Conquer Club

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?

It can be worse, and likely will. The way people do or do not rate will not change, but the numbers between bad and great will get closer together so that they are indistinguishable. It's a lot easier to see that "5" is probably better than "4" than it would be to see that "0.2" is better than "0.1"

temporos wrote:

ccatman wrote:people who actually deserve 5.0 ratings right now will not get it ever

Take a statistics course no one "deserves" a perfect score.

OH SORRY a 1.9 noone will ever get that
is that good for you? or should i say a 1.999999?
stop telling me to take a statistics course i do not need one

Whatever. You people do whatever you want. I will continue to rate people as described in the Instructions. I refuse to subscribe to the "everybody wins" or "5 stars as default" mindset. If you don't impress me in a match, then you're average, and you deserve three stars.

I'm done with this flame war.

temporos wrote:Whatever. You people do whatever you want. I will continue to rate people as described in the Instructions. I refuse to subscribe to the "everybody wins" or "5 stars as default" mindset. If you don't impress me in a match, then you're average, and you deserve three stars.

I'm done with this flame war.

see the problem with rating like that and the reason people dont do it mainly is because you dont have enough evidence to tell if someone is a good average or bad player sometimes a move might stick out that effects your game and you will give a good or bad rating because of that move but you would have to study all their moves to give them an accurate rating and another thing is you have to be good yourself in order to tell if they are playing good or not(also a reason why the rating system will always be flawed). and i doubt anyone refreshes their page 24/7 and clicks on a game when they see someone taking a turn just to watch to see if they are playing good or not
me personally i mostly only rate people if i've played with them many times and even then i dont always rate them and again me personally i dont care how you rate but i just want to let you know why your rating style is bad (in my opinion) and why people are going to get mad at you for rating them the way you do

LMAO!!!!!!! I sent a pm out Friday night to 1/2 my friends list and I see the no votes came rolling in.

All this crap sugg will accomplish is making most of us less distinguishable from those with really deservedly low crap ratings.

No thanks.

jefjef wrote:LMAO!!!!!!! I sent a pm out Friday night to 1/2 my friends list and I see the no votes came rolling in.

All this crap sugg will accomplish is making most of us less distinguishable from those with really deservedly low crap ratings.

No thanks.

Not at all, you would still be at least 0.2 above the people who got crap ratings and every bit as distinguished as you are right now.

MeDeFe wrote:

jefjef wrote:LMAO!!!!!!! I sent a pm out Friday night to 1/2 my friends list and I see the no votes came rolling in.

All this crap sugg will accomplish is making most of us less distinguishable from those with really deservedly low crap ratings.

No thanks.

Not at all, you would still be at least 0.2 above the people who got crap ratings and every bit as distinguished as you are right now.

a .2 and 2.0 difference is actually very large difference

You know what? Fine. Screw it. I'm rescinding all the ratings I've given, and I'm not rating anyone any more. This whole system is a farce. I give up; you status-quo-ers win. Frankly, your mass illogic has beaten me into not caring any more.

temporos wrote:You know what? Fine. Screw it. I'm rescinding all the ratings I've given, and I'm not rating anyone any more. This whole system is a farce. I give up; you status-quo-ers win. Frankly, your mass illogic has beaten me into not caring any more.

Wow, you really are taking this Online gaming site to heart.

I just don't see a real real god reason. A lot of players on here don't care about ratings. Lots of people just dish out ratings to get the rating medal. You can rate people how you want, unless you are abusing it. Some people like to rate people just for the heck of it, and if the person wasn't a nuisance, they just give out the 5. The fact now that it will be if they don't rate, it's a 0, I REALLY don't see it changing these kind of peoples minds on how to rate. They really aren't inclined to. They'd basically have to ask in game Chat asking people to please rate them, just so they don't get an "average" rating.

That's all I see what will happen, and the ratings curve will just drop from 4.5-4.9, to lower, all based on what kind of players they play.

TheForgivenOne wrote:

temporos wrote:You know what? Fine. Screw it. I'm rescinding all the ratings I've given, and I'm not rating anyone any more. This whole system is a farce. I give up; you status-quo-ers win. Frankly, your mass illogic has beaten me into not caring any more.

Wow, you really are taking this Online gaming site to heart.

I just don't see a real real god reason. A lot of players on here don't care about ratings. Lots of people just dish out ratings to get the rating medal. You can rate people how you want, unless you are abusing it. Some people like to rate people just for the heck of it, and if the person wasn't a nuisance, they just give out the 5. The fact now that it will be if they don't rate, it's a 0, I REALLY don't see it changing these kind of peoples minds on how to rate. They really aren't inclined to. They'd basically have to ask in game Chat asking people to please rate them, just so they don't get an "average" rating.

That's all I see what will happen, and the ratings curve will just drop from 4.5-4.9, to lower, all based on what kind of players they play.

