Actually Echo, you proved my point with another example. What I started with was just one example of a squad that was being rated high without solid reasons (actually two separate versions of the same squad to be precise). You gave another example of what makes the ratings useless.

And to deal with that, Shinja made a "non-dci squad" rating option. So to me, people who are still rating squads like the best "Revan I've ever seen" squad with a 10 for DCI play are doing so without merit (obviously they may not know there is another option as well - but I don't consider ignorance a positive excuse generally - even if it is a valid explanation).

Further, I think some of you are misreading my posts to say that someone has to play a squad many many times. What I said was, I won't give above an 8 for a squad that hasn't been played. There are plenty of ways to "prove it" as it were. But be serious for a moment guys. The ratings on here have never, ever reflected what is actually winning the big tournaments before those events. The tournament squads that do make it high on the list, tend to do so afterwards - so clearly the community already values "proving it" as I have stated.

Unless you are willing to argue that an 8/10 isn't a strong rating, in which case I would ask how you decide what to rate high. I would also suggest, you are likely a person who doesn't help the rating system, as odds are you are rating 50% of the squads you see with an 8+ which actually does nothing positive at all for anyone. You might as well rate everything with a 3.

I consider relative rankings, which is what a scale system is, to function like a bell curve. Most squads should get between 4-6. That's how I rate. A good squad gets a 4-6. A squad that is really good gets a 7-8, but that has to be about 10% or so. Only the final 1-3% should get 9-10 ratings - and the only way to show a squad deserves that kind of consideration is to in some way show it.

Big events are of course the easiest way to do so, but let's not pretend its the only way to make me look like I'm being biased. Vassal games work, local tournaments work, heck, post some blasted play reports with your friends on what you beat, how it went and so on. No one has an excuse not to show their work. In my opinion, and I think it's pretty valid, not even doing the basic amount of work shows you aren't really interested in making a truly top squad - as that's what ratings should be about. After all, I can tell you what about 90% of the top squads are at any given moment, but that's only because I play enough to have that knowledge. It isn't a biased towards top level players, it's simply a matter of work. Making a squad of random characters is about 30% of making a meta winning squad. If you want me to be fair, I will start using that in my ratings. A squad that doesn't show play testing or any results, will now max out at a 3 for me, as you've at best done 30% of the work required to truly have made a top squad. Now I'm not really going to do that, but I think you can see the point.

It should be obvious that I take them with a grain of salt. The problem is, that the vast majority of the community does not. People consistently look at ratings and expect them to mean something, whether they actually do or not. I don't think anyone who has followed this board, read comments from people who use squads from here, and so on and would have any other understanding of the issue.

And as for whether or not one is better than the other, well absolutely true, one is and I will tell you why.

There is absolutely no point in having a "rating" system if all it means is whatever I want it to be. In fact, it's an absolute detriment to the community if that's what it is (I will argue that it's not that at all however already, and I'm trying to improve it at what it is.) What's the point of doing a rating, if what you are rating on is "fun". "Fun" is entirely arbitrary, with 0 consistency, and completely dependent on the rater. As a completely different person, I do not care what you think is fun, and I certainly have no interest in what you rate something on a scale rating system if that's how you rate. What's the point of it? Creativity is the same thing. One person's creativity is another person's totally boring. Who cares. In fact, you should represent your appreciation for fun and creativity in the comments section, not as a rating.

To add to this, people who rate this way are actually a problem to the system. Because they counteract the ratings that the majority are making. I understand there will still be difference of opinion in terms of what is really competitive or not, and that's fine. But people rating based on "creativity and fun" just throw the entire system out of whack and in fact, do harm to it. Hence my original title of why the squad ratings are "useless" applies. With these things going on, the ratings have 0 chance of meaning anything at all ever.

Is that what you all really want? I will make a poll to find out. I think if the majority of people are honest about it, they want the ratings to at least matter to a degree, and probably already use them in some way as a guide. But let's see what happens.

hehe now im just going to rate everything a one because i hate fun!

I think it's impossible to fix this system unless you provide a generic definition for the numbers, and even if you'd do, there will be disagreements.

I think the best idea would be a separate subforum or sthg where people can upload tournaments results and such with the squads.

I, for one, am really interested in tourney results, and find a bit disappointing that outside the top8, you rarely get any squad infos even from Gencon, which is supposed to be the biggest event in SWM.

Just my 2 cents.

Oh, I know. That's because I don't disagree with you. I too believe that the ratings are useless in the sense that a squad being rated high or low doesn't really mean anything. I was just pointing out why I believe they are useless; that is, since there is no rubric for rating squads, people will just rate squads all willy-nilly and subjectively. And under the current system, I don't think there is a problem with that. It's just a fun aspect of the site and isn't meant to be taken seriously.

Now, if there was a specific "competitive" rating to go along with the "general" rating, I would join you in the fight to make the competitive rating meaningful in some way, and I think this is a good idea. But the "competitive" rating shouldn't be the only rating; there isn't anything wrong with rating things high just because they're neat. I know that you don't rate squads that way, but in the current system, the way you rate squads isn't necessarily better than the way anyone else rates squads. Which, yes, makes the rating system pretty useless as a true measure of "good" or "bad" squads. It's just a fun little tool that should be taken with a grain of salt at best.

