Talk:Viability Ranking/@comment-25136728-20190908002538/@comment-25136728-20190908223358

"I'm pretty sure he meant high level as in like XP levels or skill levels, not Adventure Map levels."

Oh, ok. Yeah, top payers (I mean, players) can be toxic, in fact. Not like this is a general rule anyway, but I agree.

Well, when you meet the requirements for the Ranking Council you seem like someone who is worthy of being on it.

Maybe?

Latin groups? :eyes:

Sorry for my awful "intelligent dictionary". I meant groups like Coalition, where I can post my monster analyses (Which I should try to give one if I'm signing up).

I'm confuzzled, are you saying there's good Monsters with low win rates? rofl

I didn't mean this way. Although good monsters would be a superficial way to see this, since Wyrmlad has high win rates but also loses a lot due to his usage. There are a lot of good monsters with low usage rate but high win rate though, so yeah, you can forget about the list not being too superficial. A list like this would be manageable if the game didn't have 641 monsters..

As for the rest, true. I will try to help this wiki if I can and people like (Since one thing you should take consideration for this type of work is if people consider you trustable). Also, Sorry for mispelling your name. I have to use my glasses when in the front of the screen. :P

Yoshi. I don't know a website, But SP tends to those once a month (I only know the part of usage. Win rate is a variable) and there are some ML Discords that try do those as well.