[Site] Normalize Player Ratings (Average = 0)

[ccatman]

first of all i ask why you want this so dependent on people not rating? if you were to get 10% ratings and 5*'s from everyone you clearly are a good player and deserve more than a 3.2

Flat-out false. As you alluded to in your above post, saying "gl" and "gg" is often enough to get you five stars. That in no way indicates that you are a good player.

those 900 people who didnt rate you chose not to rate you because they are lazy and dont care about the rating system not because you were just an ordinary player and with so many people not rating you might get a lot of people around the average rating

Yes, that's the idea. Most of the player base should be close to the average. That's the definition of average.

but you will not get people who are above average at what is now 4.0 and what could be 1.0 later and you will not get anyone near 5.0 and i said before that with this new system noone will get a perfect rating and there are people who deserve them if you think so or not this system will not allow you to go that high.

Even if that's true, so what? There are roughly 80% out of the rating scores possible, that basically no one has now (i.e. any score from 1.0 up to 4.0). The system won't get worse.

and another thing why do you have a problem with 4.7 being the average rating now?what is so bad about that?

I find it incredibly annoying, because the average rating should be in the center of the distribution. That's actually my only real motivation here.

the average is only the mean of everyone it does not mean most of the people are average it just means when you add up all the players and divide it that number you get is the average
this in no way means that the majority of people are average players say if you have 10 numbers between 1-5 you get 1,2,2,3,4,4,4,4,4,5,5 the average there is 3.8 and 3.8 and 3.0 are not the same number clearly

[Metsfanmax]

the average is only the mean of everyone it does not mean most of the people are average it just means when you add up all the players and divide it that number you get is the average
this in no way means that the majority of people are average players say if you have 10 numbers between 1-5 you get 1,2,2,3,4,4,4,4,4,5,5 the average there is 3.8 and 3.8 and 3.0 are not the same number clearly

Obviously you can find an example of a set of numbers where the average isn't what you want it to be. My whole point is that I believe that the average rating ought to be in the center of the rating distribution. That assumption is the basis of pretty much all of statistics, and besides, I just think it's silly to have a 5 point rating scale and have all the ratings stuck between 4.5 and 5.0.

[ccatman]

the average is only the mean of everyone it does not mean most of the people are average it just means when you add up all the players and divide it that number you get is the average
this in no way means that the majority of people are average players say if you have 10 numbers between 1-5 you get 1,2,2,3,4,4,4,4,4,5,5 the average there is 3.8 and 3.8 and 3.0 are not the same number clearly

Obviously you can find an example of a set of numbers where the average isn't what you want it to be. My whole point is that I believe that the average rating ought to be in the center of the rating distribution. That assumption is the basis of pretty much all of statistics, and besides, I just think it's silly to have a 5 point rating scale and have all the ratings stuck between 4.5 and 5.0.

i agree with you in the sense that having it between 4.5-5.0 is silly but like i said most people understand who is what kind of player 4.7-4.8 is a good sized difference so is 4.8-4.9 4.5 is actually considered somewhat low
but this new system honestly is only making it more dependent on who you play against and if they are lazy or not(did i say that before????) and really if you play a lot of speed games your rating will be hurt if you play a lot of private team games against clans or maybe in trourneys you will have a high rating still with this new system
if you are a low rank or someone who joins a lot off games with them most of them probaly wont rate you or care to rate you if your in 8 player games all the time noone is going to look at how each person plays and then rate them so there solution is dont rate at all

[temporos]

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

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

[BigBallinStalin]

No, this is dumb. the ratings are silly anyway. blah blah blah

[stahrgazer]

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"

[ccatman]

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

[temporos]

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.

[ccatman]

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

[jefjef]

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.

[MeDeFe]

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.

[ccatman]

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

[temporos]

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.

[TheForgivenOne]

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.

[waseemalim]

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.