[PC] Normalize Player Ratings (Average = 0)

[Metsfanmax]

you know I can't reasonably do that, you prove that they aren't. Random people in public games are usually just here to have fun, play a couple games of r***. Players in clans/usergroups are obviously more active in at least some parts of the site because they participate in those parts of the site (minimally clans/usergroups). They are active in parts of the site other than just playing, therefore they are more likely to participate in a site function that does not involve playing (namely ratings).
and yes, I understand that doesn't totally prove anything, but i'm pretty sure logical people are okay accepting that more active people are more active. it's bs for you to try to stonewall me with crap like that.

No it's not. Your argument was that people who play in clans get rated more. But I'm not in a clan, and I still get rated by people who are ranked highly and are in clans, since those people don't just play clan games.

My real problem with your argument was the idea that someone in a clan is "more active" than someone who is not. That's not true - it simply means they have more "responsibilities," as it were. It says nothing about who they are as a person or how likely they are to rate, and says little about how much time they spend on CC.

your quotes are contradictory. The first one you said (bottom one), said that my scenario was invalid because they weren't given ratings at the same rate. I proved they were, so you changed your story.

but yes, if players are rated at the same rate, then my new scenario doesn't work.

They're not contradictory - they're just two different reasons why your scenario was invalid. One reason is that it assumed old ratings would be kept, and another reason is that it assumed different frequencies of being rated. The two arguments are not mutually exclusive, and they're certainly not mutually exclusive simply because I didn't say them at the same time.

Are you serious? Let me get this straight. You want to normalize player ratings, so that the average is 0. NOW people are supposed to be motivated to rate other people high so that the other people will return the favor so that everyone can keep their high ratings. YOU REALIZE THAT MEANS THE AVERAGE IS NO LONGER 0!!!! So are you saying that everything you said before this is total bs that means nothing?

The average will still be zero. What I'm saying is that people will be motivated to rate because they want people to rate them back. The reason why this won't make the average positive is that while most people would probably like to think that they deserve an above average rating, their opponents will not actually see it that way. People will be motivated to rate more because they want a higher rating, and some people won't get it, because the ideal distribution is a normal curve - but it doesn't matter why they rate more, as long as they do.

This statement directly contradicts your one a little earlier that says people's motivation to rate for no reason is that they will give others high ratings so that they can get themself a high rating.

See above. This will be their motivation to rate, but in reality they'll only get a high rating if they actually earn it (which isn't most people).

[jrh_cardinal]

you know I can't reasonably do that, you prove that they aren't. Random people in public games are usually just here to have fun, play a couple games of r***. Players in clans/usergroups are obviously more active in at least some parts of the site because they participate in those parts of the site (minimally clans/usergroups). They are active in parts of the site other than just playing, therefore they are more likely to participate in a site function that does not involve playing (namely ratings).
and yes, I understand that doesn't totally prove anything, but i'm pretty sure logical people are okay accepting that more active people are more active. it's bs for you to try to stonewall me with crap like that.

No it's not. Your argument was that people who play in clans get rated more. But I'm not in a clan, and I still get rated by people who are ranked highly and are in clans, since those people don't just play clan games.

My real problem with your argument was the idea that someone in a clan is "more active" than someone who is not. That's not true - it simply means they have more "responsibilities," as it were. It says nothing about who they are as a person or how likely they are to rate, and says little about how much time they spend on CC.

There are plenty of people who play few/no public games. My argument is that people who consistently play against people who are active in clans/usergroups/tournaments/foundry/any other part of cc besides just public games, get rated more. The most extreme example of this is clan people who play pretty much only clan wars, high-ranker usergroup practice games, stuff like that.

Newest active 8 man public game: Game 7683973. I did not pick any specific game that fit my interests, just the newest 8 man. The 8 players have a total combined post count of 6, none of them are in any clan or usergroup, and only one of them has anything more than a bronze rating medal.
Most recent started Team 2000+++ usergroup quads game (it's over now, but whatever): Game 7540522. I did not pick any specific game that fit my interests, just the newest quads game (only 8 man games in the team game usergroup). The lowest post count was in the 80s, highest in the 1000s. every one of them had a gold ratings medal (I'm pretty sure).

I think that's pretty good evidence that in general people that are active on forums and elsewhere on cc besides games care more about at least getting the ratings medal than random people playing random public games.

