Updating Hall of Fame

[ronaldinho]

I am going to take control of this project and get a "panel" that specializes in different leagues.

Allow this, and take Ease with you, you two get the last word but can use "panels" or whatever you guys want to help you. I'm no chief but this would be great if it happens like that.

To Zidane : last phase was the 3rd, and this is when Rough and Ease became Hall of Famers. I also agree it's important to determine how much players/squads to induct, I'll say the same thing : more we add, less it's prestigious to be a Hall of Famers.

Allow also IxaDor's idea, this medal would be the hardest to get so make it a beautiful one.

[Exalt]

apologies. you wrote a book about basically stats aren't history and they should consider non-stat related things. agree they should be considered, but stats and winning are probably the most important item in determining relevance and a lesser extent your idea.

Its probable that the novels I write take me about the same amount of time it takes most other people to write a paragraph or two, but I digress. If people don't want to read them, they don't have to, but I'd rather add more information than less when I bother saying something. I don't see I that's considered a bad thing. People that don't like to read and write probably don't go onto forums in the first place.

Anyway, I never said stats arent history, but I am definitely in the camp of players that think titles won and stats put up after the vast majority of the population all quit or went extremely inactive are inherently less valuable. It's not really debatable to say TWL competition as a whole has not been the same as it was in the past, and even if 'top' squads were good in the modern era of the game, those squads were mostly stacked with the only good players left. Squad stacking always happened before, but there used to be more top-caliber, active players in the past, forcing multiple good squads to form and play each other. These days, it's two max, and last season could only get that result by forcing such extreme roster limits that many squads forfeited due to not having 5 people that could even show up. I dont see how anyone can say playing on a top squad and putting up good stats against a bunch of inactive players and scrubs in 2019 is the same thing as people doing it in 2005 or so. I dont think anyone can seriously make that argument without completely lying to themselves and others, largely due to their egos. Due to that, it's a very obvious correlation when I say stats and titles won during later seasons are not entirely black and white ways of judging players still playing against those from the past.

People with huge egos that have a lot of lose by admitting today's titles/stats are inherently less valuable will obvious not agree and trash me for saying this, but I honestly believe it's true. I don't expect anyone to actually care, nor do I have any real solution to offer, but I stand by my point in saying stats and titles should not be the sole factors in deciding HoF players, or you are just circlejerking players that never quit to the detriment of those that did. I mentioned Sika before, because if we judge HoF worthiness on titles, then Sika should be cut from the list having only won one. Lots of players won more than that, so does that make Sika not worthy? There has to be a standard that makes sense.

[Tiny]

I am sorry if you are butt hurt about it but you aren't close to a hall of famer at all...

I never mentioned myself once, but the fact that you go out of your way to say something about me multiple times is cute. #obsessedmuch

[Rough]

I can safely confirm Rough would be a terrible person to control this project.

I am sorry if you are butt hurt about it but you aren't close to a hall of famer at all...

[zidane]

hardest part would be decide how many people/squads, maybe start putting in a limited amount of people and squad(s) on a yearly basis, similar to how its done for in sports. so like 3rd phase (i think there was 2 phases so far but i havent looked at it recently) of HoF induction would be the most deserving people since the last update.

[Tiny]

Tiny, you have no idea how to actually discuss things with people that dont agree with you, do you? You try to call my response off the cuff and emo, because it isnt saying you're 100% right. Well, you aren't, and it has nothing to do with emotions. I used Quicksand as a direct example due to having extensive experience with that squad, but it could be any other squad too. Why should I stfu about examples? Why are you so emotional about this that you attack everything I said, even though absolutely none of it was actually refuted by you in any logical way? Literally every response you gave was just some form of 'stfu' like a bratty child.

Can you discuss absolutely anything without resorting to petty insults? Do you have absolutely anything productive to add whatsoever?

apologies. you wrote a book about basically stats aren't history and they should consider non-stat related things. agree they should be considered, but stats and winning are probably the most important item in determining relevance and a lesser extent your idea.

