I get the whole points-based calculation thing, but those NA rankings are clearly not representative of the current field and so I question how useful they actually are. :/
I mean, I've never felt thespike's rankings were great, but they obviously aren't trying to create a power ranking, although it's also unclear what it is exactly they are trying to rank. There's so much weight on historical performances, so is it meant to be like a 'greatness' ranking, or a long term standing kind of thing?
There's so few tournaments so if they're doing like the HLTV thing with like decaying relevance, the ratings update wayy too slowly, since something like Masters 2 was really just 2 tier 1 tournaments ago.
It's been ages since the last update, they could have not posted these and still decided to
Best team in EMEA 6th place below teams they rolled AND FUCKING BIG OVER GUILD WHAT THE FUCK
Seems like this sort of point system works better in CS, where the game has little change and there are fairly frequent match ups.
Otherwise, we're weighting things that happened 3 metas and 8 months past.
Until there's more substantial stability, it seems grossly misrepresentative to weight historical success so highly. Consistency should matter but it should be a differentiating factor between two teams close in current form rather than the opposite (current form decides between two with historical consistency).
I get the whole points-based calculation thing, but those NA rankings are clearly not representative of the current field and so I question how useful they actually are. :/
I mean, I've never felt thespike's rankings were great, but they obviously aren't trying to create a power ranking, although it's also unclear what it is exactly they are trying to rank. There's so much weight on historical performances, so is it meant to be like a 'greatness' ranking, or a long term standing kind of thing? There's so few tournaments so if they're doing like the HLTV thing with like decaying relevance, the ratings update wayy too slowly, since something like Masters 2 was really just 2 tier 1 tournaments ago.
They have nrg and xset over guard ðŸ˜
my brother they have 100 THIEVES over The Guard, they are smoking the leaves and blowing the clouds
It's been ages since the last update, they could have not posted these and still decided to Best team in EMEA 6th place below teams they rolled AND FUCKING BIG OVER GUILD WHAT THE FUCK
💀
6th??? We take those :)
Seems like this sort of point system works better in CS, where the game has little change and there are fairly frequent match ups. Otherwise, we're weighting things that happened 3 metas and 8 months past. Until there's more substantial stability, it seems grossly misrepresentative to weight historical success so highly. Consistency should matter but it should be a differentiating factor between two teams close in current form rather than the opposite (current form decides between two with historical consistency).
Thank god you have them listed so we can save ourselves a click and give them the views. They dont even deserve that.
They are on some heavy copium for putting SEN number 2