Skill attribute for ratings (merged)

[cicero]

Been said before, worth saying again: there already is a skill rating. It's the wee symbol to the left of your name.

I found myself thinking the same thing incandenza when I first saw this idea raised (in this thread or elsewhere I'm not sure) ... But on reflection I'm not so sure ...

Some players have high ranks because they play limited game types, have a particular map or maps which they have learned to exploit or have found more underhand ways of harvesting points. Some/many certainly have high ranks because they are, as you suggest, very good at the game.

Equally some players have quite mediocre ranks because they play game types or choose maps that don't lead to reliable wins or simply they don't chase points. It doesn't necessarily mean they are mediocre players. Put a brilliant and gifted player in, for example, a load of World 2.1, 8 player games and he/she probably won't climb the ranks much ... but a skill rating by other players would have the opportunity to reflect that the player played good strategy and was nearly always one of the last two or three players left.

[Incandenza]

True, the ranking system is rather subjective and doesn't take in account the sorts of games the person plays... a colonel who subsists off of trips against noobs might not be as strong of an overall player as a sergeant who takes on all comers in all sorts of games.

But a skill rating system will be way way more subjective (and much more subjective than the other ratings), especially since many skill ratings will be given by people who, not to put too fine a point on it, wouldn't be able to stumble across good strategy with a GPS. More to the point, many people (even skilled ones!) might leave bad skill ratings if they perceive, often unfairly, that the other player picked on them. Or imagine the ratings left by people for someone that won a high-end escalating game due solely to a hanging by another player, or for someone that won a long flat rate or no cards game due to someone else missing turns, or for someone that commits the "sin" of hot dice (or even cold dice).

Basically, I don't think that having a rating that can be sullied by unqualified and/or bitter players is such a great idea, especially stripped of all context (i.e. some sort of comments section).

The nice thing about the current system is that, if you really want to get a sense of how good the person across from you is, you can get a pretty good idea by cross-referencing rank, medals, and the first page or so of "find all games with x".

Or, you know, you could just play against the person and see how it all comes out.

[Simon Viavant]

But a skill rating system will be way way more subjective (and much more subjective than the other ratings), especially since many skill ratings will be given by people who, not to put too fine a point on it, wouldn't be able to stumble across good strategy with a GPS. More to the point, many people (even skilled ones!) might leave bad skill ratings if they perceive, often unfairly, that the other player picked on them.

That's a good point. Maybe it could be moderated a bit. I know they switched cause of the hassle of modding, but if you ask me, these new ratings are way easier to abuse than feedback ever was because they're kinda vague. Like, some guy took me out for cards in an escalating assasin game when sets were at 40, and I wasn't his target. I dinged him on fairplay, cause was the catagory it seemed to fit in. He's sort of a high rank and he doesn't even know how to play assasin.

[user01]

Current Ratings SUCK.
Get rid of them
I Don't even bother playing anymore.
Destroyed any enjoyment I might have had in this game.
New Rating is just another unpopular, bad upgrade, that seems to be becoming a trend on this site (Classic Map fiasco for example).

[hulmey]

we already have rankings, what we need is the option to add notes. I,E. player sucided in a escalating game or such!

[Keebs2674]

Creation of a Rating for Strategy:

I think we should create a fifth ratings category for strategy.

Specifics:

Let me say up front that I have never left negative feedback for anyone because I thought they employed poor strategy. I don't see the point at all, unless it's just a way to let off steam. In general, I think it's immature.

However, I do realize that many CC players enjoyed leaving negative feedback for poor strategy or game play. With the new ratings system, lacking a category to do so, some have decided to start giving low ratings in the "Fair Play" category for what is actually poor strategy. I've had a couple lame souls do this to me already, and I expect I'm not alone. In my mind, Fair Play means one is honest, follows the rules of the game, doesn't break alliances, doesn't suicide, etc. You can still be all these things and make some bonehead strategic moves. The people who cannot resist taking out their frustration for what they think is bad play give other players low ratings in Fair Play, which results in looking like the other player cheated or did something underhanded.

As much as I don't like players giving negative feedback for poor strategy, I'd rather have that option available than have it filed under "Fair Play".

[BaldAdonis]

Look at any other thread on the topic. They're easy to find.

[Chief Beef]

Well, worth noting is another potential problem with lacking a skill rating: players that justly feel the need to complain about skill now have no way to do it. I had one player, right or wrong, leave me mediocre feedback in Attendance, Attitude, and Fair Play even though I was always there, never a jerk, and didn't suicide or favor anyone. He obviously didn't like the way I played, but had no way to say so.

Now of course it was impolite of him to leave me negative ratings in categories that didn't apply, but it's at least understandable that, when an opponent plays with poor strategy, you want to ding him somehow.

