[PC] Normalize Player Ratings (Average = 0)

[temporos]

... have ratings based on the number of friends and foes you've got.

This is similar to the idea proposed earlier in this thread that the possible ratings be either thumbs-up or thumbs-down. Even such a system as that would be better than the current joke. Personally, I still prefer the -2 to +2 scale, but obviously I don't have any control over what the mods do.

[Victor Sullivan]

I still prefer the -2 to +2 scale, but obviously I don't have any control over what the mods do.

Agreed.

[waseemalim]

This is a great suggestion. Especially, the no rating = 0. I only rate people that thoroughly impress me, or disappoint me. I am somewhat reluctant currently to give people 3 stars, as they are perceived as a negative. Under this system, I dont have to bother about that.

I think this would be a great way for us to see who truly are the most honorable players.

[Victor Sullivan]

This is a great suggestion. Especially, the no rating = 0. I only rate people that thoroughly impress me, or disappoint me. I am somewhat reluctant currently to give people 3 stars, as they are perceived as a negative. Under this system, I dont have to bother about that.

I think this would be a great way for us to see who truly are the most honorable players.

I am the same way! And I totally agree.

[TheForgivenOne]

May I ask how this will affect the Ratings Medal? Will it be able to code the medal to not count "ratings" that are "Normal/0/3"?

[MichelSableheart]

I would imagine that you don't actually add the 0 rating to the ratings tab. Rather, it would mention "58 people did not rate this player". That can be determined using a simple if statement along the lines of "if playedGameTogether and not ratingLeft". I see no problems with the ratings medal.

[Metsfanmax]

I would imagine that you don't actually add the 0 rating to the ratings tab. Rather, it would mention "58 people did not rate this player". That can be determined using a simple if statement along the lines of "if playedGameTogether and not ratingLeft". I see no problems with the ratings medal.

This seems like the optimal solution. The ratings page and ratings medal will only count ratings actively left by players. But at the top of the ratings page where the overall rating is calculated, behind the scenes it will average in all the zeros before displaying the result.

[nebsmith]

No, it is a substantial change. Let's say I have played 1000 players and 25% of them rated me. 80% gave me 5 stars for Gameplay, 10% gave me 4 stars, and 10% gave me 1 star. Under the current system, my rating would be 4.5 out of 5. Under the new system (where 80% of the raters give me 2, 10% give me 1, and 10% and give me -2), my rating would be +0.375. You don't think those are different?

Actually no. While the first case (a 1 to 5 system) would give you 4.5 on the numbers you use, the second case (a -2 to +2 system) would give you 1.5 on the numbers you use.

All this has done is moved the result down 3, it's still a 5 point spread overall.

Of course if half the people who played you under your proposed sytem couldn't be bothered to leave a rating this would cut your rating down to 0.75. but ,if as you say, people giving extreme ratings to friends and foe would have little effect then there would just be a lot of 0.75's around.

I would suggest.
That if the problem stems from people not rating honestly for fear of comeback then make the ratings system anonymous, which has it's own problems, but is probably the only way to get an honest rating from most people. Unfortunately this would mean those who abuse the system would get away with it.
Any system where the rating you give someone is tracable to you is always going to be skewed to the high end no matter what the system is.

[Metsfanmax]

Of course if half the people who played you under your proposed sytem couldn't be bothered to leave a rating this would cut your rating down to 0.75. but ,if as you say, people giving extreme ratings to friends and foe would have little effect then there would just be a lot of 0.75's around.

In my situation, 75% of the people who played me didn't leave a rating, so my calculation was accurate. I feel like 75% is a conservative estimate!

[Bruceswar]

This is a great suggestion. Especially, the no rating = 0. I only rate people that thoroughly impress me, or disappoint me. I am somewhat reluctant currently to give people 3 stars, as they are perceived as a negative. Under this system, I dont have to bother about that.

I think this would be a great way for us to see who truly are the most honorable players.

Actually no this will just tell you who gets rated the most or not rated. If someone does not rate anybody at all they are saying everybody is average, which we know is not true. Some people just do not rate. Nice idea but will not work.

