[Site] Normalize Player Ratings (Average = 0)

[dazerazer]

Okay so here's my opinion. (Not sure if this was already mentioned as I did not spend a lot of time reading 15 pages of replys.)

If you all want a better response from ratings, try changing the format of how we can rate players. As it stands, we have to go to our "recently finished games" page and click on each individual player for the games leave a rating where it then takes us back to that page and we have to rinse and repeat.

For me personally, if we had a ratings page that had a list of players we could leave ratings for with empty stars under each of their names and a tiny map and hyperlink of the game we played with them next to their name (in case we needed to remember which game it was) it would be soooo much easier to leave ratings as it would not take nearly as long. We could then just hit "Save Ratings" at the bottom of the page and BOOM... easy cheesy!

For example the ratings page could be something like this:

"You can leave ratings for 5 people:

1. Master Fenrir (insert game number / map )
Fair Play xxxxx ; Gameplay xxxxx ; Attitude xxxxx
Show/Hide explanatory tags (set to hide by default unless you want to leave a tag then click show and check said boxes)

2. John Deere (insert game number / map )
Fair Play xxxxx ; Gameplay xxxxx ; Attitude xxxxx
Show/Hide explanatory tags

3. BKWill (insert game number / map )
Fair Play xxxxx ; Gameplay xxxxx ; Attitude xxxxx
Show/Hide explanatory tags

4. ccatman (insert game number / map )
Fair Play xxxxx ; Gameplay xxxxx ; Attitude xxxxx
Show/Hide explanatory tags

5. tdans (insert game number / map )
Fair Play xxxxx ; Gameplay xxxxx ; Attitude xxxxx
Show/Hide explanatory tags

SAVE RATINGS or UPDATE RATINGS"

So that is my thoughts on it. If you want to implement a new rating system all together I would start first with something like this. Make it less cumbersome to leave ratings and then reevaluation of a new ratings system might be more welcome by all.

[MNDuke]

Okay so here's my opinion. (Not sure if this was already mentioned as I did not spend a lot of time reading 15 pages of replys.)

If you all want a better response from ratings, try changing the format of how we can rate players. As it stands, we have to go to our "recently finished games" page and click on each individual player for the games leave a rating where it then takes us back to that page and we have to rinse and repeat.

For me personally, if we had a ratings page that had a list of players we could leave ratings for with empty stars under each of their names and a tiny map and hyperlink of the game we played with them next to their name (in case we needed to remember which game it was) it would be soooo much easier to leave ratings as it would not take nearly as long. We could then just hit "Save Ratings" at the bottom of the page and BOOM... easy cheesy!

For example the ratings page could be something like this:

"You can leave ratings for 5 people:

1. Master Fenrir (insert game number / map )
Fair Play xxxxx ; Gameplay xxxxx ; Attitude xxxxx
Show/Hide explanatory tags (set to hide by default unless you want to leave a tag then click show and check said boxes)

2. John Deere (insert game number / map )
Fair Play xxxxx ; Gameplay xxxxx ; Attitude xxxxx
Show/Hide explanatory tags

3. BKWill (insert game number / map )
Fair Play xxxxx ; Gameplay xxxxx ; Attitude xxxxx
Show/Hide explanatory tags

4. ccatman (insert game number / map )
Fair Play xxxxx ; Gameplay xxxxx ; Attitude xxxxx
Show/Hide explanatory tags

5. tdans (insert game number / map )
Fair Play xxxxx ; Gameplay xxxxx ; Attitude xxxxx
Show/Hide explanatory tags

SAVE RATINGS or UPDATE RATINGS"

So that is my thoughts on it. If you want to implement a new rating system all together I would start first with something like this. Make it less cumbersome to leave ratings and then reevaluation of a new ratings system might be more welcome by all.

So kind of like Ebay and how you can leave feedback. I like it. Although I kind of think the ratings system should just be done away with all together. It seems almost pointless. Or revise it from 5 stars to 3. Bad, Ok and Good. However it's done I like the idea of being able to rate everyone on one page.

[PLAYER57832]

LOL, these ideas were tried and eliminated or rejected already because of the time involved monitoring, or encourage abuse, etc.

[PLAYER57832]

Concise description:

• Migrate from a "1 to 5" star system to a "-2 to +2" star system.

Specifics/Details:

• Right now: 1 is bad, 5 is awesome.
• Migrate to: -2 is bad, +2 is awesome.
• Migration should be retroactive.
• Lack of a rating should be counted as a 0 or "average" rating.

