Conquer Club

Kaplowitz wrote:I think you should have to write on the wall after you give feedback, that makes the most sense to me.

"THE WALL IS A TOOL FOR SOCIALIZING, NOT A FEEDBACK SYSTEM!"

Riazor wrote:I dont know if ts been mentioned before: but the overall rating seems to count each vote (for each category) as a vote. Why not have eg: overall *3.00 (6 players rated)

I see. So instead of averaging each individual category-vote, the overall could be an average of the average of each player's ratings. This way you'll always have the same impact on someone's overall regardless of how many categories you put stars on.

Riazor wrote:Id also like to see a category for "strategy", because that may be important as well. And even if you dont like the strategy, it may be a valid and solid one, if it works out in the end. On the other hand, frustrated losers would be quick to assign them a very bad rating...

"strategy" is too much based on skill and like I said in my post - the point of ratings is to measure good behaviour. Now if someone's strategy or gameplay is unfair to other players and makes for a bad experience, that would fall under the sportsmanship category.

Can more people comment on if blocks should apply to private games (if you haven't already, that is)? Personally, since it's going to be an optional feature to turn on and off at your leisure, I don't see why it shouldn't apply to private games.

wicked wrote:Can more people comment on if blocks should apply to private games (if you haven't already, that is)? Personally, since it's going to be an optional feature to turn on and off at your leisure, I don't see why it shouldn't apply to private games.

They should not apply to private games if you make a private game then you are responsible for whom you invite...

It should NOT apply for private games imo...and ofc same for tornie games.

wicked wrote:Can more people comment on if blocks should apply to private games (if you haven't already, that is)? Personally, since it's going to be an optional feature to turn on and off at your leisure, I don't see why it shouldn't apply to private games.

I don't think it should apply to private games. If you are trying to join a private game 90% of the time it's either A) people that you know well and love to play against or B) A game from a "league" in callouts (ie 1600+ only, 1800+ only, etc) where you are playing the person because of rank.

Although you can turn it on and off at your leisure (which is great!) private games should not have the block applied to them because only the parties that should be involved should have the password in the first place.

Think of these situations though.....

.... posting games in callouts (either chat or forums)... you don't know who's going to join

.... the "rank" games in callouts, where large groups of people have a common group password and new people you don't know get the password daily

Is there any valid reason not to include block in private games? Would it hurt anything/anyone to include it?

Tourney games and Battle Royales will NOT be included if blocks are allowed for private games.

wicked wrote:Think of these situations though.....

.... posting games in callouts (either chat or forums)... you don't know who's going to join

If you are worried about that, make them PM you for the password, people do that all the time.

.... the "rank" games in callouts, where large groups of people have a common group password and new people you don't know get the password daily

Most of the players participating in these groups tend to have relatively good reputations. If you happen to wind up in a game with them and they aren't to your liking, add them to your Foe List when you are done. No real harm done. If anyone thinks 1 game is the end of the world they need a reality check.

Is there any valid reason not to include block in private games? Would it hurt anything/anyone to include it?

It just makes one more step necessary, a step necessary that a majority don't want to deal with. Like has been mentioned 90-95% of the people making private games know exactly who is going to be joining them.

Tourney games and Battle Royales will NOT be included if blocks are allowed for private games.

Excellent, because it's already a pain to deal with the Foe List for tournaments, let alone another thing.

wicked wrote:Think of these situations though.....

.... posting games in callouts (either chat or forums)... you don't know who's going to join

.... the "rank" games in callouts, where large groups of people have a common group password and new people you don't know get the password daily

Is there any valid reason not to include block in private games? Would it hurt anything/anyone to include it?

Tourney games and Battle Royales will NOT be included if blocks are allowed for private games.

I don't think it would hurt anything to include it, since you can turn it on/off at will.

For your first example, I see exactly what you are saying, and in that case it sounds like it would be best to apply to private games.

With the second example, yes more people get the passwords (just yesterday I got one within hours of asking for it), and yes there is a common password, but when playing these games you are playing more so on rank than on feedback. You just want to play someone that you have the equal ability to gain/lose points from somewhat closely.

If it would make it easier, and allow the change to come into effect sooner, then by all means include the block in private games. If you are looking for something more people would enjoy, in my opinion, don't include the block. I know I can't personally speak for the majority, but I feel I believe the same about this as most of the people here.

If' I'm wrong, I'm sorry and I will be

wicked wrote:Think of these situations though.....

.... posting games in callouts (either chat or forums)... you don't know who's going to join

.... the "rank" games in callouts, where large groups of people have a common group password and new people you don't know get the password daily

Is there any valid reason not to include block in private games? Would it hurt anything/anyone to include it?

Tourney games and Battle Royales will NOT be included if blocks are allowed for private games.

If the block is a per game option, then sure include it. People will turn it off if they do not want it. If the block is a preference that will be in effect for every game a player starts, then no do not include it. For the callout chat you are looking to start a game quickly, if one of the people you find in the chat is unable to join because of their rating, then the entire process of finding a game needs to be restarted. Also, the other day, I joined a game with someone who was a known nuisance just because there were only three people in the room. The game chat soured quickly, but I wanted to play a game. I did not leave a negative, because I went in knowing the guy was going to be a jerk, and what is a 33 negative in 67 comments actually going to mean? Sometimes people just want to play and do not care who it is against.

