M and OGL's list thread

[OurGloriousLeader]

Number crunchers hate these lists, but that's why they're good lists.

 

[Firunien]

Well that all time list is funny, i still mourn the early demise of the italian scene :,(

 

[Harman]

Guard of Istiniar would come close, losing out in the finals of the ENPL and then dropping out of the ENL even though they were considered one of the tournament favourites.

IG withdrew from the tournament because we were beiing forced to give 22nd a rematch on their terms even though they didn't show up for our match. This tournament should be counted as IG era ^^ we rect 'the winner' CoR 20-0:
http://guardofistiniar.org/result/40

 

[PepperKP]

This list made me miss 2015

 

[_Osiris_]

" the only nice comments on here are people who are highly rated"

Hi there! I have nice comments to make about this list 

I would say it's a pretty solid list, brings back some great memories seeing a lot of those names too.

 

[Firunien]

Best players have always competed against the best players to better at them. So there has never been a that much of a skill gap. Everything we use today in game had already been discovered by early 2011. I really don't understand what most people think about this, if you know the game better you win, this is that easy. Chamber, spam, chain, delay, distance fighting, flick shots, couched lances, bump and slash etc. all these things exist before and people who could do such things and mix their original skill with it became top tier players and competed against each other. Does it cheapen these best players' skill because all the rest of the players weren't capable of doing such fighting strategies? I don't think so, it even glorifies their skill in a time when though they know how do such tricks using them were actually very risky.

Anyway, I don't think there are statistical data before 2015 or 2016, so it is impossible to calculate them as almost all of the screenshots are not exist anymore. (I check old tournaments' sections too often, as nostalgic warband was more entartaining to me.) So if you want an all-time list, you have to be alright with this opinion based list, most probably mixed with statistics. You have to trust some of the opinion based placements, whether you accept it or not. There are many players who are in top tiers and who deserve it actually, removing them just because they don't have statistic evidence is just a robbery in such a list.

Skill definitly increased mate, what is today considered as beeing decent in melee would have made you infantry god back a few years. Everbody is aware this list is more subjective nostalgia then cold facts, for example i would put KR_Warlord on tier 1 on inf, they dont even have him and he was unbeatable, clutching multiple enemys on a regular basis consistently for 2 years or so.

 

[Motthe]

Wow, u didnt even forget about Vincenz or Vinniepooh on the austrian nc team.
U guys really did ur research, props 

 

[? M]

A quick thank you to Elected List Maker OGL for providing a list of stats/results sources, which I've added into the reserved post. The list makers and posters hope that after jumping Chihuahua-like through this hoop, the community can continue to discuss this list. Thanks again for this opportunity and your feedback so far guys.

 

[V1ncent]

Such a great list! Good job guys!

 

[ryozu]

I am deeply affronted at Sotamursu being the dream team commander for Finland.

That place should go to Cavetroll and me commanding at the same time and constantly over-ruling each other. Ends up being sheer tactical genius.

 

[Imagination]

(for an example Lares has never played as an inf at the times he was caller of RS and Ukrainian nc team in 2012, so putting him on the list as an inf is silly, let alone in tier 1 lmao)

So what class he played then?

 

[Orion]

§ 7 Behavior

As mentioned previously, the forum rules always apply. What varies is how strictly they are enforced by forum staff. Posts within list threads (including the list itself) will be under increased scrutiny for the duration of the trial, and posts which are in violation of the forum rules will be dealt with more severely than is the norm for this board. Posts that are flaming or spam will be deleted, and warnings given appropriately. Lists which are found to be in violation of forum rules will be deleted, and the user's approval to participate in the trial as a list-maker will be revoked. They may be replaced, as mentioned above in the Oversight section.

[quote author=M & OGL]
Do know that if you're not listed, you almost definitely are **** though.

[/quote]^^^

You can also tone down the sass, as this was the sole intention of the objectivity rule in the first place:
[quote author=M & OGL]It is the firm belief of both the List Masons, and the List Elect, that statistics be used only to inform an accurate list, not wholly relied upon.
...
That said, it is important both for transparency and posterity to have said stats and tournament histories available for the reader, and below you will find the information that was, in part, used to inform the Lists.[/quote]
Nobody has been pressured to create a purely formula-driven statistical ranking of players, because Erminas and I are well aware that stats for some eras and tournaments simply don't exist.

Fix the part of your OP that I quoted at the beginning of this post, and carry on. As I said, the presentation is great.

 

[OurGloriousLeader]

It just isn't clear what the usefulness of enforcing stats as justification is, like M quoted it makes sense to demand a kind of "seriousness" so there's not a hundred trivial lists but I don't see what else it provides beyond an easy go-to for a reader to look at the history of the scene (which would actually be a better reason than some faux-objectivity).

 

[Orion]

You caught me. The cat's out of the bag.

The whole point was to make sure people spent more time making their lists so they would more likely be bothered to make something good. Mission success, if you ask me.

 

[LeRoux]

The whole point was to make sure people spent more time making their lists so they would more likely be bothered to make something good. Mission success, if you ask me.

So what you want is list-makers to just post a links of "sources" that consists of different tournament boards and stat threads? How does that add any credibility to a list? If there's no interpretation and processing of data, and with I don't mean a subjective opinion based on stats, then what's the point of using the stats anyway. Just to add pseudo-credibility to lists that are obviously inherently subjective?
If you don't expect people to actually analyze the tournament stats and show how they analyzed it and defend their conclusions, then why bother asking people to add their sources anyway. Statistics that aren't used in a meaningful way, but just put them on there to make it look good, are pretty much worthless. You're better off not using them at all.

