Do Rating Systems in Games Alienate Players?

Sun, 16 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0000

Recently, I read a thought-provoking article from YYSTV titled “So, Do Rating Systems Really Alienate People?” (title translated by myself, hereinafter referred to as “the original article”). The piece begins with a rant from a League of Legends streamer who, after losing a game, discovered that his rating was lower than that of a player with a KD (Kill-Death ratio) of 0-3. Furious, he exclaimed: “The rating system alienates people’s contributions. My dad works hard at his job and gets a 13.0 rating, MVP, while my mom handles all the housework and gets a 3.0, won without any effort. Can we really calculate it that way?”

This remark, both blunt and sharp, quickly sparked a meme frenzy on the Chinese internet, with netizens applying it to various life scenarios and even creating AI-generated funny videos, turning it into a widely discussed hot topic. The original article was written against this backdrop. To fully grasp the original author’s views, you can click to read the complete piece (original content in simplified Chinese).

This got me thinking: what role does the rating system—or more broadly, the evaluation system—play in games? Does it truly lead to “alienation” as the original article suggests? As a former game industry professional and insider, I aim to systematically explore this issue by combining specific cases and design perspectives, offering discussion points and practical suggestions for both players and industry peers.

Resonance and Disagreement with the Original Views

The original article traces the historical roots of rating systems back to the arcade era of games like Space Invaders, noting that their initial purpose was to provide positive feedback and ignite competitive drive among players. However, as game design grew increasingly complex—especially in team-based competitive games—rating systems evolved from “guiding players” to “constraining players,” potentially even causing psychological stress. The article invokes the concept of “alienation,” arguing that players might shift from “actively playing the game” to “being controlled by it.” It cites a paper from National Chiao Tung University, Design Aspects of Scoring Systems in Game, emphasizing that scoring designs should feature perceptibility, controllability, and relation to achievement, which I found informative. The original article concludes with a provocative point: while technological advancements have made ratings more precise, they might also diminish gaming enjoyment by over-quantifying it, reducing competitive experiences to something akin to “spinning a raffle wheel” in a random gamble.

I resonate with some of the original article’s views. For instance, current rating systems often overemphasize explicit data (like KDA, or Kill-Death-Assist ratio) while neglecting players’ implicit contributions (such as teamwork or strategic support), which can indeed lead to an oversimplification of player behavior within the rating framework. I also partially agree with the paradox it raises: the more developers refine rating logic to perfection, the more players might feel bound by its constraints. However, I don’t fully endorse the original article’s outright dismissal of rating systems. It seems to imply that rating systems are inherently the root of “alienation,” an inescapable fate no matter how advanced the technology becomes. I, on the other hand, believe that rating systems, as external tools, have effects that aren’t set in stone but depend on the interplay between design methods and players’ intrinsic motivations—in other words, external factors must work through internal ones to take effect. Thus, rather than viewing the existence of rating systems as an original sin, I prefer to explore how to better serve the gaming experience through optimized design.

Moreover, players’ needs and motivations vary widely, a fact that cannot be ignored. Richard Bartle classified players into four types: Achievers, Explorers, Socializers, and Killers. Achievers might value the recognition ratings provide, while Explorers or Socializers may prioritize other sources of enjoyment in the game. We cannot generalize all players; the role of rating systems varies from person to person.

A Comparative Analysis of PVE and PVP Evaluation Systems

To thoroughly dissect rating systems, I’ll discuss single-player/cooperative games (PVE, or Player vs. Environment) and multiplayer competitive games (PVP, or Player vs. Player) separately. Though they share some similarities, their design goals, player behaviors, and the application of evaluation systems differ significantly, meriting individual analysis.

PVE Games: Guidance and Diversified Evaluation

In PVE games, developers exert greater control over the game environment and challenges, and evaluation systems are often designed as guiding tools to help players explore gameplay and improve their skills. Take the Devil May Cry series, for example: its combo rating system uses intuitive grades like S, A, B, paired with flashy sound and visual effects, to encourage players to attempt high-difficulty combo moves. This design clearly signals that stylish combat is a core part of the game’s fun.