So what's your point? Your arguments would suggest that there is no point in having a rating system at all.

first of all temporos honestly you only have 34 games played i think you need to learn the site a little better before you can make any judgements on other people and how they view ratings
and waseemallm what we've been trying to argue is the rating system we have now might have its downsides but it does have a purpose and does get 1 point across and that is who the awful people are you dont want to play with and who the ok people are and what this new suggestion will do is prevent you from telling whos really bad or really good because the ratings will be all closer to 0

ccatman wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

jefjef wrote:LMAO!!!!!!! I sent a pm out Friday night to 1/2 my friends list and I see the no votes came rolling in.

All this crap sugg will accomplish is making most of us less distinguishable from those with really deservedly low crap ratings.

No thanks.

Not at all, you would still be at least 0.2 above the people who got crap ratings and every bit as distinguished as you are right now.

a .2 and 2.0 difference is actually very large difference

It's 0.2 now, it would still be 0.2 (or more) under the proposed system.

MeDeFe wrote:

ccatman wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

jefjef wrote:LMAO!!!!!!! I sent a pm out Friday night to 1/2 my friends list and I see the no votes came rolling in.

All this crap sugg will accomplish is making most of us less distinguishable from those with really deservedly low crap ratings.

No thanks.

Not at all, you would still be at least 0.2 above the people who got crap ratings and every bit as distinguished as you are right now.

a .2 and 2.0 difference is actually very large difference

It's 0.2 now, it would still be 0.2 (or more) under the proposed system.

maybe i missunderstood what you were saying
but the people who have crap ratings now i look at are people anywhere from 2.5-4.4

ccatman wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

ccatman wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

jefjef wrote:LMAO!!!!!!! I sent a pm out Friday night to 1/2 my friends list and I see the no votes came rolling in.

All this crap sugg will accomplish is making most of us less distinguishable from those with really deservedly low crap ratings.

No thanks.

Not at all, you would still be at least 0.2 above the people who got crap ratings and every bit as distinguished as you are right now.

a .2 and 2.0 difference is actually very large difference

It's 0.2 now, it would still be 0.2 (or more) under the proposed system.

maybe i missunderstood what you were saying
but the people who have crap ratings now i look at are people anywhere from 2.5-4.4

And under the proposed system you would be looking at people anywhere from 1-2.9 (Or -2 to 0, but I don't much like that version myself).

I have not read this thread because I find all 15 pages a little overwealing to go through for the sake of what I want to say, so here it goes. if I have repeated something then jsut shoot me down!

The current rating system works fine for me but I think it could be improved upon rather than changed. My suggestion incorporates (sort of) the current rating system with aspects of temporos original suggestion in this thread.

If we maintain the current system (1-5 with 3 stars being the default average if you choose to leave feedback) and change how it is visually represented we may be able to change how people perceive it to work. rather than having 5 orange stars (as current) we have rating 1-2 (poor) as red, 3 (average) as orange and 4-5 (excellent) as green. With the visual cue of different colours then people may get behind the idea of making average ratings (3's) as standard rather than always giving excellent (5's) as ratings.

Does that make sense? When I get home I will throw something up in photoshop to try and better represent what I am saying. If people think I am talking nonsense let me know and I will shut up. (maybe )

gimil wrote:If we maintain the current system (1-5 with 3 stars being the default average if you choose to leave feedback) and change how it is visually represented we may be able to change how people perceive it to work. rather than having 5 orange stars (as current) we have rating 1-2 (poor) as red, 3 (average) as orange and 4-5 (excellent) as green. With the visual cue of different colours then people may get behind the idea of making average ratings (3's) as standard rather than always giving excellent (5's) as ratings.

Does that make sense? When I get home I will throw something up in photoshop to try and better represent what I am saying. If people think I am talking nonsense let me know and I will shut up. (maybe )

I believe this would be antithetical to the goal. temporos points out (and I agree) that the reason people don't give low ratings is because they're stuck in the "everyone's a winner" mentality. If you change the lower stars to red, which most people would agree indicates something worse, then you make it even less likely to get low ratings because people don't want to do something like that, which would stick out even more blatantly.

TheForgivenOne wrote:Wow, you really are taking this Online gaming site to heart.

I do nothing half-assed. That includes on-line gaming sites and forums. I expect nothing less than pure logic from myself and everyone else. If one doesn't take Conquer Club "to heart," then perhaps he should find something that is more worthy of his time and attention.

temporos wrote:

TheForgivenOne wrote:Wow, you really are taking this Online gaming site to heart.

I do nothing half-assed. That includes on-line gaming sites and forums. I expect nothing less than pure logic from myself and everyone else. If one doesn't take Conquer Club "to heart," then perhaps he should find something that is more worthy of his time and attention.

I can't explain how shweet of a statement this is, so I will sig it.

Metsfanmax wrote:

gimil wrote:If we maintain the current system (1-5 with 3 stars being the default average if you choose to leave feedback) and change how it is visually represented we may be able to change how people perceive it to work. rather than having 5 orange stars (as current) we have rating 1-2 (poor) as red, 3 (average) as orange and 4-5 (excellent) as green. With the visual cue of different colours then people may get behind the idea of making average ratings (3's) as standard rather than always giving excellent (5's) as ratings.

