Conquer Club

Concise description:
I think it would be better if the initial number of stars being given to a person should be 5 instead of one.
Specifics:
Often times when u are leaving a negative it is because the player was weak in one paticular aspect of the game not all around. so having the rating start at 1 isn't fair if a person forgets to change all the others considering feedback will not be removed by the mods. Another variation of this is to have the feedback ratings set so that a person only leaves feedback for another player if s/he manually moves the ranking up/down

This will improve the following aspects of the site:
Make it so there are less feedback mishaps with players leaving lower feedbacks then they meant to.

Maybe placing it in 3 (average) would be a good middle ground? I know this would require some changing of the code, but not sure how much.


--Andy

I agree with leaving the ratings blank as the default. This will result in less confusion.

Default should be middle ground (3), if anything. I think it would help push people to not give so high.

They're not 1 by default, they're nothing. So you can just click the applicable categories.

*edit*
And you can withdraw your rating if you did it wrong.

AndyDufresne wrote:Maybe placing it in 3 (average) would be a good middle ground? I know this would require some changing of the code, but not sure how much.


--Andy

Indeed, friggin' average people, get it through your dense heads... 5 stars is NOT average.

FabledIntegral wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:Maybe placing it in 3 (average) would be a good middle ground? I know this would require some changing of the code, but not sure how much.


--Andy

Indeed, friggin' average people, get it through your dense heads... 5 stars is NOT average.

So I can't leave 5's to people I'd enjoy playing again? Sorry for not living up to your, obviously superior, assertions about the new rating system.

FabledIntegral wrote:Indeed, friggin' average people, get it through your dense heads... 5 stars is NOT average.

So, most of the time my opponents don't miss a single round. Since this is most common, should they all get 3's?

Ditocoaf wrote:

FabledIntegral wrote:Indeed, friggin' average people, get it through your dense heads... 5 stars is NOT average.

So, most of the time my opponents don't miss a single round. Since this is most common, should they all get 3's?

To get a 5 in a non-speed game they must take their turns within 5 minutes of the previous player ending their turn.

Yeah... since a three is in the middle so it MUST be average, then a five is 100%-- you must be as good as physically possible. Screw 5 minutes, even. You should be instantaneous--after all, you don't deserve the best score possible unless you perform the best game possible. These things are 1 to 1.

I don't care what people like FabledIntegral think... if someone didn't do anything wrong, I'm not gonna dock them points. At least, that's how I'll operate until we get some official indication of what a 1,2,3,4, and 5 mean.


I got a 50% on my test... hooray, I'm average!

Ditocoaf wrote:

FabledIntegral wrote:Indeed, friggin' average people, get it through your dense heads... 5 stars is NOT average.

So, most of the time my opponents don't miss a single round. Since this is most common, should they all get 3's?

Depends on your perspective. I would not consider that average - I would consider missing a single round average/expected/tolerable. Missing 2 rounds might get 2 stars, etc. I would probably give someone who didn't miss a round, over a long game 4 stars. If they didn't miss a round in a doodle assassin, do they deserve 5 stars? Hell no.

If you want someone up and beyond in attendance, give them 5 stars if they took their turns fast and accordingly, not waiting until 23 hours is up or something. Of course a player can use as much time as he/she needs, but if you want to know a player that's above and beyond and will do *more* than what's expected merely of CC, then he/she should get a 5. That's the entire point. 5 is up and beyond what CC merely asks of players. 3 is what CC asks of players. Just as said, 3 is AVERAGE. It's already been said be the mods.

FabledIntegral wrote:5 is up and beyond what CC merely asks of players. 3 is what CC asks of players. Just as said, 3 is AVERAGE. It's already been said be the mods.

How do you rate "Fair Play" then? CC asks you not to cheat, thus not cheating = 3.

So if I am giving 5's to people who were pleasant to chat with, took their turns reasonably, and didn't cheat... I fail to see what I'm doing wrong by you.

