The Fortress Player Rater v. 2

[Titanoboa]

That too would become a popularity contest and I doubt the rankings will be interesting for more than 2 or 3 months, if that.

[Concord]

just because your average rating is below what you think it should be, doesn't mean it must be wrong

Did I say or imply that anywhere?

Good thing you complained before you were rated in order to avoid any implication that it had anything at all to do with your own rating.

or

good thing you complained immediately after being rated as to eliminate any doubt this was solely related to yourself.

[Jonathan]

Hey, Word, you know it can be quite blissful to just let things rest? If anything, this arguing probably hits your reputation harder than the player rater itself.

[Word]

I knew that before I posted, and I think I'm about to say that for the fourth time...(forgive me), my point was that Concord chooses criteria which are meant to be generally applicable and should be success-oriented, yet he and others limit them to players who play pickup, players who can maze, etc. I disagree that a good player needs to do any of these things, nothing more. Players who are just there the whole time and kill in a rather unspectacular manner seem to come off badly regardless how good they are at what they do (I know there are few such players) and I don't like that, because personally I find this way of playing the most solid one.

Just count their kills, how often they get the zone, how often they successfully defend the zone etc., how they kill one sweeper after the other and often make more points in one round than some of the best mazers make in a single match. I could only name a handful of such players but I suppose half of them are inactive now. These were the ones I tried to learn from, not Xyron or Potter, or Woned, or FoFo (who of course are great players, but in a completely different way). To put a good mazer off his stride is another legitimate way of adapting to a situation, not a sign of inferiority or inability. Concord disagrees here regardless how good the result is compared to the way of adapting that he'd choose.

Tried to play a few pickup matches yesterday to see if one can contribute to the win as much as one does in MB's. Made no difference if you ask me - good players play good and bad players suck (- just to demonstrate that I still don't give a crap about my reputation in these matters).

good thing you complained immediately after being rated as to eliminate any doubt this was solely related to yourself.

see above. simply wouldn't have noticed it without the ratings being like that and people behave as if the good ones were written in stone, that's something I admitted in my first post. It doesn't make above arguments less valid.

[vov]

criteria which are meant to be generally applicable and should be success-oriented
...
Just count their kills, how often they get the zone, how often they successfully defend the zone etc., how they kill one sweeper after the other and often make more points in one round than some of the best mazers make in a single match.

That's what matters for serious play; most players don't focus this that much in casual play. But, here it is:
The Totally Unbiased Fact-bound Player Rater for Word (aka gridstats by dlh). Enjoy.

I'm not a statistics program that can rate by such stuff.
Example: Attack. Most people DO tend to remember awesome cuts rather than absolutely unspectacular long-ass end-of-the-round 1v1s which end in a simple bored death of the defender.
Criteria are not made for the players so that everyone is able to score good if they want ("don't try that cut, wait instead and score the statistics-proof kill"); besides, everyone playing for stats is ladle, not casual fort and not necessarily pickup. That's what ladle is for. Want a ladle player rater? Look at who won it.
If someone has the balls to try and tunnel after someone, even if they don't always success, it does (imo) show more skill than endless waiting, avoiding, and finally getting a bored defender to eventually screw up. Cause about everyone could do that. I'd not vote based on reputation or success but rather on the style of playing. Others might interpret it in another way, but i think most people vote in a quite similar way. Your interpretation, Word, is the "this is serious" one. It's likely to not be meant like that, because it'd be redundant to *Insert another link to gridstats and/or ladle results*. It's just for fun.

tl;dr:
- My opinion: The categories are fine and make sense, people who think like Word can use gridstats instead.
- Agreed to Jonathan

P.S. @Word; I'm likely to not respond or give a **** if you want to discuss this point of view, as it's my opinion and it didn't change considering your previous posts yet, and probably also will not in future. This huge post is all that I'll leave here for that issue. Rant or praise, I don't care.

[PokeMaster]

So vov got put up today, and you can easily see that there are some outlier votes (0s) that he's getting. I think it's fair to assume that these nine 0's came from the same two people, and though I couldn't say for sure, I'm inclined to think that these two individuals are voting this way in response to the events of the ladle, and thus are negatively (and unfairly) reflecting their judgement of action as a judgement of skill.

No matter what the source of bitterness towards vov, it's not only ridiculous but illogical to throw these 0s at him (or any player). If you actually think skill is negated due to bad character, then you have a false understanding of how to separate individual qualities and skills, and lack the ability yourself to accurately judge others. And on the other hand, if you just wanted to f*ck with a person and lower their ratings, then you not only hurt that player, but the value and meaningfulness of the system as a whole, since the ratings become skewed more towards judgements of character rather than judgements of ability. My point is, you do absolutely no good by throwing out 0s for the sake of 0s. (Same with 10s by the way, but the motivation is different.)

Vov isn't the only one who this has happened to, but it seems like he got significantly more of it than others did. Sack up, and don't let your emotions affect your judgement.

[Word]

I think it's fair to assume that these nine 0's came from the same two people

As one of the people who gave vov a 0 in certain categories and didn't vote twice anywhere, I doubt that. And my emotions didn't affect my voting. He's just almost always dead before he's coming to attack me, or before I can attack him (yes, this is mostly based on the experience in MB's). Maybe he's good at mazing - does that also mean he's a good fortress player? In Concord's and your eyes, he probably is. If you find it illogical to throw these 0 at him (or another player) you should remove it and only allow 10s.

And why care? If vov doesn't like to be criticized for his ridiculous arguments for not criticizing the player rater, he should at least be consequent and deal with it accordingly.

[sinewav]

The Fortress Popularity Contest v.3

[Concord]

there is no 0 on a scale of 1-10.

[vov]

How did anyone even rate me 0? I'm not even that good! You all know that the -1 is my number!

[PokeMaster]

Oops I meant 1s, heh. Anyway, now 5 of his 1s are removed—how did that happen?

[Concord]

it's pretty easy to find who is intentionally skewing the data

[Phytotron]

Sack up

How about you uterus up.

If vov doesn't like to be criticized for his ridiculous arguments for not criticizing the player rater, he should at least be consequent and deal with it accordingly.

I'm not sure what word you meant to use there, but I don't think that was it.

The Fortress Popularity Contest v.3

I figured that was obvious from the get-go.

[Word]

"logical"?


................................

[Z-Man]

If vov doesn't like to be criticized for his ridiculous arguments for not criticizing the player rater, he should at least be consequent and deal with it accordingly.

I'm not sure what word you meant to use there, but I don't think that was it.[/quote]It's a Germanism; a word that exists in English that sounds so close to a German word that we assume it means the same. He means "Konsequent"; "consistent" would be the most correct translation, though it's not perfect, it's kind of a cultural thing; being konsequent means that if you do A, you are somehow logically obligated to also do B; it means that you are not allowed to act on a case-by-case basis. Other example, "Bekommen" in German means "to get", but beginners often translate it as "become".