[09-Jun-2008] Ratings & Medals

[bob72]

I preferred it the way it was. How difficult would it have been to simply remove feedback rights for those that abuse it?

I left feedback only a few times (only once for non deadbeat) and even then I didn't feel right about leaving it but the guy annoyed me so much in game that I felt that he deserved feedback.

As such I didn't have as much feedback as others.

The points system is totally meaningless.

ie if a guy starts to deadbeat after 150 matches how many 1 star ratings would he need to get to take his average below 3?

In the new system this would be over 100 one star ratings. Even then he would still be between 4.5 and 5 as his other ratings might not be less than 5.

In the old system after 20 people had left neg feedback you'd already be thinking about your ignore list.

Surely you can see that the new feedback system is pointless.

[hephestes]

i agree with others -- the new system seems more arbitrary than the previous positive, neutral, negative system. one person may rate in one manner, with lots of 5 stars, another (more critical) player might rate with very few 5 stars.

i suspect that the people that play the most might rate people the most critically. those people are likely to be higher ranked. as people with high ranks tend to play others with high ranks, i think this could lead to people with higher ranks being rated lower than those new to the game or with lower ranks.

it's hard to tell how useful the new system will be at this point, since most people are still N/A. but i'll say this - the new system is harder to complete. there's more information you have to think about. instead of being able to capture thoughts on a player in a thumbs up, thumbs down manner you now have to think about details of their game play. i don't know about you, but with 20-30 games going at once, i will not be able to distinguish that detailed of information about every player.

sorry, i gotta vote against the new system. too complex, too time consuming, not enough gained.

[DukeToshiro]

That's another thing that is completely wrong with this idiotic ratings system, they aren't game-specific! If you play one game with someone and he/she is a great player you can leave them all fives. However, if the next day you play a game with them and they go nuts and curse out the room you can't do anything to rate that specific game because it will affect your ratings of the other game. Really, really dumb idea.


I hope that the mods are actually listening to what people are saying on this thread and not throwing our opinions out the window with the old (flawed but still better than this garbage) feedback system.

Keep the medals

Keep the delay-until-archived aspect of the new feedback

Heck, even keep the stars if you want to. But one thing that has to change if you don't want to make a lot of your customers really, really mad is the comments thing. Bring back the comments. Either add them to the star ratings or bring back the old system with a couple tweeks. I don't care if it's a "hassle" to moderate feedback. Suck it up and act like you actually know how to run a website with paying subscribers.

Make the ratings game specific

[zimmah]

I preferred it the way it was. How difficult would it have been to simply remove feedback rights for those that abuse it?

I left feedback only a few times (only once for non deadbeat) and even then I didn't feel right about leaving it but the guy annoyed me so much in game that I felt that he deserved feedback.

As such I didn't have as much feedback as others.

The points system is totally meaningless.

ie if a guy starts to deadbeat after 150 matches how many 1 star ratings would he need to get to take his average below 3?

In the new system this would be over 100 one star ratings. Even then he would still be between 4.5 and 5 as his other ratings might not be less than 5.

In the old system after 20 people had left neg feedback you'd already be thinking about your ignore list.

Surely you can see that the new feedback system is pointless.

that's the reason why you shouldn't be leaving 5's all over, instead leave 3's all over, and 5's only to those that are REALLY worth the 5's

besides a player deadbeating 1 time in 150 games is not that bad. he might have had a problem with his computer or so (in a speed game) or he couldn't find an account sitter while going on vacantion.

[zimmah]

That's another thing that is completely wrong with this idiotic ratings system, they aren't game-specific! If you play one game with someone and he/she is a great player you can leave them all fives. However, if the next day you play a game with them and they go nuts and curse out the room you can't do anything to rate that specific game because it will affect your ratings of the other game. Really, really dumb idea.

yes i think it should be game specific too

[cre8tiff]

sorry for the long reply, but it's just basicly because i want to show you that i know what i'm talking about, unlike much of the others.


it might be much to read, but it's a series of PM's between me and lack. please read them and answer for yourself. what do you think?

