Conquer Club

AAFitz wrote:the rating system works perfectly how it is. the rating tells you exactly what you will get from a player. the only thing that doesnt match up is the actual label to the number, but after a few games, its not hard to figure out what the ratings mean

4.1 will be a pain in the ass every time and a 5.0 will hardly ever be. they are all a little bit of both between that. Your suggestion would actually make it harder, because there would be less degrees of criteria. right now there are 5.0 to 4.0 essentially
anyone below 4.0 is the same as 4.0 with a near guarantee to either play insane, or chat insane.

The rating system is very far from being perfect and it is high time to change it. If the only problems were the "labels" with it, then that would already mean a valid reason for the change.
You are right regarding players with 4.1 and below, but there are players with 4.7 and 4.8 ratings on the last page of the scoreboard. I am not so sure that their ratings truly represent how they play.
I think that the proposed change would not only fix the "labels", but could also influence the attitude of people ragarding rating. If part of the players who currently automatically give all 5s to everyone start to use a more varied scale, then it"s definitely worth it.

jrh_cardinal wrote:You guys wonder why I got tired of arguing. Every post of mine until the last two only dealt with the issues and trying to prove your viewpoints wrong. All along the way max avoids my points or attempts to make excuses why my points aren't valid rather than actually trying to prove them wrong, then starts going after me personally.

I never went after you personally, because unlike you, I'm not getting worked up about this debate. I want this change to be implemented, but only because I think it rationally makes sense, not because I care a lot about the ratings system.

Now you do the same thing. Honestly, you guys are unbelievable. Can't you just have a heated discussion about the issues, without bringing in the integrity of the two people involved?

Not once did I question your integrity, and it's unfortunate that you would even suggest that I have, as a way to indicate that somehow I didn't debate you honestly. The only remark I made that was even somewhat unrelated to the content of the debate itself was when I said it was childish to paraphrase my comment into something I didn't say, and then attack me for it. And that was an unfair method of debate, and I called you on it. That's not the same thing as an ad hominem attack.

I understand that you're saying that your points show why this system would be worse than the current one, but in reality that's incorrect. There's only one argument you've consistently made that you've even suggested would make the system worse, which is that if everyone is within 0.1 of the mean, then it's harder to figure out who to play with. The reason why this is totally irrelevant is because that's true now. Most people fall around 4.7 plus or minus 0.1, with a smaller minority at 4.6 and 4.9. Thus even if most players did fall in the range you quoted, it would be the same situation as now - if you're trying to discriminate and find players that are well above average, then all you have to do is find the ones which are above 0.1.

At any rate, in a normal distribution, roughly 2/3 of the players would be within one SD of the mean; you've indicated that you understand statistics, so this shouldn't come as a surprise to you. The problem is that we have no idea what the standard deviation will be until we implement this system. We could probably estimate it if we had all the information on the current ratings system, which we do not. If I had to guess, I would imagine the standard deviation would be 0.2 under this system, not 0.1 (because I think that people will rate at a slightly higher rate). If that's the case, it would be even easier to discriminate than it is currently. So either it gets better or it stays the same. That's why there's no logical reason not to do this.

*shrugs* Whatever. I'm going to rate players according to the defined scale. If they don't impress me (good or bad), then they are average, and they deserve a 3.

Just remember people. lack has the final word on this. If he likes how the system is, he can leave it as it is. So don't go into conniptions if this gets implemented or not.

At any rate, in a normal distribution, roughly 2/3 of the players would be within one SD of the mean; you've indicated that you understand statistics, so this shouldn't come as a surprise to you. The problem is that we have no idea what the standard deviation will be until we implement this system. We could probably estimate it if we had all the information on the current ratings system, which we do not. If I had to guess, I would imagine the standard deviation would be 0.2 under this system, not 0.1 (because I think that people will rate at a slightly higher rate). If that's the case, it would be even easier to discriminate than it is currently. So either it gets better or it stays the same. That's why there's no logical reason not to do this.

I agree with this.

natty_dread wrote:

At any rate, in a normal distribution, roughly 2/3 of the players would be within one SD of the mean; you've indicated that you understand statistics, so this shouldn't come as a surprise to you. The problem is that we have no idea what the standard deviation will be until we implement this system. We could probably estimate it if we had all the information on the current ratings system, which we do not. If I had to guess, I would imagine the standard deviation would be 0.2 under this system, not 0.1 (because I think that people will rate at a slightly higher rate). If that's the case, it would be even easier to discriminate than it is currently. So either it gets better or it stays the same. That's why there's no logical reason not to do this.

I agree with this.

I agree with this, too!

I know I'm just a "random" freebie with less then 1000 posts, and as such my opinion is less valid. And I get that some think this will simply swap the normal range from 4.5 to 4.9 into -0.2 to 0.2 and that such a move is mostly cosmetic (not that we can know for sure that will happen). Something that doesn't seem to carry much weight in this discourse is that currently we all start at 5 and every rating less than that is seen as some sort of punishment.