[Metsfanmax]

This is a great suggestion. Especially, the no rating = 0. I only rate people that thoroughly impress me, or disappoint me. I am somewhat reluctant currently to give people 3 stars, as they are perceived as a negative. Under this system, I dont have to bother about that.

I think this would be a great way for us to see who truly are the most honorable players.

Actually no this will just tell you who gets rated the most or not rated. If someone does not rate anybody at all they are saying everybody is average, which we know is not true. Some people just do not rate. Nice idea but will not work.

If some people do not take part in the ratings system, then why would those people be upset if this were implemented?

[natty dread]

Actually no this will just tell you who gets rated the most or not rated. If someone does not rate anybody at all they are saying everybody is average, which we know is not true. Some people just do not rate. Nice idea but will not work.

It would work better than the current system.

On the current system nobody has ratings below 4 and THAT we know is not true.

In the real world, not everyone is above average. It's time the ratings system reflected this and actually meant something.

[temporos]

On the current system nobody has ratings below 4 and THAT we know is not true.

The current ratings system reflects the current mindset in the developed world right now: "Everybody's a winner!"

In the real world, not everyone is above average.

Don't tell the public school system that...

[jrh_cardinal]

This is a great suggestion. Especially, the no rating = 0. I only rate people that thoroughly impress me, or disappoint me. I am somewhat reluctant currently to give people 3 stars, as they are perceived as a negative. Under this system, I dont have to bother about that.

I think this would be a great way for us to see who truly are the most honorable players.

Actually no this will just tell you who gets rated the most or not rated. If someone does not rate anybody at all they are saying everybody is average, which we know is not true. Some people just do not rate. Nice idea but will not work.

If some people do not take part in the ratings system, then why would those people be upset if this were implemented?

They wouldn't. All of the people that they played and essentially gave 0's to would.

1) Who rates -2 to 2? When giving a movie review you give it 1-5 stars, or go into a restaurant that has those "How did we do?" cards, the ratings they have on there are 1-something (usually 5, maybe 3 or something). You don't use negative numbers

2) The last day of the old system:
Player x plays 100 multiplayer public games at a time, against random people, most of whom don't give a crap about CC or ratings. He gets rated by 25% of them, and has a rating of 4.8 (667 people have rated him)

Player y only plays 40 private team games at a time in his clan, Team 2000+++ usergroup, and clan wars all against people who are serious about CC, their score, and their rating. He gets rated by 50% of them, and has a rating of 4.8 (667 people have rated him)

6 Months after implementation of new system:
Player x has finished 1000 new games, in which he played 1333 new opponents (remember, public games against random people). His trends continued, so he's now been rated by 1000 people, with a rating of 1.8 on the new scale. He's also not been rated by 1000 people, so he actually has a rating of 0.9

Player y has finished 400 new games, in which he only played 66 new opponents (2 clan wars, only a few changes in his clan and usergroup). his trends continue, so he has now been rated by 700 people, with a rating of 1.8 on the new scale. He has not been rated by 33 people, so he now has a rating of 1.75ish

Are these two players deserving of such disparity in their ratings?

[Victor Sullivan]

This is a great suggestion. Especially, the no rating = 0. I only rate people that thoroughly impress me, or disappoint me. I am somewhat reluctant currently to give people 3 stars, as they are perceived as a negative. Under this system, I dont have to bother about that.

I think this would be a great way for us to see who truly are the most honorable players.

Actually no this will just tell you who gets rated the most or not rated. If someone does not rate anybody at all they are saying everybody is average, which we know is not true. Some people just do not rate. Nice idea but will not work.

If some people do not take part in the ratings system, then why would those people be upset if this were implemented?

They wouldn't. All of the people that they played and essentially gave 0's to would.