[Exalt]

A) he's already in the hall of fame, so stfu
B) we have to discount every league/season played after that because there was "better" players before? Hard to say as time changes, styles change, so saying he would be the best now is up for debate, however I'm sure he would still be good. That's also like saying, all hall of famers now arent any good, because players before were better. stfu again



Yes, we mislead the last 10 years of stats. Faked it all for this particular hall of fame induction. Stfu




We get it, you were on quicksand, please stfu about quicksand




Let's create a history book for people who teamed so good, but never A) teamed good enough to win twl, or B) never joined a team good enough to win TWL. We will leave exalt in charge of it



this will be a subcategory to the above. People who rushed so good, but not quite good enough to win anything to be saved in history





Please read the whole thing before commenting and also do research as opposed to using your, quite obvious, emotional driven and off the cuff graphic novel responses.

Tiny, you have no idea how to actually discuss things with people that dont agree with you, do you? You try to call my response off the cuff and emo, because it isnt saying you're 100% right. Well, you aren't, and it has nothing to do with emotions. I used Quicksand as a direct example due to having extensive experience with that squad, but it could be any other squad too. Why should I stfu about examples? Why are you so emotional about this that you attack everything I said, even though absolutely none of it was actually refuted by you in any logical way? Literally every response you gave was just some form of 'stfu' like a bratty child.

Can you discuss absolutely anything without resorting to petty insults? Do you have absolutely anything productive to add whatsoever?

[Tiny]

I can safely confirm Rough would be a terrible person to control this project.

[Rough]

I am going to take control of this project and get a "panel" that specializes in different leagues.

Also, I can safely confirm Tiny would not be indicted in the Hall of Fame now and/or in the foreseeable future.

[Tiny]

Medals mean nothing when you consider players like Sika only won 1 LD ever, yet nearly every wb in existence knows he was one of the best WB players in the game's history. Had he played 20 years like many others did, whose to say he'd not have won far more titles? Whose to say those who won titles later on would have won anything at all had their counterparts from the past not quit?

A) he's already in the hall of fame, so stfu
B) we have to discount every league/season played after that because there was "better" players before? Hard to say as time changes, styles change, so saying he would be the best now is up for debate, however I'm sure he would still be good. That's also like saying, all hall of famers now arent any good, because players before were better. stfu again

As for stats, those can be misleading too based on different factors.

Yes, we mislead the last 10 years of stats. Faked it all for this particular hall of fame induction. Stfu

Using Quicksand as an example for wb players, that squad played a 5-man rush/vulch style that it largely invented.

We get it, you were on quicksand, please stfu about quicksand

One of the main ways of playing that style was that some players lured shots/acted as decoys, while others were designated vulchers. When done right, it is extremely difficult to beat. That said, the decoy players who stay up front to draw the shots and split/isolate the enemy team tend to not get MVPs, die more, and overall get fewer kills than the vulcher teammates. Even then, if everyone performs as they SHOULD perform, then every player will get 10 kills each in the win, not ridiculously skewed scores where one person does great and the others do badly. That kind of shit should only happen on squads that do not have their shit together and cant play well as a coordinated team, which sadly is the majority of squads in TW history.

Let's create a history book for people who teamed so good, but never A) teamed good enough to win twl, or B) never joined a team good enough to win TWL. We will leave exalt in charge of it

Also, what about players that did things to bring about change in the game? For instance, prior to QS, there were only a couple of players who even knew how to rush, let alone did it regularly. Mattey was one that stood out as being one of the originators of that wb style. To me, that type of influence matters when everyone later on just copied it. The same kind of statement can and should be used for players that created a new style or way of playing in each league/ship they were involved in respectively.

this will be a subcategory to the above. People who rushed so good, but not quite good enough to win anything to be saved in history

Not everything in the game was about winning titles or cherry picked stats. Someone can put up monster stats and be a detriment to their team, and they could win multiple titles while not being the reason those titles were won. Someone else could have won only once, but anyone worth their salt in evaluating talent would know not to overlook that player due to that factor. Sika is the best example of this, because I dont know if any player with 1000 medals after playing for 20 years nonstop is still any better than a prime Sika was, especially if he had his old lag still. Maybe the only player I'd think of betting on in a 1v1 duel would be a prime Lasenza, so what's that say? Winning TWL titles are almost entirely based upon the team a person is on and who surrounds them, not always individual skill. Put the best player in TW history on a shit team, and they're gonna lose and do worse than a player nowhere near as skilled who plays with all stars their entire career. That also matters, which essentially kills your point about only stats or titles mattering. Things are never that black and white.