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

• Right now, the average player rating is about 4.8 stars: well above the 3 star "average."
• If the scale is adjusted such that "average" is 0, anything below average is negative, and anything above average is positive, the average player rating will naturally stabilize around 0.
• If a player does not wish to leave a rating for his opponents after a match, it counts as a 0 or "average" rating.
• This proposed system will encourage a more intuitive and reliable measure of a player's attitude, gameplay, and sociability.
• Players would be compelled to leave a rating only if they wish to leave an above or below average rating for another player.
• Players aren't left jaded when someone leaves them a less-than-5-star rating (i.e., everybody wins).

This won't accomplish anything, really.

Attitudes will just adjust to the new numbers. Those who don't like it, still won't. Those who do, still will.

There are problems, but this won't fix anything.

[macbone]

My job is pretty interesting. We have ratings on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being completely unacceptable, 5 being excellent, but truthfully, if we're rated at 3, we're below our threshold, which is really somewhere around 4.1.

On CC, a rating of 4.1 isn't great, and I think most of us know that, whether we recognize it or not. I'm curious what the actual ranges are. What, maybe 4.9+ is superior, 4.7-4.8 is outstanding, 4.5-4.6 is above average? I'm not really sure, but the rating system does work. If I see that someone has a rating of 4.0, I have a good idea about what kind of player he or she is.

[bob72]

I voted no I like the idea but would pefer any development time to be spent elsewhere.

[Darwins_Bane]

I feel like this has a reached the conclusion of its discussion, moving to submitted.

[vrex]

hmm all very interesting...

the main issue here, purely in my opinion, is human response.

right now we humans respond to the current system in the way that we do {whichever way that is, per individual person}

as faulty as this response becomes/is with some giving 5's in order to avoid 'abuse reports' or whatever how can we fail to look at the current (and established) result?

established result- the average can be determined as 4.5 {or whatever it was}
therefore, we humans can assume 4.7+ is a good player and 4.3 and below is not a good player {these numbers can change via the eyes of any individual}
therefore, we humans can determine which players are good/bad

As far as i know, this is the only purpose of the rating system: to determine who is bad/good.
{congrats, its been achieved}

not going to get into the long discussions i saw... but please state if you see in error in my logic here

[Dukasaur]

I feel like this has a reached the conclusion of its discussion, moving to submitted.

Time to implement!

[zimmah]

Then, at this point, I guess my question changes to, "Why bother with a rating system at all?" Regardless of your intention, your response is a strong argument for never rating anyone and ignoring those ratings which are given.

I rate every now and then, so i'm not saying it's pointless. If i do see someone with a 4.0 rating, then obviously they aren't fun to play with. But if you start punishing players, all because someone decides not to rate, then there will be more outcries from everyone.

that's the whole point. 4.0 is above average, so this rating system is flawed. I have been saying it since the start.

[Victor Sullivan]

-Sully

[Neoteny]

I was just about to do this.

[SirSebstar]

There are problems, but this won't fix anything.

THIS!

My job is pretty interesting. We have ratings on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being completely unacceptable, 5 being excellent, but truthfully, if we're rated at 3, we're below our threshold, which is really somewhere around 4.1.

and this sum up why it is a bad idea.
I spend hours in a game. If you would rate me average, it means any joe wandering in from the street would be able to fill my shoes. if i spend hours with you, you'd better be way above average otherwise i have better things to do with my time, like sorting shoelaces on lenght.......

[MoB Deadly]

Bump this after new owners. Please implement this, and/or delete ratings entirely. Tired of people crying about their rating in C&A wasting everyones time

[Vid_FISO]

Just read about a third of this thread, there were a lot of people going around in circular arguments a couple of years ago.

What I didn't see in any of the posts that I read is one major reason why this whole system sucks, including the suggested revamp - it takes 3 very different aspects and averages them into one "score".

1. Fairplay - most should always score the max for this, those that don't will probably also be reported in the C&A forum.

2. Gameplay - should generally be average, but drop and dice play such a major part in anyone's ability to play "well". Another side to this is if someone plays a "great" strategy, are all opponents going to be aware enough to notice? Potentially getting marked down for being "lucky"? The most subjective rating of the 3 which is skewed by the ability (or lack thereof) of the ranker.

3. Attitude - not sure whether most would look at gl/ hf at the start and gg/ wp at the end as average or max. The more games someone is playing then the less likely they'll get involved in drawn out chat and how many chatting for chatting's sake will get marked down for being annoying?