[Site] Normalize Player Ratings (Average = 0)

[MeDeFe]

This is the first time I see a suggestion that would actually work to fix the atrocity that is known as "ratings" while maintaining the basics of it. I fully support the suggestion.

If a player not giving a rating counted as "average" (whether that's 3 stars or 0 points is irrelevant) for the recipient, the ratings that are actively given would finally become meaningful. If a player leaves no lasting impression that would make another person bother to give them a rating, they are best described as "average". It's perfectly fine to automatically assign them an average rating.
That's not "punishing" in the least, TFO, punishing would be to leave them a below average rating.

As it is the ratings system does not work. It not only just doesn't work as advertised, it doesn't do the job at all. It might as well consist of a "I like this player"-button with no way of giving negative feedback. The ratings are currently completely meaningless, it's been mentioned already that if people feel someone is average and give them the appropriate 3 stars they are whined at, they're also quite possibly reported in C&A which is utter bullshit. People who only rate others with 5s are getting away with it, people who only rate 1s are punished. There's a huge disincentive to rate people even remotely accurately. Automatic averages for ratings not given fixes this.

[Metsfanmax]

If a player not giving a rating counted as "average" (whether that's 3 stars or 0 points is irrelevant) for the recipient, the ratings that are actively given would finally become meaningful. If a player leaves no lasting impression that would make another person bother to give them a rating, they are best described as "average". It's perfectly fine to automatically assign them an average rating.
That's not "punishing" in the least, TFO, punishing would be to leave them a below average rating.

The only reasonable objection so far has been that if there are people who don't participate in the rating system, it can unreasonably unbalance the ratings of other players (for instance, if my rating is 1.9 and I play someone who never gives ratings, they are giving me a 0 even though they might give me a +2 if they actually did rate me). Thus I would recommend amending the suggestion to say that the 0 rating is given only if the person in question has actually left a rating before.

[temporos]

The only reasonable objection so far has been that if there are people who don't participate in the rating system, it can unreasonably unbalance the ratings of other players...

Hrm... You make a valid point, but I think it would work itself out in the long-run. Under the propsed system, players would have incentive to leave a rating only if their opponent was good or bad enough to make them want to rate you. If someone's never left a rating before, then it's probably because they have experienced no opponents they feel are worthy of their attention. If you happen to fall into that category of "unworthy of my ratings attention," then so be it. That's precisely what would make the system work properly.

[natty dread]

The thing is, i don't get why we are Punishing people for NOT rating people.

Exactly how is an average rating a punishment?

If someone plays against you and doesn't bother rating you, this would mean that you failed to impress that player enough that he would bother rating you, ergo he has no opinion either way of you, which amounts to the same as "average". This is by no means a punishment, it's simply a statement that the player does not see you as exceptionally good or exceptionally bad.

How is it a punishment in any way? If the system is the same for everyone, just who is getting punished?

People will rate/not rate the same as ever, but the scale will be different, because this proposed system auto-corrects for expected rating behaviour and thus extends the scale so that really good and really bad players are easier to tell apart.

You gave someone a 3 star. What the TS is asking for, is if somebody does NOT rate anyone, their rating goes down. This new system is basically asking you to always rate people, or else it is basically like giving everyone average ratings. Suddenly people will be PMing you asking Why you didn't rate them. This rating system was brought in a long time ago.

People will get used to it. It may take a small while but eventually people will get used to the fact that only exceptional performance receives a rating. The rating system will regain it's meaning.

And why not just change it so that if someone doesn't rate, they just get the 3 stars? Because you are just moving the numbers from 1-5, to -2 - 2. Which i find really pointless

It's not pointless. It has to do with perception. In a 1-5 system, 3 is perceived as bad, because it's only 3 out of 5. But with a +/- system, 0 is more easily perceived as average, since there's a more obvious division to negative and positive ratings.

[Metsfanmax]

The only reasonable objection so far has been that if there are people who don't participate in the rating system, it can unreasonably unbalance the ratings of other players...

Hrm... You make a valid point, but I think it would work itself out in the long-run. Under the propsed system, players would have incentive to leave a rating only if their opponent was good or bad enough to make them want to rate you. If someone's never left a rating before, then it's probably because they have experienced no opponents they feel are worthy of their attention. If you happen to fall into that category of "unworthy of my ratings attention," then so be it. That's precisely what would make the system work properly.