And to Incandenza's point that a skill rating system would be even more subjective than feedback, I disagree. While the occasional unfair feedback was left, in most cases I think it was accurate. There's no reason to think people would act differently to a skill rating, assuming their screen name is attached (since people are much more willing to be bad when they're anonymous. Or more anonymous. Or whatever).

Of course the counter to that is the moderator thing -- who knows how many unfair feedbacks were removed by moderators? We would have to assume that an equal percentage of players would leave unfair negative ratings, but now there are no moderators involved to overturn them. In fact there's so little "meat" to a simple star rating that it would be nearly impossible for a moderator to justifiably overturn one.

In balance, though, I think something is needed that indicates how other players view your skills, if for no other reason than so a frustrated player can properly vent. The Wall just isn't enough, since anything written can be erased anyway.

[PLAYER57832]

Concise description:

• There have been SO many threads on this, so I decided to make a poll.

Specifics:

• I think it shouldn,t count towards the current overall, but be it's own rating. For example, next to someone's name is 4.8---4.2. 4.8 is the current rating and 4.2 is their skill rating.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• So many people have covered this in so many different threads, I don't think I need to go into this.

Why is it that it is largely the LOWER RANKED players who think skill should be rated?

Maybe because what THEY think of as "poor skill" is really good strategy that just happened to go wrong in one game OR because their idea of "poor strategy" too often means anyone who does not play the way THEY like.

There already is one, quite large and quite definite rating of skill -- your rank!!!

It is NOT based upon opinion, it is based upon results. On individual games, luck does impact rank. In the LONG run, it takes skill. IF you don't go up, it is NOT because the "dice are skewed", it is NOT because "other people" are playing poorly, it is because YOU have not played the best.

LIve with it and don't try to decide how other people should play. The rank already does that!!!!

[max is gr8]

Player have you read any of the thread. Next time do so before repeating.

[Keebs2674]

Look at any other thread on the topic. They're easy to find.

I'm aware that there are other threads on this topic. It's going to take more than one thread though to encourage the administrators to address this issue. It took them over a year and dozens of threads on deadbeats to get them to address that issue. We need more than one thread going.

[Keebs2674]

Here's what I said on my thread on this subject:

Let me say up front that I have never left negative feedback for anyone because I thought they employed poor strategy. I don't see the point at all, unless it's just a way to let off steam. In general, I think it's immature.

However, I do realize that many CC players enjoyed leaving negative feedback for poor strategy or game play. With the new ratings system, lacking a category to do so, some have decided to start giving low ratings in the "Fair Play" category for what is actually poor strategy. I've had a couple lame souls do this to me already, and I expect I'm not alone. In my mind, Fair Play means one is honest, follows the rules of the game, doesn't break alliances, doesn't suicide, etc. You can still be all these things and make some bonehead strategic moves. The people who cannot resist taking out their frustration for what they think is bad play give other players low ratings in Fair Play, which results in looking like the other player cheated or did something underhanded.

As much as I don't like players giving negative feedback for poor strategy, I'd rather have that option available than have it filed under "Fair Play".

[PLAYER57832]

Player have you read any of the thread. Next time do so before repeating.

I read the entire thing... and stand by what I said.

[ParadiceCity9]

Gonna have to go against this.

[Simon Viavant]

Why is it that it is largely the LOWER RANKED players who think skill should be rated?

Maybe because what THEY think of as "poor skill" is really good strategy that just happened to go wrong in one game OR because their idea of "poor strategy" too often means anyone who does not play the way THEY like.

There already is one, quite large and quite definite rating of skill -- your rank!!!

It is NOT based upon opinion, it is based upon results. On individual games, luck does impact rank. In the LONG run, it takes skill. IF you don't go up, it is NOT because the "dice are skewed", it is NOT because "other people" are playing poorly, it is because YOU have not played the best.

LIve with it and don't try to decide how other people should play. The rank already does that!!!!

Rank doesn't do a lot to reflect skill. I just play for fun. If I gave a shit about score I'd probably be a seargeant, at the very least. That's more about the strategy of how to gain points than the strategy of how to play Risk, for example, I'm really good at real Risk, I've played for years, and I'm a private. As for abuse/modding, yes that would be trouble, but if you ask me, these new ratings are way easier to abuse than the old feedback. Fairplay, that could be not playing the way you want them to. Attendance, you could never miss a turn and they could still give you a 1 if you didn't do what they wanted. Additude, they could think, oh, he didn't play how I wanted, that demonstrates a bad additude. Feedback had to be specific, therefore harder to abuse.

[lancehoch]

Guys, these threads keep getting created. Can we please keep the discussion in one thread? I know you all want to be the one to create the thread that gets a change made, but for now this is staying as is. lack has stated that he would like to see how this system works for a while. If, at some point in the future, he feels that a strategy rating system is warranted, he will implement it.

