jokobet

Re-labelling WN rating brackets to non-normative terms?

72 posts in this topic

Just an idea that I got while reading through the recent WN 8 post by Preator77:

 

How about re-labelling the WN brackets from "bad", "average", etc. to percentiles such as "Among the best 25%"? The goal of this change from normative to non-normative labels would be to improve the acceptance of ratings among the general player base and indirectly aiding in improving the overall skill level by lowering resentments towards skill measure per se.

 

I believe that the many players out there who are labelled from orange to yellow reject ratings because they misinterpret them as absolute measurements of their skill, reject normative evaluations of their playing style as indicated by terms such as "bad" or "great" and take the latter as a personal insult. By clearly indicating the relative nature of all these ratings with regard to their interpretation and by avoiding highly normative terms we could raise the acceptance of WN and similar ratings among the overall playerbase. 

 

In my eyes every step undertaken to improve the general skill level in WoT is worth the effort. Just imagine the following dialogue versions:

 

(a)

"Hey, my colour is red - what does that mean?" - "Bad player" - "Fuck off"

 

(b)

"Hey, my colour is red - what does that mean?" - "Among the best 60% of all players" - "Mkay, let me try to reach 50%"

 

 

TL;DR: Change the labelling of WN brackets to non-normative so that baddies are not immediately put off from dealing with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think generally that people who actually care about getting better at the game will put forth the effort to do so no matter what you call the categories.

 

People who don't care about getting better (most of the population) don't care about ratings anyway, and people who are all dunning-kruger about it will quibble about the validity of ratings no matter what they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read the post, it has nothing to do with hurting feelings and everything with making people strive to get better instead of being put off from ratings all together by being called a bad player. The way you frame the categories of players within the rating system is a great way to influence how people react to the rating itself. I think this is a fantastic idea to make WN8 both more interpretable for everyone and also more friendly towards players in the lower skill categories, hopefully changing their attitude. +1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First step to improving is to admit you are bad and start working towards fixing it.

I know, it's a deep thought indeed but I just couldn't resist myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would make being red or orange an achievement of sorts

 

"My rating is red, what does that mean?" "You're better than 60% of the playerbase"
Congrats, you are better than bots and teamkillers, now go feel good about that

 

It also makes unicums sound too fancy if you ask me

"My rating is purple, what does that mean?" "You're better than 95% of the playerbase"

 

Also sounds like it would give rise to a whole new league of "I'm better than x% of the playerbase, and you are below me" even worse than the current purple-green or green-orange relationship

 

It just doesn't sound right to me

Having categories for players is a lot more simple

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read the post, it has nothing to do with hurting feelings and everything with making people strive to get better instead of being put off from ratings all together by being called a bad player. The way you frame the categories of players within the rating system is a great way to influence how people react to the rating itself. I think this is a fantastic idea to make WN8 both more interpretable for everyone and also more friendly towards players in the lower skill categories, hopefully changing their attitude. +1

Good, bad, bellow average and above average etc. are easier to understand than in what percentile you land in.

 

Edit: Oneeechan's word sperg explains what I was trying to get at so I gave up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Oneeechan here, players who want to feel superior rather than play better are always going to find a way to do so with ratings. However this is defintely more noob friendly and a lot more accessible to the overwhelming population of bads who just thrive in the red and use it as an excuse rather than try and get better/in the next percentile.

 

Maybe, as a community, we should make the "bads" feel more welcome rather than talking down to them like they're worthless pieces of shit. Or maybe I'm the Martin Luther King jr. of internet tanks looking for equality for all colours of players... Unless they're arseholes/arty players, in which case, call them out.

 

Realistically, there are people who want to improve (props to them regardless of colour) and others that don't give a single shit, you're not going to change the player by introducing a bracket even if it is a nicer way of telling them they're awful.  

 

And no, I have not proof read this at all. wot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe I'm the Martin Luther King jr. of internet tanks looking for equality for all colours of players... Unless they're arseholes/arty players, in which case, call them out.

 

I don't see how you would equalize the color of all players without disregarding color altogether, that's why we have ratings in the first place

Most players (with the exception of arty players and bots) are humans, so they're equal in that sense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to this:

Realistically, there are people who want to improve (props to them regardless of colour)

Basically, being kind and not talking down to those who want to improve regardless of their current ability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how you would equalize the color of all players without disregarding color altogether, that's why we have ratings in the first place

Most players (with the exception of arty players and bots) are humans, so they're equal in that sense

 

The point is not to equalize players but to avoid framing them in ways that are possibly inhibiting them from improving. You're point about a wave of percentile-bullying is good though, I didn't really think about that. Maybe just replace the red-orange-yellow labels, the others aren't so much the issue, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this, and it has absolutely nothing to do with being noob-friendly. It is a more accurate statement of skill.

 

Where it falters a bit (and I mean a bit) is that it doesn't show the gulf between a solid player (me, for example), and an elite player, due to the long tail effect.

 

teff is better than 85% of the people that play tanks. Or 90%. Or something.

 

Carbonward is better than 99.8%.

 

But Carbonward is, in reality, on another level entirely. He's easily twice as good as me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't change tomato's #iplay4fun attitude if the simply don't care about it and in most cases they don't. In their heads they are already better than 99% of the player base. See what i did there? Yes, Dunning-Kruger is a tough motherfucker. And tbh honest, it wouldn't change my approach to them and most likely it wouldn't change their approach to the game to actually learn something and get better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't change tomato's #iplay4fun attitude if the simply don't care about it and in most cases they don't. In their heads they are already better than 99% of the player base. See what i did there? Yes, Dunning-Kruger is a tough motherfucker. And tbh honest, it wouldn't change my approach to them and most likely it wouldn't change their approach to the game to actually learn something and get better.

