Current battle player ratings

Users who are viewing this thread

Roberta_Baratheon said:
Should include na players.
maybe it does, who knows, we havent seen below 80

also, i officially claim the title of most overrated 16yo 2019
bullez deserves higher
otherwise nice list!
 
Apfel said:
Roberta_Baratheon said:
Should include na players.
maybe it does, who knows, we havent seen below 80

also, i officially claim the title of most overrated 16yo 2019
bullez deserves higher
otherwise nice list!
i'd like to see you play on a NA server with the same ping NA players have on EU servers. Cow should be on this list as cav and lagstro as archer.
 
Alyss said:
Apfel said:
Roberta_Baratheon said:
Should include na players.
maybe it does, who knows, we havent seen below 80

also, i officially claim the title of most overrated 16yo 2019
bullez deserves higher
otherwise nice list!
i'd like to see you play on a NA server with the same ping NA players have on EU servers. Cow should be on this list as cav and lagstro as archer.

Both so abrasive

EU and NA have come together in perfect unity in the NASL to create the greatest scramble league team of all time - THE BLADES OF HELL
 
Gibby Jr said:
Alyss said:
Apfel said:
Roberta_Baratheon said:
Should include na players.
maybe it does, who knows, we havent seen below 80

also, i officially claim the title of most overrated 16yo 2019
bullez deserves higher
otherwise nice list!
i'd like to see you play on a NA server with the same ping NA players have on EU servers. Cow should be on this list as cav and lagstro as archer.

Both so abrasive

EU and NA have come together in perfect unity in the NASL to create the greatest scramble league team of all time - THE BLADES OF HELL

A hellish mix of Europe and North America have formed the strongest squad composed in scramble history...

BLADES of HELL
 
No offense to Menethil at all but how is he at 94 and the rest is at 92?
Just asking out of interest
 
KaneMaB said:
John7 said:
Is any player worthy of a perfect 100? lol, every player has weaknesses and flaws. If you die in a match, you really arnt worthy of 100
100 is when ur at a level where others cant really compare to you. Scar has been extremely consistent for many many tournaments and has never fluked in important matches. Hence why he deserves 100. Peter also speaks for itself.
I think both of you have flawed logic. 100 is the highest score you can give to someone, it doesn't mean they're perfect and don't have flaws and it shouldn't mean they're at a level when other can't really compare. If that was the case you might as well create a god tier.
100 should be the best player in that class on your list. The best player should serve as a reference point for the others. If you think Menethil is the best ranger from this period, you should give everyone in your archer list +6 points so Mene is a 100 and the rest has a non-arbitrarily decided reference point. Instead of just deciding the best ranger of this period is a 94, as if the score itself holds any value other than comparing it to other players. Someone has to be a 100 in order to properly compare.
 
Le Roux said:
KaneMaB said:
John7 said:
Is any player worthy of a perfect 100? lol, every player has weaknesses and flaws. If you die in a match, you really arnt worthy of 100
100 is when ur at a level where others cant really compare to you. Scar has been extremely consistent for many many tournaments and has never fluked in important matches. Hence why he deserves 100. Peter also speaks for itself.
I think both of you have flawed logic. 100 is the highest score you can give to someone, it doesn't mean they're perfect and don't have flaws and it shouldn't mean they're at a level when other can't really compare. If that was the case you might as well create a god tier.
100 should be the best player in that class on your list. The best player should serve as a reference point for the others. If you think Menethil is the best ranger from this period, you should give everyone in your archer list +6 points so Mene is a 100 and the rest has a non-arbitrarily decided reference point. Instead of just deciding the best ranger of this period is a 94, as if the score itself holds any value other than comparing it to other players. Someone has to be a 100 in order to properly compare.
Good points. I have received many helpful tips and will use those, and your points, to rework the archery list. I've also made some minor changes to both the infantry and cavalry lists.
 
Back
Top Bottom