Right now ratings are purely a popularity thing. By giving a squad a high rating, you are saying it deserves to be noticed. By giving it a low rating, you are saying it does not deserve to be noticed.

Squads with a lot of ratings (high or low or both), are squads that a lot of people have looked at, and that a lot of people had an opinion about.

If a squad gets a lot of ratings, and manages to keep a pretty high average, then it generally is a squad that deserved to be noticed (for whatever reason). I say generally, because when people artificially inflate the ratings for a squad, they mess up this system.

I'm not saying that this is how the system SHOULD work, I'm saying it's how it DOES work currently.

I'm hesitant to clear the ratings and/or comments when someone updates their squad, because it gives the squad creator the ability to remove unfavorable ratings or comments by taking out an Ugnaught and re-adding it or something equally meaningless.

I like the idea of having a section that features tournament-winning squads. Unfortunately, at this point, it would be difficult to validate local tournament winners. But for now, if someone wants to compile a list of winners or high-placing squads from the major tournaments (dating back however far you want to go), I'll add a section for them.

Keep posting ideas for how to improve the system. Once I get the new Squad Builder in place (hopefully in the next update), I'll see what I can do about the ratings.

So "the community" is a bunch of irresponsible people who don't think through their ratings and just throw some numbers around. The same group of people, the ones who made all the bad ratings, also believe that the ratings are the best indication of how good a squad is. Quite frankly, it seems very unlikely that both of these things can possibly be true.

But hey, thanks for insulting us. That really helps move things forward. What is the point of this post? You, Bill, do not like the way the rating system has been used. Ergo, the rating system is broken, and "the community" needs to come together and bring it up to your high standards. Do you even realize how high-handed and condescending your posts in this thread have been?

I agree that the rating system is not as useful as it could be. But the best way to make it better is not to show up one day and tell everyone that they suck and need to get with the program and do it your way, the one and only correct way. A section exclusively for squads that have placed high in recognized tournaments is a very good idea. More ideas like that and less castigation, please.

I think that's a good summary of what ratings mean to me. How well is the rating system functioning according the "popularity contest" definition? That's hard for me to say.

I think it would be to the advantage of the tournament players to NOT have a system that tells the whole world what the best squads are. I know skill has the largest say in determining a winner, but being a dice game, there is an element of luck involved, and well I would think tournamnet players like to have every advantage possible going into a tournament. Obviously any net-decker can come on here look at the 'top" squads of the day and go on their way, go to the tournament and have their squad smacked around and go home empty handed. I have never seen in the years I have followed this game, the Gencon Champ's squad as being listed as the top squad before the Gencon tournament, I could be wrong about that. There are roughly a 100 Gencon Championship players, and perhaps another 100-200 highly competitive players that post here, Gamers, or back on Wizards. How many thousands are registered on each of these sites that obviously aren't competitive players or don't only care about the current meta? I would suggest coming up with a squad rating system that would be to the satisfaction of the top tournamnet players. I hate to say it, but I don't think Bloomilk is the site for that to happen, judging on the responses I have read in the last few threads on this topic it would seem many of the posters are just as interested in themed squads, fun squads, and competitive squads. It is hard to separate them, when there isn't an option to do so. Unless there are huge changes, which may or may not happen, I don't see how we can please everyone.

Can't log into my normal account at the moment, so I will respond using my booster league account.

The answer is simple. I started the practice of giving every squad I make a 10 to counteract at least one of the 1-bombs I would normally get. For about a year on here, every squad I made would get 2-10 1s within a matter of days. I figured no reason to rate my squad rationally because a 1 + 10 = 2 votes of 5.

I've kept doing it because I still get 1-bombed (again, please remember I don't care) and maybe more importantly I find it really hard to rate your own squad. Personally, I don't even know how to rate my own squads. I think they are all 10s and have no idea how someone could possible be even the least bit partial on their own creations. With that said, I'm did go through my squads a while ago and rated nearly all of them as accurately as possible. I just don't bother with the new ones and simply click 10, figuring others can judge better than I.

You guys are free to rate them as you please, I don't care. I've already mentioned how I rate squads in general. For a brief recap to a long post I made a few months ago:

1-3 = squad that needs serious work for competitive play (and by that I mean competing at a local store). Usually these refer to squads that are lacking something really significant, like door control, etc.

4-6 - Good squads that are generally well built. They might have a small flaw here or there, or are less than optimized, etc. But generally in the hands of a good player, these will do well locally.

7-8 - Top level squads that should compete at the highest levels in some way or another. A 7-8 might have a very minor flaw, or something I would shift here or there, but generally are already top tier.

9-10 - Reserved for tournament winning squads, Gencon champs, well built regional or big tournament winners, or in some cases squads capable of winning such events even if the creator isn't able to play in such events. I often change a rating from 7-8 to 9-10 if a squad I previously rated wins a big event in the hands of it's creator, or someone who references said person in their tourney report.