don't think it is very fair to write mine and Herishey's list off as "entirely subjective and means nothing". the latter part is arguable, but it is disingenuous to argue the former. all of the team ratings are based on a complete database provided by Tardet and Tiberias of every tournament placement by every team. the by-era aspect is essentially based entirely on this, with some lesser credit given to wins in things like tournaments involving swords. the all-time team list is both a tallying up of placements by each team as well as an accommodation of the era in which they were playing and the competition they had at that time. for individual players it is much the same - the era ratings are largely a result of placements in tournaments within each era, while the all time ratings are a consideration of their entire time in NW. this means that, again, it is not solely about their total tournament placements, but about the era in which they achieved those placements and how much competition they had for it.
there's a formula at play: for instance, all of the tier 1 all time placements placed in the top 10 in at least two eras. all of the tier 2 all time placements are either players who managed a top 10 in one era, or who reached top 20 in several. it's very formulaic, at least for tiers 1 and 2, although you can argue more subjectively about the tier 3-5 placements. that is the case for players, but the regimental and team assessments are based almost entirely on statistical data. i don't mind if you think the list means nothing but i think it's unfair to lump it in with the kind of lists which consist of a single person's arbitrary opinion with no additional substance, particularly when Herishey in particular spent a lot of time talking to a lot of people to try and be as objective as possible
