|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 5/2/2009 Posts: 262 Location: Washington
|
What if you let the creator of the squad turn on or off the rating or commenting section of their squad (or just the Rating section). This way if the user is just looking for comments on the squad and they are not meaning it to be competitive (as that seems what we want the rating for) they can turn off the rating and still have it be public. This will accomplish two things; first it will make it so if you have a really creative idea that you want to share with people but you dont like getting 1s on your squad you turn off the rating, second, this removes a bunch of "Fun" squads from the competitive rating system so that players who are rating squads can focus purely on the competitiveness of said squads. This system would put more responsibility on the creator of the squads and not on the rater and would mostly eliminate the creators right to complain if their "Fun" squad idea got a 1 or 2.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 5/23/2008 Posts: 314 Location: Abingdon, MD
|
billiv15 wrote:
Now hold on, there is merit here, let's not be too hasty to dismiss the attempt. I am sure the OP doesn't think this will solve everything, and as the person who suggested it, I believe it would have an effect if something were agreed upon and taken on by most of the bloomilk raters. Hate ratings would be insignificant in the overall scores in many cases if 20-25 people were consistently rating in the same ways.
As to criteria I would suggest the following.
1-10 remain, I see no merit in a 1-3 system. You need a variety of choices or the effects are magnified from hate ratings, and you need there to be a scale of differentiation or all squads will end up with very similar ratings.
To start with, I believe ratings of squads should use 3 different criteria together. First and foremost should always be the actual strength of the squad in competitive play, otherwise, we are using a rating system to simply denote what we like, not what is the best of the best. The three pieces of this are squad strength, originality (or creativity) and success of the squad.
Squad strength is based on how well you think the squad will do against the rest of the meta for it's point level. Obviously this changes, and metas are different from place to place, but the idea is that a squad should have similar power levels if people take this seriously. You also need to consider era. If you are rating a past Gencon winning squad 2 years later, you need to take into account when it was created and used, not simply rate it low because you think it's no good any more. Squads need to be viewed in the meta they were created for.
Originality isn't really how original a squad is, but more an adjustment based on giving credit. For example, you wouldn't automatically look at creation dates and rate one version of a squad higher than another similar one, but rather would use this to adjust the above ranking up or down a notch based on who created it, when they created it, and if they copied another player, etc. It's an adjustment remember, not something that makes a 4 squad a 10, but rather perhaps a 5 or 6 instead.
Success is based on play experience with the squad, the OP's reports of it if any, success by others with it, and so on. Theoretically, any new squad will have little of this information available, but as it is, you can use it to adjust your ranking again, like criteria 2 up or down a few notches. Again, this isn't indended to take a 10 down to a 6 or a 2 up to a 7. It works like this. "Lobbin' Luke" received a 9 from me originally for Fingersandteeth, when he won Gencon with it, I changed my rating to a 10. He had proven it in my book.
Next we should look at how the various numbers of the scale should be used.
1-3 ratings should be reserved for squads that need serious help. This does not mean they totally suck and never should have been created. These are squads that have very serious issues in the meta, more than comments like, "This will lose to X". We are talking about not squads primarily where a person is trying to use a sub par piece, but ones that just aren't well thought out, are missing key things, or could easily be improved by several different changes. These are squads you would expect to go 1-3 or 2-4 at a tournament if played well.
4-6 ratings should be reserved for average squads. These are all squads that are not maximized in the current meta. They don't require a major overhaul to improve, but usually need a small change here or there to compete at most venues. These are squads you would expect to go 2-2, or 3-2 at a given tournament if played well.
7-9 ratings should be reserved for the best of the best. A 7 would be a well maximized squad, where any changes are more for local meta and personal tastes rather than for a higher level of competitiveness. A 9 would be one that should dominate big tournaments like regionals or Gencon. You would expect these squads to compete for the top prize if played well at just about any tournament.
10 rating should be reserved for squads like the 7-9 levels that have been proven. It might mean it won Gencon, or won some other big tournment, but perhaps even more, these represent the best squads of their era. As such, there should never be more than about 5 at any given point level on average for any time period of the game. These would be the top 8 squads at Gencon, in their maximized versions, posted by those who played them, or by those who inspired them to play it.
That would greatly improve the rating system as a place for players, especially new players, on what to look for in squad design, what the best squads and pieces are, and so on.