I don't see how it is programmically "impossible" to help this.

You could easily (with php, at least) force a comment be entered for any rating less than average, and allow the receiver of such negative rating the same response functionality they enjoy today. It is equally not difficult to track and manage what game a feedback was left to, since you are tracking individual ratings responses anyway (come on, a simple table alter with the game_number is sufficient). At least if we have to go to bed with this monster, we can still have the tools necessary to go and read why a rating IS what it is, and forcing comments with a reply allows the individual some small amount of protection, albiet self-defense.

If you are bound and determined to force this ugly child upon us, at least give it SOME redeeming qualities.

[zimmah]

sorry for the long reply, but it's just basicly because i want to show you that i know what i'm talking about, unlike much of the others.

it might be much to read, but it's a series of PM's between me and lack. please read them and answer for yourself. what do you think?

I don't see how it is programmically "impossible" to help this.

You could easily (with php, at least) force a comment be entered for any rating less than average, and allow the receiver of such negative rating the same response functionality they enjoy today. It is equally not difficult to track and manage what game a feedback was left to, since you are tracking individual ratings responses anyway (come on, a simple table alter with the game_number is sufficient). At least if we have to go to bed with this monster, we can still have the tools necessary to go and read why a rating IS what it is, and forcing comments with a reply allows the individual some small amount of protection, albiet self-defense.

If you are bound and determined to force this ugly child upon us, at least give it SOME redeeming qualities.[/quote]

thank you for reminding me, with the old system you was allowed to 'reply' on your comment, and i think that was actually a good thing, as the reply of a person often told you more then the whole rating itselfs!

[Esben]

Thx for the update, nice new ranking / rate system.

[jiminski]

Thx for the update, nice new ranking / rate system.

Marks out of 5 for the new ranking system = 5

Marks out of 10 for the new ranking system = 5

[zimmah]

Thx for the update, nice new ranking / rate system.

Marks out of 5 for the new ranking system = 5

Marks out of 10 for the new ranking system = 5

marks out of 100 for the new rating system 5

well it's pretty good actually but it's need to be changed a lot for it to be working.

[jiminski]

Thx for the update, nice new ranking / rate system.

Marks out of 5 for the new ranking system = 5

Marks out of 10 for the new ranking system = 5

marks out of 100 for the new rating system 5

well it's pretty good actually but it's need to be changed a lot for it to be working.

heheh yes, i was exaggerating slightly for impact!

The system ticks most of the boxes, it needs to be tweaked is all.... which is very normal when a system first goes live!

[suggs]

Whats the best star to leave for trying to communicate the fact that your opponent played like a stuffed duck?
Alljoking aside, how do you make it clear, that although the guy played fairly, turned up and had a good attitude, simply didnt know how to play the game?

[Mr_Adams]

skill should be the next categorie added to the scoring sheet

[zimmah]

Whats the best star to leave for trying to communicate the fact that your opponent played like a stuffed duck?
Alljoking aside, how do you make it clear, that although the guy played fairly, turned up and had a good attitude, simply didnt know how to play the game?

skill is not to be taken into account while rating someone. it's all about attitude you can play like a monkey (no offence andy) and still get a 5 star rating in theory, if you at least try to do your best, take your turns fast, and don't suicide to let someone else win the game while they don't desserve it.

skill should not get added to the list either, because the rating is all about how someone behaves. one can be just a casual gamer (remember it's a CASUAL gaming site) and therefore just play for fun, however he/she isn't really skilled (not really bad either) but manages to put up a pretty good game, and especially a funny game, and altho he/she doesn't take all his/her turns within like say 3 hours or so, still manages to take his/her turns (mostly within like 12 hours or so)

guys please keep in mind you should be playing for fun, and that's what's the rating is about, did you have FUN to play with/against that person, or did you not like him/her at all? was he/she even that fun to play that you can hardly wait to play him again? then award him/her with an extra good rating. it doesn't matter if someone won or lost, as long as you have had fun!