A group needs to be put together only to decide how many should be inducted and maybe a few important people in tw history that didnt win anything that fell under the radar, plus squads that accomplished things no one else did, aka repeats or triple crowning, etc etc etc.

Please read the whole thing before commenting and also do research as opposed to using your, quite obvious, emotional driven and off the cuff graphic novel responses.

[Exalt]

Pretty sure the work is already done for us. Someone (i think turban and/or ogron) has already gone back and done stats for the past 10-12 seasons and compiled them into top players over that past X seasons based on season/playoff performances across twld/twlj/twlb. Squabbling over who thinks who should be inducted arbitrarily and biased opinions is stupid. A group needs to be put together only to decide how many should be inducted and maybe a few important people in tw history that didnt win anything that fell under the radar, plus squads that accomplished things no one else did, aka repeats or triple crowning, etc etc etc. Putting lists of your favorite people is just dumb imo. This could be done in a week if the right people chose to do it.

Someone could probably export twd medals into excel sorted by players and medals and you could quite easily make an induction list, or a workable list, that way as well, seeing as though this is mostly based on winning/stats.

Medals mean nothing when you consider players like Sika only won 1 LD ever, yet nearly every wb in existence knows he was one of the best WB players in the game's history. Had he played 20 years like many others did, whose to say he'd not have won far more titles? Whose to say those who won titles later on would have won anything at all had their counterparts from the past not quit?

As for stats, those can be misleading too based on different factors. Using Quicksand as an example for wb players, that squad played a 5-man rush/vulch style that it largely invented. One of the main ways of playing that style was that some players lured shots/acted as decoys, while others were designated vulchers. When done right, it is extremely difficult to beat. That said, the decoy players who stay up front to draw the shots and split/isolate the enemy team tend to not get MVPs, die more, and overall get fewer kills than the vulcher teammates. Even then, if everyone performs as they SHOULD perform, then every player will get 10 kills each in the win, not ridiculously skewed scores where one person does great and the others do badly. That kind of shit should only happen on squads that do not have their shit together and cant play well as a coordinated team, which sadly is the majority of squads in TW history.

Also, what about players that did things to bring about change in the game? For instance, prior to QS, there were only a couple of players who even knew how to rush, let alone did it regularly. Mattey was one that stood out as being one of the originators of that wb style. To me, that type of influence matters when everyone later on just copied it. The same kind of statement can and should be used for players that created a new style or way of playing in each league/ship they were involved in respectively.

Not everything in the game was about winning titles or cherry picked stats. Someone can put up monster stats and be a detriment to their team, and they could win multiple titles while not being the reason those titles were won. Someone else could have won only once, but anyone worth their salt in evaluating talent would know not to overlook that player due to that factor. Sika is the best example of this, because I dont know if any player with 1000 medals after playing for 20 years nonstop is still any better than a prime Sika was, especially if he had his old lag still. Maybe the only player I'd think of betting on in a 1v1 duel would be a prime Lasenza, so what's that say? Winning TWL titles are almost entirely based upon the team a person is on and who surrounds them, not always individual skill. Put the best player in TW history on a shit team, and they're gonna lose and do worse than a player nowhere near as skilled who plays with all stars their entire career. That also matters, which essentially kills your point about only stats or titles mattering. Things are never that black and white.

[Tiny]

Pretty sure the work is already done for us. Someone (i think turban and/or ogron) has already gone back and done stats for the past 10-12 seasons and compiled them into top players over that past X seasons based on season/playoff performances across twld/twlj/twlb. Squabbling over who thinks who should be inducted arbitrarily and biased opinions is stupid. A group needs to be put together only to decide how many should be inducted and maybe a few important people in tw history that didnt win anything that fell under the radar, plus squads that accomplished things no one else did, aka repeats or triple crowning, etc etc etc. Putting lists of your favorite people is just dumb imo. This could be done in a week if the right people chose to do it.

Someone could probably export twd medals into excel sorted by players and medals and you could quite easily make an induction list, or a workable list, that way as well, seeing as though this is mostly based on winning/stats.

[Wirah]

There's that word again: "Heavy." Why were things so heavy in 2003? Was there a problem with the Earth's gravitational pull?

[Jones]

Should consider adding squads and players separated by eras if you are doing this. Eg 2005-2010. Short list.

[Majorcrisis2]

Holy fk. Stop spamming every thread with all this bullshit. No one cares but you three.