FabledIntegral wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:

FabledIntegral wrote:Indeed, friggin' average people, get it through your dense heads... 5 stars is NOT average.

So, most of the time my opponents don't miss a single round. Since this is most common, should they all get 3's?

Depends on your perspective. I would not consider that average - I would consider missing a single round average/expected/tolerable. Missing 2 rounds might get 2 stars, etc. I would probably give someone who didn't miss a round, over a long game 4 stars. If they didn't miss a round in a doodle assassin, do they deserve 5 stars? Hell no.

If you want someone up and beyond in attendance, give them 5 stars if they took their turns fast and accordingly, not waiting until 23 hours is up or something. Of course a player can use as much time as he/she needs, but if you want to know a player that's above and beyond and will do *more* than what's expected merely of CC, then he/she should get a 5. That's the entire point. 5 is up and beyond what CC merely asks of players. 3 is what CC asks of players. Just as said, 3 is AVERAGE. It's already been said be the mods.

That's the average number, as casually mentioned by andy, but it's not necessarily average play. That's why there's a thread asking for an official description of what the numbers mean in terms of an actual game.

Ditocoaf wrote:Yeah... since a three is in the middle so it MUST be average, then a five is 100%-- you must be as good as physically possible. Screw 5 minutes, even. You should be instantaneous--after all, you don't deserve the best score possible unless you perform the best game possible. These things are 1 to 1.

I don't care what people like FabledIntegral think... if someone didn't do anything wrong, I'm not gonna dock them points. At least, that's how I'll operate until we get some official indication of what a 1,2,3,4, and 5 mean.

I scored an average amount of points on my test... so the prof gave me a score of 50%!

Ditocoaf wrote:

FabledIntegral wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:

FabledIntegral wrote:Indeed, friggin' average people, get it through your dense heads... 5 stars is NOT average.

So, most of the time my opponents don't miss a single round. Since this is most common, should they all get 3's?

Depends on your perspective. I would not consider that average - I would consider missing a single round average/expected/tolerable. Missing 2 rounds might get 2 stars, etc. I would probably give someone who didn't miss a round, over a long game 4 stars. If they didn't miss a round in a doodle assassin, do they deserve 5 stars? Hell no.

If you want someone up and beyond in attendance, give them 5 stars if they took their turns fast and accordingly, not waiting until 23 hours is up or something. Of course a player can use as much time as he/she needs, but if you want to know a player that's above and beyond and will do *more* than what's expected merely of CC, then he/she should get a 5. That's the entire point. 5 is up and beyond what CC merely asks of players. 3 is what CC asks of players. Just as said, 3 is AVERAGE. It's already been said be the mods.

That's the average number, as casually mentioned by andy, but it's not necessarily average play. That's why there's a thread asking for an official description of what the numbers mean in terms of an actual game.

Ditocoaf wrote:Yeah... since a three is in the middle so it MUST be average, then a five is 100%-- you must be as good as physically possible. Screw 5 minutes, even. You should be instantaneous--after all, you don't deserve the best score possible unless you perform the best game possible. These things are 1 to 1.

I don't care what people like FabledIntegral think... if someone didn't do anything wrong, I'm not gonna dock them points. At least, that's how I'll operate until we get some official indication of what a 1,2,3,4, and 5 mean.

I scored an average amount of points on my test... so the prof gave me a score of 50%!

Then you obviously can't rate the 5 star system, which is virtually a universal system, practically. Pity the mods have to baby you so much.

Default should be blank - so if you don't want to rate you don't have to.

At the moment the default is blank - which is NOT 0 stars. It's "Unrated".

C.

Bones2484 wrote:

FabledIntegral wrote:5 is up and beyond what CC merely asks of players. 3 is what CC asks of players. Just as said, 3 is AVERAGE. It's already been said be the mods.

How do you rate "Fair Play" then? CC asks you not to cheat, thus not cheating = 3.

