Conquer Club

Suggestion is to restrict players from leaving a rating until they have completed ten games with one particular player.
I do not think players should be able to leave a rating until they have played someone in ten different games.

Its unfair to give an opinion based on say one game of doodle assassin 8 player.The game in these settings is very much luck

• xxxxxxx

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

By letting players give their informed opinion.Instead of instant response

I dont disagree with the logic in general, and agree many new players probably dont know the rating system all that well, but youd have to limit them from getting a rating too... otherwise, people could join new players, and act how they want, and know they could get away with it...and then leave them a bad rating too

I think the ideas to curb ratings against new players will mostly address this if they are ever enacted...and wont leave this loophole to further exploit them

AAFitz wrote:I dont disagree with the logic in general, and agree many new players probably dont know the rating system all that well, but youd have to limit them from getting a rating too... otherwise, people could join new players, and act how they want, and know they could get away with it...and then leave them a bad rating too

I think the ideas to curb ratings against new players will mostly address this if they are ever enacted...and wont leave this loophole to further exploit them

I don't understand what you are getting at Fitz.A players time with CC shouldn't in anyway hinder my suggestion.
Please explain ?

I think what KoE_Sirius was talking about was having to play 10 games with the same person before he/she can give a rating to that person.

I agree it would be a good idea for people to know each other longer and in more games before they give ratings, however, it might be hard for them to remember who is who and what happened 10 games ago.

Perhaps though in the ratings it can say "played 10 games with this person" and after 10 games you get an option to renew the rating, this way if you only played 1 game with a person and left a rating, other users can see that rating and judge it how they will.

Here's a counter proposal: Calculate a player's overall ratings based on a weighted average of the ratings received from all players, with the weight being the number of games they have shared. The more you play someone, the more your rating affects their overall rating. You might need a safeguard, though, in case long time buddies had a falling out.

well, It is a good idea, from your position

You guys have premium, which just allows you to have unlimited and speed games, along with a shiney gold symbol

mypoint here is the "unlimited games" thing. IT would be Easy to play 10 times with a person and then be able to rate them if you could play.

but for us players with freemium, its a different story. ive been playing for about four months, and ive only completed 40 games or so, and i like to play different players each time, so im not getting the same strategy thrown at me over and over again.

Why should you premium guys get to be able to rate more then we do, that was never in the premium deal. Maybe we should restrict premium until 20 games are completed, in which case, you still would be able to finish those quickly.

i think the five star rating system is fine right now. if you have a bad attitude during the game, ill give you one star. if during your 8 player doodle earth assasin games, if it ends instatnly, ill. be understanding and give you five stars.

dont try to change it because you got a bad rating, which i have a feeling is the reason you suggested this thing.

sinctheassasin wrote:well, It is a good idea, from your position

You guys have premium, which just allows you to have unlimited and speed games, along with a shiney gold symbol

mypoint here is the "unlimited games" thing. IT would be Easy to play 10 times with a person and then be able to rate them if you could play.

but for us players with freemium, its a different story. ive been playing for about four months, and ive only completed 40 games or so, and i like to play different players each time, so im not getting the same strategy thrown at me over and over again.

Why should you premium guys get to be able to rate more then we do, that was never in the premium deal. Maybe we should restrict premium until 20 games are completed, in which case, you still would be able to finish those quickly.

i think the five star rating system is fine right now. if you have a bad attitude during the game, ill give you one star. if during your 8 player doodle earth assasin games, if it ends instatnly, ill. be understanding and give you five stars.

dont try to change it because you got a bad rating, which i have a feeling is the reason you suggested this thing.

It seems as if you have a problem with premium players.In any sport a player is given a chance to prove himself.
This site lets players be judged by relatively new comers.Nowhere in the real world is this possible.

I have no problem with premium players, in fact, I might become one soon.

I just dont see why you would make a rule that gives premium members an ability to be able to rate more.

wouldent this also say that a player can ruin 10 games of another player before people see that he might not be the best player to play with?

I doubt more games would change a rating i have givin someone. If you are a jackass in one game, and then you are all peachy in the next 9, im still going to give you a rating that a jackass would deserve, 1 stars, plus a couple of tags. however, if a person was nice in the first round, they by all means deserve a good rating, because that is how i feel about haveing played with that person.

should i have to play with a rude jackass 10 times before i can share that he is a jackass with other player? Again, i just think you are upset because you recieved a poor rating that you do not think you deserved.

I also hate to play with the same people, unless they are good friends, it takes the fun out of improving your game with new strategies thrown at you every time.

maybe you could restrict rating to players you have not yet played a set number of games, such as 5 or 10, until they know the difference between a jackass and a competetive player.

If I didn't enjoy the experience of playing someone, I certainly wouldn't want to play them 9 more times.

Timminz wrote:If I didn't enjoy the experience of playing someone, I certainly wouldn't want to play them 9 more times.

exactly what im saying. but after that, someone else would come along and not know that the player he is playing is horrible

sinctheassasin wrote:

Timminz wrote:If I didn't enjoy the experience of playing someone, I certainly wouldn't want to play them 9 more times.

exactly what im saying. but after that, someone else would come along and not know that the player he is playing is horrible

Fair enough.You are entitled to you opinion sinctheassasin.
As for your repeated comment "I think someone left you a bad rating".I think my rating is pretty good(4.6 same as yours) and it can't really change from someone leaving one star,after playing 4000+ games.
I have other players in mind with less then 1000 games where the rating system actually makes a difference when a poor sportsman leaves his mark.

KoE_Sirius wrote:

AAFitz wrote:I dont disagree with the logic in general, and agree many new players probably dont know the rating system all that well, but youd have to limit them from getting a rating too... otherwise, people could join new players, and act how they want, and know they could get away with it...and then leave them a bad rating too

I think the ideas to curb ratings against new players will mostly address this if they are ever enacted...and wont leave this loophole to further exploit them

I don't understand what you are getting at Fitz.A players time with CC shouldn't in anyway hinder my suggestion.
Please explain ?

ah, I reread your suggestion... if you mean you cant leave a rating for someone until after playing 10 games with one person, that actually defeats the whole purpose of the rating...if I play someone that justifies a bad rating on one game, then I certainly am entitled to leave a bad rating, and never play that person in a game. I definitely am not going to subject myself to nine more just to leave the rating that they deserve. This would allow problem players to go unchecked, because many would just foe them after one game, and never be able to leave the rating they deserved... further, after playing 9 games they could foe the person that they knew would leave a bad rating, and get away with it too.

If you however mean that they nee to play a full ten games before leaving a rating, that makes a little sense, except for the points I suggested, which was that if a new player can get a rating, and not leave one, it opens up the abuse factor.

Sorry, I really cant tell exactly which one of these you are suggesting.

Either way, it doesnt matter. Unless you are new, you will pretty much get the rating you deserve. Only new players get lower ratings overall then they probably deserve, because it doesnt average out correctly. For a player like you or I, who have played thousands of games, a bad rating means absolutely nothing to the overall rating because of the average.