Metsfanmax wrote:ccatman wrote: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