[PC] Normalize Player Ratings (Average = 0)

by **dazerazer** on Fri Oct 15, 2010 6:31 pm

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.

by **MNDuke** on Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:18 pm

dazerazer wrote: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.

by **PLAYER57832** on Mon Nov 08, 2010 4:03 pm

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

by **PLAYER57832** on Mon Nov 08, 2010 4:06 pm

temporos wrote: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.

by **macbone** on Tue Nov 09, 2010 7:16 am

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.

by **bob72** on Wed Nov 10, 2010 8:27 am

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

by **Darwins_Bane** on Wed Nov 10, 2010 2:52 pm

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

by **vrex** on Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:39 pm

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

by **Dukasaur** on Thu Jul 26, 2012 4:20 pm

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

Time to implement!

by **zimmah** on Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:55 am

TheForgivenOne wrote:
temporos wrote: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.

by **Victor Sullivan** on Wed Aug 22, 2012 8:57 am

-Sully

by **Neoteny** on Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:04 am

I was just about to do this.

by **SirSebstar** on Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:21 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:There are problems, but this won't fix anything.

THIS!

macbone wrote: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.......

by **MoB Deadly** on Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:38 pm

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

by **Vid_FISO** on Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:59 pm

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? :-)

by **macbone** on Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:08 pm

Victor Sullivan wrote:

-Sully

QFT

If I see an Ebay seller at 94%, I'm not buying a thing they're selling.

by **Funkyterrance** on Wed Dec 12, 2012 2:38 am

I miss Sully.

by **bigWham** on Tue Sep 24, 2013 1:12 am

This Suggestion has been moved from Submitted with Questions:

- Setting a default rating of 0 will tend to penalize players that play more games. This needs resolution.
- Clarify the problem that this suggestion is solving and whether or not there are simpler solutions (For example, wording changes to the ratings)

by **Metsfanmax** on Sat Dec 14, 2013 5:59 pm

bigWham wrote:This Suggestion has been moved from Submitted with Questions:

- Setting a default rating of 0 will tend to penalize players that play more games. This needs resolution.

No, it will not, to zeroth order. If we assume that the rating rate is constant among all types of players, then people who play lots of games will receive the same percentage of ratings from their games as people who play few games. It is that percentage that matters in calculating the rating, not the absolute number of ratings the player receives.

I think the first order effect is not likely to penalize them either, since people who play lots of games are probably at least as likely to leave ratings on games as people who don't, and they may even leave ratings more often (due to, say, wanting to obtain the ratings medal, etc.).

- Clarify the problem that this suggestion is solving and whether or not there are simpler solutions (For example, wording changes to the ratings)

There are not simpler solutions because people will always rate other players too high if there is a negative incentive for rating players too low (peer pressure). The wording itself is accurate -- it's just that people ignore the wording.

by **bigWham** on Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:12 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
bigWham wrote:This Suggestion has been moved from Submitted with Questions:

- Setting a default rating of 0 will tend to penalize players that play more games. This needs resolution.

No, it will not, to zeroth order. If we assume that the rating rate is constant among all types of players, then people who play lots of games will receive the same percentage of ratings from their games as people who play few games. It is that percentage that matters in calculating the rating, not the absolute number of ratings the player receives.

I think the first order effect is not likely to penalize them either, since people who play lots of games are probably at least as likely to leave ratings on games as people who don't, and they may even leave ratings more often (due to, say, wanting to obtain the ratings medal, etc.).

- Clarify the problem that this suggestion is solving and whether or not there are simpler solutions (For example, wording changes to the ratings)

There are not simpler solutions because people will always rate other players too high if there is a negative incentive for rating players too low (peer pressure). The wording itself is accurate -- it's just that people ignore the wording.

ok, this is fair enough and i do see the point. if i were implementing a rating system from scratch i would do it this way... however it is going to very difficult to prioritize the effort required to make this change. these types of 'inflated' rating systems are actually more the rule than the exception for better or worse.

by **Metsfanmax** on Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:21 pm

bigWham wrote:ok, this is fair enough and i do see the point. if i were implementing a rating system from scratch i would do it this way... however it is going to very difficult to prioritize the effort required to make this change.

I understand that this is not going to be high on the priority list, but I still think it's the right thing to do so I wanted to leave it in Submitted either way. I don't think saying 'we can never do this' is valid because it implies that we do not care that much about the meaningfulness of our rating system (so then why do we have one?). I'll let you decide if and when you think this fits in your development schedule. If you prefer to formally veto it on grounds that it is less important than other things, please say so and move it to Rejected.

by **bigWham** on Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:46 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
bigWham wrote:ok, this is fair enough and i do see the point. if i were implementing a rating system from scratch i would do it this way... however it is going to very difficult to prioritize the effort required to make this change.