And in a way that is all we can really do under the current system, punish each other. If someone is a bad player of course we are motivated to rank him/her a 1 or 2. But if I really think someone is exceptional, chances are that player is already 4.8 or 4.9, so what's the point? Can I really affect that score? And the true crux of the issue is what to do about those in between?

As it stands now rating someone a 3 is a punishment by the "unspoken rules" but expected by the way the system was written. If 4.6 is seen by the community as "average" but I can't actually rate anyone a 4.6, the method of ranking is clearly flawed. I have the choice of "punishing" them with a 3 or 4, or awarding a 5 and contribute to skewing the rating even more. To those who endorse the current set up, what's my play here? Give a 5 "just because" or rank someone who I consider average a 3, a rating that if they carried as their accumulative score, would label them a pariah?

The current, schizophrenic system, is basically useless for much other then singling out the truly bad. Why not tweak it so that good players stand out as well? We all know that none of us like to think of ourselves as average, so it is understandable to resist being pulled back toward that part of the scale. But, the fact that 90% of players are bunched together at one end of the spectrum shows that the status quo set-up is clearly flawed.

I think being rated a "0" auto is a bad idea. Just talking to some ppl I know quite a few who play many games together but haven't even rated their friends.
This system would punish u from playing with lazy ppl who don't rate. Even I have forgotten or not rated ppl in time who deserve more than avg rating or less than.

IcePack wrote:I think being rated a "0" auto is a bad idea. Just talking to some ppl I know quite a few who play many games together but haven't even rated their friends.
This system would punish u from playing with lazy ppl who don't rate. Even I have forgotten or not rated ppl in time who deserve more than avg rating or less than.

Even so, play enough games and it will level out with the ones who legitimately thought you played average. I think this idea will promote using the ratings system more.

-Sully

IcePack wrote:I think being rated a "0" auto is a bad idea. Just talking to some ppl I know quite a few who play many games together but haven't even rated their friends.
This system would punish u from playing with lazy ppl who don't rate. Even I have forgotten or not rated ppl in time who deserve more than avg rating or less than.

Only if you consider being pulled very slightly more toward average "punishment". Its that mentality why we now all start with perfect scores and can only really chip away and knock each other down slowly, why people only give 5's, 1's or nothing at all. I see no value in that type of system. Right now we are all burdened with a rating system that tells us very little other then who the complete deadbeats are, one where perfect scores are expected and everything else is seen as some sort of vendetta or somesuch...

bluwizard wrote:

IcePack wrote:I think being rated a "0" auto is a bad idea. Just talking to some ppl I know quite a few who play many games together but haven't even rated their friends.
This system would punish u from playing with lazy ppl who don't rate. Even I have forgotten or not rated ppl in time who deserve more than avg rating or less than.

Only if you consider being pulled very slightly more toward average "punishment". Its that mentality why we now all start with perfect scores and can only really chip away and knock each other down slowly, why people only give 5's, 1's or nothing at all. I see no value in that type of system. Right now we are all burdened with a rating system that tells us very little other then who the complete deadbeats are, one where perfect scores are expected and everything else is seen as some sort of vendetta or somesuch...

A lack of ratings won't tell much either So he has a 0.1 rating. Maybe he played 100 games, and only got rated by 20 players, and the rest didn't. That wouldn't accurately portray how skilled the opponent is.

TheForgivenOne wrote:A lack of ratings won't tell much either So he has a 0.1 rating. Maybe he played 100 games, and only got rated by 20 players, and the rest didn't. That wouldn't accurately portray how skilled the opponent is.

I believe the point of half this thread is that the proposed system cannot be any worse than the current system, but has the potential to be better. So what's the harm in trying it?

i dont see why you would want to change the rating system i dont see what the point is
sure 3.0 is suppose to be an average rating but really anything inbetween 4.5-4.9 is usually considered an average rating ...ok so what? we all know that if you have a rating around 4.5-4.9 that your an average player and the closer to 5.0 the friendlier/better player you are. everyone knows that if you have a 4.0 rating or less your a dick who accuses people of cheating when you roll good dice and then tell you that they will foe you or just someone who is really bad at the game and probaly throws the game away a lot in multiplayer games (on accident of course).right now the rating system gets the point across of who is what kind of player with this new system you suggest it can pull down on some of the better players if people decide just not to rate them just because they make amazing game winning plays isnt gonna change the fact someone might not feel like rating them and what about speed games? most people who play them just go on to the next speed game and dont even think about rating people (i know i do) that will just result in more 0's which also pulls down on anyone playing speeds.
all i see this doing is pisisng people off because after that 400th rating you gave out you have no reason to rate anymore and that just means more undeserved 0's

temporos wrote:

TheForgivenOne wrote:A lack of ratings won't tell much either So he has a 0.1 rating. Maybe he played 100 games, and only got rated by 20 players, and the rest didn't. That wouldn't accurately portray how skilled the opponent is.

I believe the point of half this thread is that the proposed system cannot be any worse than the current system, but has the potential to be better. So what's the harm in trying it?

Can't exactly use that in every argument, because if it doesn't work, and everyone starts complaining, then someone will have to go through and negate any 0 rating that was given to the players as they change it back to old system.

