteria which is posted somewhere on the thread. It's always somewhat going to come down to opinion.

[Kore]

The thing is there is not enough evidence (screenshots, videos, even logs maybe, etc.), so it is hard to get an actual and accurate idea about how good or bad the player is.
For example, in Native, almost every official match have screenshot evidence of every set or is recorded. Also there is (at least for me) a new system of statistics, where in some tournaments there is someone to make a big table with performance of every player who played even just one set.

So don't really think that melee guys had it easier, as these ratings are still heavily opinion based and based on how do we rather remember certain players, than on their real performance, as we simply have not enough evidence.

kek

[EpicSpaceWhale]

can i be inform pls

[15th Archer]

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_-

I didnt say it was easy, i just feel like its being over complicated seeing as melee one was done so well even with mostly opinion based. Even NA made one with current and all time leaderboards which again im pretty sure was mostly opinion based (besides the current players list i think). If you need help with opinions on certain players pretty sure all the leaders would be willing to help, also with myself having led 15th Hussars for so long.

Dont take it as an attack im just trying to help out.

[Rhen]

I thank you for the offer, and will accept it in the future. However, I'm also more than happy for you to take over. I'm currently quite busy with school, work, the party (political), next year's studies, eventually going abroad, and now the tournament as well, and of course some other things. I will reconsider picking up the project where we left it, after I see both the tournament and league completed. This way I have something to base my ratings off.

[Melton]

I think Abekrampe would fit on the list.

[Conway]

I think Abekrampe would fit on the list.

Yes mang, all we need is another 77y to add to the infinite list of 77y and 15th_YR people.

[Carolus.]

I think Abekrampe would fit on the list.

Just below El Bobertini

[Ody]

na is better anyways

[Melton]

I think Abekrampe would fit on the list.

Yes mang, all we need is another 77y to add to the infinite list of 77y and 15th_YR people.

What's the problem?

[Ambiguous]

I think Abekrampe would fit on the list.

Yes mang, all we need is another 77y to add to the infinite list of 77y and 15th_YR people.

What's the problem?

Yeah there's a reason for that, 15th YR and 77y are actually good and have some good players. How about you take that into consideration perhaps?

[Herishey]

na is better anyways

That was proven so well in the EU v NA linebattle.