Wow Bill......this is well thought out and articulated!! Very nice piece of work. I agree totally with your rating scale. I love the range levels as far as competativeness. However, the problem I see is subjectivity. Everyone sees a squad differently. And It still won't stop the people going in and randomly rating all squads but there friends badly. Take yourself as an example. All your squads get so many ones that it would bias all your squads. One or two ones would not affect it over all, but your squads get a lot of ones, just because of who you are. There just is no accoutability in the rating system, which is a major flaw.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 2/9/2009 Posts: 936 Location: Southern Illinois
|
@curler: Yes I meant for the account to have an amount of time before it could be used for rating. I also feel if someone is known to abuse the rating system by giving 1's and 10's at random then their ability to rate should be turned off. So far there seem to be alot of good suggestions in this thread. Flame retardant doesn't seem as necessary for the posters this time around
|
|
Rank: Moderator Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 5/8/2008 Posts: 2,220 Location: East Coast
|
I suggested something along the lines of MrSmiley's thoughts above: users could have the option of allowing their squads to be rated or not (hopefully something simple like a check box when creating the squad). Of course, this is sort of a sidetrack to the original post, so... (there's post in the "Suggestions" area if you would like to comment more on this option) As for rating criteria: sure it's all subjectual. I'll see a squad that I think would do ok, then Bill would see a flaw in it that I might not have noticed. He plays a LOT more than I do. Does his rating/comment weigh more than mine? Depends on how you take it. If it were me, I'd listen to the guys that play the most (and win a LOT) in the big, national events versus someone like me that has only played locally. (go with experience!)
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 6/5/2009 Posts: 239 Location: Germany
|
billiv15 wrote:DarthJak wrote:A dark future this subject has. Debate not the rating system. A waste of time it is. Now hold on, there is merit here, let's not be too hasty to dismiss the attempt. I am sure the OP doesn't think this will solve everything, and as the person who suggested it, I believe it would have an effect if something were agreed upon and taken on by most of the bloomilk raters. Hate ratings would be insignificant in the overall scores in many cases if 20-25 people were consistently rating in the same ways. As to criteria I would suggest the following. 1-10 remain, I see no merit in a 1-3 system. You need a variety of choices or the effects are magnified from hate ratings, and you need there to be a scale of differentiation or all squads will end up with very similar ratings. To start with, I believe ratings of squads should use 3 different criteria together. First and foremost should always be the actual strength of the squad in competitive play, otherwise, we are using a rating system to simply denote what we like, not what is the best of the best. The three pieces of this are squad strength, originality (or creativity) and success of the squad. Squad strength is based on how well you think the squad will do against the rest of the meta for it's point level. Obviously this changes, and metas are different from place to place, but the idea is that a squad should have similar power levels if people take this seriously. You also need to consider era. If you are rating a past Gencon winning squad 2 years later, you need to take into account when it was created and used, not simply rate it low because you think it's no good any more. Squads need to be viewed in the meta they were created for. Originality isn't really how original a squad is, but more an adjustment based on giving credit. For example, you wouldn't automatically look at creation dates and rate one version of a squad higher than another similar one, but rather would use this to adjust the above ranking up or down a notch based on who created it, when they created it, and if they copied another player, etc. It's an adjustment remember, not something that makes a 4 squad a 10, but rather perhaps a 5 or 6 instead. Success is based on play experience with the squad, the OP's reports of it if any, success by others with it, and so on. Theoretically, any new squad will have little of this information available, but as it is, you can use it to adjust your ranking again, like criteria 2 up or down a few notches. Again, this isn't indended to take a 10 down to a 6 or a 2 up to a 7. It works like this. "Lobbin' Luke" received a 9 from me originally for Fingersandteeth, when he won Gencon with it, I changed my rating to a 10. He had proven it in my book. Next we should look at how the various numbers of the scale should be used. 1-3 ratings should be reserved for squads that need serious help. This does not mean they totally suck and never should have been created. These are squads that have very serious issues in the meta, more than comments like, "This will lose to X". We are talking about not squads primarily where a person is trying to use a sub par piece, but ones that just aren't well thought out, are missing key things, or could easily be improved by several different changes. These are squads you would expect to go 1-3 or 2-4 at a tournament if played well. 4-6 ratings should be reserved for average squads. These are all squads that are not maximized in the current meta. They don't require a major overhaul to improve, but usually need a small change here or there to compete at most venues. These are squads you would expect to go 2-2, or 3-2 at a given tournament if played well. 7-9 ratings should be reserved for the best of the best. A 7 would be a well maximized squad, where any changes are more for local meta and personal tastes rather than for a higher level of competitiveness. A 9 would be one that should dominate big tournaments like regionals or Gencon. You would expect these squads to compete for the top prize if played well at just about any tournament. 10 rating should be reserved for squads like the 7-9 levels that have been proven. It might mean it won Gencon, or won some other big tournment, but perhaps even more, these represent the best squads of their era. As such, there should never be more than about 5 at any given point level on average for any time period of the game. These would be the top 8 squads at Gencon, in their maximized versions, posted by those who played them, or by those who inspired them to play it. That would greatly improve the rating system as a place for players, especially new players, on what to look for in squad design, what the best squads and pieces are, and so on. I like your definition of Squad Rating, but the people sometimes rate Squads who never played them. So Squads get a bad rating. Cade Bane Swap for example get a 7.5 rating even though it won a big event about 80 "top" players. (French Championship)
