Sorry, but I disagree with you. To analyse the style, the strategy or the habits of other players, especially in the long run, is an important part of the game, in my opinion. Many players take accurate and detailed notes, and don’t consider it a distraction or a loss of time. Personally, I never take notes, because I am much too lazy and have an excellent memory, but believe me, I can focus on my game and simultaneously judge how others play.
What I found interesting in this debate is the fear that people might give a bad rate for personal reasons. Are you that pessimistic about the fairness and sportsmanship of Replay players? Would you act like that yourself? Maybe I’m wrong, but I think the vast majority of the players would not rate out of vengeance. It is a question of self-respect.
I confess that there are a couple of players I can’t bear. LOL They are objectively good players, though, darn them, and in that case I would probably solve my conflict by not rating them at all.
ur missing my point, of course thats a big part of the game doing all of that, thats why i said it, but they are doing all that to win a hand and a game, not doing all of that thinking or caring about having to rate them with a number, in my case i have it all stored in my head, i dont take notes, never have,never will, dont need to .players already have their own personal rating of how someone plays stored in there head too, it doesnt mean it has to be publicized , as long as u yourself know from watching everyone how they play is all that matters, doesnt matter how others think or rate them in their heads, u are playing against them for urself to win and no one else, so your own opinions matter not others opinions. and im not debating u im just stating opinions from experience. it seems like u started this thread to debate others. if u think ur ideas will work then take it up with replay and see what happens, u will be wasting ur time tho, time that u could be on the tables rating ur opponents im finished with my opinions, wish u the best of luck and hope it works out and then soon one day i will be rating you
I am not sure if you are replying to me, but just for the record, I didn’t start this thread. I’m just expressing my opinion about it, as you did in more than one post.
People tend to rate things only when they are really pleased or really unhappy. There’s not much middle ground, as a general rule.
Call me cynical, but I suspect the majority of rankings would be negative. People generally don’t want to admit they were out-played, and so they would attribute most plays as “luck” or “the site is rigged” and rate according to this belief.
One possible way to get around this would be to tie the rating to specific hands, and not allow those involved in those hands to rate them. This would help, but how do you stop a player from down-rating someone a few hands later?
It’s a good idea, but would be hard to implement in such a way that the rankings would be useful, at least in my opinion.
To be honest I have spend so much money on this site (over 220,000 UDS) I feel like I should have a high rank because i support the site. My mom and dad spend so much money for my rank!
I’d agree but I can think of a handful of ppl off hand that I play regularly that I would give high ratings without any further analyzation…and a few others that I’d need to check my notes on first.
yes grandy me too, i play regularly with many great players i would give a high rating to and they just happen to have a high rank to because they are great players and have earned so many chips. My point is that we know how they play because we have played with them for endless hours over time, rating them is justified then, but to most of the players we just see every different table for the 1st time or two its impossible to give an accurate rating that early on, and it doesnt mean u will ever see those players enough again to rate them accurately so most players dont wanna waste time analyzing all players when ur playing a fast game, chatting,multitasking and having fun and busy trying to win a game against all players. for most people thats too much to have to deal with and still enjoy the game. We are not supposed to be professional scouts or recruiters here.
i usually compare it to a poker hand. for example when you hold AA and face KK. you have 80 % chance of winning the hand. just like when you compare a high player (example: 312) vs a low player (example: 493227). you can expect the player ranked 312 is the best of the two. but like usual, the player 312, might have had a lucky streak. or player 493227, might be a 1000nl crusher that decided to start on this site this morning. of course i’m giving extreme examples, but teh same theory applies to common examples as well.
long story short: the player ranked 312 is usually better, but it doesn’t give any proof he actually is.
but on the other hand, when you play AA vs KK 10000 times at each other. you are sure you gonna have big profits, purely because the variance is almost filtered out because you are looking at long term results.
but when you do the same with rankings, and put the top 1-1000 vs . the top 834000-835000, you’ll gonna have the same results.
completely agreed, but a while ago sassy sarah and me gave it a try anyway.
obviously a perfect system will never exist, but i do think both formula’s are good enough.
Nobody’s asking you to rate anyone you see once or twice and then never see again. Rating is optional and you can only rate those you have played with “for endless hours over time”.
You are soooooooooooo far away from the point. Nobody is tasking you with the burden of analyzing every player when you’re trying to win so that you can rate them. It’s not a task, it’s not a burden. It’s something very optional you can do at your own pace, and only to those you know well enough to rate.
