Warband Native League Season 5 - Player and Team Rankings (POLL ADDED)

Should the list be re-done with an accurate 1 - 100 scale? Small difference will appear much larger

  • Yes

    Votes: 122 79.7%
  • No

    Votes: 31 20.3%

  • Total voters
    153

Users who are viewing this thread

Simo Häyhä said:
I think Wonwokie players are overrated. I mean yeah they are good individually. But while Rayden is 99, Matafiks shouldn't be 99. Wonwokie had a great team work and better than before in this tournament especially. Cavs, archers, infantries are all good. But most of them cannot be compared to with the very high leveled ones, as i given the instance of Rayden and Matafiks. Matafiks can be a skilled archer but he is playing with a team which has perfect teamwork. But if he was playing for another team he might not be that good. On the other hand, besides being a good archer; the best to some; Rayden also creates his team and educates them if he thinks that his team is not enough and of course he leads them. So he is a good archer, good commander and a good teacher. The thing actually I want to say Rayden is not only a good player, he also does other things, so he has been thought to be one of the best.

I would agree that Rayden is better in the sense that he's talented in the three aspects you mentioned, but at the moment I'd say Mata is a better archer. As an example, yesterday we had a scrim against a Turkish team called GGWP (was some mix of like Belendor, Irsman, Toi and a few others), in the first round we won by killing their team - 6/8 kills were archer kills. Matafiks got 4 headshots, R3D got one headshot and Horace got one headshot all in the first round. Obviously a scrim is not the same as an official match, but furthermore you can see how much of an impact these archers have on our games, literally the thing that allows our other classes to shine as they have done recently.
I mean, here are some screens of matches with great teams, where archers are just carrying In one set there against F, archers have the top three spots and no doubt we would've lost the open map if we didn't have them. On an all time list I'd agree Rayden is better, however, at this moment in time I think it's fair where he is.
 
U should lower all the points so it will be easier to enlight the best players. It's just like everyone plays at same level, just some teams have advantage of 2-10 points so they rek all. That's not how it's in the reality. In ur list wonwokies are 2 points lower than AE and I think that's kinda biased.

Oh, just read your posts, you're really biased. Sure the only team which best shots and moments you can see is always your team but that doesn't mean ur players are the best guys ever  :fruity:
 
Gibby Jr said:
Dawnut said:
Just in time, was feeling yet another list that horrifingly underrates me, ty very much.  :iamamoron:

PD: People with little knowledge should really abstain from wrongfully qualificating others. if you don't REALLY know the player, don't score him. common decency imo

95 sounded right, what do you think you should be at instead?

Raw skill I'm right at the top with the best, and most of the top cavs that have seen me play know it. Decision-making was my problem in competitive matches which made me a tier 1 cav instead of a top.
The guys that make the lists either don't know **** about me as a player or are biased.  So guys like Firunien, Ncromancien, Harman, Mitchell, Can, Tobi, KilleR (just to give some examples XD) get put above me which is such a ****ing joke (no offense to them).
These lists are irrelevant in the end so I don' even know why I'm giving a **** right now. Anyway I don't blame you, but all you list creators can give some very wrong scores that a player doesn't deserve.
peace
 
Ciiges said:
Dawnut said:
Gibby Jr said:
Dawnut said:
Just in time, was feeling yet another list that horrifingly underrates me, ty very much.  :iamamoron:

PD: People with little knowledge should really abstain from wrongfully qualificating others. if you don't REALLY know the player, don't score him. common decency imo

95 sounded right, what do you think you should be at instead?


Raw skill I'm right at the top with the best, and most of the top cavs that have seen me play know it. Decision-making was my problem in competitive matches which made me a tier 1 cav instead of a top.
The guys that make the lists either don't know **** about me as a player or are biased.  So guys like Firunien, Ncromancien, Harman, Mitchell, Can, Tobi, KilleR (just to give some examples XD) get put above me which is such a ******** joke (no offense to them).
These lists are irrelevant in the end so I don' even know why I'm giving a **** right now. Anyway I don't blame you, but all you list creators can give some very wrong scores that a player doesn't deserve.
peace
You look at yourself in the mirror and you see Peter, you are not peter 95 is about right imo

You are not 93 right now, if you look you'd be 85. Kappa.
 