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 7/30/2008 Posts: 197
|
I always rate starting at 5. The give or take away points depending on:
Playability -How easy is it to pull off your crazy combo? Competitiveness -Could it win in a tournament? Synergy -Do all the characters help in what you're trying to do? Theme/Fun -More like a bonus point or two, but if it is a blast to play then it doesn't matter if it wins every time...
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 6/21/2008 Posts: 193 Location: Dallas / Fort Worth
|
billiv15 wrote:DarthJak wrote:A dark future this subject has. Debate not the rating system. A waste of time it is. Now hold on, there is merit here, let's not be too hasty to dismiss the attempt. I am sure the OP doesn't think this will solve everything, and as the person who suggested it, I believe it would have an effect if something were agreed upon and taken on by most of the bloomilk raters. Hate ratings would be insignificant in the overall scores in many cases if 20-25 people were consistently rating in the same ways. As to criteria I would suggest the following. 1-10 remain, I see no merit in a 1-3 system. You need a variety of choices or the effects are magnified from hate ratings, and you need there to be a scale of differentiation or all squads will end up with very similar ratings. To start with, I believe ratings of squads should use 3 different criteria together. First and foremost should always be the actual strength of the squad in competitive play, otherwise, we are using a rating system to simply denote what we like, not what is the best of the best. The three pieces of this are squad strength, originality (or creativity) and success of the squad. Squad strength is based on how well you think the squad will do against the rest of the meta for it's point level. Obviously this changes, and metas are different from place to place, but the idea is that a squad should have similar power levels if people take this seriously. You also need to consider era. If you are rating a past Gencon winning squad 2 years later, you need to take into account when it was created and used, not simply rate it low because you think it's no good any more. Squads need to be viewed in the meta they were created for. Originality isn't really how original a squad is, but more an adjustment based on giving credit. For example, you wouldn't automatically look at creation dates and rate one version of a squad higher than another similar one, but rather would use this to adjust the above ranking up or down a notch based on who created it, when they created it, and if they copied another player, etc. It's an adjustment remember, not something that makes a 4 squad a 10, but rather perhaps a 5 or 6 instead. Success is based on play experience with the squad, the OP's reports of it if any, success by others with it, and so on. Theoretically, any new squad will have little of this information available, but as it is, you can use it to adjust your ranking again, like criteria 2 up or down a few notches. Again, this isn't indended to take a 10 down to a 6 or a 2 up to a 7. It works like this. "Lobbin' Luke" received a 9 from me originally for Fingersandteeth, when he won Gencon with it, I changed my rating to a 10. He had proven it in my book. Next we should look at how the various numbers of the scale should be used. 1-3 ratings should be reserved for squads that need serious help. This does not mean they totally suck and never should have been created. These are squads that have very serious issues in the meta, more than comments like, "This will lose to X". We are talking about not squads primarily where a person is trying to use a sub par piece, but ones that just aren't well thought out, are missing key things, or could easily be improved by several different changes. These are squads you would expect to go 1-3 or 2-4 at a tournament if played well. 4-6 ratings should be reserved for average squads. These are all squads that are not maximized in the current meta. They don't require a major overhaul to improve, but usually need a small change here or there to compete at most venues. These are squads you would expect to go 2-2, or 3-2 at a given tournament if played well. 7-9 ratings should be reserved for the best of the best. A 7 would be a well maximized squad, where any changes are more for local meta and personal tastes rather than for a higher level of competitiveness. A 9 would be one that should dominate big tournaments like regionals or Gencon. You would expect these squads to compete for the top prize if played well at just about any tournament. 10 rating should be reserved for squads like the 7-9 levels that have been prkoven. It might mean it won Gencon, or won some other big tournment, but perhaps even more, these represent the best squads of their era. As such, there should never be more than about 5 at any given point level on average for any time period of the game. These would be the top 8 squads at Gencon, in their maximized versions, posted by those who played them, or by those who inspired them to play it. That would greatly improve the rating system as a place for players, especially new players, on what to look for in squad design, what the best squads and pieces are, and so on. Forgive the long quote I am on my cell. I think this is a great use of the existing system. My question is if a new system is an option. I personally would love to have a category rating system that results in a squad rating. But if that is not an option then there is no use talking about any other systems.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 1/5/2009 Posts: 2,240 Location: Akron Ohio, just south of dantooine.
