Plat, your comment doesn't apply to my questions (since he only rated 8 people for us that were active). IF we added a 9th that was a developmental type player, it WOULD lower our rating, despite us not getting 'weaker'


"So i took the 10 best rated players of each clan to get more accurate rankings

This is in the first page of the thread... "


In addition, he said he rated us below VS because he only had 8 people to rate. I don't like that premise either. We are not elite right now like we used to be, but suppose Masters was only their 6 best people. Would they not be the #1 clan still because they are not large?


My point is simply that the rankings are VERY close IMO, but he would need to do a little more digging to make it precise. And I think he should as well, since it is very close, and hopefully something Fizzer would adopt as a sorting on the clan page, rather than total points. I think it is worth the effort (not my effort, right?) to get it perfect, or as close to it as possible. Instead of defending his assumptions, why not embrace the constructive comments of others, who are not saying anything insulting about his effort.

Edited 6/30/2017 00:22:01

but suppose Masters was only their 6 best people. Would they not be the #1 clan still because they are not large?

your point is ofc correct,but still it is very fringe

I also don't know the definitions of his player rating. What does "average" player mean anyway? I can guarantee you that no player in WG should be considered "average" in the WL community. Did you give that to Reza because he has no ladder records shown? He was not eligible to play the ladders for a long time because he had no membership.

As i said i didn't made a list of players individual rating, so at this point i don't know anymore how i rated certain players like Reza. I think i either took him into consideration for RT-Ladder and CL or i simply didn't include him at all. But not a 100% guarantee on that.

The term "average" was just used as a definition and categorization in the spreadsheet and in the written ranking. Are players with an rating between 1600-1750 average in term of strategic gameplay? I'm not even sure on my own. I just needed 10 short words/terms to make it more visible.

In addition, he said he rated us below VS because he only had 8 people to rate. I don't like that premise either. We are not elite right now like we used to be, but suppose Masters was only their 6 best people. Would they not be the #1 clan still because they are not large?

As i said before we're not talking here about CL or other events. We're takling about clan strength in general. And to that i can't just take the best 6 players into consideration because u technically just need 6 players to play in CL. I wanted to take a number, which shows the top players of a clan but also shows some depth into the rating, cause depth is definitely a point that plays a big role in a clan strength. So i think 10 was an ok number, to not get watered ratings due to a to big clan in comparison to smaller clans of good players. As u said there are clans that take developement prospects in their clan, but can u lower their rating because of this if they field enough top players in a direct comparison to a smaller clan, who doesn't take developement prospects? I think u can't and so i decided to take the top 10 into consideration, which is a large enough number for smaller clans to still show their depth and which is an ok number that bigger clans won't get hurt for to much players in their clan. Looking into the 1st page of my spreadsheet u can see that effect affecting certain clans, which would just make rankings more inaccurate in my opinion.

Coming back to the Masters example, yeah if they would have only 6 members (their best 6) i wouldn't have them rated on #1. They would just have a massive lack of depth in that case and so i wouldn't have take them over Lynx, who would have had a far better depth.

Instead of defending his assumptions, why not embrace the constructive comments of others, who are not saying anything insulting about his effort.

That's exactly what i did. I already stated certain things multiple times that could be done better next time, based on what i heard from players. I stated certain opinions on individual ratings of players in the top 2 category, that others disagreed and stated that u could adjust that. I did not change my rankings afterwards. If that is the problem, than it's true. I just wanted to let them stand as they were. Working on them afterwards would be kind of a neverending story, because than i need to include player changes as well. In the next rankings i or any other player can include those ideas to make the rankings even more accurate.

Edited 6/30/2017 06:18:47

Hum... in fact it's pretty hard to say if your rating is not good. As I see it, it depends of the criteria you use. This ranking is maybe well in some way.

But, I think your description is totally incorrect. You go too far, and you explain your rating (and so the ranking) in a bad way considering the way you said you used to rating them.

You cannot talk about the best players if you don't talk about what a the clan is not at 10/10. You should at least talk about the number of players, the depth, etc if you want to consider well the "average". The statistics are unclear, the text doesn't correctly define it, and it just make it blurred.

If you rating the clan by the average skill level of all its players - that it is for me very hard to do!!! - you should explain in what sens the average is good.

For Master, not only talking about the top players of Masters, but explain in what the rest of the clan is still good enough to get it #1. (Master+Apex for the win)

For Lynx, you should explain the depth of the lineup and maybe should not mention any player since the global level of many off them is close and a lot of them are very good (even if no one of them already prove he is an top tier player, so you could not say that, I suppose it is possible, in a large sens, for many of them). They likely have one of the best good player lineup in their clan in term of number.