However, evaluation systems in PVE games go beyond simple numerical scores. Broader mechanisms—such as Steam’s achievement system, speedrun leaderboards, or plot-related unlockable items—can all be seen as forms of player evaluation. For instance, in FromSoftware’s games like Dark Souls, though there’s no explicit rating system, players gain a strong sense of achievement by tackling bosses with different gear, builds, or strategies and earning recognition in the community. The common thread among these mechanisms is their close tie to the game’s core experience: they provide positive feedback without imposing a single standard, thus reducing the risk of “alienation.”

Of course, overreliance on ratings can pose drawbacks. Some players, chasing S-rank scores, might repeatedly grind levels while ignoring the story or exploration, turning the experience from “enjoying challenges” into tedious “score farming.” In my view, if players choose this playstyle voluntarily, designers shouldn’t completely negate it, but they need to balance guidance and freedom—providing direction without stifling unexpected creativity.

PVP Games: The Intersection of Balance and Controversy

By contrast, evaluation systems in PVP games are more complex and controversial. Take League of Legends as an example: its rating system serves two main purposes—pre-game matchmaking (based on hidden MMR, or Matchmaking Rating) and post-game performance evaluation (like MVP or SVP, meaning Most Valuable Player or Secondary Valuable Player). The former aims to ensure fair matches and is the root of the matchmaking system, while the latter seeks to quantify each player’s individual contribution per game, often developed as plugins or first-party apps by the game operator (e.g., “掌上英雄联盟” in mainland China) rather than built into the game itself.

In PVP games, the evaluation system is tightly linked to the matchmaking mechanism (matchmaker). Especially in smaller team formats like 3v3 or 5v5, where every player’s role is critical, the rating system helps curb “smurfing” (high-skilled players dominating lower-skilled ones) through tier-based matching, enhancing overall fairness. Many games use tier systems based on win rates and individual performance to group players by skill level. However, in games with larger player counts and more randomness, like battle royale titles such as PUBG, the impact of ratings might be diluted by numerous unpredictable factors, and players may be less sensitive to imbalances—but that doesn’t mean developers can overlook balance issues.

As the streamer’s rant reveals, post-game rating designs can sometimes cause dissatisfaction by failing to account for team collaboration or role-specific contributions. In professional League of Legends matches, MVP selection isn’t automated but decided by commentators and guests based on data and in-game performance. In this model, even if a player’s KDA isn’t stellar, they might still be named MVP for critical plays like initiating team fights or providing crowd control. This human judgment captures value beyond data, offering a more comprehensive evaluation. In contrast, current automated post-game rating systems lean heavily on explicit metrics like KDA, vision score, and participation rate, overlooking the implicit contributions of roles like tanks or supports. Thus, the meme cited in the original article went viral not because players wholly reject ratings, but because they’re frustrated with the shortcomings of existing rating mechanisms.

Design Challenges of Evaluation Systems

From a psychological perspective, rating systems are fundamentally feedback mechanisms. According to Feedback Intervention Theory, effective feedback should be specific, behavior-focused, and avoid threatening the recipient’s self-worth. Yet, many game rating systems only deliver cold numbers or grades without improvement suggestions, making players feel judged rather than helped. Whether in PVE or PVP, evaluation systems face several common challenges:

Perceptibility and Fairness

Players need to clearly understand the basis of ratings. If the criteria are too complex or opaque (like the specific algorithms for post-game ratings in this case), players may feel confused or unfairly treated. Especially after a loss, when emotions are already low, facing an “unjustified” low rating can heighten frustration and even resentment toward the game.

Controllability and Diversity

Players want their efforts reflected in ratings, but random in-game events (like teammate mistakes or enemy strategies) can undermine this sense of control. While some randomness adds to the fun, balancing it with controllability is tricky. I believe a key principle is that players shouldn’t be penalized for factors beyond their control. For instance, in League of Legends, if the enemy team gank (gang-bang kill) the top lane constantly, causing the top laner to die often, this stems from the opponent’s strategy, not the top laner’s errors, so the rating shouldn’t harshly judge them for it.