[PLAYER57832]

Why is it that it is largely the LOWER RANKED players who think skill should be rated?

Maybe because what THEY think of as "poor skill" is really good strategy that just happened to go wrong in one game OR because their idea of "poor strategy" too often means anyone who does not play the way THEY like.

There already is one, quite large and quite definite rating of skill -- your rank!!!

It is NOT based upon opinion, it is based upon results. On individual games, luck does impact rank. In the LONG run, it takes skill. IF you don't go up, it is NOT because the "dice are skewed", it is NOT because "other people" are playing poorly, it is because YOU have not played the best.

LIve with it and don't try to decide how other people should play. The rank already does that!!!!

Rank doesn't do a lot to reflect skill. I just play for fun. If I gave a shit about score I'd probably be a seargeant, at the very least. That's more about the strategy of how to gain points than the strategy of how to play Risk, for example, I'm really good at real Risk, I've played for years, and I'm a private. As for abuse/modding, yes that would be trouble, but if you ask me, these new ratings are way easier to abuse than the old feedback. Fairplay, that could be not playing the way you want them to. Attendance, you could never miss a turn and they could still give you a 1 if you didn't do what they wanted. Additude, they could think, oh, he didn't play how I wanted, that demonstrates a bad additude. Feedback had to be specific, therefore harder to abuse.

I don't like the current rating system ... which is why I started a thread trying to accumulate the various suggestions and a poll for folks to vote. It got little response.


BUT, this thread was about rating strategy and I still stand by what I said, though I also don't really care that much about ranks and so forth. I want a nice, pleasant game, win or lose. I do find it quite telling & ironic that folks who generally think "skill does not matter" are the lower ranked individuals. And, at the same time, that so many of those who want to rate skill are low ranked players.

As someone once noted to me "you might find your luck improves as you gain more skill!"

AND when you get it, you might just find that some of those "poor skilled players" actually did have a clue about the game!

[Simon Viavant]

Like I've said before, that's a lot more about the strategy of how to gain points than the strategy of how to play risk.

[jiminski]

I would, as much as anything else, like to be able to commend another intellect for a great game!
I would like to be able to commend a cook, with no medals, on playing magnificently!

So score gives 'guide' to how skilled people are (medals, in their way, say how many you have won but more how many games you have played).... but as has been said before: the scores are somewhat dictated by game-choice!

but bugger all that! i want to be able to pay my respects to a fellow player; not having a rating of skill, of some kind, is like banning a hug or a handshake after a game of football!

it retracts an aspect of the game and diminishes the part where you meet defeat with a victory of spirit!

[PLAYER57832]

I would, as much as anything else, like to be able to commend another intellect for a great game!
I would like to be able to commend a cook, with no medals, on playing magnificently!

So score gives 'guide' to how skilled people are (medals, in their way, say how many you have won but more how many games you have played).... but as has been said before: the scores are somewhat dictated by game-choice!

but bugger all that! i want to be able to pay my respects to a fellow player; not having a rating of skill, of some kind, is like banning a hug or a handshake after a game of football!

it retracts an aspect of the game and diminishes the part where you meet defeat with a victory of spirit!

Why not Pm ... and post on the wall??

[jiminski]

I would, as much as anything else, like to be able to commend another intellect for a great game!
I would like to be able to commend a cook, with no medals, on playing magnificently!

So score gives 'guide' to how skilled people are (medals, in their way, say how many you have won but more how many games you have played).... but as has been said before: the scores are somewhat dictated by game-choice!

but bugger all that! i want to be able to pay my respects to a fellow player; not having a rating of skill, of some kind, is like banning a hug or a handshake after a game of football!

it retracts an aspect of the game and diminishes the part where you meet defeat with a victory of spirit!

Why not Pm ... and post on the wall??

because there is an aspect of vanity to it: So a cook can have the denotation of congratulations on a skilled victory from a Conqueror, for all to see!

there is also the practical aspect to think of! i am far more likely to play a player who a friend of mine, whose judgement i respect, has bothered to mark (or even better, comment) that they are a good and skilled player!

No one visits another's wall unless they are friends and no one sees PMS unless someone shows such bad taste as to publish it; the rating offers reward with the padding of humility.

I think it shows a lack of class to disallow this mark of respect.. it may be revelry in flawed pride but it is also much more; it acknowledges the leveler from kings to serf, which any one game can be!!

[Frop]

I'd give you for Skill any day, Jimmy!

[jiminski]

I'd give you for Skill any day, Jimmy!

And i you brother Fropper... but let's keep this out of the bedroom!

[Frop]

I'd give you for Skill any day, Jimmy!

And i you brother Fropper... but let's keep this out of the bedroom!

Are you suggesting a separate rating for Libido as well?

[The Viking]

I don't think it's fair that a persons rating should get lower or higher because of his skill.