For GG, you didn't talk about their teamgames problems, that is good enough to let them in top of A (because of their impressive 1v1 level), but not enough to get a title. You mentioned Motoki that do really well the last few months, ok. You mentioned Ollie and Mifran as elite players, ok. You talk about MisterT as close, hum, you completely forgot Mike ??? For me here, you proved you do not correctly know the players, but judge from what you see recently in the top of ladders, and

For Turtle, if you judge in term of average skill level, you should not talking about Kaerox. I know him, I know he considebly improved his level the last few years, but he is still Under the average level of Turtle. The add of Kaerox is good for Turtle in term of longer of lineup and possible results, but not in term of average. So you contradict yourself here: you enonced you get a rating on the average clan level, but you judge in the text in term of longer of lineup.

For Outlaws, you can judge better than me. But my previous comments are still ok. You should better talk about your average level and put in light your old players that help you to go in A. Some of them as Nynwhen are probably underestimated, and probably give you better results than (semi-retired ?) well known players. -> Ask to WG how to loose hard with an awesome lineup, it's pretty easy if your players are not really currently playing at warlight... be confident of your strengths, don't go in the game of the people.

For ONE, I will not do comments because I'm not sure to be able to judge them correctly enough.

For French Community. You talk about Qi that is only here to play with me (or get booted with me^^). It's hard to be confident in Qi for the long term if he does not really be a part of the team building. Wazz is not a good player, he is a top player, probably better than all Outlaws recent recruits. He is still underrated because he doesn't farm ladder (only rt sometimes, and get wrecked because he has to remember templates he forgot): he always does at least 4-2 in CL by the way, beating other top players, and he got first in the rt ladder when a lot of elite players played in. He also had the best 3v3 EU during a very long time (I don't think it's no longer the case anyway). He just doesn't count enough. To make a good description of the average level of FC clan, you should better talk about the depth. If you only talk about the very good players we have in, you should put us far upper Outlaws, and you should have probably talk about me too (Am I objective here, I don't think so, but am I wrong ? I'm not sure I'm too confident, and I used to beat most of the very good players and even elite players you named in CL). If you talk about average, I think we are under M'Hunter, Blitz, Vs and the so hard to rank WG (oh wait, no, all our players can beat booted players). You don't know we always have pretty descent 1v1 results in CL history against elite+very good players (at least 50%) until this season full of boots. You probably don't get we always had some problems to include more players to our lineup, even in teamgames, since it's a mess to always correct plays of our friendly players that want to help in CL but doesn't want to play very focus. The only season we were really 6, we got first in points.

M'Hunter and Blitz have good players too. Maybe as much as Outlaws, but Blitz have to much boots and MH have to improve their teamgames.

VS are closed to a friendly clan, they are Under but maybe one time could go in A. I know these players since I had to beat them all in a Clan War. They are good, and Glam' is pretty good when Pana are playing for her. :p

WG have an insane lineup that already have proven a lot in the past but how to judge them ? Should we talk about potential a recent results ? In term of recent results it's close to nothing. But for old enough players as me (not so old comparing to most of the WG lineup), it's a dangerous garden full of big wolves you better want to let them sleep.

Edited 6/30/2017 11:10:13

phaeril. i have one word for you. "Hahahahahahahahahaha"

instead of complaining like a 12 year old, why dont you put all those hours on doing your own flawless rating? Please do, and noone would read it cuz u are just making a fool out of yourself here!

You are acting like this is edge work where he get paid to do this.. he made it on his free time and pus so many hours to it, and its defiletly by far the best clan ranking done. and ofc everyone wont agree with where he put all players, but overall it mostly evens out and its great!

Now go and do your own rating!

Cheers

So you basically suggest to add like 5 more factors to judge a clan to what edge already did? If you're unhappy about what edge did, maybe you can come up with a less biased form? From what i read just now your way of ranking players is by far more biased.

M'Hunter and Blitz have good players too. Maybe as much as Outlaws, but Blitz have to much boots and MH have to improve their teamgames.

I can't talk for M'Hunters but for the Blitz part as far as i'm aware it was only Bananashake that got booted in like 8 games total. Blitz was more hindered by some players not being available to participate this season of CL who would have probably improved the line-up we already had for this sseason.

I'm not suggesting to add 5 more factors. In fact, this rating could gain in lisibility if edge show us the rating of players and the point he used to do that, and everyone could be easier judge if it's ok.

But I agree with the fact Kezzo suggest I'm "acting like this is edge work where he get paid to do this", and edge I would like to apologize for this. Mea culpa. Anyway, I'm not complaining like a 12 year old, and I suggest points to do this objectively clearer. I don't have time to do this properly now, but when I had, I think I already did some for the warlight community or a part of it to do some suggesations without get these king of arguments against me. It's out of point by the way.

Obviously what I writte after that is some example of what it could be say, and in what a ranking can be subjective and most in what this ranking could change in function of what the point you choice to put forward (so it could lead to a lot of subjectivity). So you have in the same time understood the idea MoD, and missunderstood my point.