1) Who rates -2 to 2? When giving a movie review you give it 1-5 stars, or go into a restaurant that has those "How did we do?" cards, the ratings they have on there are 1-something (usually 5, maybe 3 or something). You don't use negative numbers

2) The last day of the old system:
Player x plays 100 multiplayer public games at a time, against random people, most of whom don't give a crap about CC or ratings. He gets rated by 25% of them, and has a rating of 4.8 (667 people have rated him)

Player y only plays 40 private team games at a time in his clan, Team 2000+++ usergroup, and clan wars all against people who are serious about CC, their score, and their rating. He gets rated by 50% of them, and has a rating of 4.8 (667 people have rated him)

6 Months after implementation of new system:
Player x has finished 1000 new games, in which he played 1333 new opponents (remember, public games against random people). His trends continued, so he's now been rated by 1000 people, with a rating of 1.8 on the new scale. He's also not been rated by 1000 people, so he actually has a rating of 0.9

Player y has finished 400 new games, in which he only played 66 new opponents (2 clan wars, only a few changes in his clan and usergroup). his trends continue, so he has now been rated by 700 people, with a rating of 1.8 on the new scale. He has not been rated by 33 people, so he now has a rating of 1.75ish

Are these two players deserving of such disparity in their ratings?

Yes.

[Metsfanmax]

1) Who rates -2 to 2? When giving a movie review you give it 1-5 stars, or go into a restaurant that has those "How did we do?" cards, the ratings they have on there are 1-something (usually 5, maybe 3 or something). You don't use negative numbers

Who rates 1 to 5? The fact that the average score is like 4.7 indicates that people do not understand how to properly rate on the current scale.

2) The last day of the old system:
Player x plays 100 multiplayer public games at a time, against random people, most of whom don't give a crap about CC or ratings. He gets rated by 25% of them, and has a rating of 4.8 (667 people have rated him)

Player y only plays 40 private team games at a time in his clan, Team 2000+++ usergroup, and clan wars all against people who are serious about CC, their score, and their rating. He gets rated by 50% of them, and has a rating of 4.8 (667 people have rated him)

6 Months after implementation of new system:
Player x has finished 1000 new games, in which he played 1333 new opponents (remember, public games against random people). His trends continued, so he's now been rated by 1000 people, with a rating of 1.8 on the new scale. He's also not been rated by 1000 people, so he actually has a rating of 0.9

Player y has finished 400 new games, in which he only played 66 new opponents (2 clan wars, only a few changes in his clan and usergroup). his trends continue, so he has now been rated by 700 people, with a rating of 1.8 on the new scale. He has not been rated by 33 people, so he now has a rating of 1.75ish

Are these two players deserving of such disparity in their ratings?

If someone is being rated a lot highly, it probably means that this player is generally seen as exceptional (it's possible that he simply played a lot of people who rate regularly, but this is rather unlikely). The fact that Player x is not rated as frequently means that more players generally see Player x as average. So yes, these two players deserve this disparity in their ratings. That is the entire point of the system: to make it clear who is simply an average player, and who is seen as an exceptional player.

[jrh_cardinal]

Who rates 1 to 5? The fact that the average score is like 4.7 indicates that people do not understand how to properly rate on the current scale.

You're avoiding the point. No, people do not rate 3 as an average rating on this site. Who cares? Having them rate -2 to 2 wouldn't change that, and it's stupid because when you're rating/reviewing someone with stars, you don't go -2 to 2, you go 1 to 5. Can you imagine a newspaper saying "We gave this movie -1 stars"? How do you give -1 of something anyway, no, you give out positive numbers.

If someone is being rated a lot highly, it probably means that this player is generally seen as exceptional (it's possible that he simply played a lot of people who rate regularly, but this is rather unlikely). The fact that Player x is not rated as frequently means that more players generally see Player x as average. So yes, these two players deserve this disparity in their ratings. That is the entire point of the system: to make it clear who is simply an average player, and who is seen as an exceptional player.

No, it means he plays people who give a damn about CC, his rating is the same. The same percentage of people rate him low as the other guy. They both have a 4.8 (or 1.8 ) with just ratings, so the same percentage of people rate them low as rate them high. If you still disagree, I'll change it.

Player X stays the same, keeps his 0.9 rating.

Player Y only gets rated by 1/4 of the people he plays (same percent as player x). He played 68 new people, so in total he's been rated by 684 people, and not rated by 51. He now has a rating of 1.675.


So the only difference between the two of them is the number of new opponents. Should Player X be punished for playing against more people?

[Victor Sullivan]

Who rates 1 to 5? The fact that the average score is like 4.7 indicates that people do not understand how to properly rate on the current scale.

