Talk:Viability Ranking/@comment-25136728-20190908002538/@comment-25136728-20190908200740

Yeah, when i said good players I wasnt talking about players with high levels. Who is a good player that only plays adventure map? Lol. I was referring to players that help or is known in the community (positively) some way. Im not a "pro player", but i'm among the game community since 2014, and I have seen the game change and how it works since the beginning. I mean, If the responsibles for this page could let me in, I could help about this.

But this is just an example. I'm known in making analysis about most of new monsters in some latin groups (and people seem to like it. Also, this is the type of reference I'm talking about).

Also, about the Viability Ranking. I agree. This and the monsters's page is why the memes exist. But i think it could definitely work. The Viability could take in consideration not only how good the monster is, but also how he is connected to win rates and usage. Wyrmlad for example not only is very good, but his usage and win rates are pretty pretty (pretty) which translates to meta. About the wars, it's true. You should consider all the possible restrictions that could make this monster viable or not viable. This is definitely a heavy work, I agree. That's why you should always consider expanding the team, since war is one of the most "competitive place" in the game. There are a lot of strategists around there about there to help this

Also, Yeah Gulli. We should also consider opinions from another league to see what is the meta in those, although it's always very vast to organize tbh.

General Thetys better than Warspells? I didn't see this one, but, yeah..

Tl;Dr: I could do it with some reference given, for example. I agree with all your points. This wiki needs some acquaintance since the information could be (pun intended) viable, in the right hands.