I just say I think this ranking could be very biased if you don't used a specific system to do that, and more of that, not clearly defined: because I don't read in the text the expression of what is said by edge to do this rating in point.

It just started I see Outlaws overestimated by edge, and I always took time to enunciate my toughts each time I said something so I did it here again when edge answered me.

@wakanarai: I didn't go in detail for BLITZ, but I just see many players the past few season (of which you are, say me if I'm wrong) playing the CL without really focus, to complete a lineup or what. And this could be a reason for boots. I can remember we had to remake a CL game together by the way?

Edited 6/30/2017 12:20:37

First of all, I could have talked and write even more about the clans and could have talked about each player, but then again it took me 1 week to put this together. I simply would have needed way more time for that which i simply didn't had and also i was talking about 37 clans. Shall i write 1 posting about every clan? That would have been possible for most of them, but that would have been an absolute overblown and i don't think much people would have liked to read that all, cause it would be simply to much, they would have jumped to their clan maybe read through some of the others, but not all of them.

I published a spreadsheet, were i included all my ratings and the final rankings. U can see all the numbers. Everyone who takes a look into that can put 1 and 1 together and see that clans like Masters or Lynx have a lot of great depth in their clan. I could have mentioned it for Masters, true but i mentioned it for Lynx and as i said everybody can just take a look into the spreadsheet to see it all, just not how i rated each player individually.

GG - Mike's success was to long ago to include him into the close to elite tier. His ladder runs were from 2015. Look at his last 1vs1 ladder run in the beginning of 2017, which he stoped, cause he lost a game and surrendered afterwards an already won game against a GGr member. He didn't proof that he still got that level of gameplay in him. His latest success was a 5th place on a seasonal, which is very good, but i felt he need to have done more things to include him into the close to elite tier. U might have another opinion, but reread this thread and i mentioned hundreds of times, that those top 2 categories are more subjective than the others, cause everybody will have other feelings about it. I ranked Mike into the very good category btw because of the reason i gave earlier.

Turtles - I mentioned Kaerox as an important addition. U don't think he is an important addition for them? Than u shouldn't tell me, that i don't know the players, but u proofed that u don't know them actually. Kaerox improved a lot. Ofc there are other players in Turtles who are still better, but nervertheless he gives them more quality depth wise. And i think he is strong enough to play for them in competitions like CL. In my mind he is the 6th or 7th best player of Turtles which is indeed exactly the average with their 13 players.

Outlaws - Nobody in Outlaws is semi-retired. They are all active. Only u know who u meant with that, but i can guarantee u, that they are all active. If u mean Odin or Widzisz, yes they are also both talking in our Skype chat and playing internal tournaments. I won't talk about certain players skill, yet. I know them well enough to make a pretty accurate rating of them. So i definitely don't think i overrated us. Maybe i underrated some clans, like One, but i thin overall i got a pretty accurate ranking together.

One - This has nothing to do with what u mentioned, i just want to add something from my own. I do now think Beren belongs in the elite tier, he's playing phenomental. I rated malakkan into the very good tier, just mentioned, if someone asks that. PJ as well, even if the ladders doesn't back that up, but his CL results do. I don't know anymore how i rated others as Grizzly f.ex.

French Community - Here u're overestimating yourself and show that u don't know anything about us. Wazz is better than all of Outlaws recent recruits? No i don't agree and i think the majority of others won't agree with you on that as well.

Is he close to elite and not very good? Maybe u can make a case for that, but he didn't had the resume to back that up for me. But i wouldn't disagree if someone puts him into that tier, but that doesn't put him on the same stage as top player like MotD, mod, Timi, Buns, Ollie etc. Elite players like MotD and Beren (i admitted my fault) are doing a phenomenal job in all their games. They are clearly a step above Wazz.

Even in your best CL season (CL 7) u had 3 tournaments on the 1vs1 with positive records, 1 with a 3-3 record and 2 with less than a 50% winning record. U want me to look up other seasons as well?

If you only talk about the very good players we have in, you should put us far upper Outlaws, and you should have probably talk about me too

Far upper Outlaws? That's ridiculous and proves u don't know anything about us or overestimate yourself drastically. I won't say much more to that and just let that stand as u said, so everyone can make his own thoughts about it.

M'hunters/Blitz - Well Blitz is fallen apart unfortunately so forget about that. M'hunters have some great players, but they need to get better if they want to stay in A. I wouldn't say they won't have any chance, i know they have a shot, but they need to work hard, cause it looks like A will be even harder next season, especially when clans like Lynx and Turtles might be playing with full force again.