[jiminski]

Whats the best star to leave for trying to communicate the fact that your opponent played like a stuffed duck?
Alljoking aside, how do you make it clear, that although the guy played fairly, turned up and had a good attitude, simply didnt know how to play the game?

skill is not to be taken into account while rating someone. it's all about attitude you can play like a monkey (no offence andy) and still get a 5 star rating in theory, if you at least try to do your best, take your turns fast, and don't suicide to let someone else win the game while they don't desserve it.

skill should not get added to the list either, because the rating is all about how someone behaves. one can be just a casual gamer (remember it's a CASUAL gaming site) and therefore just play for fun, however he/she isn't really skilled (not really bad either) but manages to put up a pretty good game, and especially a funny game, and altho he/she doesn't take all his/her turns within like say 3 hours or so, still manages to take his/her turns (mostly within like 12 hours or so)

guys please keep in mind you should be playing for fun, and that's what's the rating is about, did you have FUN to play with/against that person, or did you not like him/her at all? was he/she even that fun to play that you can hardly wait to play him again? then award him/her with an extra good rating. it doesn't matter if someone won or lost, as long as you have had fun!

I profoundly disagree! And Skill is a behaviour.

i say again.. having a Player game rating system, on a strategy based gaming site and then not marking their strategy, is like having a Restaurant rating system and not Rating the sodding food!

It is preposterous!... I don't give a monkey about the score-board, the medals as defining someones skill from game to game!
i want to rate a great player on their game, based on my own experience! And their strategy is part of that fun and experience!!
If a person plays with no Skill it affects my enjoyment; if they suicide into me while another player is already dominant then my fun is impaired!


Christ yes! of course it's about fun but i think by being here, we have proven that we gain our fun by playing a strategic game!?

So we are left with marking someone on how nice they were and how well they toe-the-line; based on social convention!
What a load!

We are dishing out gold stars to children to alter their behaviour and be good little children... with the least inconvenience to the mods!! well fine... but let's not just make it about that .. it is very patronising!

And now we get a medal to placate us and make us feel all special to make up for it!? Well Whoopy!

[THORNHEART]

ty lack m8 and that tool for blocking those with low ratings is way overdo bring it on!!

[jiminski]

ty lack m8 and that tool for blocking those with low ratings is way overdo bring it on!!

hehe how do we do that Heart? is there a new button?

[zimmah]

Whats the best star to leave for trying to communicate the fact that your opponent played like a stuffed duck?
Alljoking aside, how do you make it clear, that although the guy played fairly, turned up and had a good attitude, simply didnt know how to play the game?

skill is not to be taken into account while rating someone. it's all about attitude you can play like a monkey (no offence andy) and still get a 5 star rating in theory, if you at least try to do your best, take your turns fast, and don't suicide to let someone else win the game while they don't desserve it.

skill should not get added to the list either, because the rating is all about how someone behaves. one can be just a casual gamer (remember it's a CASUAL gaming site) and therefore just play for fun, however he/she isn't really skilled (not really bad either) but manages to put up a pretty good game, and especially a funny game, and altho he/she doesn't take all his/her turns within like say 3 hours or so, still manages to take his/her turns (mostly within like 12 hours or so)

guys please keep in mind you should be playing for fun, and that's what's the rating is about, did you have FUN to play with/against that person, or did you not like him/her at all? was he/she even that fun to play that you can hardly wait to play him again? then award him/her with an extra good rating. it doesn't matter if someone won or lost, as long as you have had fun!

I profoundly disagree! And Skill is a behaviour.

i say again.. having a Player game rating system, on a strategy based gaming site and then not marking their strategy, is like having a Restaurant rating system and not Rating the sodding food!

It is preposterous!... I don't give a monkey about the score-board, the medals as defining someones skill from game to game!
i want to rate a great player on their game, based on my own experience! And their strategy is part of that fun and experience!!
If a person plays with no Skill it affects my enjoyment; if they suicide into me while another player is already dominant then my fun is impaired!


