GOOD RWS assesment alphabetical

1. A decent skill assessment
2. A step up from MM where you don’t see it. I like faceit better because you can see your mmr/elo
3. An okay determiner of how good your aim is. Not at all a determiner of how good your game sense or teamplay is.
4. Awesome
5. Can be a good indicator but in definite
6. Decent way to measure impact on round won only.
7. Decent, but I think you should get some RWS for rounds lost as well.
8. Decent, but should not be the primary assessment. Should be a combination of all (FPR, ADR, RWS) to make something like a HLTV rating type stat
9. Ehh
10. Ehhh, it's alright
11. Enjoy this stat as it gives more of a value rather than kills and plants
12. Fine
13. Fine
14. GOOD
15. Gives a general idea, not a whole picture
16. Good
17. Good
18. Good but still could use some improvements.
19. Good for general guide if need a quick assessment of raw skill, but doesnt tell a full story or how good a player is a team
20. Good for in standing individual skill
21. Good for individual ranking
22. Good for individually skilled players, bad for more team orientated/support players who don't always get kills.
23. Good for personal assessment in relation to teammates, useless to see actual impact in a match
24. Good in general
25. Good, RWS tends to show who the more skilled players are.
26. Good, better than valves broken elo system
27. Good, but can be inconsistent at times.
28. Good, but isn’t always accurate, especially in situations where a player gets multiple entries and their team fails to hold the site after they die
29. Great
30. Have played ESEA before and can say that the idea behind the system is good but it gets abused to much.
31. Helpful initial filter for some roles
32. Helpful, but shouldn't be used to influence too much.
33. I don't use ESEA but I stand by it. It pumps out a lot of dumb players who can frag, but fragging is the end goal and good teachers can correct the bad habits picked up in the pug setting.
34. I feel like it's probably one of the best statistics for individual skill currently (excluding HLTV ratings).
35. I like it
36. I like it because it factors in whether or not you win the round, so impact kills are rewarded while bating and free kills are not.
37. I like it, makes you play more for the win.
38. I love the RWS System
39. I mean its not the worst way to show player impact but I think ADR is more senseful
40. I think RWS is a good assessment for a first glance, but nothing concrete. I will look at RWS to determine if someone is worthy of a team tryout, but once they're in the scrim, im looking at everything else and RWS means nothing.
41. I think it is a good system as it is nice to be able to see how good you and the people you are playing with/against on an average basis.
42. I think it is good, but far from perfect.
43. I think it is overall a good system but may need a few small adjustments
44. I think it is something good for pugs and evaluating ranks so you can't be carried to a high rank without skill
45. I think it works well most of the time but sometimes it seems like the person who contributed more gets less. Idk might just be me thinking that
46. I think it's decent, but ADR is still a better system overall, although it's hard to really judge how all players do throughout a match.
47. I think it's good to define skill
48. I think it's good, but it has its flaws (Killing 4 enemies, then you die and your team dies to the last remaining enemy = no rws)
49. I think it's good, but it has its flaws (Killing 4 enemies, then you die and your team dies to the last remaining enemy = no rws)
50. I used ESEA a month ago, RWS is good.
51. I'd say it's good for pugs, but doesn't matter when it comes to league.
52. I'm okay with it but could be a better system.
53. Individual skill maybe for aiming and bragging to lower ranks, but in a team-based game you shouldn't hold it highly.
54. It depends. RWS can be a decent measure of how well you frag, but at the same time since a lot of people on ESEA play for RWS they are constantly frag hunting. So yes, it can show how good you are at shooting people in the head before they shoot you but it might not
55. It is a nice number to have. It can help show if your frags and action were actually helping win rounds. High frags but low RWS = no impact frags.
56. It is a really good system but could use readjustment
57. It is fine, just people can judge you if you have a low rws and can be toxic to those players.
58. It is really role dependent. I think it’s OK or better than kills per game, but defenately far from reliable.
59. It is usefull but easily manipulated
60. It isn't a flawless system, but works just fine.
61. It works but it could be a better system
62. It works fine and feels more attuned to YOUR skill rating
63. It's a decent way to incentivize players to take the PUG seriously. It has its flaws, but overall it does a good enough job. In terms of estimating overall skill, ESEA rank is probably a more accurate assessment.
64. It's a nice feature but people shouldn't see it as your true skill level
65. It's adequate.
66. It's allright. Not the best but interesting stat.
67. It's alright but you should get at least some for rounds you lose
68. It's alright, but doesnt really mean much about someone being good or bad
69. It's alright, makes people a little kill hungry and toxic but keeps everybody wanting to get multikills to win rounds.
