Conquer Club

Have you checked out the propositions: Descriptive Tags for Ratings and along similar lines, Written Respones to Ratings Received?


--Andy

I like the current new system- for feedback, I would say to add a box of game notes - similiar to that found when leaving feedback on ebay - you only have a max amount of characters that you can enter- ie- 20 - so a game comment would look like this :
Fair Play **
Attendance **
Attitude *
comment box - SoandSo used vulgar language/missed two turns in speed game

or
Fair Play *****
Attendance ****
Attitude *****
comment box- SoandSo missed 1 turn, but apologized and made game fun after

or something to that effect...

Thanks.

Cast in point look at jbnblake star count someone went midevil on him\her. But not feedback to explain why!

AndyDufresne wrote:Have you checked out the propositions: Descriptive Tags for Ratings and along similar lines, Written Respones to Ratings Received?


--Andy

Not I have not but I will take a look. Thanks for the info!

The written feedback provides a qualitatively superior way of learning about a player. Despite unfair, inaccurate, rogue comments, a quick skim of all of a player's feedback gives you a pretty good idea of what kind of player they are on the whole. These ratings don't help me at all to assess a player. Furthermore, I think players have been a bit more rude these days, because they are not held as accountable as before. A poor attitude rating does not carry the credibility and descriptive power as feedback. I vote for a return to feedback.

khushhal wrote:Three more points:

- liked the suggestion re posting number of times someone is on 'foes list' - that tells me much about whether or not I want to play with someone...

I love this idea!!!

PLAYER57832 wrote:

khushhal wrote:Three more points:

- liked the suggestion re posting number of times someone is on 'foes list' - that tells me much about whether or not I want to play with someone...

I love this idea!!!

I am not totally averse to the idea but many people use foe lists tactically; i have been placed on foe lists by people who are trying to break in new partners and do not wish to play against the team i am often in.

People also place people of their Foe lists so they do not have to look at anothers post... that can simply be based upon a schism of opinion on a single subject.
So knowledge of how many foe lists a person may be on could be as much about the vehemence of their opinions, as how antisocial they are. It may also be, as in Klobbers use of the Foe list, to guard their points from a certain type of opponent.

jiminski wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

khushhal wrote:Three more points:

- liked the suggestion re posting number of times someone is on 'foes list' - that tells me much about whether or not I want to play with someone...

I love this idea!!!

I am not totally averse to the idea but many people use foe lists tactically; i have been placed on foe lists by people who are trying to break in new partners and do not wish to play against the team i am often in.

People also place people of their Foe lists so they do not have to look at anothers post... that can simply be based upon a schism of opinion on a single subject.
So knowledge of how many foe lists a person may be on could be as much about the vehemence of their opinions, as how antisocial they are. It may also be, as in Klobbers use of the Foe list, to guard their points from a certain type of opponent.

QFT!!!!! Damn it jiminski, grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

hulmey wrote:

jiminski wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

khushhal wrote:Three more points:

- liked the suggestion re posting number of times someone is on 'foes list' - that tells me much about whether or not I want to play with someone...

I love this idea!!!

I am not totally averse to the idea but many people use foe lists tactically; i have been placed on foe lists by people who are trying to break in new partners and do not wish to play against the team i am often in.

People also place people of their Foe lists so they do not have to look at anothers post... that can simply be based upon a schism of opinion on a single subject.
So knowledge of how many foe lists a person may be on could be as much about the vehemence of their opinions, as how antisocial they are. It may also be, as in Klobbers use of the Foe list, to guard their points from a certain type of opponent.

QFT!!!!! Damn it jiminski, grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

QFT again lol
That's the problem with trying to make a statistical record of something based in opinion. What would make more sense would be a record of something that is not based in opinion, but rather factual performance in games that have a large impact on other players. Specifically, (as was suggested) a missed turns counter.
And yes, I know some people have problems with it because they have to go on vacation or something, but when someone references the amount of turns missed with the amount of games completed, it would be clear who is vigilant in taking their turns, and who is not. And with a vacation button coming, that should not be a large issue a little while down the road.

I'm very sorry
I simply don't have the time to read the whole thread but I hope and assume that you will take this thread into consideration.
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=54239
Again my apologies if this has been covered.

The feedback is A LOT more accurate the stars are just dumb I've come across an excellent player who has an overall rating of 2 because one person lost and gave him a bad rating.... feedback was also a lot more fun i enjoyed writing stuff also what about players that no-one ever bothers to rate... ive played a few folk who havent been rated yet so how does hat work? I've been rated by about 50 folk so i'm lucky in that sense but there are folk who hardly get rated and that can impact what folk think....actually balls to that i personally really dont look at peoples ratings bcause its pouintless now if they've got a feedback score of 3-111(negative) then youve got a reasn to look at it a hell of a lot more than the same person with a 4 star rating. oh la dee fukin da!

The problem with change is the old addage

"If it ain't broke don't fix it"

Thus most members who were happy with the way it was didn't feel the need to check the forums to see if there were going to be changes.

In the future could you perhaps have a message when people log in to say. BTW we plan on making the following major changes do you agree?

That way the customer is involved.

I doubt if many people will leave due to this change however perhaps this would stave off future revolts by the masses.

It was changed because it was too much work for the mods.