Christ yes! of course it's about fun but i think by being here, we have proven that we gain our fun by playing a strategic game!?

So we are left with marking someone on how nice they were and how well they toe-the-line; based on social convention!
What a load!

We are dishing out gold stars to children to alter their behaviour and be good little children... with the least inconvenience to the mods!! well fine... but let's not just make it about that .. it is very patronising!

And now we get a medal to placate us and make us feel all special to make up for it!? Well Whoopy!

the rating system is to encourage good behavoir, not to encourage people to win. we have the medals and the rankings to encourage players to win.

i'm not against adding a rating system for skill but it must be absolutely seperate from the rating system for behavoir, because it are two completetly different things!

[Raf_THFC]

I'm not a fan of the new system but I have a couple of suggestions.


First, I support the idea that there should be a rating for gameplay/tactics.

How else do you know if the guy is going to just suicide on people or make really stupid moves that unbalance the game?

Secondly, when you look at the ratings someone has received, you should add a link to the relevant game, so you can judge whether the ratings were fair or not. At the moment you have to trawl through all of their played games and try to work it out.

Would have thought that 2nd idea would have been obvious to the GMs....

[Twill]

The low rating block will be added down the line, it's not in yet, we want to see how the ratings distribute before we add it in.

As to comments going AWOL, we hear you. We have a couple of plans that may come down the line (emphasis on "may"). We, again, want to give time for ratings to settle in and get through teething issues before we add, remove or tweak anything. There are a whole host of issues that come with commenting on players which lead to a lot of complaints and bad blood between user and user and between user and mod when they make a decision one way or another. We have to see how this system pans out with issues and benefits before we go changing things.

As to strategy ratings - don't hold your breath. I know that sounds harsh and authoritarian, but it is a basic division between ratings and rankings. Ratings is designed to be a system to rate a user's bahaviour - the stuff that rankings cannot show. It's designed to fill the "other side" not to replace rankings.
If down the line, that needs to change, maybe it will. But, for now, as always, we're going to give ratings 1.0 a chance to get a footing and show its strengths and weaknesses before we go making changes to it.

I think those are the two main issues people are having - comments and strategy, and we've discussed both at length and are watching them as the system pans out.

As to game references, we intentionally removed that because you can have an experience that changes over time with a player. In the previous system where the ratings were tied to a game and you could rate a player only once, this meant that you'd have to tie a single game to an overall rating, which didn't make a whole lot of sense. By uncoupling specific games from general ratings, we hoped to allow people to give, and thus get, an idea of the player as a whole rather than a mashup of games parading as one.

Have a good one
Twill

[snufkin]

I just withdrew my ratings.. no point if less than five stars will be considered poor by some people

In my world a five would be someone among the very best player I´ve met who also managed to play a perfectly flawless game.. and since this is a game of chance I´d probably give that player a 3 or 4 anyway since I bet I´d miss the fact that they had a couple of bad rolls or made some moves while he/she was drunk or lost internet connection or had a bad day in RL or whatever.

so no more ratings from me until i know what the numbers are supposed to mean.

[jiminski]

Whats the best star to leave for trying to communicate the fact that your opponent played like a stuffed duck?
Alljoking aside, how do you make it clear, that although the guy played fairly, turned up and had a good attitude, simply didnt know how to play the game?

skill is not to be taken into account while rating someone. it's all about attitude you can play like a monkey (no offence andy) and still get a 5 star rating in theory, if you at least try to do your best, take your turns fast, and don't suicide to let someone else win the game while they don't desserve it.

skill should not get added to the list either, because the rating is all about how someone behaves. one can be just a casual gamer (remember it's a CASUAL gaming site) and therefore just play for fun, however he/she isn't really skilled (not really bad either) but manages to put up a pretty good game, and especially a funny game, and altho he/she doesn't take all his/her turns within like say 3 hours or so, still manages to take his/her turns (mostly within like 12 hours or so)

guys please keep in mind you should be playing for fun, and that's what's the rating is about, did you have FUN to play with/against that person, or did you not like him/her at all? was he/she even that fun to play that you can hardly wait to play him again? then award him/her with an extra good rating. it doesn't matter if someone won or lost, as long as you have had fun!