I understand that this is not going to be high on the priority list, but I still think it's the right thing to do so I wanted to leave it in Submitted either way. I don't think saying 'we can never do this' is valid because it implies that we do not care that much about the meaningfulness of our rating system (so then why do we have one?). I'll let you decide if and when you think this fits in your development schedule. If you prefer to formally veto it on grounds that it is less important than other things, please say so and move it to Rejected.

no that is fair and in keeping with our current system. environmental changes or strategic considerations may make this (or any other suggestion) take on greater importance at any point in time, so it is great to have them in submitted awaiting the tide to turn in their favor.

by **Gweeedo** on Sun Dec 15, 2013 5:48 pm

I have not played much, compared to some of you.

I never look at another players rating before a game...do you (honestly)?
The only time I view a players rating (score) is if they appear in chat.
Depending on the degree of their outburst, I can figure out what I should expect their Score to be...before I look at it.

It is crazy how Different a player with a 4.1 will act compared to a player with a score of say 3.9

I like the current system, It tells me what I need to know and how I should react to any given player (at just one glance)
You get asses 4.4 but you are able to (communicate) deal with them
Or you get just plain jerks 4.3 Not able to understand anything you have to say.
Suicidal or vindictive 4.0
Best to foe players with a 3.9 Just temporarily...so you don't have to listen to them in chat.

When somebody speaks of game play operations (while in game) you can use rating score to see if they are to be trusted (telling the truth).

I rather like this system.
Once I figured out its usefulness, My game play was much more enjoyable and my score has sky rocketed!

by **degaston** on Sun Dec 15, 2013 8:40 pm

I voted yes to bring the poll to a 67-67 tie. :twisted:

I think all you really need to ask is: "Would you play this person again (Yes or No)?". If you're not sure, then don't rate them and it won't affect their score. A person's rating would be their percent of "Yes" votes. This would keep the feel of the current system, as most good players will probably have a >97% approval rating. (How bad do you have to be to piss off more than 3 out of every 100 people you play?) You could still collect additional information, though I think that a lot of the explanatory tags are redundant. Another change might be to have the ratings be weighted so that recent ratings affect your score more than older ones.

by **wrestler1ump** on Tue Dec 17, 2013 7:32 pm

Go back to feedback but have it not moderated. This will mean some unfair feedbacks but it will be consistent for everyone.

Or allow people to give each person they play a negative, neutral, or positive. Then they can still use the words that are currently used.

Anything is better than this rating system where few people are using it the way it should be, with the majority only giving out 1's or 5's.

[PC] Normalize Player Ratings (Average = 0)

Should we change the rating system, or leave it as it is?

Re: Normalize Player Ratings (Average = 0) [Stickied ~ TFO]

Re: Normalize Player Ratings (Average = 0) [Stickied ~ TFO]

Re: Normalize Player Ratings (Average = 0) [Stickied ~ TFO]

Re: Normalize Player Ratings (Average = 0) [Stickied ~ TFO]

Re: Normalize Player Ratings (Average = 0) [Stickied ~ TFO]

Re: Normalize Player Ratings (Average = 0) [Stickied ~ TFO]

Re: Normalize Player Ratings (Average = 0) [Stickied ~ TFO]

Re: Normalize Player Ratings (Average = 0) [Stickied ~ TFO]

Re: Normalize Player Ratings (Average = 0) [Stickied ~ TFO]

Re: Normalize Player Ratings (Average = 0)

Re: Normalize Player Ratings (Average = 0)

Re: Normalize Player Ratings (Average = 0)

Re: Normalize Player Ratings (Average = 0) [Stickied ~ TFO]

Re: Normalize Player Ratings (Average = 0)

Re: Normalize Player Ratings (Average = 0)

Re: Normalize Player Ratings (Average = 0)

Re: Normalize Player Ratings (Average = 0)

Re: Normalize Player Ratings (Average = 0)

Re: Normalize Player Ratings (Average = 0)

Re: Normalize Player Ratings (Average = 0)

Re: Normalize Player Ratings (Average = 0)

Re: Normalize Player Ratings (Average = 0)

Re: [Site] Normalize Player Ratings (Average = 0)

Re: [Site] Normalize Player Ratings (Average = 0)

Re: [Site] Normalize Player Ratings (Average = 0)

Who is online