Conquer Club

Weeeee ok here is where I finally tells you what is wrong with the rating system.

I recently gave a member a 3/5 star rating for losing a game recently. the member said nothing in the game chat. They played a decent well rounded game. It was an average plain jane game... The 3/5 star is labeled as "average". so tell me.. why does somebody complain when given and "average" rating for losing a game and playing on an "average" level? I'll tell you why! People abuse the rating system! Tell me what does average mean? (arithmetic average assholes ) Add up all the users rating and divide by total users right? So if 3/5 is "average" then we will get 3/5 after these calculations right?!?!?!? NO! We get something like a friggin 4.6 4.7 which would be considered something like outstanding or excellent player some BS like that Can somebody with authority (you better have a dam admin or somethin mark by your name ) correct me if I'm wrong or let me know if this is a flaw that will always be out of hand. I'm tired of seeing golden muffins that play horribly with perfect 5.0 outstanding flawless ratings

I think the reason people get upset that they get "average" ratings is that most people are inherently nice when they assign people ratings. I'm not saying you aren't justified to call someone "average", but people don't expect that.

I actually think it's better the way it is - when you see someone with a 4.0 rating on this game, you tend to take notice. People who average 4.4-5 tend to be good, honorable players, and below that, well, you'd better check.

the rating system is flawed but you are gonna have to go with it
as the average is now 4.7 anything you give below that will be concidered bad rating

See now I wonder if some people have ever actually read the ratings descriptions. Im new to the game and just got my first rating... 1/1/1. Which left me a little agast. I thought I played an average game and was outplayed by better players. I didnt post anything in the chat, just played my game.

And yet someone decided to rate that a 1 for attitude and a 1 for fair play.... which makes me wonder if they ever read the descriptions that went with the ratings. Its all subjective. Incidentally he rated someone else a 4 for attitude... and they didnt do anything differently to me!.

Curious.

Anyhow the ratings will even themselves out .... but for now im a bad player

Ho hum life goes on!

That's not really an error, more of an oversight, a flaw.

after some amusing PM's ... mostly containing the term 'Douche' i've changed my stance from agast to amused.

mrt12345106735 wrote:I recently gave a member a 3/5 star rating for losing a game recently.

The Ratings Instructions wrote:Gameplay: Measures the player's ability to play an enjoyable game (not the player's ability to win).

Giving some 3 stars is fine. Giving any rating just because some one lost is not.

spiesr wrote:Giving any rating just because some one lost is not.

What about giving any rating just because you won? What about giving any rating just because you were feeling bored? What about applying inaccurate tags? What about leaving all fives to someobody who was shit, just so that they'd give you the same?

Seriously people, can we all just man-up and quit these ridiculous "why giving lots of 1's is wrong and immoral, but all other ratings are fine, regardless of accuracy" arguments. The real reason that people get upset by people who leave unjustified 1's isn't because it's any worse than any other kind of silly use of feedback, it's just because people don't like getting 1's. There's nothing special about any of the "he gave me a 1 that probably wasn't justified" scenarios which differentiate the "he gives everyone 5's even when they're wankers" scenarios and I'm getting really sick of people trying to justify why the two are different, with one being unacceptable and the other being fine.

In other words: Any inaccurate ranking = Retarded; but giving inaccurate 1's is no worse than giving inaccurate 5's (or any other number) regardless of why it was given.


It's a shame really, we've replaced one poor system with another equally poor one. But instead of adapting to it and using it like sane adults, we've managed to circle-jerk and back-slap ourselves into a state of mind where instead of having a rating system that runs from 1 to 5 and which can't be sabotaged by one irrate user lashing out; we instead have one which runs from 4.3 to 5.0... with the added "sink target users rating" feature (otherwise known as the '1 star') built in.

What can we do about it? Well for one we can stop leaving sycophantic "All 5! Player of the Century!" ratings for everyone we play, for two we can stop regarding anybody below 4.6 as a potential child-molestor and deadbeat, and for three we can stop indulging everybody who bursts into tears the moment they receive a rating of 3 or less.

/Rant. It's been a long day.

Wow I'm actually surprised that I have gotten a lot of people to come out and agree with my bold statement. For a minute there I thought i was the only one. Mustard man summed it up perfectly.

mrt12345106735 wrote:Weeeee ok here is where I finally tells you what is wrong with the rating system.