I didn't really mean that you have to be in a clan to be active and get rated a lot, it's just the best example because people in clans and usergroups are the ones that play the most private games against active opponents. It's the opponents that matter, since they're the ones doing the ratings.

Are you serious? Let me get this straight. You want to normalize player ratings, so that the average is 0. NOW people are supposed to be motivated to rate other people high so that the other people will return the favor so that everyone can keep their high ratings. YOU REALIZE THAT MEANS THE AVERAGE IS NO LONGER 0!!!! So are you saying that everything you said before this is total bs that means nothing?

The average will still be zero. What I'm saying is that people will be motivated to rate because they want people to rate them back. The reason why this won't make the average positive is that while most people would probably like to think that they deserve an above average rating, their opponents will not actually see it that way. People will be motivated to rate more because they want a higher rating, and some people won't get it, because the ideal distribution is a normal curve - but it doesn't matter why they rate more, as long as they do.

but the first people have to give high ratings right? I mean, if I go around giving out a bunch of low ratings I'm not convincing my opponents to rate me highly. So the only way for the chain to continue, and have the next person motivated to rate, is by giving out all or at least mostly good ratings.

in reality they'll only get a high rating if they actually earn it (which isn't most people).

You magical chain of ratings will be broken wherever a low rating is left

[Metsfanmax]

Newest active 8 man public game: Game 7683973. I did not pick any specific game that fit my interests, just the newest 8 man. The 8 players have a total combined post count of 6, none of them are in any clan or usergroup, and only one of them has anything more than a bronze rating medal.
Most recent started Team 2000+++ usergroup quads game (it's over now, but whatever): Game 7540522. I did not pick any specific game that fit my interests, just the newest quads game (only 8 man games in the team game usergroup). The lowest post count was in the 80s, highest in the 1000s. every one of them had a gold ratings medal (I'm pretty sure).

I think that's pretty good evidence that in general people that are active on forums and elsewhere on cc besides games care more about at least getting the ratings medal than random people playing random public games.

No, it's anecdotal evidence. That never qualifies as "pretty good" evidence.

but the first people have to give high ratings right? I mean, if I go around giving out a bunch of low ratings I'm not convincing my opponents to rate me highly. So the only way for the chain to continue, and have the next person motivated to rate, is by giving out all or at least mostly good ratings.

Not at all. You're missing the forest for the trees. The point is that people don't want to just get an average rating, so they'll start giving ratings in the hopes that the system will change. If they end up with only an average rating afterward, then sure, they might give up on it, or they might keep working hard to improve their ratings. I think that the latter will be the case. It can't be any worse than the current system.

None of your remaining arguments are active reasons why we shouldn't do this - they're just reasons why we might potentially not change anything. I don't see why straight pessimism is useful here.

[MichelSableheart]

@jrh: if you're playing consistently with players who care enough about the site to rate, wouldn't those players care enough about the site to rate accurately? Those players don't see the rating system as a friend's service, do they?

The way I see it, changing the rating system so that no rating = average rating, has two advantages. The first is that you are able to identify the exceptional players, in the same way you are currently able to identify the really poor players. This seems to me a positive thing, especially for clan recruitment and searching for new team partners.

The second change is a change in mentality. Currently, almost everyone is rated close to a 5. For someone who is new at rating, this creates a huge barrier for rating someone accurately (poor if you think they were poor, average if you think they were average, good if you think they were good). If everyone is rated closely to average, the incentive to rate someone all 5's is reduced, hopefully leading to more accurate ratings.

[jrh_cardinal]

No, it's anecdotal evidence. That never qualifies as "pretty good" evidence.

It's statistical evidence. There is a very small statistical probablility that these two groups of players as a whole rate the same amount, given that in my example 1/8 public players rate frequently, and 8/8 usergroup players rate frequently

Not at all. You're missing the forest for the trees. The point is that people don't want to just get an average rating, so they'll start giving ratings in the hopes that the system will change. If they end up with only an average rating afterward, then sure, they might give up on it, or they might keep working hard to improve their ratings. I think that the latter will be the case. It can't be any worse than the current system.

None of your remaining arguments are active reasons why we shouldn't do this - they're just reasons why we might potentially not change anything. I don't see why straight pessimism is useful here.

