Moderator: Community Team
lord voldemort wrote:so then the 500 games of douche baggery doesnt count at all...
its like a drivers license...
in australia you get 12 demerit points before you lose it.
What your saying is that i being 21 could lose 10 of them...being the hoon driver that i am...I suddenly have a change of heart and now i should get those back?
danes wrote:What if you played thousands of games, never missed a turn then got sick and went to the hospital for a week or something and timed out 100 games? would you deserve for your rating to go from 4.9 or whatever to 1?
With only a few ratings being kept, each rating effects your average much more. If you have 20 pages of ratings, someone giving you all 1's for no reason wont even effect your average. With 100 ratings, a few people giving you 1's could destroy your overall rating. It would be like being a new player again, when every rating effected your score.
I'm content with being 4.8-4.9, it doesn't bother me that not everyone likes me, i don't like everyone either
Jatekos wrote:I don't think that ratings should expire or be deleted after any number of games.
The more ratings received the more accurately they represent the attributes of the given player, because of the larger sample. It is true that improving low ratings can be more difficult if they are kept in the system and will not expire. Still, I think maintaining a historical record provides additional information, and should not be deleted.
pmchugh wrote:Jatekos wrote:I don't think that ratings should expire or be deleted after any number of games.
The more ratings received the more accurately they represent the attributes of the given player, because of the larger sample. It is true that improving low ratings can be more difficult if they are kept in the system and will not expire. Still, I think maintaining a historical record provides additional information, and should not be deleted.
Queen_Herpes wrote:pmchugh wrote:Jatekos wrote:I don't think that ratings should expire or be deleted after any number of games.
The more ratings received the more accurately they represent the attributes of the given player, because of the larger sample. It is true that improving low ratings can be more difficult if they are kept in the system and will not expire. Still, I think maintaining a historical record provides additional information, and should not be deleted.
Both of you are discounting the effect that negative ratings (mproperly received) have a huge weight upon freemiums and players who do not play a lot of games.
Jatekos wrote:Queen_Herpes wrote:pmchugh wrote:Jatekos wrote:I don't think that ratings should expire or be deleted after any number of games.
The more ratings received the more accurately they represent the attributes of the given player, because of the larger sample. It is true that improving low ratings can be more difficult if they are kept in the system and will not expire. Still, I think maintaining a historical record provides additional information, and should not be deleted.
Both of you are discounting the effect that negative ratings (mproperly received) have a huge weight upon freemiums and players who do not play a lot of games.
I myself am a freemium playing 4 games at a time. I also receive ratings that I find improper, but I don't think that they mean such a huge burden.
Everyone has the opportunity to respond to improper ratings. Also, there are hundreds of games to choose from when you start / join a game, so it is very unlikely that someone will not be able to play because of his / her ratings.
Queen_Herpes wrote:Unfortunately, you're way off. There are more improper ratings than you would expect and it hits players where they live. When I'm searching for games, I tend to avoid those against players with really low ratings. Other players do the same thing. These days, "really low" means anything below 4.5 So, there is a huge impact. Some of hte clans out there only accept players if their rating average is above a certain average. So, yes, impact there as well.
Jatekos wrote:Queen_Herpes wrote:Unfortunately, you're way off. There are more improper ratings than you would expect and it hits players where they live. When I'm searching for games, I tend to avoid those against players with really low ratings. Other players do the same thing. These days, "really low" means anything below 4.5 So, there is a huge impact. Some of hte clans out there only accept players if their rating average is above a certain average. So, yes, impact there as well.
As I said earlier, the more ratings the better. In a larger sample even the most improper ratings will even out. It is much more possible that a couple of extreme cases will decrease the average of a smaller sample, simply because each rating weights more.
As for clans and individuals avoiding players with low ratings, I think they deserve the right to do that, and they probably do that for a reason. There are other clans / games to join. We could argue about what a 'really low' rating is, but that would be off topic.
TheForgivenOne wrote:Hmm. here's my two cents.
Okay, for the player that "players 1 game a month" Well, with the 3 months+ then removed sugg, they would only have about 3 ratings... And for the 100 ratings then they start disappearing, Well, they would have to be here for about 2 years before ratings start disappearing.