 

Nonetheless, there is a minority of players who at some point in their WoT career stop being red and move on to orange-yellow-green etc. I'd like to increase the size of that minority - as mother Tesco says: "Every little helps".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't think of a nice way to say this, but I disagree with everything you said. The labels very bad, bad, average, good etc. are all well deserved, someone in red has performed badly to earn that rating. they haven't performed in the "among the bext x%", they haven't performed among the best anything.

 

Changing the labels does nothing except making people feel better about being bad.

 

Not to mention that the label is logically unsound. If you're dead on average, you are not among the 50% best, you are among the 60-40%, you couldn't hold a candle to the top 30% or top 10% or whatever, it's just not a group you are apart of in any way. I am blue overall and purple recent, but I am not under the illusion that I am basically as good as Sela, Garbad, CarbonWard etc. I know they are better than me, and anyone who tried to put me in the same skill-group is flatout lying to me, even if it's just to make me feel better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your idea is nice, but most of the players I come across who are bad don't have any idea that they're being labeled as such (or if they do, they brush it off as people just being assholes on the internet).  Anyone who is aware enough of the game to know about XVM/stat tracking and interested in their own performance enough to look themselves up is already in a mindset of self-improvement (and I never see that type of person attacked for their stats on forums, it's always words of approval for trying and encouragement to get better).  No matter what the actual labels on the charts say, people are going to look at the color red and think "bad" (although it might be tempered with "new" depending on the tier).

 

In other words, the type of person who yells at another player about their red stats is still going to use the word "bad" no matter what the official term is, and the type of person who would use the phrasing "better than 40% of players" isn't going to be screaming "bad" at other players, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I share the same feeling as hypnotones.

Why sugarcoat it? For every overly sensitive flower that gives up on improving just because he gets called bad there are two who decide to improve after getting a firm reality check and accept the fact that they are bad.

 

This is taking it a little far in relation to internet tanks, but I've always loved this bit from George Carlin:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFN3CtcYs0Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think reds oranges and yellow should be laughed at and had rubish thrown at them, just last game is6 was creepin up on me in my isu the whole team about 8 new they were comming for mins, i even had a td behind a rock next to me does he help ? no? do i even bother to look at his ratings no? i mean whats so fun about being shit at a game they actually cause more headaces then helps, even if they come on a flank to help there usually in the way. fuken scrubs, they should be burnt at the stake

 

PS it has often crossed my mind that there should be like license test for tankers, so the brain dead zombies are not aloud to drive powerfull vehicles, for example they should have visual tests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is taking it a little far in relation to internet tanks, but I've always loved this bit from George Carlin:

+1 for Carlin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being better than anyone else, while nice to think about at the same time shouldn't be an accomplishment. If you're a red, you're probably still better than some of the people in the match.

 

But you are still a potato.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think reds oranges and yellow should be laughed at and had rubish thrown at them, 

 

I think that's a little harsh, don't you?  By the ratings, yellow is up to 1250 overall WN8.  That means 55-60% of the playerbase?  This type of attitude is very negative and leads to the gulf between the different groups of players.

 

I'm not good at tanks.  I understand that.  I don't see the map as well as you do.  However, when playing, it bugs the living daylights out of me when people who are better just berate me.  I'll take direction if you take the time to give it.  If you call me a noob and tell me I'm bad and create a toxic environment - Suicide city, find a new match where I can have fun.

 

Now, to the OP:

   I like the idea of expressing it in either a percentile, or sigma form.  I'd like to know am I better than 50% of the population, 55%, 60%  where exactly do I fall?  Just having the 'average' tag doesn't really give an idea of where I fall in the rating.  To do that, i have to go pull out that graph and look at it.  Way too much work.

   Maybe just have the categories expressed as a percentile:

WN 0-400  0-30th percentile.

WN400-900  30-45 percentile 

Or whatever the actual numbers are.  That avoids the Top xx% of the players, but gives an idea of where their skill-set falls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm strongly in favor of percentile groups. The current groupings are not transparent to the userbase. None of the current ratings are presented with any correlation to anything concrete.

I don't care about whether or not bad players feel bad about being labeled bad - but I do suspect that "you are in the bottom 10% of the eight billion people in this game" is more likely to get through than qualitative labels.

Frankly, the fact that a system for numerically evaluating player skill doesn't break things down by percentile is kinda sketchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm strongly in favor of percentile groups. The current groupings are not transparent to the userbase. None of the current ratings are presented with any correlation to anything concrete.

I don't care about whether or not bad players feel bad about being labeled bad - but I do suspect that "you are in the bottom 10% of the eight billion people in this game" is more likely to get through than qualitative labels.

Frankly, the fact that a system for numerically evaluating player skill doesn't break things down by percentile is kinda sketchy.

 

A post in page 1 pretty much answers this:

I like this, and it has absolutely nothing to do with being noob-friendly. It is a more accurate statement of skill.

 

Where it falters a bit (and I mean a bit) is that it doesn't show the gulf between a solid player (me, for example), and an elite player, due to the long tail effect.

 

teff is better than 85% of the people that play tanks. Or 90%. Or something.

 

Carbonward is better than 99.8%.

 

But Carbonward is, in reality, on another level entirely. He's easily twice as good as me.

 

This. Exactly why WN8 was changed to a ratio-scale. The idea behind it is, you have twice the WN8, you are "twice as good". Quite simple and elegant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.