TheForgivenOne wrote:Can't exactly use that in every argument, because if it doesn't work, and everyone starts complaining, then someone will have to go through and negate any 0 rating that was given to the players as they change it back to old system.

Uh... One short perl script would fix that, if anyone wanted to remove all the automatic zeroes.

Also, why do you think an "average" rating is undeserved of average players? You admit that under the current system, 4.7-ish is the de-facto average. How do I give a player a rating of 4.7?

Guess what. Being average is not a "punishment!" It's a fact of life! It's high time you got rid of this "everybody wins" bull5hi7 attitude.

temporos wrote:

TheForgivenOne wrote:Can't exactly use that in every argument, because if it doesn't work, and everyone starts complaining, then someone will have to go through and negate any 0 rating that was given to the players as they change it back to old system.

Uh... One short perl script would fix that, if anyone wanted to remove all the automatic zeroes.

Also, why do you think an "average" rating is undeserved of average players? You admit that under the current system, 4.7-ish is the de-facto average. How do I give a player a rating of 4.7?

Guess what. Being average is not a "punishment!" It's a fact of life! It's high time you got rid of this "everybody wins" bull5hi7 attitude.

actually people will rate 2's on everyone now to even average players point being first of all that the rating system we have now is actually very accurate and point 2 all your idea will do is lower those people who are average or good because if you like it or not people will rate 2's on everyone for people who always give out ratings
think about things like youtube if you see a video you like you give it 5 stars if you dont like it you give it 1 stars people dont just go giving 3 star ratings on these kinda sites thats just how it is if you like it or not and its not about to change

ccatman wrote:think about things like youtube if you see a video you like you give it 5 stars if you dont like it you give it 1 stars people dont just go giving 3 star ratings on these kinda sites

I gave out 3 star ratings all the time on YouTube. I can't anymore, since they changed to a thumbs-up/thumbs-down system. A thumbs-up/thumbs-down system might work well here, too. But the current system is broken. No matter how you try to spin it, it is not functioning as designed.

temporos wrote:

ccatman wrote:think about things like youtube if you see a video you like you give it 5 stars if you dont like it you give it 1 stars people dont just go giving 3 star ratings on these kinda sites

I gave out 3 star ratings all the time on YouTube. I can't anymore, since they changed to a thumbs-up/thumbs-down system. A thumbs-up/thumbs-down system might work well here, too. But the current system is broken. No matter how you try to spin it, it is not functioning as designed.

i already told you it works well and my facts overrule yours its simple that the fact that 4.5-4.9 is an average rating and this fact is accepted by people and your not the majority of people very very few people rate that way

ccatman wrote:my facts overrule yours

... Aaaaaaaaand you're no longer allowed to argue, since you clearly have no capacity for logic. Facts cannot "overrule" other facts. A passing glance at any philosophy 101 textbook will show this.

Basically, anyone opposed to this idea is just scared that they'll lose their "above average" status and be seen as only "average" under the new system. Sorry. That's life. Suck it up, Nancy.

temporos wrote:

ccatman wrote:my facts overrule yours

... Aaaaaaaaand you're no longer allowed to argue, since you clearly have no capacity for logic. Facts cannot "overrule" other facts. A passing glance at any philosophy 101 textbook will show this.

Basically, anyone opposed to this idea is just scared that they'll lose their "above average" status and be seen as only "average" under the new system. Sorry. That's life. Suck it up, Nancy.

So the "normal ratings" players at 4.5-4.9 go down, and the lower rank players at 3.0-4.5 go up, well, in essence. Weeee~ Take from the rich and give to the poor

And this is the internet. People do come on here to avoid this so-called thing called "life" If you're really getting in a hubub over the fact that, on here, a normal rating has been pushed from the average, of 3.0, to 4.5-4.9, well... Suck it up, Nancy?

temporos wrote:Basically, anyone opposed to this idea is just scared that they'll lose their "above average" status and be seen as only "average" under the new system. Sorry. That's life. Suck it up, Nancy.

lol, no

temporos wrote:

ccatman wrote:my facts overrule yours

... Aaaaaaaaand you're no longer allowed to argue, since you clearly have no capacity for logic. Facts cannot "overrule" other facts. A passing glance at any philosophy 101 textbook will show this.

Basically, anyone opposed to this idea is just scared that they'll lose their "above average" status and be seen as only "average" under the new system. Sorry. That's life. Suck it up, Nancy.

point is what i was saying was a fact what you think was a fact that you were saying is only an opinion if you cant come up with anything better to say then this crap then why respond at all? i've made it clearwhy this is a bad idea and why our current system is a good idea and you have not disprooved me

don't worry about it ccat, same thing they did to me the past couple pages

im just trying to get this person to give me something to disproove me if i see none i dont see why lack would add this to the system why this even has a poll is far beyond me

ccatman wrote:im just trying to get this person to give me something to disproove me if i see none i dont see why lack would add this to the system why this even has a poll is far beyond me

it has a poll because the OP started a poll