Moderator: Community Team
Metsfanmax wrote:ccatman, you didn't actually give any facts. The only thing you gave as evidence is your asserted opinion that people will start giving everyone 2's all around, when this makes no sense - people barely rate as it is now, why would they suddenly have the motivation to start making the ratings system even less accurate by giving false ratings?
TheForgivenOne wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:ccatman, you didn't actually give any facts. The only thing you gave as evidence is your asserted opinion that people will start giving everyone 2's all around, when this makes no sense - people barely rate as it is now, why would they suddenly have the motivation to start making the ratings system even less accurate by giving false ratings?
What makes you think that because the ratings are moved from 1-5 to -2 - 2 will result in people rating people as you guys imagine it? Giving people 0 and 1 stars if they were normal?
Metsfanmax wrote:TheForgivenOne wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:ccatman, you didn't actually give any facts. The only thing you gave as evidence is your asserted opinion that people will start giving everyone 2's all around, when this makes no sense - people barely rate as it is now, why would they suddenly have the motivation to start making the ratings system even less accurate by giving false ratings?
What makes you think that because the ratings are moved from 1-5 to -2 - 2 will result in people rating people as you guys imagine it? Giving people 0 and 1 stars if they were normal?
We don't have any hard evidence for the claim. It's more of a hope than anything else, based on the idea that when the automatically added zeros start kicking in, people will start to rate more accurately, because if they choose not to, then they're either going to help bad players (by allowing their ratings to be inflated back towards the average) or hurt good players (by bringing them closer to 0 when they deserve to stand out).
TheForgivenOne wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:ccatman, you didn't actually give any facts. The only thing you gave as evidence is your asserted opinion that people will start giving everyone 2's all around, when this makes no sense - people barely rate as it is now, why would they suddenly have the motivation to start making the ratings system even less accurate by giving false ratings?
What makes you think that because the ratings are moved from 1-5 to -2 - 2 will result in people rating people as you guys imagine it? Giving people 0 and 1 stars if they were normal?
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
TheForgivenOne wrote:You really don't have any evidence Max. From what I see, as a LOT of people really don't care about ratings, is people will either rate how they rate now, as they don't care about ratings still, or end up rating more people the highest rating possible. Just because there is a idea of 0's, doesn't mean they will think "Oh, i gotta start rating them more evenly!"
MeDeFe wrote:TheForgivenOne wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:ccatman, you didn't actually give any facts. The only thing you gave as evidence is your asserted opinion that people will start giving everyone 2's all around, when this makes no sense - people barely rate as it is now, why would they suddenly have the motivation to start making the ratings system even less accurate by giving false ratings?
What makes you think that because the ratings are moved from 1-5 to -2 - 2 will result in people rating people as you guys imagine it? Giving people 0 and 1 stars if they were normal?
Whether the scale goes from 1 to 5 or from -2 to +2 IS NOT IMPORTANT, the important part of the suggestion is that players who are not given a rating get an automatic rating of average. Do you understand yet or do you require special classes?
Also what Metsfanmax said.
ccatman, to you I can only say
You have added nothing new. Everything you have said has been said better before. Everything you have said has been shown to be nonsense or irrelevant.
Metsfanmax wrote:TheForgivenOne wrote:You really don't have any evidence Max. From what I see, as a LOT of people really don't care about ratings, is people will either rate how they rate now, as they don't care about ratings still, or end up rating more people the highest rating possible. Just because there is a idea of 0's, doesn't mean they will think "Oh, i gotta start rating them more evenly!"
If you're going to go this route, then let's just not go any further, because this is exactly where it went with jrh. I believe that people will be inspired to rate better, and you believe they probably won't change. The point I made earlier is that it is irrelevant who is correct, because even if you are correct, it's not a reason why the suggestion is a bad idea. The ratings distribution cannot possibly be worse as a result of this change.
ccatman wrote:what you are saying is nonsense AND irrelevant you dont get it your the one who needs the special classes the system we have no is actually very accurate
Metsfanmax wrote:ccatman wrote:what you are saying is nonsense AND irrelevant you dont get it your the one who needs the special classes the system we have no is actually very accurate
Maybe you've never studied statistics, but what we have now is far from accurate. Let me draw you a picture. The red curve is the current system, and the black curve is what it's supposed to be. Both curves are normalized to their maximum value, so that the y-axis gives the ratio of the number of players who have a given rating on the x-axis, compared to the number of players who have the mean (4.7).