Dawnut said:
Gibby Jr said:
Dawnut said:
Just in time, was feeling yet another list that horrifingly underrates me, ty very much.  :iamamoron:

PD: People with little knowledge should really abstain from wrongfully qualificating others. if you don't REALLY know the player, don't score him. common decency imo

95 sounded right, what do you think you should be at instead?

Raw skill I'm right at the top with the best, and most of the top cavs that have seen me play know it. Decision-making was my problem in competitive matches which made me a tier 1 cav instead of a top.
The guys that make the lists either don't know **** about me as a player or are biased.  So guys like Firunien, Ncromancien, Harman, Mitchell, Can, Tobi, KilleR (just to give some examples XD) get put above me which is such a ******** joke (no offense to them).
These lists are irrelevant in the end so I don' even know why I'm giving a **** right now. Anyway I don't blame you, but all you list creators can give some very wrong scores that a player doesn't deserve.
peace
I have seen Donut play with us in CoR and I can testify on my right testicle that he is top tier.
 
Simo Häyhä said:
I think Wonwokie players are overrated. I mean yeah they are good individually. But while Rayden is 99, Matafiks shouldn't be 99. Wonwokie had a great team work and better than before in this tournament especially. Cavs, archers, infantries are all good. But most of them cannot be compared to with the very high leveled ones, as i given the instance of Rayden and Matafiks. Matafiks can be a skilled archer but he is playing with a team which has perfect teamwork. But if he was playing for another team he might not be that good. On the other hand, besides being a good archer; the best to some; Rayden also creates his team and educates them if he thinks that his team is not enough and of course he leads them. So he is a good archer, good commander and a good teacher. The thing actually I want to say Rayden is not only a good player, he also does other things, so he has been thought to be one of the best.

Edit: I said Wonwokie but it was for to give an example. There are many players that overrated too.
Well how should the ratings be counted?
Gibby said "However, it is worth noting that individual player rating is not the sole factor in any given match result, as teamplay, communication and the general atmosphere of the team plays a huge role in defining the quality of a team." So the ratings are based on how good you perform in a team. And from the last results some people has performed better than others, some statics might be shocking for few. I don't know if this list is going to be dynamic (probably will) so player ratings are going to change, and now Wonwokie as an given example (Not trying to be biased) has won every match that has been thrown at them, some matches might have been super hard but yet Wonwokie won against Freelancers which is a highly rated team so in that sense the ratings should be around the same for example Wonwokie and Freelancers. Some might not agree and some might. Basically what Im trying to say is that the ratings is based on how good you and your team is performing at the moment.
 
OurGloriousLeader said:
I think the overall ratings are a bit too high, everyone is like 90. Devalue a bunch of people let's get some drama going, and allow truly great players like Peter or Bendetto not just be 3 points away from sub human scum like Broomstick.
True but rude.. :cry: :cry:

I won't be able to get over this..
 
What the community lacks, instead of Football Manager lists, is a ranking of player scores.

Just look at Football, there are lists made by professional websites such as for example :http://www.transfermarkt.com/

If you search for your favorite team's player evaluations, you will find and see that all these players evaluations completely suck.

It would be better to just make the ranking of player by the total amount of kills made during a competition, or something like kills - deaths. It wouldnt prove anything, players playing all matches and all rounds beoing favorized, cav being favorized and such, but at least it would be real and solid.
 
trot888 said:
In terms of archers, Wonwokie has done extremely well, maybe not 98 but 96 - 97 should be reasonable, they are improving extremely fast.

Imo we'd definitely have lost to Freelancers without archers like the ones we've got, easily our strongest suite and they seriously swing rounds for us, I understand many players are unfamiliar with the Wonwokie roster and so will think that they are too high, or that it is biased, however a number of opinions have gone into each team and so it is not simply 'I think my team is the best and we're going to win'.

