Skewed Player Ratings

[temporos]

I've noticed that people tend to become irate when you leave them a less-than-5-star rating. This is curious. 5 stars means "excellent." When I mouse over the stars, I get the following key:

1. Bad
2. Below Average
3. Average
4. Above Average
5. Excellent

Let me explain how I interpret this.

1. Bad: The player misses multiple turns. The player is suspected of cheating or using very cheap tactics. This rating should be reserved for players that are downright insulting to others in the in-game chat. Players that obviously don't know how to play (i.e., haven't read the instructions) also deserve this rating.
2. Below Average: The player is slow to complete turns (perhaps misses one or two). This rating would be appropriate for players that are rude, mean, or otherwise overly negative in the in-game chat. Players that use cheap tactics or attempt to suicide also deserve this rating.
3. Average: This is the default rating for every player. The player doesn't cheat and doesn't miss any turns. Most players should have this rating in all categories (hence, "average").
4. Above Average: The player goes out of his/her way to make the game a positive experience for all players. The player completes turns in a timely manner, participates in the in-game chat, is friendly, and uses an overall good strategy (no cheap-shots).
5. Excellent: The player is regarded (by the rater) as one of the best players on Conquer Club. He/she utilizes a strategy that is sound, fair, and difficult to overcome. The player participates in, and likely leads the in-game chat, encouraging all players (regardless of rank or alliance) to play their best game. The player fosters alliances and may participate in some alliance sabotage (within the game rules, of course). Basically, only the best of the best should receive this rating. If the player makes you go "Wow! I want to play another game with this guy/girl!" then he/she deserves an excellent rating.

Therefore, I think almost all players should get three stars as a default instead of five. Both the average and median ratings on the site should be three stars. How can "above average" actually be below the average (as the average among players on this site shows)? Any thoughts on this?

[keeperofsouls]

I just started the game a few weeks ago and realized after I left my first few ratings that the norm was to put 5 unless there was a problem with how someone played. I felt a little guilty because I had defaulted to 4 stars for most players. I have now changed my player rankings to align with the community norm.

Keeperofsouls

[danes]

While i agree with you in theory, the community in general has has for some reason decided that the "average" should be around 4.5.

While you can technically leave lower ratings and be justified in doing so, people who leave you good ratings may withdraw their ratings of you, lowering your rating. Other people may play you again and rate you 1 star out of anger at the perceived injustice. Still others, afraid they will get a "low" rating from you will put you on their "foes" list and you will be unable to play in games that they have joined.

TLDR : giving people average ratings upsets them because everyone likes to think they are above average.

[HighlanderAttack]

While i agree with you in theory, the community in general has has for some reason decided that the "average" should be around 4.5.

While you can technically leave lower ratings and be justified in doing so, people who leave you good ratings may withdraw their ratings of you, lowering your rating. Other people may play you again and rate you 1 star out of anger at the perceived injustice. Still others, afraid they will get a "low" rating from you will put you on their "foes" list and you will be unable to play in games that they have joined.

TLDR : giving people average ratings upsets them because everyone likes to think they are above average.

I would even say this number is higher than 4.5

4.7 and up is what you should fall into. Anything under that starts to be questionable and anything under 4.5 is probably considered someone with issues weather it is attitude or game play.

[HighlanderAttack]

I just scrolled through my 200 active games (many different players due to all the tourneys I play in).

Only 4 players were under 4.7

Many players had 4.9, but the majority had 4.8.

There was a 4.3. 4.4, and two 4.6's

I did not total the amount of different players but I would guess that the total different players is around 200.

[natty dread]

This all would be remedied simply by having the absence of a rating interpreted the same as 3 stars. This should also be implemented retroactively.

To take this even further... refit the 1-5 rating scale to -2 to +2, with 0 in the middle. This way 1 star would be -2, 2 stars would be -1 and 3 stars would be 0. The default would be zero, so if you leave no rating at all it will be the same as leaving an average rating.

This would encourage players to consider the 3-star or "zero" rating as the average, and this way people wouldn't even have to bother give the ratings unless they want to give an above or below average rating. Everybody wins.

[temporos]

This all would be remedied simply by having the absence of a rating interpreted the same as 3 stars...

... refit the 1-5 rating scale to -2 to +2, with 0 in the middle... The default would be zero, so if you leave no rating at all it will be the same as leaving an average rating...

... This would encourage players to consider the 3-star or "zero" rating as the average...

I really like this idea! How can we bring it to the attention of the admins/mods?

[natty dread]

Suggestions forum

[temporos]

Suggestions forum

Done.

[*EAGLE ONE*]

IM new here and kinda had to laugh at all this..Whats war? Beating the otherside,what construdes a cheapshot or fair play ..im here to play and win if i can lose if i must.at the end of the day its a game.If rating players turns to an issue why do it ?I personally dont care what people rate me.im here to have fun maybe make some friends and let the wars begin !!!

[Gold Knight]

The technically "Best" way IMO was the old rating systems as it didnt just your play by numbers, but rather by an actual written thought by the person. There are so many aspects of gameplay that dont fall under the Tags we are given, and there have been multiple cases already of ratings abuse which is difficult to determine how far one must go to violate the rules. Of course there were abuses in the other system, as there always will be, but they dont just your gameplay by a number and can be pretty easily determined as legit or not by the community...

But im just an old fogey looking for a drum to bang on...

[squishyg]

i so agree with you. there's a suggs post that i also agree with. i'd be happy with a 3...

[jeraado]

IM new here and kinda had to laugh at all this..Whats war? Beating the otherside,what construdes a cheapshot or fair play ..im here to play and win if i can lose if i must.at the end of the day its a game.If rating players turns to an issue why do it ?I personally dont care what people rate me.im here to have fun maybe make some friends and let the wars begin !!!

Sure, but if you have a very low rating don't expect to have many people join your games. Rating people lets the community identify players who ruin games, either through cheap tactics or bad attitude.

Think about it this way, if a person deadbeats you could just foe them so you never have to play against them again, but no-one else would know about it (and therefore there would be a lot of frustrated players on this site). If you also rate them low, it acts as a warning which other players can consider for themselves before getting into a game with them.