So if I am giving 5's to people who were pleasant to chat with, took their turns reasonably, and didn't cheat... I fail to see what I'm doing wrong by you.

So am I. Once a player misses a turn, starts ranting in the game chat, or clearly is cheating, then the stars go down from 5.

I played several 1 v 1 games (not speed) and they were all over in 2 hours. Both parties played well and the games were fun. 5,5,5

If you give someone a 3,3,3 and they do nothing wrong and play fair, how do they get a 5,5,5?

WM

WidowMakers wrote:I played several 1 v 1 games (not speed) and they were all over in 2 hours. Both parties played well and the games were fun. 5,5,5

A RT casual 1v1 game that's done in 2 hours would not get a 5 in attendance from me... Someone doing the minimum expected does not deserve a maximum rating.

However I'm playing a 6 player World 2.1 game that's closing in on round 30, a few have missed one turn and most of the time we do a round per day and frequently we manage 2. These guys are on route to a 5 in attendance from me.

WidowMakers wrote:If you give someone a 3,3,3 and they do nothing wrong and play fair, how do they get a 5,5,5?

If you award a 5,5,5 to someone just for showing up and not being an ass then what do you award the guy that takes all of his 30+ rounds quickly while being fun, helpful and present in the chat???

Bones2484 wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:

FabledIntegral wrote:Indeed, friggin' average people, get it through your dense heads... 5 stars is NOT average.

So, most of the time my opponents don't miss a single round. Since this is most common, should they all get 3's?

To get a 5 in a non-speed game they must take their turns within 5 minutes of the previous player ending their turn.

See that is the whole problem with this system. This is YOUR idea, but it is not everybodies'. So, you give someone a 3 because they played reasonably ... someone else gives a 5 unless there is something wrong.

This systems takes the worst of the old system (the subjectivity) and makes it far worse. I suggested already that some sort of guidelines be installed, but really all this SHOULD have been thought out and discussed in the WIDE forum, not just a select few, BEFORE implementing the system. Now we have pain chaos.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Bones2484 wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:

FabledIntegral wrote:Indeed, friggin' average people, get it through your dense heads... 5 stars is NOT average.

So, most of the time my opponents don't miss a single round. Since this is most common, should they all get 3's?

To get a 5 in a non-speed game they must take their turns within 5 minutes of the previous player ending their turn.

See that is the whole problem with this system. This is YOUR idea, but it is not everybodies'. So, you give someone a 3 because they played reasonably ... someone else gives a 5 unless there is something wrong.

This systems takes the worst of the old system (the subjectivity) and makes it far worse. I suggested already that some sort of guidelines be installed, but really all this SHOULD have been thought out and discussed in the WIDE forum, not just a select few, BEFORE implementing the system. Now we have pain chaos.

I was being sarcastic with Dito... he got it.

Anyways, I completely agree with you.

Thezzaruz wrote:

WidowMakers wrote:I played several 1 v 1 games (not speed) and they were all over in 2 hours. Both parties played well and the games were fun. 5,5,5

A RT casual 1v1 game that's done in 2 hours would not get a 5 in attendance from me... Someone doing the minimum expected does not deserve a maximum rating.

However I'm playing a 6 player World 2.1 game that's closing in on round 30, a few have missed one turn and most of the time we do a round per day and frequently we manage 2. These guys are on route to a 5 in attendance from me.

WidowMakers wrote:If you give someone a 3,3,3 and they do nothing wrong and play fair, how do they get a 5,5,5?

If you award a 5,5,5 to someone just for showing up and not being an ass then what do you award the guy that takes all of his 30+ rounds quickly while being fun, helpful and present in the chat???

I did not say a single 1v1 game I said several. Every time I went to another game for a turn, it was my turn. I did not have to wait. After all even if I did they were 24 hour games. So why would I not give the guy a 5 for being on time (ahead of time actually because we did not spend more than 7 minutes between rounds of a 24 hour clock). Played well and was smart about playing?

What gets a 5 for attendance from you?

