Conquer Club

ive looked for similar posts and not found any.

sooo basically today i realised the ratings arefucked.

Im guessing that the intention of them is provide a basis for other players to analyze so they can choose whether to play with them or not.. no?

Well.. Im in a team game at the moment with the biggest prick ever, and i cant understand why he has such a good rating.. however it doesnt seem to be intentionally good.

He was recieving 5 stars for being a bad teammate and a quiet player, but it still counts as positive in the ratings, which doesnt seem right at all. This should be changed so i dont end up with douchebags like this guy.


One solution:
Rather than having 5 star ratings, perhaps a graph? bar chart?
possibly two graphs, 1 -ve, 1 +ve.

For each graph there could be a number of tags [e.g bad teammate, skillful etc], say there was 5 for each [positive and neg], and each player that leaves their "new style" of feedback has 5 points to spend.
They could spend all 5 on quiet, or mix them up among the two faces, so 2 for skillful, 1 quiet, 2 bad teammate].

this is just an idea, but it would work better than the current system

TurinBrakes wrote:this is just an idea, but it would work better than the current system

the current system is still pretty fresh out of the box, and alleged upgrade from the old feedback system we had. it is slowly shaking itself out, and it remains to be seen how truly effective it will be in the long run. i doubt they are going to toss it out before it has even had a chance to succeed/fail... the black jesus has spoken...-0

I've only just started playing here so didn't know much about it. But it is clearly flawed

It is flawed.

The thing is, people think that if the game was fun and they were about evenly matched then they should leave all fives instead of perhaps 3s and 4s which should be an above adverage rating. People only realy leave 3s and 2s if the person is a deadbeat or goes on personaly insulting people. The thing is, if you bet someone then they probably don't desrve any higher than a 3 for gameplay. And if someone doesn't realy talk much, then they shouldn't leave them a good rating just because they weren't mean but they shouldn't rate them poorly either. If someone doesn't talk much then don't leave them any rating for attitude and leave a tag that says silent. And is someone plays fairly and evenly give them a 4 or so for fair play. Also, just because someone wins by making alliances and things don't rate them poorly for fair play because as long as their alliances are out in the open there is nothing unfair about it.
I think the ratings just doesn't realy reflect how good of a player someone is.

captainwalrus wrote:The thing is, people think that if the game was fun and they were about evenly matched then they should leave all fives instead of perhaps 3s and 4s which should be an above adverage rating. People only realy leave 3s and 2s if the person is a deadbeat or goes on personaly insulting people. The thing is, if you bet someone then they probably don't desrve any higher than a 3 for gameplay. And if someone doesn't realy talk much, then they shouldn't leave them a good rating just because they weren't mean but they shouldn't rate them poorly either. If someone doesn't talk much then don't leave them any rating for attitude and leave a tag that says silent. And is someone plays fairly and evenly give them a 4 or so for fair play. Also, just because someone wins by making alliances and things don't rate them poorly for fair play because as long as their alliances are out in the open there is nothing unfair about it.
I think the ratings just doesn't realy reflect how good of a player someone is.

see, this makes absolutely no sense to me, and shows just how arbitrary peoples ideas about the rating system are... it is still new, people are still learning, it is slowly shaking out...-0

why not just have wins and losses. what else do you need

captainwalrus wrote:The thing is, people think that if the game was fun and they were about evenly matched then they should leave all fives instead of perhaps 3s and 4s which should be an above adverage rating. People only realy leave 3s and 2s if the person is a deadbeat or goes on personaly insulting people. The thing is, if you bet someone then they probably don't desrve any higher than a 3 for gameplay. And if someone doesn't realy talk much, then they shouldn't leave them a good rating just because they weren't mean but they shouldn't rate them poorly either. If someone doesn't talk much then don't leave them any rating for attitude and leave a tag that says silent. And is someone plays fairly and evenly give them a 4 or so for fair play. Also, just because someone wins by making alliances and things don't rate them poorly for fair play because as long as their alliances are out in the open there is nothing unfair about it.
I think the ratings just doesn't realy reflect how good of a player someone is.