Equally any experienced player should understand that individual ratings are not the only defining factor in a match. Teamplay, the commander, the tactics, the atmosphere, how much a player has warmed up and even the mood that player is in can affect their level of play, as such a single rating is never going to be accurate which is something I accepted prior to making this list.
 
Even though it's really kind of you to give me 97 points, I'm not even close from that level. If I just talk about IR cavs, Hopkiin Dawnut and Waringham are way better than me (And they are some other cavs in IR better than me). It's also crazy that I'm like so close in points to guys like Trebron and have the same amount of points than guys like Corey, which are way better cavs than me and I'm not even close from their level of skill. You're overrating me a lot  :mrgreen:
 
arsenic_vengeur said:
What the community lacks, instead of Football Manager lists, is a ranking of player scores.

Just look at Football, there are lists made by professional websites such as for example :http://www.transfermarkt.com/

If you search for your favorite team's player evaluations, you will find and see that all these players evaluations completely suck.

It would be better to just make the ranking of player by the total amount of kills made during a competition, or something like kills - deaths. It wouldnt prove anything, players playing all matches and all rounds beoing favorized, cav being favorized and such.

I don't get your point. Are you saying that we should rate players by their k/d-ratio and at the same time you are saying that it's nonsense? Aren't these arguments quite conflicting?
 
Ncromancien said:
Even though it's really kind of you to give me 97 points, I'm not even close from that level. If I just talk about IR cavs, Hopkiin Dawnut and Waringham are way better than me (And they are some other cavs in IR better than me). It's also crazy that I'm like so close in points to guys like Trebron and have the same amount of points than guys like Corey, which are way better cavs than me and I'm not even close from their level of skill. You're overrating me a lot  :mrgreen:

Based on how I've seen you play recently that's where it looked like you were, where would you put yourself instead? :grin:
 
Gibby Jr said:
I would agree that Rayden is better in the sense that he's talented in the three aspects you mentioned, but at the moment I'd say Mata is a better archer. As an example, yesterday we had a scrim against a Turkish team called GGWP (was some mix of like Belendor, Irsman, Toi and a few others), in the first round we won by killing their team - 6/8 kills were archer kills. Matafiks got 4 headshots, R3D got one headshot and Horace got one headshot all in the first round. Obviously a scrim is not the same as an official match, but furthermore you can see how much of an impact these archers have on our games, literally the thing that allows our other classes to shine as they have done recently.
I mean, here are some screens of matches with great teams, where archers are just carrying.
you say how your archer have huge impact on your matches: does that mean rest of your player suck or what? souldnt they have lower points in that case???

Gibby Jr said:

ok well heres this screen, feel free to give me thousand points or whatever, but at least make sure to lower points of all our archers, see how bad they are??
szpQdiG.png



Shemaforash said:
this entire thing  :lol:
 
98 Horace
97 Anchor
97 Gibby
97 CommanderSPQR
97 R3D Ice
96 Magnus


98 Napoleon
97 Pendragon
97 Crashday
97 Sebek
96 eRRoR
95 Tyhke

I'm sorry but that just doesn't add up. I know you guys had a really good result recently but I really doubt anyone could seriously argue that these are comparatively accurate infantry ratings for these players :razz:
 
Dopey said:
ok well heres this screen, feel free to give me thousand points or whatever, but at least make sure to lower points of all our archers, see how bad they are??
szpQdiG.png

Are you trying to take credit for Hives' alt, Taukkkkikehelie? For shame
 
Gibby Jr said:
Ncromancien said:
Even though it's really kind of you to give me 97 points, I'm not even close from that level. If I just talk about IR cavs, Hopkiin Dawnut and Waringham are way better than me (And they are some other cavs in IR better than me). It's also crazy that I'm like so close in points to guys like Trebron and have the same amount of points than guys like Corey, which are way better cavs than me and I'm not even close from their level of skill. You're overrating me a lot  :mrgreen:

Based on how I've seen you play recently that's where it looked like you were, where would you put yourself instead? :grin:

I would say less than 90... It's really hard to be honnest about your own skills though.
 
Back
Top Bottom