Seriously @floridajetski you’ve been attacking the idea just for the sake of attacking it. None of those things you stated in all your posts has anything to do with the suggestion. The burden of analyzing others, and the overwhelming subjectivity and jealousy and the mass hysteria created by such a system.
Come on, how difficult is it to give someone you know and played against for a long time 1 or 5 stars which takes 1 second, based on how good or bad of a player you think they are? And how difficult is it NOT to rate someone you don’t know or have seen once or twice because you don’t have enough data to rate them? Is it really that complicated?
It’s fine though, you can stick to the chip count ranking system and the leader boards which are both equally inaccurate. Whatever makes you happy
@yiazmat I agree with you, as I said in my original post, that there should be other more accurate ways to rank players based on skill.
I’ve already seen yours and sassy sarah’s systems to replace the existing one, and they are both interesting.
Still, my suggestion is not meant to replace any existing ranking system. It was just an idea of an additional way to rate players, based on what others think.
Obviously it doesn’t have lots of fans because many think it’s flawed and too complicated and too subjective and will distract them from winning while they’re playing. Not much success there
Not attacking anything or anyone, this forum thread is for every ones opinions and im giving mine. Now u are saying that its more for rating your friends and people u know, well thats not a replay site wide rating system its more of a popularity contest for everyone and their friends, thats exactly how it sounds to me from what ur saying. good solid skilled players dont need or have to have people they dont know rating them or people they know rating them because leader boards and rank is plenty to monitor how skilled u are and how many chip u are earning. i think replays system is the best possible rating system there could be. if there was a more accurate one out there than they would have implemented it already. I give all credit to replay for designing and adding modifications to the whole leader board system to make it more accurate and fair compared to what it used to be years ago. they put a lot of work into that, Thanks replay again for being on top of things and ahead of the curve!
Are they all your friends? Is every person you know on this site and have played against long enough to know if they’re good or bad, your friend? I didn’t say friend. You did.
I play an online game called Overwatch, which recently introduced something called Endorsements. You can read a rundown of it here, but it’s something I’ve been particularly interested in from a community perspective, and have really enjoyed as a player of the game. It’s a brand new system and I’m watching it closely to see if it’s potentially something we can build off of in the future.
I like that it’s focused more on positivity than giving someone a low rating. You can see what someone’s endorsement level is and what endorsements they’ve received (based on color, and on their profile). A player loses their endorsement level if moderation action is taken on their account. Friends aren’t able to endorse other friends to ensure there isn’t abuse.
Since this just kicked off, there’s only one main perk that’s obvious right now, which is you can create a group in their “Looking for Group” system and restrict it to particular endorsement levels. However, Blizzard has mentioned that there will be other rewards, and I’m interested in seeing how that plays out.
As far as I’ve seen, this system has resulted in a very positive change in the community. People are friendlier, emote more, vote for others on the regular, and games have felt more welcoming. I can certainly see how something similar could benefit our site, even if it doesn’t look exactly the same.
Thank you @fizzymint
That’s a great post and a nice system to consider.
Additional systems to the existing ones in Replay never hurt anyone. In fact they make things more interesting for most.
Another problem is that to know players well enough to rate, u have to have played with them long enough. most players know how people play when they play the same type of game a lot , thats why they see them a lot, example is regular sitngo high stakes, regular MTT medium stakes, Omaha hi/lo high tourneys. So the problem is the person playing MTT all the time may not be good at rings and the ring regular player most often is not the best in tourneys or sitngo tables so ur rating is only based on what type of stake and type of game or tourney u are seeing them play and not an over all players skill at all games they play combined.
That’s the exact same thing with chips count and leader boards.
You could have made your millions from playing Hold’em, and you could be terrible at Omaha, Royal and hi/lo. You could have topped Omaha leader boards, but could be really bad at Hold’em and Royal. You could have played low stakes all your life, and could be an excellent player who doesn’t have millions because he never plays high stakes. The flaws you are now citing are the exact same ones that your favorite ranking systems have as well.
not true, i have made my millions in rings, sitngos, and MTT and play all 3 still. i started with 2500 freebies and played low stakes till i had enough chips to play medium, played medium for several years and now play mostly high, so the person playing low stakes that is still playing low years later should be playing medium or high by now or have millions in bank and still playing low because they choose to, there is a leader board for every type of game and stake, except rings. so ur rank and bank is a combination of all of ur winnings from all different games if u play different ones like i do. so u have rankings to go by for weekly and monthly everywhere but rings, people that play rings dont care about leader boards and thats why they dont need to play the others, they base their rank simply on chip count.
