sundance123 wrote:Little Witt wrote:I support! I think the current rating system is all messed up, and is in need of dire changes.
You are right about that. Community doesn't give a toss though.
Macbone wrote:Yeah, I know it doesn't match the information under Instructions - Ratings, but when I see a player with a 3.5, I have a pretty good idea what to expect. The same with a 4.7.
And the tags are useful,too. If I see a bunch of Good Teammate, Good Strategy, Friendly, etc., I want to play with that person. If I see Vindictive, Complainer, Bad Strategy, I'm going to be cautious (but not necessarily rule out playing with that person - maybe (= ). Just looking at your first page of ratings, you're definitely the type of player I'd enjoy playing in a game, and just scanning the games we've played together, I can see I'm right.
macbone wrote:I'd definitely be against a automatic rating of 0 in that system you linked to, metsfan. I play too many games to individually rate players, but if that were implemented, I'd feel the need to rate every single player (no thanks).
-2 to +2 is the same thing that we have now, with the addition of an "average" rating when one doesn't rate a player.
Metsfanmax wrote:The whole purpose of a rating scale is so that the numerical average of the ratings says something meaningful about the player.
Metsfanmax wrote:Making the number of stars equivalent to some "tag" describing the player defeats the purpose of such a scale.
Metsfanmax wrote:That is why I strongly prefer the suggestion I linked; it retains the idea of the number of stars given corresponding to the quality of the player in the game you played
sundance123 wrote:Not what I am suggesting. The opposite, in fact, for example 'average' is a tag with pretensions toward objectivity. A newb cannot accrately apply a label such as average. 'I will never play this guy again' is a subjective rating of the experience of playing against them & anybody can accurately rate their experience.
Well so does my suggestion - and in a better reasoned way. The quality of a player can best be defined as the average subjective experience of playing against them not by comparing each individual's experience to their idiosyncratic ideal player as encourage by the current system.
Perhaps you would discuss the merits of other suggestions in their respective threads - they have no relation to my suggestion.
Metsfanmax wrote:There is no useful information to a person reading the average rating. It says something about the interpersonal relationship between the rater and the rated
Metsfanmax wrote: objectivity . . .what you want in a rating system that averages ratings from different players.
Metsfanmax wrote: If your only defense is . . . .
Metsfanmax wrote:How does one average . . . . blah blah blah
sundance123 wrote: *the exact wording to be worked out later.
Metsfanmax wrote: you are now averaging over some binary property (e.g. "I hated this game" or "I didn't hate this game")
Metsfanmax wrote: you need to explain why yours is better.
GeneralRisk wrote:I think the current system is fine. 4.9 to 5.0 are players that seldom if ever play speed games and act nice in game chat. 4.3 to 4.8 are average players that are capable of both good and bad. 4.2 and lower are players that usually have issues and if you play them, then be prepared for either idiotic play and/or abusive game chat.
Users browsing this forum: Razorvich and 1 guest