My point is that this weeds out the people who actually never leave a rating at all. Inevitably there will be times that I feel my opponent is worthy of a +2 rating, but I just don't feel like rating him as such. This doesn't mean I feel he's average, and you can't stop those times from happening; of course, with this system people would have a new incentive to rate anyway. However, what you can stop is people who never rate at all from affecting the rating system. If someone has literally never left a rating, then it's unfair to conclude that their lack of a rating implies they feel their opponent was average.

[danfrank]

an average rating is punishment because people are discriminating when running tourneys as well as joining clans.. I have seen as low as a 4.5 exceptable to join... So if all you receive is an average rating you can never join any of these as well as others... Lets face it .. Most everyone is average ...

[Metsfanmax]

an average rating is punishment because people are discriminating when running tourneys as well as joining clans.. I have seen as low as a 4.5 exceptable to join... So if all you receive is an average rating you can never join any of these as well as others... Lets face it .. Most everyone is average ...

That's because empirically in the current system, 4.5 is actually a low rating. The point of this suggestion is to force the average number to change.

[natty dread]

an average rating is punishment because people are discriminating when running tourneys as well as joining clans.. I have seen as low as a 4.5 exceptable to join... So if all you receive is an average rating you can never join any of these as well as others... Lets face it .. Most everyone is average ...

Errrm... you use some seriously flawed logic here.

If the rating system is changed so that it auto-corrects the median towards 0 then people will have no reason to demand high ratings from everyone. Currently people only use rating requirements of 4.5 and higher because the rating system is skewed so that the average is around 4.6.

Again, it is no punishment since it will be the same for everyone. If the majority of people on the site will have ratings close to 0 then why on earth would tournament organizers, clans etc. demand +1.5 ratings? They would run out of members/participants.

[jrh_cardinal]

an average rating is punishment because people are discriminating when running tourneys as well as joining clans.. I have seen as low as a 4.5 exceptable to join... So if all you receive is an average rating you can never join any of these as well as others... Lets face it .. Most everyone is average ...

That's because empirically in the current system, 4.5 is actually a low rating. The point of this suggestion is to force the average number to change.

but why? Everyone who's played even 50 games and cares enough to look at opponents ratings knows that 4.2 is a horrid rating. What's wrong with that?
Here, if everyone is playing random opponents, rating is essentially luck. Whoever gets lucky and plays against raters has a higher rating than those that don't. Yes, this would even out some over the long run, but what about people that play almost exclusively private/tournament games. They play against fewer opponents, thus their rating would go down less.
Or freemies with 1000 games and a 4.7 (average) rating? Their rating would almost never get under 1 in your new system. So in 2012 if you see a guy who has a 1.5 rating you think Holy Crap! That guy is a really awesome player! Or he has been freemie for a while or took a year+ break from CC so his rating hasn't dropped to 'average'.

[Metsfanmax]

an average rating is punishment because people are discriminating when running tourneys as well as joining clans.. I have seen as low as a 4.5 exceptable to join... So if all you receive is an average rating you can never join any of these as well as others... Lets face it .. Most everyone is average ...

That's because empirically in the current system, 4.5 is actually a low rating. The point of this suggestion is to force the average number to change.

but why? Everyone who's played even 50 games and cares enough to look at opponents ratings knows that 4.2 is a horrid rating. What's wrong with that?

One problem is that you're compressing a 5 point system into a 1 point system, essentially. There's no point in having all those other numbers if you're not going to use them. The bigger problem, though, is when you have people who reject the notion that the scale should be 4-5 simply because everyone else does that. If you have someone who regularly gives 1's and 2's because they honestly feel that some of their opponents were bad, then they regularly get accused of being bad raters and abusing the system. Since there's no consistency, there's no way for people to know what the appropriate way to rate is.

Here, if everyone is playing random opponents, rating is essentially luck. Whoever gets lucky and plays against raters has a higher rating than those that don't. Yes, this would even out some over the long run, but what about people that play almost exclusively private/tournament games. They play against fewer opponents, thus their rating would go down less.