I don't mean to personally target you or anything like that Orion, this has annoyed me from start of the list-making proces. You're just the mod that responds in these threads.

 

[Orion]

First, it must be said that this is not an attempt to turn list threads into stats compilations. Forum staff recognizes that list threads are more about opinions than numbers. However, the closest real-world analogue to a list-maker is a sportscaster, and sportscasters commonly reference statistics in their analysis. Therefore, to ensure a decent minimum level of quality for the duration of this trial, list-makers are expected to include statistics and/or direct links to referenced statistics in their lists.

If there's no interpretation and processing of data, and with I don't mean a subjective opinion based on stats, then what's the point of using the stats anyway. Just to add pseudo-credibility to lists that are obviously inherently subjective?
If you don't expect people to actually analyze the tournament stats and show how they analyzed it and defend their conclusions, then why bother asking people to add their sources anyway. Statistics that aren't used in a meaningful way, but just put them on there to make it look good, are pretty much worthless. You're better off not using them at all.

 

[LeRoux]

First, it must be said that this is not an attempt to turn list threads into stats compilations. Forum staff recognizes that list threads are more about opinions than numbers. However, the closest real-world analogue to a list-maker is a sportscaster, and sportscasters commonly reference statistics in their analysis. Therefore, to ensure a decent minimum level of quality for the duration of this trial, list-makers are expected to include statistics and/or direct links to referenced statistics in their lists.

If there's no interpretation and processing of data, and with I don't mean a subjective opinion based on stats, then what's the point of using the stats anyway. Just to add pseudo-credibility to lists that are obviously inherently subjective?
If you don't expect people to actually analyze the tournament stats and show how they analyzed it and defend their conclusions, then why bother asking people to add their sources anyway. Statistics that aren't used in a meaningful way, but just put them on there to make it look good, are pretty much worthless. You're better off not using them at all.

Let's look at football. Sport commentators in football have acces to many different parameters during a match: %ball possesion, distance ran by individual players & teams, attempts to score which are divided in attempts close to the goal or those that were way off, %succesful passes, and probably others that I'm forgetting. %ball possesion is definitely a fun stat to use when commentating, it can give some indication as to how good the teamplay of a team is, how aggressive they are, if they rely more on counters to score and how well they can hold on to the ball. It's not a very good parameter when you want to make a list with the best football teams of all time. Perhaps you could work it in somewhere and in combination with several other parameters it could add credibility to your list, given you explain how much it impacted your list and where you used that parameter. But you can't just make a list and say "I looked at %ball possesion, attempts to score and %succesful passes to make my list" and then just present your list, pretending it's anything other than your subjective opinion. I'm sure you can agree with me on that. Simply using any statistic does not necessarily add credibility to a list.

Now let's take a look at Warband. For starters there's a big period in time of which there's just no data except for who won what tournament and how many rounds a team won (even that isn't true for some of the older tournaments of which the post-match pictures got deleted). There's no information on kills, teamkills, damage done,... So making a comparison between that time in warband and the current competitive scene is only based on personal opinion. There's simply not enough data to compare it in any meaningful way. Other than that I have yet to see any explanation give to how the list-makers of any list used the stats they reference to come to their conclusions. What's the value and impact of the different stats? How important are kills? Does an infantry getting 100 kills have more meaning than a cav getting 100 kills? How important is it to get the first kill of the round? Are archers with 20 kills and a 5/1 KD rated higher than archers with 120 kills and a 3/1 KD? How do you factor in how many rounds each player has played?
Also there's a big difference between stats used to commentate during a match (%ball possesion, attempts to score in football ; multi-kills and class setup in Warband) and stats useful for compiling all-time lists.
I don't see how sportscasters are the closest real-world analogue to list-makers given their purpose is completly different. Casters on Bladecast TV or Warband Battlestream are alot closer to sportscasters than list-makers but that might just be me.

You're right, lists on this forum shouldn't be statistical compilations. It's unreasonable to expect individuals to actually analyse the data and present their findings on an online forum where everyone will just tear into their hard work with their own personal opinions. But simply referring to stat threads and tournament boards without any defense doesn't add any credibility either. It's pseudo-quality that doesn't make a difference. And that's my entire point. I understand you want quality posts and not 50 lists a day titled "Top 30 easiest to tilt Warband players". But if you don't want people to do the effort to analyse stats, you can't demand they reference any stats. Because it's meaningless.

I've said what I wanted to say on this topic, I'm just annoyed at the "quality" presumably added if every list-maker referrences the same stats in the same way without explanation.  Anyone is free to disagree with me. I'm sorry to M, OGL and the list-smiths lurking in the depths for moving their beautiful thread a bit off-topic.

 

[yourNotAlone]

Would love to see Cristo on the all-time list (considering you also put Archivist)

He's there under tier 1. I agree with it too - I was never very friendly with him but he was an excellent infantry, probably the first to be properly scary with javs.

Sorry, missed that one ^^

 

[Watly]

I find it highly offensive that Kiano is portrayed as British.

 

[SoE_Napoleon]

One could probably have succesfully graduated from an under-grad study with the effort have been put into this list. Does not matter how accurate this is, appreciated for the time spent for the content.

gratz.