VS - We also had a clan battle against them. Yes they are good, Inside is definitely more than that. Still we won it 8-2 or 9-2/8-3(I couldn't find how Plat's final game was going out). Take it as it is, just a clan battle, but we did do well there and yes they played with Inside (Njord beat him 2-0) and Glam (I beat him 2-1 and yes Glam is male.) And btw. i think VS has some good players and doing also a good job in developing their players.

WG - I think u overestimate older players. If WG would be as good as u say they would have prove it during the last months, the last year. Don't get me wrong. WG have some really good players but besides Gnuffone (who i didn't include cause he's retired) none of them i would rank elite or close to elite and so far i didn't heard any different opinions on that. Even when i talked about those top 2 categories with others none mentioned a player from them that i potentially missed out.

this rating could gain in lisibility if edge show us the rating of players and the point he used to do that, and everyone could be easier judge if it's ok.

I agree.

As i said i didn't wrote down the rating for each player individually. I can remember some, but not all 545 persons.

Edit: But yeah i gave the points how i did it. The top 2 categories are more subjective but for the others i listed clearly the requirements. I also said that if u hit your highest rating with a run f.ex. that that doesn't necessairly puts u in the higher category if u wasn't able to back that up with the next games.

Edit #2: I'll give u an example of my own.

I made an alt run on the 1vs1 ladder in october last year. I hit 2149. That would have put me into the very good tier, just goign after requirements. BUT i wasn't able to hold that rating, and fall down to around 2k. So back then i would have put myself into the good tier.
Today i'm able to keep my rating on the 1vs1 ladder. I gained consistency and got better, now i ranked myself into the very good tier.

Edited 6/30/2017 12:51:22

so u guys think it would be worth the time to write down like 500 players names in all diffrent cathegories? it would be fun and nice, yes, but it would take soooo many hours to just write the names down in all cathegories.. you are expecting to much of this :D

Nice that u appologized Phaeril, now just save us all even more time and actually open the spreadsheet and read the comments in this thread and i think you will find many more answers!

Cheers!

I already did it Kezzo. I don't see in the spreadsheet on what you judge, it is what I mean, even if yes, this spreadsheet is informative.

Edge, the rating of the ladder depend on many things, sometimes the first is at 2k, sometimes he is at 2,2k, so the elo is possible to judge only considering the period. More, all players do not play ladder in the same time, and you have to consider most of the top players don't play in ladder regularly. I think for many things, you judge on who is exposed. I already said I'm sure it's very hard to judge in a different way, but this one is pretty biased. For the rest, I'm ok. By the way, I think you underestimated some FC players, and overestimated the rest.

And about my results in CL. First, I always played the max tournaments and leads the teamgames (sometimes with Wazz, when we played together), 3 since a few seasons, 4 before, tu complete the lineup, and not always in my favorite templates, to complete the lineup, again.
Be aware it's hard to play a lot of competitive and long games (stalling sometimes, and teamgames are always long) without loose the flow. I do not seek excuses, and I think I'm in more than 50% win since a while in 1v1, I always won at least one tourney wathever the season and around 60-65% each season, that is at least very good when you play the div A each season, against very good players, as Wazz keep going to do with more regularity in 1v1, less in teamgames. I'm not talking about the last one I could not play seriously, and where it was even better for my mates. By the way, the old core of FC players is entirely retired 3 months ago, and it's official since a couple of weeks.

Edited 6/30/2017 15:39:52

I enjoyed the rankings. Fun read. Thx Edge. Dont let the haters bother you.

phaeril i've just checked it and it was first a game where you got booted on picks, then a remake where i got booted on turn 1 and then a 3rd game which we finished normally. All of those were back in 2015 during CL7 actually.

Back then i already started struggling with motivation to play the game competitively which is also the reason i was not playing this season besides all my work i had to do for school which was the main reason this season for not competing.

I was in my post just talking about the ongoing season for CL and there it was the way i've mentioned in my previous post.

Oh yes, I remember, it was on Battle Island right ? Something like a end of a season, we got hard work to play a game that got no more interest when the season ranking was obvious. I'm happy to see blitz is ok, kknd told me that recently (maybe one or two months), but I sometimes check some blitz games and it appeared to me the blitz activity up and down the last seasons.


I think I did not succeded to explain correctly my thoughts here, and I do not have enough credibility to keep trying, so I give up. Anyway, it doesn't really matter, and I'm not a hater here, and I used to write very long messages to explain myself, but sometimes it doesn't work. Maybe my english met its limits.

Edited 6/30/2017 17:25:16

After reading through the post and the comments I understand where everyone's views are coming from, but at the end of the day these are edges clan rankings, not offical warlight clan rankings (there is a difference!)

Even though there were some grammar mistakes that I had to to struggle through, really nice and interesting thread Edge! A lot of effort was put into it and I thank you for the list :)

these are edges clan rankings, not offical warlight clan rankings (there is a difference!)

The difference being that one exists, and one doesn't.

Edited 7/1/2017 18:40:10

nice work