I profoundly disagree! And Skill is a behaviour.

i say again.. having a Player game rating system, on a strategy based gaming site and then not marking their strategy, is like having a Restaurant rating system and not Rating the sodding food!

It is preposterous!... I don't give a monkey about the score-board, the medals as defining someones skill from game to game!
i want to rate a great player on their game, based on my own experience! And their strategy is part of that fun and experience!!
If a person plays with no Skill it affects my enjoyment; if they suicide into me while another player is already dominant then my fun is impaired!


Christ yes! of course it's about fun but i think by being here, we have proven that we gain our fun by playing a strategic game!?

So we are left with marking someone on how nice they were and how well they toe-the-line; based on social convention!
What a load!

We are dishing out gold stars to children to alter their behaviour and be good little children... with the least inconvenience to the mods!! well fine... but let's not just make it about that .. it is very patronising!

And now we get a medal to placate us and make us feel all special to make up for it!? Well Whoopy!

the rating system is to encourage good behavoir, not to encourage people to win. we have the medals and the rankings to encourage players to win.

i'm not against adding a rating system for skill but it must be absolutely seperate from the rating system for behavoir, because it are two completetly different things!

It's not about encouraging players to win! it's about commending and encouraging good play!

I fail to see how they have taken a system out which did this (though flawed, i agree) and replaced it with no facility to acknowledge good or bad play... it makes a mockery of it!

It would be very easy to add a category which was about strategy (Part of good Risk playing behaviour, just not in the terms used for dogs and children)...
We still have ability to go to profile and see who rated who and how much! in this way you can use Feedback to chose who to play with etc.

At the moment they have taken away any ability for players to better judge potential opponents or partners!

Though attitude is of course important!
For many, being able to assess play based on a third, trusted player may be the difference in trying to partner a new player in a public game or not!

[Anarkistsdream]

I just withdrew my ratings.. no point if less than five stars will be considered poor by some people

In my world a five would be someone among the very best player I´ve met who also managed to play a perfectly flawless game.. and since this is a game of chance I´d probably give that player a 3 or 4 anyway since I bet I´d miss the fact that they had a couple of bad rolls or made some moves while he/she was drunk or lost internet connection or had a bad day in RL or whatever.

so no more ratings from me until i know what the numbers are supposed to mean.

This actually makes a ton of sense.

[suggs]

Whats the best star to leave for trying to communicate the fact that your opponent played like a stuffed duck?
Alljoking aside, how do you make it clear, that although the guy played fairly, turned up and had a good attitude, simply didnt know how to play the game?

skill is not to be taken into account while rating someone. it's all about attitude you can play like a monkey (no offence andy) and still get a 5 star rating in theory, if you at least try to do your best, take your turns fast, and don't suicide to let someone else win the game while they don't desserve it.

skill should not get added to the list either, because the rating is all about how someone behaves. one can be just a casual gamer (remember it's a CASUAL gaming site) and therefore just play for fun, however he/she isn't really skilled (not really bad either) but manages to put up a pretty good game, and especially a funny game, and altho he/she doesn't take all his/her turns within like say 3 hours or so, still manages to take his/her turns (mostly within like 12 hours or so)

guys please keep in mind you should be playing for fun, and that's what's the rating is about, did you have FUN to play with/against that person, or did you not like him/her at all? was he/she even that fun to play that you can hardly wait to play him again? then award him/her with an extra good rating. it doesn't matter if someone won or lost, as long as you have had fun!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Skill is to be taken into account when rating someone. Its ainteresting to know the perceived abilities of someone, their possible strengh and weaknesses, all of which were possible under the old system. The new system is almost completely uninformitave.

[suggs]

Christ, just bin this rubbish already.