The Fortress Player Rater v. 2

[AI-team]

nvm

[Tank Program]

Data column(s) for axis #0 cannot be of type string

Something broken somewhere?

[Concord]

where do you see that?

[Tank Program]

It was in place of the graphs. Works fine now. Pretty colors. Making the bars a bit thicker on the bottom graph would improve readability significantly - maybe by making the clusters of bars closer together?

Edit: The overall column could probably be removed to make some space. I'm not quite convinced that knowing the average is particularly useful.

[Titanoboa]

I think the overall column contributes!

Really good job with the site Concord

[PokeMaster]

Really good job with the site Concord

+1

[Word]

Modesty aside, being behind players who never kill me is kind of humiliating and getting three 1s in "surviving" and "killing" seems plain wrong too. I'll happily disprove all that when I have more time again If this shouldn't become a popularity contest (if it isn't already), I'd really consider to add a "sympathy"-criterium ('contribution to the win' is entitled to say something about your playing quality as much as the other ones are). Perhaps that doesn't help either. I'm taking this seriously because it's getting annoying once people start to brag about their good rates.

Ironically, most pickup players seem to think that MB's doesn't challenge them enough to do their best and the votes reflect that. It's difficult for me to rate someone based on his performance in MB's when I know he's not even trying. And the others seem to think that people who don't do pickups are somehow inferior (because MB's isn't challenging so it doesn't make a difference if one or two really try to win, remember?). Isn't that a slightly twisted point of view?

[Concord]

these are ratings of ability not of results.

You could never be killed or cut by a player and still be much worse by them.

[PokeMaster]

Was any of that worth being said? If you look through the ratings, lots of players, if not all, have a couple votes far outside of the mode range, which is sometimes 4 or 5 ratings wide. Of course it's not going to perfectly represent everybody's ability, because that's an impossible thing to measure. It's just interesting and fun. If you have a problem with the way people interpret the meaningfulness of the results that frustrates you so much that you have to tell somebody off, then tell those people. This is not the place for that.

[Word]

If you have a problem with the way people interpret the meaningfulness of the results that frustrates you so much that you have to tell somebody off, then tell those people.

I'm telling these people something else here, see the paragraph about pickups.
I have a problem with the way people submit their votes in the first place, but I know this is like tilting at windmills. See next paragraph:

these are ratings of ability not of results.

Well, I guess I have real grades in mind. And even if it's about 'ability', shouldn't that say a lot about the results, too? Technically everyone can have the greatest talent for fortress but if he can't kill someone in a regular match, and goes afk the whole time, does his assumed ability still make him a good player?

Or in my case, does being unable to maze like Xyron (although I never even tried it, because I don't feel like I need it) or my boring attack make me a bad player (although, as previously said, I usually succeed with it)? According to my ratings, it does.

Or think of elections, do you think people should vote for a candidate who claims to have the greatest ability (which he uses perhaps once in a month, analogous to the ladle) or the one with actually good results in almost every aspect of his career (well, except ladles)? Food for thought.

It's just interesting and fun.

Yeah, unless it's becoming complete nonsense. Don't misunderstand that though, I can't come up with a reasonable solution for this. I just think it's wrong to vote like that and people should at least look at the players before they vote, both in MBs and pickups.

[Slov]

Or think of elections, do you think people should vote for a candidate who claims to have the greatest ability (which he uses perhaps once in a month, analogous to the ladle) or the one with actually good results in almost every aspect of his career (well, except ladles)? Food for thought..

did you just compare this to elections? :/
stop being mad because you got bad grades and move on with your life, it's just for fun

[Word]

Typical slov nonsense. Elections are perhaps the most obvious analogy because they're supposed to be democratic.
I don't care about the fact that my grades are simply worse, they are already seen as absolutely true by some.

[Concord]

if you're rating was higher, you wouldn't complain

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

furthermore, your examples of your attack and lack of ability to survive in small places illustrate why you're not as good as other players.

[Gonzap]

you got 2 players giving you 10 in every category, hmm suspicious

[Word]

if you're rating was higher, you wouldn't complain

No, I don't complain about my personal rating, I used myself as an example for the rater's effect. If I had a better rating I wouldn't brag about it, but I have a bad one and simply happen to see what results out of it, so I question its origin. This is simply a matter of self-defense.

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? I think I just questioned the criteria people use to vote. I can deal with the votes as long as one is aware of their rather general, unspecific approach. Which you don't seem to be:

furthermore, your examples of your attack and lack of ability to survive in small places illustrate why you're not as good as other players.

Why the hell do I have to be able to survive in small places when I just avoid that situation in the first place? If the criterium is "Survive in small places" you should rename it now. Same for attack - why is it bad when it's successful? Doesn't make sense to me (regardless if it's right or wrong that I can't survive in small places because that isn't even something I'd care about when I vote...). That's not far from the "open vs closed" shit. My 'examples' related to what people think I play like, but a boring attack isn't necessarily a bad one, and my inability to survive in small places (which is, um, questionable itself isn't much of a minus either if I still survive the whole time. Don't you see how absurd this reasoning is?