No, you are missing reality for utopia which isn't even utopia. People are not motivated to rate because people are rating them average scores. Hell, they probably don't even notice they're being rated if they're rating doesn't change, which it wouldn't if they're being rated average. You are way overestimating the CC public.

It's not straight pessimism, it's reality.

And don't say that it doesn't hurt to try, I already said that it does. There's an even smaller difference between the below average and above average, only the very extremes will show themselves

@jrh: if you're playing consistently with players who care enough about the site to rate, wouldn't those players care enough about the site to rate accurately? Those players don't see the rating system as a friend's service, do they?

The simplest answer to this is they don't average 3. For me, I only rate if I have a really good or bad experience (or if I'm really bored so I decide to get closer to ther medal). In games like that, everyone is good, so it's rare to have a really bad experience

The first is that you are able to identify the exceptional players, in the same way you are currently able to identify the really poor players. This seems to me a positive thing, especially for clan recruitment and searching for new team partners.

Yes, you are able to identify the truly exceptional players (if everything goes exactly according to your guys plan). I have accepted that as a fact in multiple posts before, to show that it still doesn't help. IF everyone starts rating as an average of 0 exactly like you guys want, 90+% of the people on the site are going to have a 0, because most of the 'ratings' you get will already be 0, so even if you are slightly above or below for real ratings, it will not show up in te final computation. With 5% of the population shown to be exceptional, that doesn't help clans. Right now, our minimum requirement is a 4.6. Approximately 2/3 of the site meets that opening requirement. There's not going to be anything CLOSE to a split at the 2/3 mark in your new system, everyone's going to have a 0, and that's assuming everything works perfectly according to you.

[MichelSableheart]

The simplest answer to this is they don't average 3. For me, I only rate if I have a really good or bad experience (or if I'm really bored so I decide to get closer to ther medal). In games like that, everyone is good, so it's rare to have a really bad experience

So those players will be rated mostly 4-5 (or 1-2 in the proposal), because they are better then the average player. This will cause them to stand out in positive direction. I would say that this is exactly what you want.

Regarding your second point: even if it is not helpful for you, it is an improvement over the current situation (where those 5% of players is not recognizable at all), without any negative result compared to the current situation.

[temporos]

jrh: Why are you so fiercely opposed to this idea? Is it because you're worried about losing your 4.7 "above average - outstanding" rating and being seen as merely "average" (which is what 4.7 represents now)?

You are correct in that only 5%-ish of the CC players will deviate further than 0.1 or 0.2 from the average under the new system. This is exactly what is supposed to happen. The truly exceptional (good and bad) players will be the ones beyond three standard deviations from the norm, and statistically, this should be way below 5%.

The current system is broken by definition: above average is now considered average, defeating the whole purpose. If this is a bad idea, then what is your proposed solution to the ratings problem?

[Metsfanmax]

jrh is opposed to it because he thinks it's unfortunate that clans will no longer have a nice number that they can use to arbitrarily exclude people

[jrh_cardinal]

jrh is opposed to it because he thinks it's unfortunate that clans will no longer have a nice number that they can use to arbitrarily exclude people

put in a very crude way, ya, that's a good reason

another (which I have said much more often) is in general, random people in public games do not rate as much as cc obsessed people who play a lot of private/tournament/clan games. And if you get rated by a greater percent of people, your rating will be farther from 0 in whichever general direction people rate you.

I have made valid point after valid point, your guys response every time is "but if it works out perfectly it will work out perfectly"
duh. That's what the original rating scale was supposed to do, along with everything else ever created, work out perfectly. However, it will not work out perfectly.


And temporos, thank you.
First, I know statistics, including 68-95-99.7 rule (the exact numbers vary slightly based on who you're talking to, but it's close). Have you calculated the standard deviation of player ratings under the new scale? No, because there is no new scale yet, so there's no data to analyze. I was just throwing out a number, had nothing to do with statistics or standard deviation.

Second, over 99% of people are within 2 standard deviations of the mean. In a truly perfect -2 to 2 rating scale, this would be from about -1 to 1, because you only need to go out about 4 standard deviations total (you don't need to distinguish between the top 0.00014% of the population or whatever it is). That way there are numbers to distinguish between the 40th percentile and the 60th percentile. In your example, which is exactly what would happen because everyone's rating is being massively weighed towards the center,

only 5%-ish of the CC players will deviate further than 0.1 or 0.2 from the average under the new system.