You're avoiding the point. No, people do not rate 3 as an average rating on this site. Who cares? Having them rate -2 to 2 wouldn't change that, and it's stupid because when you're rating/reviewing someone with stars, you don't go -2 to 2, you go 1 to 5. Can you imagine a newspaper saying "We gave this movie -1 stars"? How do you give -1 of something anyway, no, you give out positive numbers.

I don't see how this justifies your position in this argument. It's just a f-ing number. Besides, I think the -2 to 2 is better, cuz then negative means you're below average and positive means you're above average. My point is, you can't use this argument for why not to implement this. It's about the rating mechanic, not what numbers to use.

If someone is being rated a lot highly, it probably means that this player is generally seen as exceptional (it's possible that he simply played a lot of people who rate regularly, but this is rather unlikely). The fact that Player x is not rated as frequently means that more players generally see Player x as average. So yes, these two players deserve this disparity in their ratings. That is the entire point of the system: to make it clear who is simply an average player, and who is seen as an exceptional player.

No, it means he plays people who give a damn about CC, his rating is the same. The same percentage of people rate him low as the other guy. They both have a 4.8 (or 1.8 ) with just ratings, so the same percentage of people rate them low as rate them high. If you still disagree, I'll change it.

Player X stays the same, keeps his 0.9 rating.

Player Y only gets rated by 1/4 of the people he plays (same percent as player x). He played 68 new people, so in total he's been rated by 684 people, and not rated by 51. He now has a rating of 1.675.


So the only difference between the two of them is the number of new opponents. Should Player X be punished for playing against more people?

Your question is bad, as both yes and no would support your argument, the way it's asked. The correct question to use for this situation is, "Is it fair that Player X has a lower overall rating than Player Y?" And the answer is yes.

-Sully for -222

[Metsfanmax]

You're avoiding the point. No, people do not rate 3 as an average rating on this site. Who cares? Having them rate -2 to 2 wouldn't change that, and it's stupid because when you're rating/reviewing someone with stars, you don't go -2 to 2, you go 1 to 5. Can you imagine a newspaper saying "We gave this movie -1 stars"? How do you give -1 of something anyway, no, you give out positive numbers.

Are you intentionally being obtuse? This is fairly easy to figure out. If you don't like the idea of giving someone a -1, then just give them a rating from 1 to 5 and subtract 3.

The change to -2 to 2 is mostly cosmetic; the zero default ratings are the real issue.

No, it means he plays people who give a damn about CC, his rating is the same. The same percentage of people rate him low as the other guy. They both have a 4.8 (or 1.8 ) with just ratings, so the same percentage of people rate them low as rate them high. If you still disagree, I'll change it.

Player X stays the same, keeps his 0.9 rating.

Player Y only gets rated by 1/4 of the people he plays (same percent as player x). He played 68 new people, so in total he's been rated by 684 people, and not rated by 51. He now has a rating of 1.675.


So the only difference between the two of them is the number of new opponents. Should Player X be punished for playing against more people?

It's not a question of punishment. If a given player is not rated very often, it means he or she is not exceptional, and so it makes sense that his or her rating falls near the average.

Also, I've pointed out that the only way this system will work is if we erase all previous ratings before transitioning to this new system.

[TheForgivenOne]

It's not a question of punishment. If a given player is not rated very often, it means he or she is not exceptional, and so it makes sense that his or her rating falls near the average.

Or, possibly this player plays someone who has reached Gold in Ratings, and has stopped rating altogether, OR has just played players who don't rate. Period.

[jrh_cardinal]

No, it means he plays people who give a damn about CC, his rating is the same. The same percentage of people rate him low as the other guy. They both have a 4.8 (or 1.8 ) with just ratings, so the same percentage of people rate them low as rate them high. If you still disagree, I'll change it.

Player X stays the same, keeps his 0.9 rating.

Player Y only gets rated by 1/4 of the people he plays (same percent as player x). He played 68 new people, so in total he's been rated by 684 people, and not rated by 51. He now has a rating of 1.675.


So the only difference between the two of them is the number of new opponents. Should Player X be punished for playing against more people?