I recently gave a member a 3/5 star rating for losing a game recently. the member said nothing in the game chat. They played a decent well rounded game. It was an average plain jane game... The 3/5 star is labeled as "average". so tell me.. why does somebody complain when given and "average" rating for losing a game and playing on an "average" level? I'll tell you why! People abuse the rating system! Tell me what does average mean? (arithmetic average assholes ) Add up all the users rating and divide by total users right? So if 3/5 is "average" then we will get 3/5 after these calculations right?!?!?!? NO! We get something like a friggin 4.6 4.7 which would be considered something like outstanding or excellent player some BS like that Can somebody with authority (you better have a dam admin or somethin mark by your name ) correct me if I'm wrong or let me know if this is a flaw that will always be out of hand. I'm tired of seeing golden muffins that play horribly with perfect 5.0 outstanding flawless ratings

There have been like 20 threads about this already and everyone acknowledges how trash this rating system is already.

Everything you hear about the ratings system is true (as long as what you hear is that the ratings system is crap).
I opted out a while back (except awarding team mates accurate scores) and I don't think I've had even one rating since then, which suits me fine.

Dancing Mustard wrote:... It's a shame really, we've replaced one poor system with another equally poor one. But instead of adapting to it and using it like sane adults, we've managed to circle-jerk and back-slap ourselves into a state of mind where instead of having a rating system that runs from 1 to 5 and which can't be sabotaged by one irrate user lashing out; we instead have one which runs from 4.3 to 5.0... with the added "sink target users rating" feature (otherwise known as the '1 star') built in.

What can we do about it? Well for one we can stop leaving sycophantic "All 5! Player of the Century!" ratings for everyone we play, for two we can stop regarding anybody below 4.6 as a potential child-molestor and deadbeat, and for three we can stop indulging everybody who bursts into tears the moment they receive a rating of 3 or less.

I didn't see this at the time, but it's worth a bump to say "bravo" or whatever the expression is that you'll take as a compliment DM .

Whilst I'm not sure I agree with the "poor" at the start of my quote I do agree that the way people in general are using the rating system, as so succinctly described by DM, is making the system much worse than it innately is. I've always tried to use it using the full scale: Hence I give mostly 3's, the occasional 1 or 2 if someone is particularly annoying and I don't think I've given out a 5 yet. At the outset I got the odd irate PM along the lines of "Why all 3s? What did I do to you?", but now I think people can see from the body of ratings I've left that 3 is not an insult just an acknowledgement that the player turned up and played a sensible game - no more, no less.

cicero wrote:Hence I give mostly 3's, the occasional 1 or 2 if someone is particularly annoying and I don't think I've given out a 5 yet.

Note to self: Don't play any games against Cicero.



(Just kidding. <grin>)

Unless there are special circumstances, I think no one should leave a rating less than 4 in any category. Of course, how you rate ppl depends on your standards and you'll risk getting foed if you leave "unwarranted" ratings...

well, youre intelligence is average....

your looks are average...

your risk playing is average...

average is not a positive adjective.

The ratings are easy to interpret, and they really do let you know the kind of player youll be playing, but you have to adjust your interpretation of them...

5.0 is new or no real chance of conflict in game...and good game play
4.9 similar, and not much chance of conflict or poor play
4.8 still low chance of conflict, good play, and if you dont start with them, they wont start with you
4.7 low chance of conflict, but not unheard of...typically a good player, and worth playing
4.6 possibly a chance for conflict, but doesnt mean there will be any...depends on game and people in it
4.5 at this rating, it is far more likely to see some negative play or chat, if the player is not new...
4.4 at this rating its likely to see some comments if something out of the ordinary happens or you make a move they disagree with
4.3-4.1 almost guaranteed in some games to see some negative chat about dice, moves, etc. Im more surprised not to see it with people with ratings this low
4.0 or less...again...its almost guaranteed they will have some annoying chat, or have some way of playing that is noticable.

The numbers dont necessarily correlate to the exact definitions, but they do give us all an accurate representation of the player.

The ratings however on new players are very ineffective, because they are usually lower than they probably should be, simply because one bad rating can skew the results unfairly....and the odds of one bad rating for absolutely nothing, are fairly high

The ratings arent perfect, but they do the job...they tell you how the player play and act, and Ive played plenty to know they hold true to these ratings, perhaps more than you can even expect. Its actually almost uncanny. I dont actually look at the ratings before I join, but once the chat starts, its easy to tell the rating more often than not.

In short, people get what they deserve overall, and especially over time...so the ratings do work...even if the defintions do not seem to be as accurate as you think they should be.

Also, excellent is in the eye of the beholder...i give all fives if the player just shows up, makes their moves, and doesnt complain too badly...for me...that is an excellent game.....I think the average is actually someone who either plays poorly, or complains....which is why the ratings are actually more accurate than you are suggesting

I often check ppl's ratings before joining a game. If they have a particularly low rating (but aren't infamous for being a n00b in CC), I'll check if they were given unfair ratings. In fact, even if someone has a low rating, I would gladly play them if most or all of their ratings were unwarranted. Checking other ppl's ratings is also a good tool for adding morons onto your foe list.