Conquer Club

Concise description:

• Remove the ability to leave ratings from opponents in Battle Royale games

Specifics/Details:

Suppose you walk into a club for an evening. You take in the sights, the sounds, the energy, all that junk. Say some guy bumps into and is unapologetic. Suppose there's a hot girl out on the dance floor. You could accurately give your opinion on the music and the atmosphere and such, but can you leave and tell your friends "It's full of jerks" or "All the chicks there are hot" and have that really be a true statement?

That's kind of my thought process with ratings for players in Battle Royales. I'm allowed to leave ratings for people who were halfway across the map, or got eliminated before I even got to take my first turn. To leave that person a rating of five stars is dishonest. It's not to say he was a bad player, but you really can't say for sure. But I have everything to gain from doing that because then I gain a point towards a medal. That, to me, seems open to abuse.

And I know there are limits on the frequency of Battle Royale games, but being eliminated in one from the 6th anniversary and having one finished from the update, I can leave ratings for 107 players. That would be more than half of what I currently need to get to the Silver rank.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• Reduce the risk of abusing the ratings system
• Improve the value of the Ratings medal

Eh.

I would say no. Because you play with the people. While, the ratings medal is completely absurd, tbh, I love medals.

I'll admit this is a minor point. I just think if you're going to get a medal, you should earn it.

No gtfo. I rated everyone on my BR game which will get me closer to gold.

Not my area of expertise, but I would think that rating everyone in a BR would be ratings abuse. How could you possibly have an opinion on every player? I wouldn't be surprised if there's some sort of complaint about this eventually, and I would think it falls against the rules. Rating the winner and a couple other players you noticed playing well or poorly makes sense but rating everyone?

All you [models]can eat [organic ]when it comes to ratings.

Rate to get medals, but don't rate too low or you'll get warned for abuse (like I was because people who spam gg in games are [unsavory gentlemen] who deserve 1 star ratings) and don't rate everyone too high or you'll get banned.

Go join the thought police you [beautiful friendship pony].

agentcom wrote:Not my area of expertise, but I would think that rating everyone in a BR would be ratings abuse. How could you possibly have an opinion on every player? I wouldn't be surprised if there's some sort of complaint about this eventually, and I would think it falls against the rules. Rating the winner and a couple other players you noticed playing well or poorly makes sense but rating everyone?

This is my line of thinking. You can't adequately measure the skill of all 50+ other participants, why should you be allowed to do so at all?

Dibbun wrote:No gtfo. I rated everyone on my BR game which will get me closer to gold.

Case in point.

Dibbun wrote:All you [models]can eat [organic ]when it comes to ratings.

Rate to get medals, but don't rate too low or you'll get warned for abuse (like I was because people who spam gg in games are [unsavory gentlemen] who deserve 1 star ratings) and don't rate everyone too high or you'll get banned.

Go join the thought police you [beautiful friendship pony].

Charming.

Submitted

1 person besides the OP supported this and it was implemented.

WTF

greenoaks wrote:1 person besides the OP supported this and it was implemented.

WTF

Suggestions team leader and both admins supported it. Do you think that we should not be allowed to make site changes unless they get enough posts in Suggestions?

This was sitting in submitted for like six months, if anyone had a problem with it they should have commented.

Metsfanmax wrote:

greenoaks wrote:1 person besides the OP supported this and it was implemented.

WTF

Suggestions team leader and both admins supported it. Do you think that we should not be allowed to make site changes unless they get enough posts in Suggestions?

This was sitting in submitted for like six months, if anyone had a problem with it they should have commented.

it wasn't discussed because it quickly died.

Yeah, I think this is a good idea. BR ratings are just asking for what will be never-reported ratings abuse. Never reported because people will give out the 5-star ratings across the board to everyone and his mother.

agentcom wrote:Yeah, I think this is a good idea. BR ratings are just asking for what will be never-reported ratings abuse. Never reported because people will give out the 5-star ratings across the board to everyone and his mother.

we have that on just about every game where ratings are given.

apply your reasoning to all games, or none.

greenoaks wrote:

agentcom wrote:Yeah, I think this is a good idea. BR ratings are just asking for what will be never-reported ratings abuse. Never reported because people will give out the 5-star ratings across the board to everyone and his mother.

we have that on just about every game where ratings are given.

apply your reasoning to all games, or none.

I don't have any problem applying my reasoning to just BRs. It's not that the ratings system can't be abused outside of BRs. It's that it can't be abused as easily outside BRs. Then I consider that there's really not much value added in BR rankings for a couple reasons, primarily that you might only have grounds for ranking a couple players in the whole game. So, to me it's not worth it to have ratings on BRs.

agentcom wrote:

greenoaks wrote:

agentcom wrote:Yeah, I think this is a good idea. BR ratings are just asking for what will be never-reported ratings abuse. Never reported because people will give out the 5-star ratings across the board to everyone and his mother.

we have that on just about every game where ratings are given.

apply your reasoning to all games, or none.

I don't have any problem applying my reasoning to just BRs. It's not that the ratings system can't be abused outside of BRs. It's that it can't be abused as easily outside BRs. Then I consider that there's really not much value added in BR rankings for a couple reasons, primarily that you might only have grounds for ranking a couple players in the whole game. So, to me it's not worth it to have ratings on BRs.

is there a much greater allocation of 5 stars from BR's than other game types? i haven't seen any stats on this, are there links you could provide?

Good move.

There's no way anyone can rate everyone fairly in a BR game. I don't think I've ever bothered due to the fact that you can maybe only judge the gameplay of the last few people on the board, assuming that you are one of them.

greenoaks wrote:

agentcom wrote:

greenoaks wrote:

agentcom wrote:Yeah, I think this is a good idea. BR ratings are just asking for what will be never-reported ratings abuse. Never reported because people will give out the 5-star ratings across the board to everyone and his mother.

we have that on just about every game where ratings are given.

apply your reasoning to all games, or none.

I don't have any problem applying my reasoning to just BRs. It's not that the ratings system can't be abused outside of BRs. It's that it can't be abused as easily outside BRs. Then I consider that there's really not much value added in BR rankings for a couple reasons, primarily that you might only have grounds for ranking a couple players in the whole game. So, to me it's not worth it to have ratings on BRs.

is there a much greater allocation of 5 stars from BR's than other game types? i haven't seen any stats on this, are there links you could provide?

Unfortunately, I can't back this up with stats. But I have seen it done. I don't think that you are going to ever be satisfied with my argument because you are looking for the actual abuse prior to the restrictive rule. I admit this is how I would usually look at things. However, in this case, my case is not based off of assumptions and balancing.

I assume (confidently) that a player cannot make enough of a determination of the play in a 50-player game to justify rating all of them. I assume (with some support from what I've seen) that players nonetheless rate all the players in the game. I assume (again confidently) that no one is either going to report or seek out ratings abuse of 5-star ratings in BRs. I then balance this potential for ratings abuse against the cost of not letting people rate a couple of players whom they could rightfully assess the gameplay of.

In the end, my opinion is that the balance weighs in favor of eliminating the ratings in these games.

I am further unpersuaded by any argument that relies on the fact that ratings abuse happens in other games (say 8-player games). In those cases, due to the number of players it is much more likely that a player will have a basis for his ratings and much less likely that they will give out unjustified ratings.

This appears to have been undone as I was just given the option to rate players in a BR that I've been eliminated from.

Bug report filed: viewtopic.php?f=506&t=206339#p4521455