It's not a question of punishment. If a given player is not rated very often, it means he or she is not exceptional, and so it makes sense that his or her rating falls near the average.

great, you totally just oversupported my point . Percentage-wise they get rated the same (in the changed scenario), but Player X is "rated more often" because he plays more new people, so by your account he should have a higher rating, clearly he doesn't

Also, I've pointed out that the only way this system will work is if we erase all previous ratings before transitioning to this new system.

[/quote]
That would work better, but then you lose all your old ratings, and lets be honest here, most people don't rate because they want to. If you take away everyones medal, they're just going to get pissed, then eventually rate the next 500 people they play perfect scores, which ruins your system. If you don't take away people's medals, they're just going to not rate people that they already rated once (even if they're an amazing player), because they don't want to rate. Everyone's rating would still be about the same.
Erasing the ratings is better, but I still don't see how it improves the situation. Let's say it works exactly as you want it to, people start rating 0 as average, so the average player's rating is 0. Great. The 99th percentile will be at like 0.2. What's the difference between having the spread from 4.5-4.9, and having it -.2 to .2?
This suggestion isn't going to make people give out an even number of -2's, -1's, 0's, 1's, and 2's; at the very best it's going to make the people going for the ratings medal rate all 0's (average) rather than all 5's (high).

[Metsfanmax]

It's not a question of punishment. If a given player is not rated very often, it means he or she is not exceptional, and so it makes sense that his or her rating falls near the average.

Or, possibly this player plays someone who has reached Gold in Ratings, and has stopped rating altogether, OR has just played players who don't rate. Period.

It's statistically unlikely that a given player will play more non-raters on average, than any other given player.

great, you totally just oversupported my point . Percentage-wise they get rated the same (in the changed scenario), but Player X is "rated more often" because he plays more new people, so by your account he should have a higher rating, clearly he doesn't

The frequency of rating is what's important. In order for Player X to be "rated more often," i.e. at a higher frequency, a greater percentage of the people who play him have to give ratings. If Player A plays 1000 people and is rated 5 by 800 of them, and not left ratings by the other 200, then he will have the same rating as Player B, who played 100 people and was rated 5 80 of them, and unrated by 20. So Player A doesn't gain an advantage or disadvantage simply because he plays more games. In your scenario, the players are not given ratings at the same rate, so it is not fair to draw the conclusion that you did.

That would work better, but then you lose all your old ratings, and lets be honest here, most people don't rate because they want to. If you take away everyones medal, they're just going to get pissed, then eventually rate the next 500 people they play perfect scores, which ruins your system. If you don't take away people's medals, they're just going to not rate people that they already rated once (even if they're an amazing player), because they don't want to rate. Everyone's rating would still be about the same.

I said earlier on in the thread that I wouldn't take away people's medals. The whole point of this suggestion is that if people don't change their rating habits, then you're going to see most ratings suddenly skew toward the center (as they should). If that doesn't motivate them to give ratings for the sake of it, then nothing will.

Erasing the ratings is better, but I still don't see how it improves the situation. Let's say it works exactly as you want it to, people start rating 0 as average, so the average player's rating is 0. Great. The 99th percentile will be at like 0.2. What's the difference between having the spread from 4.5-4.9, and having it -.2 to .2?
This suggestion isn't going to make people give out an even number of -2's, -1's, 0's, 1's, and 2's; at the very best it's going to make the people going for the ratings medal rate all 0's (average) rather than all 5's (high).

The hope of this suggestion is that this will force people to change their rating habits, because they don't want everyone to have a 0 rating. You're right - maybe I'm overestimating what this might do. But no one can deny that the current rating system is totally broken, and if there's a chance to fix the system, I don't see why we shouldn't take it.

[jrh_cardinal]

It's not a question of punishment. If a given player is not rated very often, it means he or she is not exceptional, and so it makes sense that his or her rating falls near the average.

Or, possibly this player plays someone who has reached Gold in Ratings, and has stopped rating altogether, OR has just played players who don't rate. Period.