Attendance: If a player is always their and never misses a turn then it is a 5 for me. Misses a turn = 4. Misses 2 turns = 1, Gets kicked for missing 3 = 0
Attitude: does not complain = 5, Yells a t someone to tell them they messed up with t a move that probably was OK = 4. Continually is a pain in the game chat = 2. Is the worst ever. Always complains, The dice are rigged, you suck, blah blah blah....=0
Fair Play: Plays the game within the rules=5, Breaks treaty or alliance early=3 continually breaks deals=1 is found out to have cheated and talked outside of game chat =0
Teamwork: Talks and works out plan ahead of time = 5. Mostly agrees with overall team choices but makes some other ill advised moves=4, Talks about move occasionally and might do poor attacking=1-3 (depending on frequency), Completely ignores all team choices and kills us = 0

That is how I would use the system. 5,5,5,5 is if a player does nothing wrong. If an avgerage player who is on time and plays fair and does not miss turns and talks int eh chat can only get a 3,3,3,3 How can anyone get a 5,5,5,5?

WM

WidowMakers wrote:

Thezzaruz wrote:

WidowMakers wrote:I played several 1 v 1 games (not speed) and they were all over in 2 hours. Both parties played well and the games were fun. 5,5,5

A RT casual 1v1 game that's done in 2 hours would not get a 5 in attendance from me... Someone doing the minimum expected does not deserve a maximum rating.

However I'm playing a 6 player World 2.1 game that's closing in on round 30, a few have missed one turn and most of the time we do a round per day and frequently we manage 2. These guys are on route to a 5 in attendance from me.

WidowMakers wrote:If you give someone a 3,3,3 and they do nothing wrong and play fair, how do they get a 5,5,5?

If you award a 5,5,5 to someone just for showing up and not being an ass then what do you award the guy that takes all of his 30+ rounds quickly while being fun, helpful and present in the chat???

I did not say a single 1v1 game I said several. Every time I went to another game for a turn, it was my turn. I did not have to wait. After all even if I did they were 24 hour games. So why would I not give the guy a 5 for being on time (ahead of time actually because we did not spend more than 7 minutes between rounds of a 24 hour clock). Played well and was smart about playing?

What gets a 5 for attendance from you?

Attendance: If a player is always their and never misses a turn then it is a 5 for me. Misses a turn = 4. Misses 2 turns = 1, Gets kicked for missing 3 = 0
Attitude: does not complain = 5, Yells a t someone to tell them they messed up with t a move that probably was OK = 4. Continually is a pain in the game chat = 2. Is the worst ever. Always complains, The dice are rigged, you suck, blah blah blah....=0
Fair Play: Plays the game within the rules=5, Breaks treaty or alliance early=3 continually breaks deals=1 is found out to have cheated and talked outside of game chat =0
Teamwork: Talks and works out plan ahead of time = 5. Mostly agrees with overall team choices but makes some other ill advised moves=4, Talks about move occasionally and might do poor attacking=1-3 (depending on frequency), Completely ignores all team choices and kills us = 0

That is how I would use the system. 5,5,5,5 is if a player does nothing wrong. If an avgerage player who is on time and plays fair and does not miss turns and talks int eh chat can only get a 3,3,3,3 How can anyone get a 5,5,5,5?

WM

It's not "if they did nothing wrong." if they did nothing wrong IS the 3,3,3. However what you're saying is difference. To me it sounds like his attendance was superb, by the way you're describing it. While someone who is average may just show attendance by not missing any turns (and taking only one every 24 hours), this person showed *better* than expected performance, he was there consistently. Therefore you judge how much better it was than average, and give a 4 or a 5. You felt he deserved a 5, therefore he should get a 5.