ccatman wrote:what it is suppose to be DOES NOT MATTER why cant you just accept that? noone goes into a game sees a 4.0 rating and says oh wow this player must be above average
NO we look at that person and say oh god i hope he doesnt bitch about dice too bad i hope he doesnt noob me i hope he doesnt throw the game away
we see 4.7 and think this player must be an average player but nothing special we see 4.8+ and look foward to playing with them thats just how it is and there is nothing wrong with it do you get it?
or would you like me to say it a different way for the millionth time in another post?
Metsfanmax wrote:ccatman wrote:what it is suppose to be DOES NOT MATTER why cant you just accept that? noone goes into a game sees a 4.0 rating and says oh wow this player must be above average
NO we look at that person and say oh god i hope he doesnt bitch about dice too bad i hope he doesnt noob me i hope he doesnt throw the game away
we see 4.7 and think this player must be an average player but nothing special we see 4.8+ and look foward to playing with them thats just how it is and there is nothing wrong with it do you get it?
or would you like me to say it a different way for the millionth time in another post?
If you think it's okay, that's fine for you. I don't like it, and given the results of the poll, the majority of CC players don't like it either. Given that you'll still be able to tell who the bad players are after the change, there's no reason at all for you to be against it.
Let me repeat what I've said in case it's not clear: if the message of your intended post is "the current system is fine," then DON'T POST, because you're adding nothing except bad typing to this thread.
ccatman wrote:i think my head is literally about to blow up and explode
i've given evidence of why this new system can only make things worse countless times go back and read it cause im not saying it again
ccatman wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:TheForgivenOne wrote:You really don't have any evidence Max. From what I see, as a LOT of people really don't care about ratings, is people will either rate how they rate now, as they don't care about ratings still, or end up rating more people the highest rating possible. Just because there is a idea of 0's, doesn't mean they will think "Oh, i gotta start rating them more evenly!"
If you're going to go this route, then let's just not go any further, because this is exactly where it went with jrh. I believe that people will be inspired to rate better, and you believe they probably won't change. The point I made earlier is that it is irrelevant who is correct, because even if you are correct, it's not a reason why the suggestion is a bad idea. The ratings distribution cannot possibly be worse as a result of this change.
you are actually giving more proof why this is a bad idea if you realize it or not
ok so maybe some people are more inspired to rate more accurate
well im not im still giving everyone 2's so now we have some people still giving all 2's on average players and some people giving them 0's what ends up happening is more inaccurate results because everyone would start rating differently right now everyone(a very large majority atleast) rates players who are average and dont give a bad attitude and dont play like complete garbage... 5's
ccatman wrote:ccatman wrote:you are actually giving more proof why this is a bad idea if you realize it or not
ok so maybe some people are more inspired to rate more accurate
well im not im still giving everyone 2's so now we have some people still giving all 2's on average players and some people giving them 0's what ends up happening is more inaccurate results because everyone would start rating differently right now everyone(a very large majority atleast) rates players who are average and dont give a bad attitude and dont play like complete garbage... 5's
did you not see this?
Metsfanmax wrote:ccatman wrote:ccatman wrote:you are actually giving more proof why this is a bad idea if you realize it or not
ok so maybe some people are more inspired to rate more accurate
well im not im still giving everyone 2's so now we have some people still giving all 2's on average players and some people giving them 0's what ends up happening is more inaccurate results because everyone would start rating differently right now everyone(a very large majority atleast) rates players who are average and dont give a bad attitude and dont play like complete garbage... 5's
did you not see this?
Fair enough - let me revise my statement. You haven't made any relevant arguments that jrh hasn't made. This point is nonsensical because if people change their rating style, the system gets better - the only way for them to change their ratings styles is to use the lower end of the ratings scale, which will broaden the distribution and thus make the ratings more meaningful.
ccatman wrote:no but they wont because all this is doing is making the ratings dependent on who you play i said it in another post your rating will only reflect the kind of people you play at this point
Metsfanmax wrote:ccatman wrote:no but they wont because all this is doing is making the ratings dependent on who you play i said it in another post your rating will only reflect the kind of people you play at this point
Okay, but that point was made by jrh earlier, and responded to by myself, so I won't respond to it here.