It's statistically unlikely that a given player will play more non-raters on average, than any other given player.

incorrect. you are assuming pure randomness, CC players are not random. This is why my first example worked. 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.

great, you totally just oversupported my point . Percentage-wise they get rated the same (in the changed scenario), but Player X is "rated more often" because he plays more new people, so by your account he should have a higher rating, clearly he doesn't

The frequency of rating is what's important. In order for Player X to be "rated more often," i.e. at a higher frequency, a greater percentage of the people who play him have to give ratings. If Player A plays 1000 people and is rated 5 by 800 of them, and not left ratings by the other 200, then he will have the same rating as Player B, who played 100 people and was rated 5 80 of them, and unrated by 20. So Player A doesn't gain an advantage or disadvantage simply because he plays more games. In your scenario, the players are not given ratings at the same rate, so it is not fair to draw the conclusion that you did.

You didn't read the change in my scenario. I changed it so that player y only got rated by 25% of opponents (because you said this, which as I already said isn't valid, but that's beside the point), the same percentage as player x. So thank you for pointing out that by your standards, my example is completely valid.

No, it means he plays people who give a damn about CC, his rating is the same. The same percentage of people rate him low as the other guy. They both have a 4.8 (or 1.8 ) with just ratings, so the same percentage of people rate them low as rate them high. If you still disagree, I'll change it.

Player X stays the same, keeps his 0.9 rating.

Player Y only gets rated by 1/4 of the people he plays (same percent as player x). He played 68 new people, so in total he's been rated by 684 people, and not rated by 51. He now has a rating of 1.675.

That would work better, but then you lose all your old ratings, and lets be honest here, most people don't rate because they want to. If you take away everyones medal, they're just going to get pissed, then eventually rate the next 500 people they play perfect scores, which ruins your system. If you don't take away people's medals, they're just going to not rate people that they already rated once (even if they're an amazing player), because they don't want to rate. Everyone's rating would still be about the same.

I said earlier on in the thread that I wouldn't take away people's medals. The whole point of this suggestion is that if people don't change their rating habits, then you're going to see most ratings suddenly skew toward the center (as they should). If that doesn't motivate them to give ratings for the sake of it, then nothing will.

Why would people be motivated to give ratings? They wouldn't be. And who cares if they're in the center or not, as I already said ratings ranging from -.2 to .2 tell you no more about a person than ratings ranging from 4.5 to 4.9.

Erasing the ratings is better, but I still don't see how it improves the situation. Let's say it works exactly as you want it to, people start rating 0 as average, so the average player's rating is 0. Great. The 99th percentile will be at like 0.2. What's the difference between having the spread from 4.5-4.9, and having it -.2 to .2?
This suggestion isn't going to make people give out an even number of -2's, -1's, 0's, 1's, and 2's; at the very best it's going to make the people going for the ratings medal rate all 0's (average) rather than all 5's (high).

The hope of this suggestion is that this will force people to change their rating habits, because they don't want everyone to have a 0 rating. You're right - maybe I'm overestimating what this might do. But no one can deny that the current rating system is totally broken, and if there's a chance to fix the system, I don't see why we shouldn't take it.

The rating system is not totally broken. No, you can't really pick out the exceptional people from the crowd, but you can pick out the bad people. Anyone below a 4.5 is almost always not someone you want to partner with. So, for instance, my clan can say you have to have a minimum rating of 4.6 to apply for membership, that weeds out the bad people. Then I can go in and look at tags, look at individual ratings and click on the games to get an idea of whether this is someone we want. In your system, you have to reset the ratings or else it won't work at all (as you said), then everyone's rating is centered around 0, and the highest ratings will be the people that have been rated the most, which has just as much to do as the type of games that you play as it does with your personality. That just makes the ratings sclae even worse as there is no point that comes close to separating the above average from the below average

and if people start behaving "like they should" according to you, then everyone's going to be bunched up within .1, maybe .2 of 0, with just a few outliers. So, you'll be able to pick out the outstanding and the really terrible, but won't have any distinction between the good and the bad, which is what is really necessary.

[Metsfanmax]

incorrect. you are assuming pure randomness, CC players are not random. This is why my first example worked. 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.

Prove your assertion that officers in clans rate more than free private players. Saying that they "care about the game more" doesn't indicate that they're more likely to leave ratings, and isn't even necessarily true.

You didn't read the change in my scenario. I changed it so that player y only got rated by 25% of opponents (because you said this, which as I already said isn't valid, but that's beside the point), the same percentage as player x. So thank you for pointing out that by your standards, my example is completely valid.