Now, lets go away from that. No matter how many you set it to, people are still going to rate you poorly. Say you have a 4.7 rating, and a 1 star rating goes *poof*. And gets replaced with a 5 Star. Well, sooner or later, you are going to hit a streak of poor ratings. I've done it, and I've seen it happen to me. All this suggestion, is going to make you rating fluctuate. It could go from that 4.7, up to a 4.9 . Then easily drop right down to a 4.4 .
Queen_Herpes wrote:TheForgivenOne wrote:Hmm. here's my two cents.
Okay, for the player that "players 1 game a month" Well, with the 3 months+ then removed sugg, they would only have about 3 ratings... And for the 100 ratings then they start disappearing, Well, they would have to be here for about 2 years before ratings start disappearing.
Now, lets go away from that. No matter how many you set it to, people are still going to rate you poorly. Say you have a 4.7 rating, and a 1 star rating goes *poof*. And gets replaced with a 5 Star. Well, sooner or later, you are going to hit a streak of poor ratings. I've done it, and I've seen it happen to me. All this suggestion, is going to make you rating fluctuate. It could go from that 4.7, up to a 4.9 . Then easily drop right down to a 4.4 .
But, ultimately, the false positives and false negatives will drop off. The streaks drop off. The streaks you leave for others drop off. I think it is a grand reference to look at a players last 100 ratings received to get a good picture of who they are as a player. I think the fill zone should be set at 100. It tells ohter players what kind of player you've been for the last 100 games.
TheForgivenOne wrote:Queen_Herpes wrote:TheForgivenOne wrote:Hmm. here's my two cents.
Okay, for the player that "players 1 game a month" Well, with the 3 months+ then removed sugg, they would only have about 3 ratings... And for the 100 ratings then they start disappearing, Well, they would have to be here for about 2 years before ratings start disappearing.
Now, lets go away from that. No matter how many you set it to, people are still going to rate you poorly. Say you have a 4.7 rating, and a 1 star rating goes *poof*. And gets replaced with a 5 Star. Well, sooner or later, you are going to hit a streak of poor ratings. I've done it, and I've seen it happen to me. All this suggestion, is going to make you rating fluctuate. It could go from that 4.7, up to a 4.9 . Then easily drop right down to a 4.4 .
But, ultimately, the false positives and false negatives will drop off. The streaks drop off. The streaks you leave for others drop off. I think it is a grand reference to look at a players last 100 ratings received to get a good picture of who they are as a player. I think the fill zone should be set at 100. It tells ohter players what kind of player you've been for the last 100 games.
The streaks may drop off, but they will be replaced by new ones. You may even run into a horrible run, and have your rating drop way below 4.0. This would hurt clans also, who use the Rating. "If you don't have a 4.7, you aren't allowed in." Well, what happens if when you truly are a person who deserves a 4.4, but instead of hitting a nice streak of ratings, you end up getting into the clan, instead of someone who actually deserved it.
Robinette wrote:Kaskavel wrote:Seriously. Who is the female conqueror of CC?
Depends on what metric you use...
The coolest is squishyg
pmchugh wrote:Jatekos wrote:I don't think that ratings should expire or be deleted after any number of games.
The more ratings received the more accurately they represent the attributes of the given player, because of the larger sample. It is true that improving low ratings can be more difficult if they are kept in the system and will not expire. Still, I think maintaining a historical record provides additional information, and should not be deleted.
Bruceswar wrote:pmchugh wrote:Jatekos wrote:I don't think that ratings should expire or be deleted after any number of games.
The more ratings received the more accurately they represent the attributes of the given player, because of the larger sample. It is true that improving low ratings can be more difficult if they are kept in the system and will not expire. Still, I think maintaining a historical record provides additional information, and should not be deleted.
edwinissweet wrote:i like the one where after a set number or raitings the old ones to be "washed out" its kind of like your second chance. Its a good way to show that you've reformed
JoshyBoy wrote:I echo the sentiments of these guys. I miss feedback. I would like to see it back. CC could appoint a whole team just to take care of the "issues" which would arise from feedback being left.
However, we must stay on topic.
Return to Archived Suggestions
Users browsing this forum: No registered users