Very few people are not actually "raters." For instance, I only give ratings when I feel that there was some non-average circumstance (either the player was rather rude, or I thought the player was pretty good). This is exactly what the system tries to solve: in cases where I don't rate, it's usually because I think my opponent was nothing special. Thus the system takes care of rating that opponent as average, without me having to put in the time to do so for every person I play. The only situation your criticism applies to is if there are people who refuse to rate even when they play people who strike them as being particularly good or bad, and that's what my suggestion above tries to solve (ideally it would actually be: people who have not left a rating in the last month should not leave the average rating by default).

Or freemies with 1000 games and a 4.7 (average) rating? Their rating would almost never get under 1 in your new system. So in 2012 if you see a guy who has a 1.5 rating you think Holy Crap! That guy is a really awesome player! Or he has been freemie for a while or took a year+ break from CC so his rating hasn't dropped to 'average'.

I don't understand what you're getting at. In the new system their rating would be about 0, since that would be the new average. Of course, since there's no direct way to port over the current ratings, I imagine doing this would require a reset of all current ratings.

[temporos]

Of course, since there's no direct way to port over the current ratings...

Actually, I think there might be a way. The records show how many matches a player has participated in and how many players were in each match. It also keep records of how many ratings they've acquired and what those ratings were. It (the server) could simply stick in an "average" rating for all the missing ratings (ratings not left from every player of every game played).

Yeah, this would eat up a lot of processor time for a couple hours (or less), but I think it'd be worth it to see the outcome.

[Metsfanmax]

Of course, since there's no direct way to port over the current ratings...

Actually, I think there might be a way. The records show how many matches a player has participated in and how many players were in each match. It also keep records of how many ratings they've acquired and what those ratings were. It (the server) could simply stick in an "average" rating for all the missing ratings (ratings not left from every player of every game played).

Yeah, this would eat up a lot of processor time for a couple hours (or less), but I think it'd be worth it to see the outcome.

Sorry for the confusion in my statement. I didn't mean that there wasn't a direct way. What I meant was that I don't think it should be done in the way you're suggesting. One of the hopeful outcomes of this suggestion is that this will change the way people view the rating system, and leave ratings. If this is so, then it is not fair to port over the current ratings, because they will mean something different from what the new system implies. In the current system, failing to leave a rating does not imply an average rating, and so it's not fair to assume that players meant that, and then port the ratings over. In the new system, people will be aware of what not leaving a specific rating implies. I think it's best to just start over if you're radically changing the way ratings are done.

[jrh_cardinal]

it is not fair to port over the current ratings

WHERE DID MY GOLD MEDAL GO!!! I ONLY HAVE 72 MEDALS NOW!!! I AM NOT GOING TO RATE 500 MORE A-HOLES ALL PERFECT RATINGS JUST TO GET THE MEDAL BACK THAT I ALREADY EARNED!!!! I HATE THIS SITE GIVE ME MY MONEY BACK NOW

, it will happen



ps- i don't normally post in all caps, sorry for your eyes

[Metsfanmax]

it is not fair to port over the current ratings

WHERE DID MY GOLD MEDAL GO!!! I ONLY HAVE 72 MEDALS NOW!!! I AM NOT GOING TO RATE 500 MORE A-HOLES ALL PERFECT RATINGS JUST TO GET THE MEDAL BACK THAT I ALREADY EARNED!!!! I HATE THIS SITE GIVE ME MY MONEY BACK NOW

, it will happen



ps- i don't normally post in all caps, sorry for your eyes

Okay, so, how about all old medals are grandfathered in, and people don't lose their current rating count, just the actual ratings they gave.

[Jatekos]

Of course, since there's no direct way to port over the current ratings...

Actually, I think there might be a way. The records show how many matches a player has participated in and how many players were in each match. It also keep records of how many ratings they've acquired and what those ratings were. It (the server) could simply stick in an "average" rating for all the missing ratings (ratings not left from every player of every game played).

Yeah, this would eat up a lot of processor time for a couple hours (or less), but I think it'd be worth it to see the outcome.

I totally agree with this suggestion.

I think that without extending this new system to the ratings given already (as quoted above) there could be a way to maintain excellent ratings received previously (i.e. close to 5, or in the +-2 scale: 2), if a player decided to keep playing only with players that already rated him /her. In this way he / she could avoid to receive average ratings from non-raters.