So if 95% of players are -.2 to .2 (your larger parameter), that's two standard deviations, 68% of players are at -.1, 0, or .1, and most of those are at 0. How does that help anyone? Even in your utopian world, like half the site has the exact same rating, 0. It helps more in the current system, at least there's a difference between 4.4 and 4.9, plus there is 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, and 4.8 in the middle, so the people know in general what block to group you in. In the new way, everyone currently with a 4.5-4.8 would have a 0, IN THE BEST CASE SCENARIO.

Is it because you're worried about losing your 4.7 "above average - outstanding" rating and being seen as merely "average" (which is what 4.7 represents now)?

I could care less what my rating is. Besides, anyone who's played 10 games on cc knows 4.7 is merely average. And what are you doing insulting my rating when you have a 4.4?

The current system is broken by definition: above average is now considered average, defeating the whole purpose. If this is a bad idea, then what is your proposed solution to the ratings problem?

Why does everything have to be a problem? What do you care who the top 2.5% of the cc population in those three categories are? Team partners? I know plenty of goody-two-shoes, people with really high ratings (as in 4.9's), that I absolutely would not want to partner with consistently, and plenty of 4.6's that are really fun.
The current rating scale defines the overly rude/complaining types (4.5 and down usually). Those are the only people you should consider writing off just for their rating, everyone else could easily be fun to play with.

Your rating scale defines the Gandhi's and the Hitler's, then everyone else has a 0, that doesn't help.

[Metsfanmax]

jrh is opposed to it because he thinks it's unfortunate that clans will no longer have a nice number that they can use to arbitrarily exclude people

put in a very crude way, ya, that's a good reason

another (which I have said much more often) is in general, random people in public games do not rate as much as cc obsessed people who play a lot of private/tournament/clan games. And if you get rated by a greater percent of people, your rating will be farther from 0 in whichever general direction people rate you.

I have made valid point after valid point, your guys response every time is "but if it works out perfectly it will work out perfectly"
duh. That's what the original rating scale was supposed to do, along with everything else ever created, work out perfectly. However, it will not work out perfectly.

None of your points are valid in the sense that none of them are offensive reasons not to make this switch; they're all defensive reasons why it might not work. But as long as you agree that there is a new motivation, even if you don't share in our optimism that people will change, then it's worth a shot.

If nothing else, then this scale will cause most peoples' ratings to fall in the center of the ratings scale, which is ideal. It also makes it a lot easier to rate honestly. Currently people are afraid of giving out 1's and 2's for fear of being foed or rated harshly in turn, because those ratings are seen as being far outside the "real" rating scale. This would solve that problem, because if the average is 0, then giving out a -1 is suddenly not really a huge criticism, it just says you're below average.

[jrh_cardinal]

None of your points are valid in the sense that none of them are offensive reasons not to make this switch; they're all defensive reasons why it might not work. But as long as you agree that there is a new motivation, even if you don't share in our optimism that people will change, then it's worth a shot.

My points are perfectly valid. I know that he current rating scale isn't perfect, I'm stating my opinion why this new system will not work, you're saying why you think it will. Respond to my points or don't comment from now on, thanks.

Ans no, I don't agree. I have conceded all of the stuff I can not prove, such as motivation, to say why even if your ideas work exactly as you want them to, we will still be worse off.
I'm tired of saying the same things twice with no substance from you in the middle. If you are going to continue to spew out bs like this without responding to my actual point, I'm not going to respond.

If nothing else, then this scale will cause most peoples' ratings to fall in the center of the ratings scale, which is ideal. It also makes it a lot easier to rate honestly. Currently people are afraid of giving out 1's and 2's for fear of being foed or rated harshly in turn, because those ratings are seen as being far outside the "real" rating scale. This would solve that problem, because if the average is 0, then giving out a -1 is suddenly not really a huge criticism, it just says you're below average.

No, incorrect. Another thing I conceded in order to conclude that even if it works out perfectly for you guys most people's rating will be 0 so it will still be a bad change. I think that either people will continue to not rate, or in your utopia, people will continue to rate high, as you proved in your own post a while back (another thing you stopped responding to).

So you're worried about what someone who you gave a 1 thinks about you? Personally, anyone that is deserving of me giving a 1, I'd rather never play again anyway, at least not for a while.

