The Fortress Player Rater v. 2

[Slov]

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

didn't see that before lmaoo


but seems like you're the only one complaining word so let's just drop it

[Word]

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

didn't see that before lmaoo

Yeah, and you probably got your SP and CT peers voting for you.

but seems like you're the only one complaining word so let's just drop it

no, let's not. how about trying to make more objective choices, or more objective criteria? If "Surviving in small places" and "Attacking in a way that doesn't work but looks cool" is what the Player Rater is about, then it should clarify that.

edit: Both 10ers seem to be removed now.

<grumpy>Hey Zap, 1v1 anytime soon? (Same question directed at everyone else except Syre, Slick, House, Slov and zat because it's seems easily predictable how these were going to end...). Just to sort this out once and for all (except 'contribution to the win') -> PM me and I'll tell you when I have time. This will be the first and last time that I do something like that.</grumpy>

[Slov]

I was never in the poll, how could I have my "peers" voting for me..

btw thx to concord for organising this, it's a lot of fun and if you don't like it make your own word

[dreadlord]

I don't get it why you are complaining so much about the opinion of others. You obviously think that your results should be better, however they are not, so why don't you just either prove the raters wrong or ignore them? I've been asked the question "do you think that you deserve your ratings?" several times now, probably because the players who asked the question think that I don't deserve the results I got. What shall I do now, come here and cry that there are people who do not think that I'm a good player? There'll always be players who evaluate you worse than you'd evaluate yourself, but you won't change that fact by complaining about it.

[Word]

You obviously think that your results should be better

For the second or third time, that's not what I'm doing. I'm asking by what standards they're bad. What you (and even Concord) vote about is different from the categories Concord picked, my ratings seem to exemplify that. If you're consequent, you either need to change the categories, or your way of voting (and like you I know that it's irrational to demand the latter, and expect someone like Concord to do the former - but it's still worth mentioning).

so why don't you just either prove the raters wrong

see previous post

On a side note, the "if you had fair ratings, you wouldn't complain"-'argument' can be turned around to "if you had unfair ratings, you wouldn't like that system either", that's why I'd like to leave it out of the discussion.

[Kijutsu]

if i even get voted on, i'll get 4893495x 1 votes because of my ~rep~ but i won't lose sleep over it like you, Word

then again i'm not as bad at this game as you are

[Word]

1v1 anytime soon?

And I don't know why you always have to draw conclusions about my inner feelings from some random post.

I was never in the poll, how could I have my "peers" voting for me..

Um...in the future perhaps? I know you weren't in the poll yet. Do you think you get peers as soon as you're part of it?

...and if you don't like it make your own word

here's a better idea, why don't you leave me out of yours if I don't fall under your criteria?

[Concord]

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.

If you cannot survive in small places, your ability to survive in general is reduced because if you find yourself trapped in a small space you may die where others may live. Regardless of how good you are at avoiding these situations, you are, by your own admittance, bad at handling them when they do occur. Furthermore, your weakness causes you to avoid small spaces, which often are critical. If our zone is being ganked 2v3, and you cannot survive in a small space to keep the zone up, we lose the round.

Your inability to attack means that in any situation in which both teams are attacking, which is any situation before x v. 1, you pose no immediate threat to the defender, and therefore the chances the enemy attack succeed before you do are great. The point of attack is to capture the zone. If your attack is so slow that the enemy wins before you can succeed, your attack has failed. You seem oblivious to the fact that this is a team game and good players are flexible enough to adapt their play to the needs of their team. A player who never takes risk at attack or or is unable maintain the defense because he will die if he does so, therefore failing, is not as good as a player who has those abilities.

You might be smart enough to avoid situations that get you killed, but you seem yet to have realized that improving your play sot that you can succeed in these situations will make you a better player.

Furthermore, it is up to each rater to determine their criteria for each category. My personal criteria centers on ability. A good attacker can do more things more frequently and faster than a bad one. A good survivor is able to survive in more situations than a bad one. etc.

[Slov]

I just said that because you quoted my post and said I had "my CT and SP peers voting for me"..
and btw I wasn't the one voting 1s for you if that's what you think lol

[Word]

If you cannot survive in small places, your ability to survive in general is reduced because if you find yourself trapped in a small space you may die where others may live. Regardless of how good you are at avoiding these situations, you are, by your own admittance, bad at handling them when they do occur. Furthermore, your weakness causes you to avoid small spaces, which often are critical. If our zone is being ganked 2v3, and you cannot survive in a small space to keep the zone up, we lose the round.

To clarify this once more, I didn't admit that I can't survive in small places, I just said I can't maze. Then I replied to your argument saying if I (or any other player) was unable to survive in small places, but compensate that by avoiding these situations more frequently than others, does it still make him worse?
According to this logic, it's actually better to avoid these situations in the first place, not taking a risk you don't need and being aware of your weaknesses. Maybe my zones don't get ganked 2v3 as often as someone else's, because I know I couldn't handle that. This is all theory, of course - I don't pay attention how it works out in practice. Similar answer to this:

You might be smart enough to avoid situations that get you killed, but you seem yet to have realized that improving your play sot that you can succeed in these situations will make you a better player.

What if I simply never encounter these situations so they aren't even problematic for me?

Your inability to attack means that in any situation in which both teams are attacking, which is any situation before x v. 1, you pose no immediate threat to the defender, and therefore the chances the enemy attack succeed before you do are great. The point of attack is to capture the zone. If your attack is so slow that the enemy wins before you can succeed, your attack has failed. You seem oblivious to the fact that this is a team game and good players are flexible enough to adapt their play to the needs of their team. A player who never takes risk at attack or or is unable maintain the defense because he will die if he does so, therefore failing, is not as good as a player who has those abilities.

Well, then you're completely misinterpeting my approach to attacking. I try to take out the sweepers first and whenever I'm not 1, 2 or 3, I leave it to those positions to go after the defender.
I'm trying to be helpful and not distract them, taking out the sweepers in the meantime. If I don't even manage to take out the sweepers first and then fail at killing the defender, I'm of no use for the team in that round. A player who pulls a stunt when it causes his team to lose is just plain stupid.

A good attacker can do more things more frequently and faster than a bad one.[...]

So someone who fails 4 out of 5 times while he's trying a speed attack, speed holing and fast shrinking is better than someone who always does the same thing and wins 4 out of 5 times.
And someone who can maze, doesn't get any kills and dies every round is better than someone who kills 13 players and doesn't die a single time in 2 matches, and all that without even knowing how to maze. OK.

[AI-team]

and yet another thread that I will stop following

[Titanoboa]

When "all" players are rated, will it go another lap to keep the ratings fresh(ish) or are these final? Just curious
(if you've planned that far ahead)

[dreadlord]

We could perhaps do a rating after each ladle (you could only rate those players who you've played against, though).

[PokeMaster]

We could perhaps do a rating after each ladle (you could only rate those players who you've played against, though).

I think that implies that playing against people in the ladle gives you sufficient enough experience to have a proper opinion. Personally, I feel like the last thing I focus on in the ladle is how well individuals are playing besides myself, unless somebody is blatantly playing either very well or very poorly. Anyway, it takes much more time to develop a good sense of how good somebody is.

[dreadlord]

Hm, good point. We could, however, let the spectators of the matches rate the players, for example in the final. Therefore, the players in the final could still focus on playing and they'd also be privileged since they are the ones who managed to reach finals.

Edit: That's only an idea, though. I wanted to answer to Titan's question with ideas.