|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 12/22/2008 Posts: 325 Location: wisconsin
|
as someone said (it might have been billiv15 not sure so dont quote me) their needs to be rating criteria before the rating problem can get better
so i thought id start this and maybe we all can come up with what the numbers mean
1= total crap, meaning has no where close to the right amount of points, no synergy, no control ie door, tempo, init. bad pieces
10= awesome squad, could win, good control, good synergy, good use of points.
if some of the more experienced players could help with what make a squad "good" that would be great
i need help with filling in the middle numbers so anyone with ideas just post them
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 12/22/2008 Posts: 325 Location: wisconsin
|
reserved if this turns nasty i will delete this so lets be polite on this thread
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 7/6/2009 Posts: 1,632 Location: Desintegrating some Djem So Sucka!
|
though i see the rating system pointless, this is my suggestion: 1- Total crap 2-Decent squad, needs tweaking 3- Great squad, needs no tweaking.
a 1-10 system is just too much, so we should just keep it simple. another suggestion would to leave feedback when rating the squad, make it automatic. No feedback, No score. and i know some of you fellas dont like to leave feedback, but if you are going to rate a squad, you kind of take the responsibilty to leave feedback. a simple "this squad is garbage, a 1" or "great squad, a 3".
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 7/30/2008 Posts: 1,290 Location: Stow Ohio, just north of Dantooine (vacay on Ando)
|
A dark future this subject has. Debate not the rating system. A waste of time it is.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 4/4/2008 Posts: 1,441
|
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.
|
|
Rank: Moderator Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 7/25/2008 Posts: 579 Location: D.O.O.P. HQ
|
billiv15, that was probably the best description of squad rating criteria that I ever read. This is what needs to be Stickied to the top in this thread. It wont stop the immature ones who create new accounts just to give 10s to theirs and 1s to the "top squads", but its an excellent place to start from. Thank you.
|
|
Rank: Moderator Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 1/30/2009 Posts: 6,457 Location: Southern Illinois
|
Urza Planeswalker Jedi Master wrote:billiv15, that was probably the best description of squad rating criteria that I ever read. This is what needs to be Stickied to the top in this thread. It wont stop the immature ones who create new accounts just to give 10s to theirs and 1s to the "top squads", but its an excellent place to start from. Thank you. I agree. Nicely done.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 2/9/2009 Posts: 936 Location: Southern Illinois
|
I always thought a 1-5 system would be better. When you look at most professional surveys your choices are usually 1-5 where 1 is worst, 5 is the best 3 is average and 2 and 4 are the mid way from worst to average and average to best respectively.
I also think if there is going to eb a change in the system a wipe of all current ratings should be put into effect. Not wipe the squads, just the ratings. That way every squad will be put onto the same platform of rating system so you can compare all squads equally.
Well those are my opinions anyway.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 12/22/2008 Posts: 325 Location: wisconsin
|
@ billiv15 that was what i was hoping for someone to suggest rating criteria and thank you for backing me up in trying to start this
@mickey i also think maybe a 1-5 would be better and if we do get some type of rating system previous ratings should be cleared
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 2/9/2009 Posts: 936 Location: Southern Illinois
|
I also feel the creator should not be able to rate their own squads. Maybe also put an age limit on who can rate meaning the age of the account. That might prevent people from creating an account just to rate. Maybe not allow accounts from the same isp to rate on the same squad.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 12/22/2008 Posts: 325 Location: wisconsin
|
mickey do you mean like the account must be active for 3 months before you can rate squads or something along those lines
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 9/23/2008 Posts: 259
|
just throwing in my two cents as long as we are discussing it, perhaps we could have two to three seperate ratings. such as: top competitive, and creative. or some other areas, but this is my example.
that way its not just one number, because sometimes I think a squad is a really unique and fun idea, and could maybe hold its own at a small tournament, but wouldn't be very good at the top levels of competition. so it would have like a 4-5 on the competitive scale, but a 7-8 on the creative scale.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 4/4/2008 Posts: 1,441
|
maverick wrote:so it would have like a 4-5 on the competitive scale, but a 7-8 on the creative scale. So give it a 6 :)
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 9/23/2008 Posts: 259
|
thats certainly an option.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 9/23/2008 Posts: 259
|
billiv15 wrote:maverick wrote:so it would have like a 4-5 on the competitive scale, but a 7-8 on the creative scale. So give it a 6 :) I was thinking 2 seperate numbers might be more conclusive on how to improve the squad depending on how you want to use it. If you want a really competitive squad a low number on the competitive scale says you need more work in that area. given you can post any number of ideas for improvement as a comment. Or you could have two seperate categories when you create the squad. so if I wanted to rate a squad I would know beforehand if it was meant to be super competitive or not. Making me be a little bit more flexible in my rating.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 4/4/2008 Posts: 1,441
|
I get what you are saying, I will simply ask this. What is the meaning behind a number for a non-competitive squad? It's essentially a meaningless endeavor, and an arbitrary numeration without purpose. I really see no reason to rate a squad in any way that doesn't have it's intention of being competitive.
Now, that doesn't mean I do not value those squads and issues. It's just that a rating does nothing for them. What you need most of all are comments based on your explanation of what you are trying to do, not a number telling you how others think you did on this arbitrary and extremely personal scale that most won't even understand. Comments are ever so much more valuable in these cases. All you have to do is say, "This is a theme squad designed to X" and people will comment accordingly. I see 0 value in setting up a seperate rating system to judge if you fulfilled X and comparing it to other squads that are trying to fulfill Y, V, B, N, 3, T, 8, 9, U, etc.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 9/23/2008 Posts: 259
|
Thats true. although that works under the assumption that everyone will say what they are trying to do. I find it difficult to sometimes rate or comment on squads if the creator doesn't even take the time to write a description. I guess if we could all do that, it would help greatly.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 4/4/2008 Posts: 1,441
|
maverick wrote:Thats true. although that works under the assumption that everyone will say what they are trying to do. I find it difficult to sometimes rate or comment on squads if the creator doesn't even take the time to write a description. I guess if we could all do that, it would help greatly. Right but if they know the criteria (which for sake of example let's use what I posted above) for ratings, then they have no one to blame but themselves for not getting what they want from comments. It really shouldn't be a major issue, as I said, who cares if a squad meant to maximize Darth Sion gets a rating of 5. The idea is to max Sion, so if I don't tell anyone that, I have no one to blame but myself for people posting things like, "Drop Sion" to it.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 8/25/2008 Posts: 121
|
I definitely would drop scion in that squad. 5
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 9/23/2008 Posts: 259
|
Thats very true. However, receiving posts like "Drop Sion" is frustrating , because I assume they wouldnt have included him unless they wanted to max him out. Like you said though, if they would have just mentioned "I want to beef Sion" it would be a non-issue. Now comments like, "I'd drop one sith marauder for X" make more sense to me than telling them to drop the character they spent the most points on.
|
|
Guest |