Additionally, Richard Bartle’s player type theory reminds us that players have diverse pursuits. A one-size-fits-all rating standard can’t satisfy everyone; if a total score is required, making the weighting logic transparent might ease some controversy.

Alignment with Purpose and Experience

Evaluation systems should serve the game’s core fun. For example, in team games, assists should boost ratings as much as kills; in open-world games, exploring all hidden areas should trigger achievement rewards. Ideally, rating designs should guide players to dive deeper into the game’s enjoyment while chasing high scores, which demands sophisticated system design.

Optimization Suggestions for Evaluation Systems

Based on the above analysis, I propose the following optimization directions for players and industry professionals to consider:

Increase Transparency

Make the rating logic public and provide detailed feedback. After a game, not only show the weighted total score but also let players see the specific scores and weightings for each component. Often, players aren’t unwilling to accept low scores—they’re unwilling to accept low scores without explanation. A reasonable rating system should offer constructive suggestions rather than blunt judgments. However, suggestions for low scores, if poorly worded, might be misread as mockery. Thus, I suggest a three-tier display:

Weighted total score
Breakdown of scores (revealed in a hover window when mousing over the total score)
Improvement suggestions (hidden behind a button in the hover window to avoid direct emotional triggers)

Providing specific improvement suggestions is delicate; current AI might not be precise enough, potentially coming off as amateurish rather than professional, which could backfire. This remains a significant challenge for rating systems.

Additionally, the third tier could include a feedback window for players to suggest improvements to the rating system. If players are genuinely upset or confused by low scores, offering an immediate outlet for expression shows goodwill and sincerity.

Flexibility and Personalization

In PVE games, displaying ratings might involve some soft guidance from designers; in PVP games, players should have more choice, like deciding whether to make their ratings public. If third parties provide rating tools, the game could offer in-game and out-of-game anonymizers or even complete message blocking.

To ensure fairness, players who choose anonymity can’t view others’ ratings, while those who go public can only see others who’ve done the same. This way, players who seek comparison can form their own circles, and those who opt out can avoid interference. This “rights and responsibilities” design might help curb “trolls” who dodge criticism when they underperform but freely insult others’ mistakes, fostering a healthier gaming environment.

Community Co-creation

Collect player opinions and suggestions on the evaluation system via in-game surveys or forum discussions. While listening to players, developers should show proactivity, such as regularly publishing improvement plans for the evaluation system or responding to hot topics. Even if the team lacks immediate solutions, engaging with the community can spark ideas and avoid working in a vacuum. A condescending “we know what’s best for you” attitude will only deepen the divide between players and developers.

Diversified Evaluation Forms

In PVP games, ratings shouldn’t be directly tied to resources or punishments. While linking them can boost winners’ achievement, it also amplifies losers’ frustration. A better approach is offering cosmetic rewards (like titles) to commend players excelling in various dimensions, while those who perform poorly simply miss out on these honorary rewards in that game, without substantial losses.

Simultaneously, I strongly support introducing long-term positive feedback mechanisms, like “lifetime kill count trophies” or “cumulative title achievements unlocking hidden rewards.” Using the evaluation system to shift players’ focus toward long-term positive accomplishments can lessen the emphasis on single-game wins and losses.

Conclusion

Evaluation systems, as crucial tools in game design, can guide players in getting started and boost engagement, but if poorly designed, they can also bring pressure or a sense of “alienation.” I believe evaluation systems aren’t inherently destined to cause “alienation”; their effects depend on developers’ skillful control, the precision of quantitative feedback, and players’ subjective experiences. By distinguishing between PVE and PVP characteristics and addressing players’ diverse needs, we can make evaluation systems better serve game enjoyment rather than become shackles. For practitioners, this isn’t just technical optimization—it’s a profound insight into player psychology and culture.

This article was written in haste and represents only my personal views, inevitably with omissions or biases. I welcome criticism and corrections from all readers, and I look forward to sparking more ideas through exchanges, collectively advancing game design progress!

Rating System | Yu-Chao (Curtis) Wang's Personal Website