Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in or
create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 18: |
Line 18: |
| I think you already own all my good demos from pre-2010 so I will only add 2010-2012 demos anyway. | | I think you already own all my good demos from pre-2010 so I will only add 2010-2012 demos anyway. |
| --[[User:AfiNity|AfiNity]] ([[User talk:AfiNity|talk]]) 07:47, 3 May 2013 (EDT) | | --[[User:AfiNity|AfiNity]] ([[User talk:AfiNity|talk]]) 07:47, 3 May 2013 (EDT) |
|
| |
| I'm debating as to whether or not to entirely remove the section on the Big Four. It's more of an essay or an analysis than actual wiki material. --[[User:Masta|Masta]] ([[User talk:Masta|talk]]) 08:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| I'm not sure. I think that section is slightly subjective cause there are more clans which could be included into this list. --[[User:Balthor|Balthor]] ([[User talk:Balthor|talk]]) 09:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| It's also a bit unfair to newer teams, since it's not their fault that axiom, aiming, ozone and nL were not there anymore after 2010, and i use scores vs those teams as a measure of how well a team is doing in general. So for example vP has a big four score of plain zero, so what do I do now? Back when I wrote it, I reasoned with myself that because they lost so much to tua, while none of the big four ever had a close ratio against tua at all, they shouldn't be included. This is also unfair because tua obviously changed over the years and got better etc etc. There's lots that is problematic. Another point is that clans that focus mostly on 1v1s are a bit disadvantaged. Then again, I really like the tables. Maybe we can keep the tables and turn this section more into notable rivalries rather than an evaluation of teams. --[[User:Masta|Masta]] ([[User talk:Masta|talk]]) 09:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| Yea, that's what I thought as well. Staraiming played the last match in 2009, 5 years in which other clans dominated. Besides that it get's complicated when clans renamed or formed new teams with the same players. xeTox won pretty much everything but at some point they renamed to aXiom while it was pretty much a mix of the old aXiom and aiming players (dureal, mrl, dev, soxaz etc). Xentinels lost only three out of ~100 matches from 2008 to 2010. And some people would maybe even add clans like saber academy or RGA. I think you should keep the tables though.
| |
| --[[User:Balthor|Balthor]] ([[User talk:Balthor|talk]]) 09:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| I just thought...I don't think we have to cover the whole history of competitive play in JK2, however it would be cool to have the history until the point when jka got released. The biggest tournaments in JK-history and the only ones with actual money prizes were CTF tournaments in 2002 so it would be cool to cover that
| |
| --[[User:Balthor|Balthor]] ([[User talk:Balthor|talk]]) 13:26, 13 March 2016 (CET)
| |
