My intention with this post is not to be a party pooper or to hinder any formalization of what the competitive state of this game is. I just wish to share my opinion on this system as a whole.
Other than the reason that I mentioned (formalizing the competitive state of the game) as well as trying to formalize some sort of tier list for what skill is in this game, I don't see any other reason why we need this in the game. If anyone can come up with more reasons why that are constructive for the game, please let me know.
Furthermore, this system doesn't fully succeed at doing those two things fundamentally. Atwar is a complicated game, and it is not a standardized game. There is no formal or strict definition for what 'competitive' is. You can say that it's 10k EU+ 4 min. But that's just based on majority. It's not even like all tournaments in this game use that setting anyways. Not only that, but skill in this game is multi-criteria and subjective to opinion. A person can be extremely good in a specific setting in this game, and just above average in the rest, while you can have players who excel at most settings. With that in mind, you can't come in and define what an 'Atwar Grandmaster' is in the way that this system tries to do. I mean, you're basically disregarding a big part of the community here. I know that you've implicitly narrowed the scope in the description by saying that this pertains to EU+, but the title is misleading. And even then, EU+ by itself is complicated and can be subdivided further. That's why you have Master of West, Master of East, CW tournaments, 5k, low-turn-time tournaments, etc.
Furthermore, you add to that the element of nominations, adding even more subjectivity to the matter. Any top player can in theory nominate anyone. Also, the descriptions for the titles themselves are subjective and ambiguous: "extremely skilled yet aren't quite GM level". This is a very basic explanation but, in chess, you become a grandmaster through norms, which you earn by performing well in tournaments which are exclusive to very high level players, players who are better than you on paper. You don't just beat one GM and become a GM. You have to consistently perform well in this higher skill environment. This is a more objective system. And it is detached from what the player's ELO rating is. You basically remove rating from the equation by making it fully based on results. You could have a Grandmaster title and have a below-average-rating for the players with that title. It is very hard to do this in Atwar. There are technically no 'official' regular tournaments. All tournaments are hosted by community members, sometimes once a year. And the decrease in activity has also decreased the frequency and legitimacy of these tournaments. I mean, the last Master of East started months ago and hasn't finished. The next Master of West should've already started by now.
I appreciate what this system is trying to do. It can help new players who care about improving to understand how do top players fall on a scale, and it can give them something to strive or to improve towards. But, unless this system improves somehow, people will just see this as a circle jerk.
Ok let me break this down because it's very confusing and i'm not sure what you're saying in the first half.
Here's what I gathered from your post:
- Doesn't include Scen/RP "communities"
- There isn't a formal definition of competitive?
- Someone can be good at one setting and not another in Eu+
- Any top player can nominate anyone
- Title description is vague for how narrow the scope is
- Difference in chess vs this system
Doesn't include Scen/RP "communities"
This is by design, none of them have mastered the base mechanics of the game sufficiently just by playing Scenarios/RP/other maps/other presets. They have a fundamentally different view on what fun is in this game I think. I'm willing to accept I might be wrong about this, but we'll see when a tournament between them and GM's gets made. If it turns out that I am wrong, I will find a way to include them.
There isn't a formal definition of competitive?
There is, it's dueling and CWing. Any setting in either of those is competitive by definition. That includes scenarios and other maps but it just so happens that players who play mostly other maps/scenarios DECIDE not to duel or CW on them.
Someone can be good at one setting and not another in Eu+
True, that is why the definition of GM will also include 'mastered all of Eu+'. You must be well rounded to be a GM <- this is the sole reason why I didn't put you as a GM.
Any top player can nominate anyone
Not true, you must first meet the other prerequisites. If you can meet the prerequisites and convince 5 AMs or 2 GMs and 1 AM to nominate you then you deserve to be on the list. I will of course delete "troll" nominations but the way the system is created, it's hard to troll in the first place.
Title description is vague for how narrow the scope is
True, it is vague for how specific i made the scope. But as i said previously, the scope i created defines the objective as best as you can. The objective is the "best" player. The scope is what mostly everyone will accept as the place you find the best players. It's just not feasible to prove someone is a master on ALL maps or ALL scenarios when they don't play them competitively anyways, and it wouldn't prove anything substantially different from what my scope provides either (pending i'm correct about Scen/RP players).
Difference in chess vs this system
This is my favorite argument, because i thought about this quite a bit before making this list. I didn't want this list to be "my list". I wanted it to be the communities list. If the staff chose the GMs/AMs then they likely wouldn't be accepted. Tournaments don't go to completion like 60% of the time so i didn't want to base it off of that. And I trust the GMs and AMs will only sign off on players who are skilled enough according to their definition.
Hopefully this satisfies your concerns!