Redeye has created a ranking system for the GGL and all the major players in 1vs1 tournaments today, the goal behind this is to attempt to bring a standard to something which at the moment is standard less. A ranking which spans games and focuses on actual achievements.

Well as expected it was taken with a mixed reception, the question is. Why is that?

JonJay i think portrayed the arguments very clearly.
It makes sense but you’re comparing different games. You’re making a league based on different games which makes no sense. If you’re going to do that then might as well count all the Asian players which will dominate that league. Another example of how flawed the league is the start comparing sportsman in tennis and football, you just can’t do that. You cant do that because in tennis you have more tournaments throughout the year whereas in football, you have league and cup etc..

This is all very true, and it raises further questions. Can gaming be associated and considered in a way which is parallel to a game which we know now to be mainstream?

Redeye has replied with the following, and in all fairness i believe the creation of such a ranking system is open to scepticism, however it takes a brave man to make such an outright claim. (I have added numbering to assist in my referencing of ideas.

1) Ok you make a valid point and here is the answer. Part of my role (as I see it) as a media person covering esports is to make it more mainstream friendly. That doesnt mean change the games played or influence people to like it, just make it more understandable.

2) As part of that idea I developed this multi gaming 1v1 ranking because I viewed 1v1 players as a kind of breed of players, regardless of game played. For instance, last year PK was the world tour game, this year its Q4 and next year it might be something else (1v1 related) and the players seem to move on to the "next" game nowadays, where as in the past they may have stayed in one game they liked more. Im generalising I know, however stay with me. How I see 1v1 players is not as Quake players or UT players or PK players etc, its more that I see them as 1v1 duellers regardless of game, which then led on to this work being carried out across all games 1v1 FPS.

3) You use the analogy of basketball and baseball ranked together, however the way I see this ranking is more that they are all tennis players (1v1 FPS duellers) its just the surface (the game) that changes, but they are still ranked accordingly throughout a year of tennis (1v1 duelling). If we can get mainstream to understand the whole 1 versus 1 concept, then we are a step closer to making esports more mainstream.

4) If we concentrate on a game at a time then it will die eventually and then you start again on the ranking, the idea behind this one is that it can evolve with the way games are released and supported (or not) by big tournaments. Im not sure how a lot of the players feel about this, although most I discussed this with over the last few months liked the idea and viewed themselves as 1v1 players rather than a "pk" player or a "q3" player, so Id guess im not far off the beaten track here.

Lets see how the ranking changes over the course of the year and I am sure it will cause debate, which is all good.