Playing fair is what is expected. It shouldn't deserve anymore than a 3 in my opinion. Fair play includes suiciding etc, so if someone does a move that's stupid, such as wiping you out of an area and it NEITHER benefits you nor him, then ONE move like that per game is probably expected. However when people continually do it, then it's a 2 or 1. If someone doesn't hang anyone, probably a 4, and if they are superb at making sure not to gang up on anyone (doesn't use diplomacy to merely team up on someone else if the game is even, etc.), then give the person a 5.

Attitude should be the easiest. An expected gg, gl etc. is a 3. You judge how the attitude was beyond that. If someone gets shit dice and you comment on it and they say "ah well, it happens to everyone," that shows a good attitude, 4 maybe. If it continues and you have an absolutely amazing experience, one you'd get out of like 1/25 people, then give him a 5.

But it's absolutely ridiculous people are getting 5's across the boards. It's a friggin' universal system people, it's used in hotels, restaurants, movies, grades, etc. It should NOT be this hard to figure it out, even the mods have finally given GUIDELINES specifying that three is average, yet people are still too dense to figure it out that it's a UNIVERSAL SYSTEM.

WidowMakers wrote:What gets a 5 for attendance from you?

Attendance: If a player is always their and never misses a turn then it is a 5 for me. Misses a turn = 4. Misses 2 turns = 1, Gets kicked for missing 3 = 0
Attitude: does not complain = 5, Yells a t someone to tell them they messed up with t a move that probably was OK = 4. Continually is a pain in the game chat = 2. Is the worst ever. Always complains, The dice are rigged, you suck, blah blah blah....=0
Fair Play: Plays the game within the rules=5, Breaks treaty or alliance early=3 continually breaks deals=1 is found out to have cheated and talked outside of game chat =0
Teamwork: Talks and works out plan ahead of time = 5. Mostly agrees with overall team choices but makes some other ill advised moves=4, Talks about move occasionally and might do poor attacking=1-3 (depending on frequency), Completely ignores all team choices and kills us = 0

That is how I would use the system. 5,5,5,5 is if a player does nothing wrong. If an avgerage player who is on time and plays fair and does not miss turns and talks int eh chat can only get a 3,3,3,3 How can anyone get a 5,5,5,5?

WM

There is a problem with this. There is no 0 rating, by giving what you think is a 0, you are actually not rating the person, thus their average does not drop. The lowest rating you can give someone is a 1.

It is still everybody coming up with their own standards.

Poor... average ... excellent is better than nothing, but just look at all the variability even in this thread.

FabledIntegral wrote:But it's absolutely ridiculous people are getting 5's across the boards. It's a friggin' universal system people, it's used in hotels, restaurants, movies, grades, etc. It should NOT be this hard to figure it out, even the mods have finally given GUIDELINES specifying that three is average, yet people are still too dense to figure it out that it's a UNIVERSAL SYSTEM.

It's not a "universal system"... sure stars are used to represent ratings for a lot of things. But they don't translate the exact same way everywhere. In fact, a certain number of stars out of five can represent quite a variety of things, depending on how they're used.

Let us say I play 20 games.
I Deadbeat in 5 of those games.
Let us say games are 2 player seq.
In 1 (one) of those games, I have best dice, best cards, and very happy in chat, very helpful, very fair, very fast in taking my turns....

Ratings arrive for my 20 games:

Attendance Ratings only:

42stars - for 14 games that I played out to the end I receive recommended 3 stars (14*3)
5 stars - for the 1 game I had best dice, and very happy in chat, very fast in taking my turns....
5 stars - for the 5games I deadbeated, wasted time (5games * 1star)

52 stars received for 20 games--- average 2.6 stars for attendance.

I deadbeated every fifth game, I deadbeated 5 out of 20 games and my attendance rating is 0.4 below recommended 3 stars.


Assuming that I receive recommended 3's in other 2 categories (where I did not do anything wrong), my average rating would look like:
Attendance 52 stars average 2.6
Fair play 60 stars average 3.0
Attitude 60 stars average 3.0

Total ratings 172 stars average total rating 2.865

This is only 0.135 star below recommended 3 stars for a habitual deadbeater.