Does that make sense? When I get home I will throw something up in photoshop to try and better represent what I am saying. If people think I am talking nonsense let me know and I will shut up. (maybe )

I believe this would be antithetical to the goal. temporos points out (and I agree) that the reason people don't give low ratings is because they're stuck in the "everyone's a winner" mentality. If you change the lower stars to red, which most people would agree indicates something worse, then you make it even less likely to get low ratings because people don't want to do something like that, which would stick out even more blatantly.

actually thats false i think
all you guys are running on now is hope thats all that you have and as temporos said "i expect nothing less than pure logic" hope is not logic
and to add to this i've already told you i will not change the way i rate judgeing by the poll other people are NOT going to change the way they rate and even if some people do change the way they rate we cant have half the people voting differently then the other half on the site because that just messes up the rating system even more
we already have a system that is accurate to the point where it has a purpose and it does get the point across of whos who. the mods dont need to waste there time here they need to fix or add other things to the game that people want to see in the game that MIGHT ACTUALLY WORK

ccatman wrote:actually thats false i think
all you guys are running on now is hope thats all that you have and as temporos said "i expect nothing less than pure logic" hope is not logic
and to add to this i've already told you i will not change the way i rate judgeing by the poll other people are NOT going to change the way they rate and even if some people do change the way they rate we cant have half the people voting differently then the other half on the site because that just messes up the rating system even more
we already have a system that is accurate to the point where it has a purpose and it does get the point across of whos who. the mods dont need to waste there time here they need to fix or add other things to the game that people want to see in the game that MIGHT ACTUALLY WORK

point taken ccatman, I personally feel that my idea is the way the rating system should work and (i think) this was the way it was intended to work. However like you said it is not a priority, but rather something I would like to see done due to my own biased opinion on the rating system.

jefjef wrote:LMAO!!!!!!! I sent a pm out Friday night to 1/2 my friends list and I see the no votes came rolling in.

All this crap sugg will accomplish is making most of us less distinguishable from those with really deservedly low crap ratings.

No thanks.

Bingo.

Just out of curiosity, jefjef and company, do you think that's something we're ignoring when we support this suggestion?

Metsfanmax wrote:Just out of curiosity, jefjef and company, do you think that's something we're ignoring when we support this suggestion?

Yes, I think you're ignoring it or think that's of benefit. I disagree that making really bad ratings look indistinguishable from really good ratings constitutes "a good thing."

If the premise is, "no one is using the ratings system the way we interpret that it should be used," this change doesn't change what's wrong with that system.

You're suggesting that "no rating" be made equivalent to "average rating" and you're suggesting that the rating numbers be moved closer together. This assumes that the reasons people are not using the rating system the way you think it should be used is because whenever they're not rating, they're not rating "an average player."

Perhaps the premise is, if every game got fed into the rating system, that would force people to actually punch the thing to put in the stars they think are appropriate.

1) I don't care to be forced, thank you
2) You still cannot force people to use the rating system the way you interpret is appropriate, even if this change goes through to "force" people to use the system at all
3) You're simply changing the way things are skewed, not changing the fact that things are generally skewed
4) I don't see the purpose of making a change that won't fix things; that's "change for change's sake" rather than change based on rational thinking.
5) At least with the current system, a player can see whether another player is really popular or really unpopular, which means it's not all that broken after all.

stahrgazer wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:Just out of curiosity, jefjef and company, do you think that's something we're ignoring when we support this suggestion?

Yes, I think you're ignoring it or think that's of benefit. I disagree that making really bad ratings look indistinguishable from really good ratings constitutes "a good thing."

No, I just disagree with the premise in the first place. It's true that there probably won't be anyone ranked -1.8 in the new system. Still, even if the bad players are ranked -0.6, which is likely, you'll still be able to tell them apart. It is not the case that everyone will be ranked within -0.3 to 0.3. It's just true that the people that aren't exceptionally bad (or good) will probably be near there.

If the premise is, "no one is using the ratings system the way we interpret that it should be used," this change doesn't change what's wrong with that system.

No, but it's pretty hard to fix that issue. This is the next best solution.

You're suggesting that "no rating" be made equivalent to "average rating" and you're suggesting that the rating numbers be moved closer together. This assumes that the reasons people are not using the rating system the way you think it should be used is because whenever they're not rating, they're not rating "an average player."

Incorrect inference. I addressed this a couple of pages ago.

Perhaps the premise is, if every game got fed into the rating system, that would force people to actually punch the thing to put in the stars they think are appropriate.

1) I don't care to be forced, thank you

You're not forced to do anything. You can continue to rate the same way you want to after the change, if you so desire. I only hope that people will be motivated to rate differently because of this. I have no illusions that anyone will feel forced.

2) You still cannot force people to use the rating system the way you interpret is appropriate, even if this change goes through to "force" people to use the system at all

Not trying to. Only hoping that people will use all of the rating scale, if possible.

3) You're simply changing the way things are skewed, not changing the fact that things are generally skewed

Irrelevant. Not a reason to not do this.

good job again you have managed to respond to another users post without giving any facts why this is a good idea