|
Is this a Fizzbin or a Royal Fizzbin? Is this a Tuesday?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 6/5/2009 Posts: 239 Location: Germany
|
YEAH today i got my first one :) The sign for an awesome Squad. i hope to get more like Squads from Billiv15. http://www.bloomilk.com/squads/View.aspx?ID=62765
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 4/4/2008 Posts: 1,441
|
That's exactly how I view it! The 1s are a sure sign of hatred, which means people are paying attention to you, which means your squad is actually a serious threat to the posters' ego, which in turn, means you are doing it right! Congrats on your first 1 for a squad that most certainly deserves a 10, if ever any did.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 7/30/2008 Posts: 1,290 Location: Stow Ohio, just north of Dantooine (vacay on Ando)
|
maybe they give you a 1 because they don;t like YOU, who cares about squads?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 12/11/2008 Posts: 1,122
|
Well here's how my criteria works: I rate based on originality and competitiveness second. There are a lot of squads there are competitive, but not original at all. See the waves of NR Anti-CW builds out there; they are certainly good, but all of them are way too similar to each other. So I value the creativity of a squad the most. I also look for how much fun the squad looks, especially if I plan to play it myself. I typically don't even rate for theme; unless the squad is being built for something like a scenario, I could care less if it mimicks some group of characters in the movies or something like that.
I do not rate squads that I deem to be less than a 5. I usually post my rating in my comment and it isn't worth the angry PM just to speak my mind. This also means that I have never given out a 1 to anyone, for any reason. So my ratings start around a 6. A 6 means that the squad has serious, gaping flaws that cripple it and ruin its effectiveness. A 6 squad was either a very poorly executed design or a terrible squad to start with. 7 is mediocre; it just isn't a good squad or an interesting idea that is just stuck in a bad build. 8 is a good rating in my book: this is a squad that I would play myself. It has few weaknesses and might be able to take on some Tier-2 squads in a tournament. 9 is a tournament-worthy build: a 9 squad has nothing major that really needs to be fixed and is quite powerful. I give out 10s very sparingly. 10s are the absolute finest squads out there.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 12/22/2008 Posts: 325 Location: wisconsin
|
im glad everyone is on board with this i really think billiv15 had the best post out critia
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 2/4/2009 Posts: 303
|
I've also mentioned it in a previous thread but I too think that a 1-5 rating system would be better than 1-10. With 1-5 it is easier to get some solid criteria down and can easily be broken down to unplayable/problematic/average/good/great which should make more consistent ratings. I also think that EVERY squad that has the same make up SHOULD have the exact same rating; this means it doesn't matter who put it up or when it was put up because it is still the same squad as billiv posting it doesn't make it any better than someone else posting it.
While squads should be rated on playability/power there certainly could be a second rating which IS purely subjective. Many theme squads may only rate a 2 or 3 (with an occasional 1 or 4 thrown in) but could earn a top rating for execution of the theme. Now this rating should be optional and probably could vary by poster and time as getting a good rating here should take more than just throwing a pretty squad together.
The last thing I'd say about squad ratings is that if a squad suffers any significant change it should lose its rating. Now if every squad with the same make up has the same competitive rating those rating should carry with squad's makeup and the new squad inherits the rating of any other identical squad. Subjective ratings should be lost when a squad changes because it is no longer what was rated.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 6/21/2008 Posts: 193 Location: Dallas / Fort Worth
|
Those are some good ideas, but the programing of all that would be very difficult.
|
|
Guest |