rate games

[mybad]

Concise description:

• post-game player rating are ascribed directly to the game they were rated on.

Specifics/Details:

• works the same way, but makes it easier for players to assess their strategy by showing specifically which game wiseviking was most butthurt over.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• idk it just makes more sense to me

[PLAYER57832]

This is already true????

As of now, most of the older players have basically given up on the rating system and just give everyone all 5's or don't rate at all. So, you won't get much useful information.

The issue with your suggestion is that ratings are given across ALL games, so you might give someone a 1 once, but then wind up giving them 4's or 5's later and the original record is completely lost.

This is similar to an idea I had, to rate each game individually, then averaging for the person's overall contribution to the other person's rating.

(so if you gave someone a 3, then a 4, then a 5, it would count as 1 rating of "4" toward their overall rating, just the same as if you rated them 4 once or 50 times with an average of 4).

If this were done, it might be possible to keep info on individual games, at least for a time.

The reason for not having ALL the ratings averaged individually is that some people play the same folks over and over. Allowing "buddies" to rate gives a skewed number (beyond current skews).

OR, are you wanting ratings per map? The problem with that is most ratings have little or nothing to do with strategy. In fact, there was a LOT of controversy over the whole "game play" rating bit because the truth is people's strategy varies a LOT, particularly people who play a range of games. Too often, it seems those who want to rate a lot on "strategy" are really just "jerks in disguise".. people who want everyone to play a specific way and get angry when others do not. I am NOT saying you are one. It's just that it did happen that way, does happen that way a lot.

[mybad]

well I thought of it because of a game I had with someone I play every so often. sometimes they are quick, sometimes they are slow.

[Woodruff]

This is already true????

No, definitely not. If someone comes to me with a question about a rating I have given them, I must review EVERY SINGLE GAME I've played against that person to try to figure out why the rating is in place as it is. Sure, I start with the most recent, but that's not necessarily the one that impacted the particular aspect of the rating being questioned.

I agree very much with this suggestion, for what it's worth.

[PLAYER57832]

This is already true????

No, definitely not. If someone comes to me with a question about a rating I have given them, I must review EVERY SINGLE GAME I've played against that person to try to figure out why the rating is in place as it is. Sure, I start with the most recent, but that's not necessarily the one that impacted the particular aspect of the rating being questioned.

I agree very much with this suggestion, for what it's worth.

Yes, I worded that poorly.

Right now, CC doesn't even keep past ratings, only the most current. I would like to see that change.

however, there is often very little real corrospondance between ratings and play, simply because of so many other issues.