So how does 1 guy get a higher fair play than the other? 99% of the people play 'fair.' Saying someone you beat doesn't deserve higher than a 3 in rating is ludicrous. One can play a game to perfection, and can still lose due to dice or stupid opponents in free for alls.

I think the rating system does need work, but it is sufficient none the less. And for the most part, it does give accurate ratings. If you're unsure about someone's game play, leave it blank. While giving unjustified 5 ratings may be annoying, it's even worse imo to give an unjustified 2 or 3.

Also I once played a player who was later banned for cursing in the live chat and having five accounts. He gave me a very low rating and many bad tags. I think ratings should be able to be edited by mods.

sailorseal wrote:Also I once played a player who was later banned for cursing in the live chat and having five accounts. He gave me a very low rating and many bad tags. I think ratings should be able to be edited by mods.

Any rating left by a banned player should be deleted, I think,. But at least there is a response section to explain the situation.

Megadeth666 wrote:

sailorseal wrote:Also I once played a player who was later banned for cursing in the live chat and having five accounts. He gave me a very low rating and many bad tags. I think ratings should be able to be edited by mods.

Any rating left by a banned player should be deleted, I think,. But at least there is a response section to explain the situation.

agreed, banned player=banned ratings

TurinBrakes wrote:Well.. Im in a team game at the moment with the biggest prick ever, and i cant understand why he has such a good rating.. however it doesnt seem to be intentionally good.

He was recieving 5 stars for being a bad teammate and a quiet player, but it still counts as positive in the ratings, which doesnt seem right at all. This should be changed so i dont end up with douchebags like this guy.

I am not concerned about the rest of the words....what I want to know is who is it you are speaking about....come on, don't be shy, spill them beans!

sailorseal wrote:Also I once played a player who was later banned for cursing in the live chat and having five accounts. He gave me a very low rating and many bad tags. I think ratings should be able to be edited by mods.

the whole point of the new system is to free up the mods from all the hours it took dealing with feedback complaints... so, i doubt they are going to start dealing with the ratings!! the black jesus has spoken..-0

owenshooter wrote:

sailorseal wrote:Also I once played a player who was later banned for cursing in the live chat and having five accounts. He gave me a very low rating and many bad tags. I think ratings should be able to be edited by mods.

the whole point of the new system is to free up the mods from all the hours it took dealing with feedback complaints... so, i doubt they are going to start dealing with the ratings!! the black jesus has spoken..-0

BTW = jesus was jew and not black, so stop your stupid black jesus thing ... and the site owner is making about 500 000 $ or fairly 250 000 $ a year so if he or she ain't have the money to pay mods to do the job well .....JEW AND NOT BLACK AT ALL, please stop that, almost 80 millions united staters beleive in that bullshit don't put more in that please!

captainwalrus wrote:The thing is, people think that if the game was fun and they were about evenly matched then they should leave all fives instead of perhaps 3s and 4s which should be an above adverage rating. People only realy leave 3s and 2s if the person is a deadbeat or goes on personaly insulting people. The thing is, if you bet someone then they probably don't desrve any higher than a 3 for gameplay. And if someone doesn't realy talk much, then they shouldn't leave them a good rating just because they weren't mean but they shouldn't rate them poorly either. If someone doesn't talk much then don't leave them any rating for attitude and leave a tag that says silent. And is someone plays fairly and evenly give them a 4 or so for fair play. Also, just because someone wins by making alliances and things don't rate them poorly for fair play because as long as their alliances are out in the open there is nothing unfair about it.
I think the ratings just doesn't realy reflect how good of a player someone is.

by the way captain something ... did you ever think that a guy on a 1 vs 1 game would be a good player but only have stupid rolls ... so why leave him a 2 stars when actually he or she was playing a good game ... please think about it !!!!!!

the ratings system is flawed, but so was the old system. The flaw is that it depends on the community to use it wisely and consistently, which we don't.

If I have doubts about a player or if I'm teaming up with somebody new I'll usually ignore their rating and look at the specific feedback tags - good/bad teammate, deadbeat, etc. But again, for the tags to work it requires all of us to actually use them, which we don't.