Filter out low rating players

[AladdinSane]

Sorry if something like this is posted somewhere - I did a bit of a search and didn't come across anything relevant...

I think that the peer rating system doesn't go far enough, because there don't seem to be any real consequences of getting a low rating (below 4.5, say). People with low ratings can just jump last into a game and then it starts right away, so the other players have no chance to avoid them. It would be great if, when creating a game, you could specify a minimum rating (displayed along side the game listing) for people to be able to join it. Perhaps the waiting game wouldn't even be visible to players whose rating was too low.

If there is already something like this, I would appreciate someone telling me how to use it; otherwise, I would appreciate comments. If there is some support for the idea, I'll post in forum suggestions...

Thanks

Edit: I hope it is clear from what I have said that I am not talking about players' scores, but the 1-5 star ratings we give each other.

[betiko]

Well people with low ratings would have much less choice in their games. Sometimes low ratings aren t well deserved either. Some players with high ratings could piss you off too. The best is to foe people you didn t like after experiencing that a certain player is actually an ass..

[frankiebee]

This can never happen with the rating system as bad as it is right now. Remember, when you have a rating of 4.0 you are ''above average.''

[AladdinSane]

Well people with low ratings would have much less choice in their games. Sometimes low ratings aren t well deserved either. Some players with high ratings could piss you off too. The best is to foe people you didn t like after experiencing that a certain player is actually an ass..

Well, that's kind of the point: people with low rating would experience consequences of having a low rating, like less choice in their games. That would be a good thing if it makes them try to improve their rating by not being an ass. Anyway, they can always start their own games, and anyone who chooses to play in those games can do so.

As well, their choice of games would only be restricted greatly if a lot of players made use of the feature. And if a lot of players made use of the feature, that would just prove that it is something lots of people want.

If someone has a low rating from lots of ratings given to them, the chances are that they deserve them. Sure, someone with, say, just 5 ratings might have an unfairly low rating, but like I say, not everyone would make use of the filter, and they can always start their own games.

The problem with the foe approach (which I currently do use) is that you can only avoid the asses AFTER they mess up a game for you. I'd much rather that block out the people the community has judged to be an ass before it gets that far. Otherwise, why even have a rating system?

Remember, I'm proposing a filter that each player can set for him/herself - some will choose not to use it at all, some will set it fairly low (say, 4.0) and others at a stricter level (4.5+, perhaps).

[AladdinSane]

This can never happen with the rating system as bad as it is right now. Remember, when you have a rating of 4.0 you are ''above average.''

I can't see why it can't happen. I'd set it to 4.7 or 4.8 (4.6 as a very minimum) - that would still leave me plenty of players to compete against.

[frankiebee]

This can never happen with the rating system as bad as it is right now. Remember, when you have a rating of 4.0 you are ''above average.''

I can't see why it can't happen. I'd set it to 4.7 or 4.8 (4.6 as a very minimum) - that would still leave me plenty of players to compete against.

How do you explain this to new players?
Sorry man, your gameplay and attitude are above average, you can't join games because your rating is to low

The problem is that there are still some people giving rating how it's supposed to be. They give 3-3-3 stars when they played a normal nothing special game. When rating will have consequences, every CC player will go apeshit when they get a rating they think is not fair. They will go to the admins and ask to remove the rating. And then the admins go apeshit because it's to much work to manage all that rating abuse, and then we can get ''feedback'' back,... Hey actually this is a good idea! Bring it on!

[Evildrum]

I think you would have to create that after say a set amount of rankings otherwise you would be eventually killing off the new players that would be supplementing the older players that no longer play.
For example you would have players with higher rankings sitting pretty well a new player with few games gets a bad ranking from one player that could set them back a ton. Are they going to stick it out and adjust the ranking so they can play with the rest or move on?
Personally speaking I am still pretty new and find my ranking(4.5) to be hard to adjust. I give most players a rank each game and have found out of 30 players I will get one rank in return. Looking at "rankings left" for some players I see less than 10 rankings and all very low as a result. So players are more likely to leave to rank a player they dislike than a player they had a enjoyable or smooth game with. So the system is faulty on those grounds.

If you want to weigh the rankings than the player giving the rank should have his ranking weigh based on his creditability. So a player that is always attacking players through igm or mail or cheating should have his rankings left be worth less. Otherwise I see no point in what you are trying to achieve.

It may sound like a utopia but you would regret running into it with just the idea that those with lower rankings cant join.

[AladdinSane]

This can never happen with the rating system as bad as it is right now. Remember, when you have a rating of 4.0 you are ''above average.''

I can't see why it can't happen. I'd set it to 4.7 or 4.8 (4.6 as a very minimum) - that would still leave me plenty of players to compete against.

How do you explain this to new players?
Sorry man, your gameplay and attitude are above average, you can't join games because your rating is to low

The problem is that there are still some people giving rating how it's supposed to be. They give 3-3-3 stars when they played a normal nothing special game. When rating will have consequences, every CC player will go apeshit when they get a rating they think is not fair. They will go to the admins and ask to remove the rating. And then the admins go apeshit because it's to much work to manage all that rating abuse, and then we can get ''feedback'' back,... Hey actually this is a good idea! Bring it on!

I'd say to them 'Go play with the other low-rated players until your rating picks up'. Don't forget, this is something that individual players can set when they start a game. Anyone who doesn't mind playing low-rated players can still do so.

In response to your other points, I simply ask: why even have a rating system if it doesn't have consequences?


Anyway, i sense that there isn't a huge groundswell of support for the idea, so let it ride, I guess...