Below average is not a criticism?

[Bruceswar]

this debate is far too long to get into but I will say this. If having you not rated means you are average then WTF do we have ratings for? The whole premise of 0 being auto given is silly. jhr has made many good points which you guys fail to miss. The top 5% of the scoreboard are generally addicts or at least care enough to rate some or a few people. So say we use the average is 0.. but the average player (according the the scores) is close to 1000. Now in my eyes anybody who is not over 1400 is below average, so that means I think 75% or more of CC is below average. Do I rate like so? Hell no as it would only wreck a lower ranks chances of getting into games. As the current system is setup, anybody who rated how people should be, would likely be in C&A for ratings abuse. Giving someone 1 star, 2 stars and 3 stars is generally looked upon as "WTF did you do that for?" If I rated 75% of the people I rated 3 stars or less, I would have had my rights revoked long ago. Everybody see's average as different thing. I generally rate people all 5's unless they give me a reason to rate them lower, which I do not do often. OK so enough ratings talk...

Scrap it and bring feedback back!

[MichelSableheart]

@Jrh: what makes you think that under the proposed system, we wouldn't be able to recognize the overly rude/complaining types that the current system allows you to identify? Those would still be in the lower tier of the ratings.

Similary, I fail to see why the fact why someone who consistently plays private/tournament/clan games getting rated more is a problem. If those players indeed do rate more because they care more about the site, then in general the ratings they give will also more accurately reflect the ratee's ability. As such, someone they consistently rate 5's is definately above average, and deserves to stand out.

Thirdly, what percentage of players only rates someone all 5's if they think the player is exceptionally well, and don't rate if they think someone is average? If that percentage is high, introducing the new system would have a signficantly positive effect on the accuracy of ratings. The ratings wouldn't collapse all around 0, as you are suggesting, but actually spread out.

[MichelSableheart]

@Brucewar: Speaking from experience, if you consistently rated players you consider average 3 stars, you would get a complaint in C&A about once or twice a year, which has no results whatsoever because you aren't abusing the system. However, the mere fact that rating someone average is for some players considered abuse is exactly what we are trying to fix.

[TheForgivenOne]

I'd also like to point out the fact that many players don't rate anyone at all. I've seen players who have been here for a long long time only rate a max of 5 people. Many people just rate either A: Players they like. or B: Players they dislike. Just because they didn't rate the player, does not make them average. I have played Cooks that I thought played well, but didn't rate them. I've played Majors and Colonels that played like aces, but I didn't rate them. I for one, on the majority, only rate people that I don't enjoy playing. Does that make every other player I versed normal? No.

[Bruceswar]

@Brucewar: Speaking from experience, if you consistently rated players you consider average 3 stars, you would get a complaint in C&A about once or twice a year, which has no results whatsoever because you aren't abusing the system. However, the mere fact that rating someone average is for some players considered abuse is exactly what we are trying to fix.

If I had a 5 pages of rating that were 75% 1's 2's and 3's .. There would be more than 2 threads, or I would be turned in as an abuser. Average is in the eye of the beholder. To a cook anybody above him looks good. To someone like me most all players look like shit when they play. No offense to any low ranks.

[Metsfanmax]

My points are perfectly valid. I know that he current rating scale isn't perfect, I'm stating my opinion why this new system will not work, you're saying why you think it will. Respond to my points or don't comment from now on, thanks.

If your points have no meaning in this debate, then there's no point wasting time discussing them. All of the arguments that are potential reasons why people might not change their ratings attitude are irrelevant, because they're pure speculation. As long as there are legitimate reasons why people might actually change the way they rate (which there are), then the change is worth a shot. Neither of us can accurately predict how people will respond to this change. It is my belief that people will rate more as a result of this change being put into place, and as a result, the ratings system will become more accurate, which is the goal here. Furthermore, even if people don't rate more, the mean score will still be about 0, and having the center of the scale be the mean is ideal, which is reason enough to implement this change.

Yes, it would be ideal if people would use all 5 stars from the beginning, so that the average was 3. But since people tend to rate in such a way that the average is heavily skewed towards the tail of the scale, clearly we need to try something new if we ever want it to change.