Also, are you meaning to imply that in the current system, the rating you get is somehow not dependent on the kind of people you play?
jrh_cardinal wrote:it has a poll because the OP started a poll
temporos wrote:jrh_cardinal wrote:it has a poll because the OP started a poll
The above statement is false.
TheForgivenOne wrote:temporos wrote:jrh_cardinal wrote:it has a poll because the OP started a poll
The above statement is false.
I put up the poll due to a request of one.
jrh_cardinal wrote:Just if you were wondering, I still have yet to hear a real reason why people will change the way they rate. ("They just will", and "we are mostly hoping" are clearly not real reasons")
ccatman wrote:right now that can only effect your rating about .1-.2 difference and it does effect some people but theres nothing that can be done about that with the new system the scaling will be much different and it will become more dependent on the people you play
Metsfanmax wrote:jrh_cardinal wrote:Just if you were wondering, I still have yet to hear a real reason why people will change the way they rate. ("They just will", and "we are mostly hoping" are clearly not real reasons")
Incorrect. I've given you real reasons why I believe people will change. What you want is for me to somehow magic up proof that they will, which I obviously can't do. I've said several times that people will have a motivation to rate differently because they don't want to be rated around 0. You disagreed with my reasoning, but that doesn't mean I didn't give it.
At any rate, the only point that I need to win here is that that even if people continue to rate the same way they currently do, the ratings system will improve because most people fall around the average of the distribution, which is ideal.ccatman wrote:right now that can only effect your rating about .1-.2 difference and it does effect some people but theres nothing that can be done about that with the new system the scaling will be much different and it will become more dependent on the people you play
actually no it doesnt what dont you get about this rating system being flawed?
first of all your trying to fix something that has no solution no matter what you do your rating will ALWAYS be dependent on the opinions of everyone that means the 3.0 rated people now are still going to give you bad ratings no matter what why are you wasting so much time trying to fix something that will never be solved? give up im trying to save people time by making them realize what you are trying to do but you ignore me with your stubborness to see what im saying and your so set on your always right
and come on seriously people who actually deserve 5.0 ratings right now will not get it ever because with this new system you are making it imposible to get the highest rating posible because there will ALWAYS be people who never rate its just unfair and stupid to some of the people who actually care about the ratings
You can leave ratings for 91 members!
i have that message sitting there right now i've had it up to 200 people and i can tell you that those 200 people dont all deserve that 0 star rating
Clearly you missed the point of my statement. Obviously your rating is dependent on the type of people you play, because if you play people who rate on the scale of 1-5 and I play people who rate on a scale of 4-5, then we're going to have different ratings. If I play only people in clans and you play only New Recruits, then we're going to have different ratings. If I play only in tournaments and you play only in open casual games, we're going to have different ratings. If I play people when they're in a bad mood and you play them when they're in a good mood, we'll have different ratings. What the new system does is to help remove the bias that comes from that, because the type of people you play ought not affect your rating. In the current system if you play only people who don't rate often and give out only 5s when they do rate, you're going to have a very high score. The new system fixes that.
ccatman wrote:actually no it doesnt what dont you get about this rating system being flawed?
first of all your trying to fix something that has no solution no matter what you do your rating will ALWAYS be dependent on the opinions of everyone that means the 3.0 rated people now are still going to give you bad ratings no matter what why are you wasting so much time trying to fix something that will never be solved? give up im trying to save people time by making them realize what you are trying to do but you ignore me with your stubborness to see what im saying and your so set on your always right
and come on seriously people who actually deserve 5.0 ratings right now will not get it ever because with this new system you are making it imposible to get the highest rating posible because there will ALWAYS be people who never rate its just unfair and stupid to some of the people who actually care about the ratings
You can leave ratings for 91 members!
i have that message sitting there right now i've had it up to 200 people and i can tell you that those 200 people dont all deserve that 0 star rating
Users browsing this forum: No registered users