If I may draw an analogy.....

I'm a copious drinker of wine (it's what keeps me on here for indecent lengths of time) and I appreciate a good tipple and a recommendation on a certain label or vintage.

Some clown came up with a star rating system that is used across the board for all grape varietals. So a 97* Merlot may be on a par with a 97* Cab Sav. What a crock! I want to read about the complexities and the character of the wine, not just the fact that A.N. Arse rates it a 97.

Same has happened here, only we're not talking consumables - we're talking about peoples' characteristics which are far more important when one wants to make an informed decision.

A 4.9 for one guy tells me what? That he's the same as another 4.9 player? It's not right is it.

I understand the rationale behind the change, but unfortunately (like the friendly bank manager) times move on and it's a convenience not for the client but for the organisation that becomes the norm.

Pity...I was always rather proud of my feedback and, as it evolved, made me an even more eager person to please or help others.

Chariot of Fire wrote:If I may draw an analogy.....

I'm a copious drinker of wine (it's what keeps me on here for indecent lengths of time) and I appreciate a good tipple and a recommendation on a certain label or vintage.

Some clown came up with a star rating system that is used across the board for all grape varietals. So a 97* Merlot may be on a par with a 97* Cab Sav. What a crock! I want to read about the complexities and the character of the wine, not just the fact that A.N. Arse rates it a 97.

But that's what the medal system is for. Each type of game gets its own medal, single, double, assassin, and so forth. You can tell at a glance what type of player a person is by looking at their medals. So a pure Cab Franc would have one type of medal, and a Pinot Grigio another medal and for most of us players we would have a mixture of grapes.

Even then it doesn't describe things on a map by map basis. Some people may be doodle earth assassins, or AOR doubles, or some peple may be KLOBBER. You need a complex matrix to get into that level of detail.

I just received one stars across the board from some yokel who got bounced from the game for not taking his/her turns. If you are going to keep this system, perhaps you should deny the right to make ratings to those who get bounced/ejected.

Tobikera

tzor wrote:

Chariot of Fire wrote:If I may draw an analogy.....

I'm a copious drinker of wine (it's what keeps me on here for indecent lengths of time) and I appreciate a good tipple and a recommendation on a certain label or vintage.

Some clown came up with a star rating system that is used across the board for all grape varietals. So a 97* Merlot may be on a par with a 97* Cab Sav. What a crock! I want to read about the complexities and the character of the wine, not just the fact that A.N. Arse rates it a 97.

But that's what the medal system is for. Each type of game gets its own medal, single, double, assassin, and so forth. You can tell at a glance what type of player a person is by looking at their medals. So a pure Cab Franc would have one type of medal, and a Pinot Grigio another medal and for most of us players we would have a mixture of grapes.

Even then it doesn't describe things on a map by map basis. Some people may be doodle earth assassins, or AOR doubles, or some peple may be KLOBBER. You need a complex matrix to get into that level of detail.

pretty much all medals do is tell you how much of a persons life they have already 'wasted' pressing the attack button.
My 12 medals tell you, for example, that i have the 'almost no social-life at all' Gold medal... given time i will rectify this and achieve the 'absolutely no social-life at all' Gold Medal.
And with only 1,000 more posts i will receive my 'platinum Medal for Blathery'.

The addition of a Comment is the only system flexible enough serve all masters.

fo attendance if a player has missed no turns is that cosidered average or should they be awarded with 5 stars?

I personally liked the feedback system better. But the changes you plan to make to the ratings sounds nice. Especially getting to respond to bad ratings.

I preferred the written feedback.
i left honest ratings for someone who had an attitude and gang banged me using another player. Left him good attendance etc.
What do get. Retaliatorry 1's for all ratings! Stinks.

didnt have time to read through whole thread only the first page.

Make the old feedback system visable next to the name with the star rating inside of the profile


so just flip/flop them

When considering people to play with, the new system is misleading. I often find myself joining games with people who have 4.5 or above ratings but i later check the profile to find they had 12 negs in the old feedback

Please consider incorporating the old feedback system into a more prominent role instead of being hidden in the profile

I don't even consider the stars when joining ranked games.
I got left a 3 across the board for no missed turns and one run of bad dice. But I outlasted the player who gave it to me. And I made stupid mistakes in others and got all 5's. I vote the attendance star out. Just put a deadbeat flag there to click on, otherwise according to the rules they did fine. I like how you can change the star ratings as you play them more also. But I would like a spot to put a reason on Attitude if they have a bad one. One sentence only if needed.

I'm writing a program to calculate missed turn and deadbeat %s. Hopefully that will give some useful data with which to replace the Attendance attribute.

Fruitcake wrote:Wizards of aus never turned up to play any of the game, was kicked out after 3 turns, so contributed nothing to the experience, yet left me 2 stars for each of the categories.

This is yet another case proving how very ill thought out the whole process was..

General Mayhem wrote:i left honest ratings for someone who had an attitude and gang banged me using another player. Left him good attendance etc.
What do get. Retaliatorry 1's for all ratings! Stinks.

Guys, stop trying to blame everything on ratings. Both of these unfair situations would have happened with the old feedback system.

Or you could save yourself some time and bring back the old system which EVERYONE BAR THE MODS WANT.