Ans no, I don't agree. I have conceded all of the stuff I can not prove, such as motivation, to say why even if your ideas work exactly as you want them to, we will still be worse off.
I'm tired of saying the same things twice with no substance from you in the middle. If you are going to continue to spew out bs like this without responding to my actual point, I'm not going to respond.

I'm not "spewing out BS," and that's an unfair way to avoid responding to what I'm saying. I've answered your points reasonably by observing that none of what you said shows that we'll be worse off. The only point that even comes close to that is your claim that because most people will have a score with magnitude no higher than 0.2, it will be harder for clans and other groups to figure out who the good (and bad) players are. What you fail to also observe is that since the current scale now has everyone more or less at 4.8 plus or minus 0.2, this can't make the system any worse. Furthermore, it gives you more room at the top of the spectrum to figure out who the truly exceptional players are - having a 4.9 or 5.0 does not indicate greatness currently, because people are so free with their 5's. Anyone who scored above 0.2 in the new system would actually be legitimately highly rated, and so you could find players that way.

The reason why it's a bad idea to discard players with ratings under 4.6, for clans, is that it effectively reinforces the pettiness of the current system. You're encouraging players to artificially inflate the ratings system in order to make themselves look better. Someone with a 4.4 rating ought to actually be a very good player, if you consider the scale objectively. Plus, all it takes is a few vindictive 1's from spiteful players to bring down a newer player's average - and I know that's happened to all of us. This is why I have no sympathy for that argument - the best way to fix the system is to reward people for giving honest ratings. Barring that, the next best thing is what was suggested here.

No, incorrect. Another thing I conceded in order to conclude that even if it works out perfectly for you guys most people's rating will be 0 so it will still be a bad change. I think that either people will continue to not rate, or in your utopia, people will continue to rate high, as you proved in your own post a while back (another thing you stopped responding to).

That doesn't make it a bad change, that just means that some of our goals might not be achieved. And no, I didn't "prove" that people will continue to rate high. I actually observed that people will be motivated to simply give more ratings in the hopes that players will rate them back highly - and players may rate them back, and give them low ratings, but that's a good thing if it means people are giving honest ratings. I find it unlikely that if players get low ratings, they'll suddenly stop giving out ratings - we don't see that in the current system, and there's even more of a motivation now in that sense, since low ratings affect you more.

So you're worried about what someone who you gave a 1 thinks about you? Personally, anyone that is deserving of me giving a 1, I'd rather never play again anyway, at least not for a while.

Again, you're outright enforcing the terribleness of the current system. It is true that in many cases now, people give spiteful 1's, perhaps because they didn't like your personality in game chat and so they rate you a 1 for gameplay. Still, if someone legitimately thinks you're a bad player and rates you a 1, you're going to just ignore them? Above, you said that I need to respond to your points and not ignore them. Are you not going to apply that logic to your own situation? Are you so convinced that you are absolutely a great player that you're not even willing to consider someone else's point of view on the matter?

If someone gives me a non-spite 1, it means that in some way I wasn't doing a good job, and I certainly care when people tell me that. If you don't care about the same, then why are you even bothering discussing the ratings system?

Below average is not a criticism?

It's not a huge criticism. Please don't take my words out of context just to try to win a point - it's childish.

[temporos]

I do not understand the "everbody's a winner" attitude that motivates people to rate everyone as "outstanding" (5 stars).

The system is broken (i.e., it doesn't work as designed). There are three possible solutions to this:

1. Do nothing. CC goes on using a ratings system that has become absolutely meaningless.
2. Normalize player ratings. The ratings system has a chance of becoming meaningful, and if it fails, then it wouldn't be any less meaningful than the current system.
3. Scrap the ratings system altogether. If we can't agree on a system that has a chance of working properly, then the system should be removed entirely.

[Woodruff]

If you play against premium oficers in clans/usergroups, they are much more likely to rate because they simply care more about the game than some freemie private you meet in a random public game.

This freemie private takes a lot of exception to that statement. I am not a member of any clans or usergroups nor will I ever be, yet I am quite active in the fora, to include the Suggestions and Cheating and Abuse fora. I also organize tournaments for people who are so inclined to participate in. Other than tournament games, I play almost exclusively public games. And finally, I rate every player I play against every time I play them. I would wager that I am at least above average on the "caring about the game/website" among even premium officers, yet I certainly don't fit the box you've created to put "players that care" into.