Your scenario is invalid, because it was based on the assumption that old ratings would be kept in the new system, which they wouldn't be.

Why would people be motivated to give ratings? They wouldn't be. And who cares if they're in the center or not, as I already said ratings ranging from -.2 to .2 tell you no more about a person than ratings ranging from 4.5 to 4.9.

They would be motivated to give ratings because now, if people do nothing, they can easily have a 4.7 or 4.8. In the new system, there will be a collective drive (hopefully) to rate more so that people don't get a lower rating than they desire (since presumably everyone wants an objectively high rating - I think most people want to be 1.8 out of 2, not 0.3, even though 0.3 might be above average.

The rating system is not totally broken. No, you can't really pick out the exceptional people from the crowd, but you can pick out the bad people. Anyone below a 4.5 is almost always not someone you want to partner with. So, for instance, my clan can say you have to have a minimum rating of 4.6 to apply for membership, that weeds out the bad people. Then I can go in and look at tags, look at individual ratings and click on the games to get an idea of whether this is someone we want. In your system, you have to reset the ratings or else it won't work at all (as you said), then everyone's rating is centered around 0, and the highest ratings will be the people that have been rated the most, which has just as much to do as the type of games that you play as it does with your personality. That just makes the ratings sclae even worse as there is no point that comes close to separating the above average from the below average

The new system would have that too, plus you'd see the other end of the spectrum - the really good players.

and if people start behaving "like they should" according to you, then everyone's going to be bunched up within .1, maybe .2 of 0, with just a few outliers. So, you'll be able to pick out the outstanding and the really terrible, but won't have any distinction between the good and the bad, which is what is really necessary.

Sure, but it looks like based on your outlook we may never have that. I'm more hopeful though - if it's possible to achieve that, then this suggestion will bring us in the right direction.

[jrh_cardinal]

incorrect. you are assuming pure randomness, CC players are not random. This is why my first example worked. 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.

Prove your assertion that officers in clans rate more than free private players. Saying that they "care about the game more" doesn't indicate that they're more likely to leave ratings, and isn't even necessarily true.

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.

You didn't read the change in my scenario. I changed it so that player y only got rated by 25% of opponents (because you said this, which as I already said isn't valid, but that's beside the point), the same percentage as player x. So thank you for pointing out that by your standards, my example is completely valid.

Your scenario is invalid, because it was based on the assumption that old ratings would be kept in the new system, which they wouldn't be.

the players are not given ratings at the same rate, so it is not fair to draw the conclusion that you did.

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.

Why would people be motivated to give ratings? They wouldn't be. And who cares if they're in the center or not, as I already said ratings ranging from -.2 to .2 tell you no more about a person than ratings ranging from 4.5 to 4.9.

They would be motivated to give ratings because now, if people do nothing, they can easily have a 4.7 or 4.8. In the new system, there will be a collective drive (hopefully) to rate more so that people don't get a lower rating than they desire (since presumably everyone wants an objectively high rating - I think most people want to be 1.8 out of 2, not 0.3, even though 0.3 might be above average.

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 rating system is not totally broken. No, you can't really pick out the exceptional people from the crowd, but you can pick out the bad people. Anyone below a 4.5 is almost always not someone you want to partner with. So, for instance, my clan can say you have to have a minimum rating of 4.6 to apply for membership, that weeds out the bad people. Then I can go in and look at tags, look at individual ratings and click on the games to get an idea of whether this is someone we want. In your system, you have to reset the ratings or else it won't work at all (as you said), then everyone's rating is centered around 0, and the highest ratings will be the people that have been rated the most, which has just as much to do as the type of games that you play as it does with your personality. That just makes the ratings sclae even worse as there is no point that comes close to separating the above average from the below average

The new system would have that too, plus you'd see the other end of the spectrum - the really good players.

It's pointless to respond to this until you answer the above question

and if people start behaving "like they should" according to you, then everyone's going to be bunched up within .1, maybe .2 of 0, with just a few outliers. So, you'll be able to pick out the outstanding and the really terrible, but won't have any distinction between the good and the bad, which is what is really necessary.

Sure, but it looks like based on your outlook we may never have that. I'm more hopeful though - if it's possible to achieve that, then this suggestion will bring us in the right direction.

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.