70. It's an okay measure, but it makes players play dumb
71. It's decent. It's not great but it works better than nothing.
72. It's fairly good, but I feel some players grind for RWS and personal stats rather than playing as a team
73. It's fine but it should be slightly reworked
74. It's good as a rough estimate. There's a distinct difference between people with <10 rws and people with >10 rws but outside that it doesn't mean much because you could be holding w and going for kills.
75. It's good, but sometimes frustrating as you can get 4 kills, but lose the round and those kills count for nothing, but then again, they DID actually count for nothing since you lost... idk
76. It's good, but sometimes teammates may influence it in a bad way.
77. It's got a lot of flaws but it's better than any other metric.
78. It's great
79. It's ok
80. It's okay, could be better.
81. It's okay...
82. It's pretty good but it's not everything. Kills are way too important in the calculations, and utility usage does not matter at all. Again, it's good, but not as good as a human evaluating your match would be.
83. It's pretty good. People who think otherwise usually have bad stats and are bad players.
84. It's smart. Players who don't contribute to winning the round shouldn't be rewarded the same way.
85. It's usually sort of accurate, however some games you may have super high impact but because of teammates you will lose the round and get 0 RWS. Impact on a round even if you lose needs to be calculated, for example if you entry fragged a site, or maybe even got bomb down. Specific conditions.
86. Its accurate
87. Its aight
88. Its better than not having it but. Some people farm it for stats.
89. Its cool
90. Its cool but people tend to hunt it
91. Its good and bad, it rewards puggy players because it solely focuses on kills and damage, but of course you have to win the round to get RWS
92. Its not perfect but not terrible.
93. Its ok
94. Its ok
95. Its ok but not good
96. Its pretty good
97. Its really good i think its more valueable than K/D ratio i really like it.
98. Love it. Fair and logical.
99. Makes everyone pretty frag hungry but a pretty decent accessment of performance. I prefer popflashes stats.
100. Meh
101. Meh
102. Most of the time it is a good judge of how much help you provide your team.
103. Nice to have a skill assessment but not well made from ESEA imo.
104. Pretty good system from what I've hears
105. RWS can be helpful but it promotes selfish play.
106. RWS is a good assessment although it encourages people to play for stats. i.e - make stupid decisions ingame that don't benefit the team/winning rounds
107. RWS is a good measure of skill
108. RWS is as good as anyone stat can be, but fails to summarize skill with any meaningful accuracy.
109. RWS is both good and bad, its a bit misleading due to it being easily abused by fraghunters.
110. RWS is fine but it makes no sense sometimes, it's tough to understand for many new players that comes to ESEA.
111. RWS is generally a good skill assessment but it doesn't take in to consideration support players. I have a lot of wins on ESEA generally and am rank A but normally only get about 9-10 RWS in a month, which some people say is bad.
112. RWS seems to be a good show of team play and individual skill.
113. Seems better than mm's since you only get points if your team wins the round
114. Shows fraging consistency but not all aspects of skill
115. Shows how efficient you were in obtaining rounds.
116. Trustworthy
117. Very accurate
118. Very good just a shame I suck
119. When i used to play ESEA i thought it was a pretty good way of determining things, because it encourages winning the rounds.
120. Works perfectly, good players have high rws and bad players complain about rws.
121. better than faceit
122. better than mm
123. could be worse
124. could be worse
125. does a good job killing exit fragging but also kills the chance of having a 4k in a round and ur teammates fucking it up
126. good
127. good as a general scale for players, not specific at all tho
128. good measurement if you're looking for sharp aim-heavy players, terrible analysis of teamwork and how effective the player will be in a proper team.
129. great
130. i played it before and i liked it
131. it makes more sense than mm evaluation. individual skill should be more represented in mm.
132. it shows the impact of a player, but increases baiting
133. it's alright but it shouldn't be the single go-to for a player's skill level
134. it's ehhh. To me it's just there.
135. it's fine, it really does change the way that people play the game but i don't mind it
136. it's good
137. it's okay but has flaws
138. its aight but i prefer adr
139. its decent but doesn't cover everything and can be deceiving sometimes
140. its fine until people start playing only to get rws and for themselves instead of as a team to win
141. its fun
142. its nice
143. its ok
144. meh, its alright.
145. ok
146. okay
147. orite but not 2goodd
148. pretty effective
149. show usefulness as much for those who only play to win
150. shows how good a player is at pugging, shows nothing to do with actual skill in a league format
151. the assessment of skill based on RWS is relatively good, but does not paint a full picture. there are many ways to manipulate the statistic and make yourself look better.
152. unpopular opinion but it does it's job if you play a lot. Players with 9rws every month with around 60 pugs played generally are very average/below average players, and players who have 12rws+ every month typically destroy in pugs.
153. up and down on how it works, rewards people who bait, or been set up but doesn't reward the person helping set up others
154. very good