As for this thread, in my view the real key is that THERE IS NO DOWNSIDE to it. It may revert to being just what we have now, that's true...but it really CAN'T get any worse. And there is a reasonable possibility that it may actually correct the system.

[jrh_cardinal]

If you play against premium oficers in clans/usergroups, they are much more likely to rate because they simply care more about the game than some freemie private you meet in a random public game.

This freemie private takes a lot of exception to that statement. I am not a member of any clans or usergroups nor will I ever be, yet I am quite active in the fora, to include the Suggestions and Cheating and Abuse fora. I also organize tournaments for people who are so inclined to participate in. Other than tournament games, I play almost exclusively public games. And finally, I rate every player I play against every time I play them. I would wager that I am at least above average on the "caring about the game/website" among even premium officers, yet I certainly don't fit the box you've created to put "players that care" into.

As for this thread, in my view the real key is that THERE IS NO DOWNSIDE to it. It may revert to being just what we have now, that's true...but it really CAN'T get any worse. And there is a reasonable possibility that it may actually correct the system.

In general, woodruff.

Clearly none of us are going to change each others viewpoints. Temporos and max, all of my points have said why I think we will be worse off. I'm fine with you disagreeing with that, but it pisses me off when you say I never say why it will be any worse, because I do. I'm done arguing, it's up to lack and tfo to pick who they agree with.

To sum up:
I don't care if it's in the middle of the scale, I care if I can tell who the rude/obnoxious players are. If that means people with 4.9's are rude/obnoxious, fine, I can make sure I only partner with 5.0's. Under the new system, if everything goes as you want it to, and I mean everything, then we are still worse off. Everyone who is not Gandhi or Hitler will be within .1 of 0, as you admitted. Most will be at 0. That doesn't help me determine players who I will not have fun partnering with.

edit- maybe we can get a poll tfo?

[temporos]

Temporos... it pisses me off when you say I never say why it will be any worse...

I don't believe I ever said that. Yes, I wasn't the only one mentioned in that paragraph, but if you're going to make accusations, you must be specific and distinct.

I am curious about why you are becoming so emotionally disturbed by this debate. I'm trying to look at it from a logical, mathematical point-of-view. My goal is not "sticking it to" anyone here. I have made observations and suggested what I believe to be the most logical course of action. If you prefer the status-quo, so be it. It's ultimately up to the mods to decide.

[AAFitz]

the rating system works perfectly how it is. the rating tells you exactly what you will get from a player. the only thing that doesnt match up is the actual label to the number, but after a few games, its not hard to figure out what the ratings mean

4.1 will be a pain in the ass every time and a 5.0 will hardly ever be. they are all a little bit of both between that. Your suggestion would actually make it harder, because there would be less degrees of criteria. right now there are 5.0 to 4.0 essentially
anyone below 4.0 is the same as 4.0 with a near guarantee to either play insane, or chat insane.

[jrh_cardinal]

but if you're going to make accusations, you must be specific and distinct.

this is not some court. I am not a lawyer. I am not going to make my post much longer, and spend three times as much time writing it so that it's grammatically clear exactly who I'm accusing who of, clearly you can use logic to deduce that that statement was directed towards max. I used plenty of math and logic, even used your guys math, and logically proved why that makes the rating scale worse.

And I'm not emotionally disturbed. Take your own advice. If your going to accuse me of being emotionally disturbed, I'll take a full legal paper using logical and mathematical proof of your accusation, I expect it in an hour.


You guys wonder why I got tired of arguing. Every post of mine until the last two only dealt with the issues and trying to prove your viewpoints wrong. All along the way max avoids my points or attempts to make excuses why my points aren't valid rather than actually trying to prove them wrong, then starts going after me personally. Now you do the same thing. Honestly, you guys are unbelievable. Can't you just have a heated discussion about the issues, without bringing in the integrity of the two people involved?

[TheForgivenOne]

Poll added.

[greenoaks]

The simplest answer to this is they don't average 3. For me, I only rate if I have a really good or bad experience (or if I'm really bored so I decide to get closer to ther medal). In games like that, everyone is good, so it's rare to have a really bad experience

So those players will be rated mostly 4-5 (or 1-2 in the proposal), because they are better then the average player. This will cause them to stand out in positive direction. I would say that this is exactly what you want.

i like this