I just read Lack's feedback system preview, and I gotta say this looks REALLY good. It will be great to have this implemented. I've been basically ignoring our current feedback system because I don't like it for a number of reasons; however I'll definitely use the new system.

Thanks to everyone who thought up this new system (we need a "thumbs up" smiley ).

lance, it would be an overall setting for all games.

Not sure I like that then. Although, in the callout chat and forum you could have the player with the lowest rating start the game to avoid problems.

Great Work, sounds really good.

The Categories - Rating "Attendance" ain't that great IMO, many players are far too unpatient to think that the site rules moves games along fast enough so we will most likely end up with low ratings for the more casual players.


The Wall- I don't see any need for this but if people want it then go for it. I don't see the need for it being pre-populated either.


Moderating - It seems a bit strange that both players rating should be deleted if only one of them is questioned but any way could work as long as it's mutual. No staff moderating (generally speaking) should be fine too.


Added ideas - I have posted about this earlier (and seen others do too). There needs to be a time dimension to the feedback/rating too, i.e anything older than 12-18 months or more than 250-500 games away should just be discarded and never shown again. A rookie making stupid moves or a jerk being set straight shouldn't have to suffer indefinately for his/hers mistakes, and if they persist with playing/behaving like crap their newer ratings will show that anyway.

- I'd also be in favour of ratings left/gotten not being shown for ayone else than the one leaving it. Would help with the abuse issues Brucewar brought up.

Low Rating Block - I'm really not in favour of this. But if it is imposed then make it need a big difference (i.e preferably bigger than 2 stars diff) and also it should ONLY apply to public games. And yea, the option to not care about it would be good (a profile setting perhaps?).

Also I think it should only count the diff from the player starting the game, having any random player join a game and letting that players (and his preferences) limit others is just stupid IMO.

lackattack wrote:

Riazor wrote:I dont know if ts been mentioned before: but the overall rating seems to count each vote (for each category) as a vote. Why not have eg: overall *3.00 (6 players rated)

I see. So instead of averaging each individual category-vote, the overall could be an average of the average of each player's ratings. This way you'll always have the same impact on someone's overall regardless of how many categories you put stars on.
.

Well i was more interested to see in how many players rated you, than just to count all the ratings you have received. If i got a total of 40 ratings, from 12 people, i'd like to see the "12 players rated" thing, instead of "40 total ratings"


The possibilities for the overall that i can see are:
*combine the averages of each of the 4 categories, no matter how many ratings you have in each
*combine thee averages of the 4 categories, but weighted (if you have 8 ratings for sportmanship, and only 2 for attendance, it makes a difference) - i assume this is the way its currently done
*The avarage of the average of each player's ratings

i guess its just a matter of preference but i do like the idea that every player has the same impact.

But whatever system will be used, i'd still like to see how many players have rated, instead of how many ratings you have in total

wicked wrote:.... the "rank" games in callouts, where large groups of people have a common group password and new people you don't know get the password daily

In regards to these ranked leagues, how many people would actually get blocked via a rating block? I think that there is a high correlation between higher ranks and fewer negatives. This will probably hold true with ratings. My guess is that VERY few above 1600 points will have a rating below 2.0 (or even 2.5 or 3.0). This would mean pretty much everybody who meets this rank requirement will be able to play with everyone anyway based on ratings.

I do not like this new system. I think to some degree that how the person plays should be in the feedback. I want to know if player X has had a good strategy in previous games, I want to know if dice were in issue for his win / lose, I want to know all the things that the current feedback system is giving.

Frankly, I do not care if the other player cusses or whines a lot. I play my game he plays his and there we have it, if the game is noteworthy than I will post that in the feedback as either positive or negative and with an explanation. If a player is known to have fun challenging games or if they are cool to chat with or if they have good strategy is not directly addressed in this new system.

Also, I feel that behavior issues will rise with the new feedback system because instead of getting a "black mark" on your record you are getting a system of averages so not matter where you are on the scale you can justify acting poorly because "It is only one game". There have been times where I wanted to say something negative in game chat or been like "Are you seriously this stupid?" but I haven't said it (And it is better off left unsaid) because I did not want to get a negative feedback.

Lets say though that I get a low ranking in the sportsmanship category well how would some one reviewing my feedback know if it was because I made secret alliances or if I suicided? I believe they couldn't.

In my opinion, to take away player comments in the feedback and the concept of positive and negative feedbacks will greatly take away from this site. I thank you for the amount of work that has been put into developing this and I thank you for the effort to make this site better for its players but I do feel that changing the feedback system especially to this extent is going to detract from the quality of this site. What was even wrong with the old way of doing the feedback?

What was wrong with the old way of doing feedback was the constant bickering between players about negative feedback. The insane amount of time the mods have to devote to trying to figure out if the feedback is valid or not, the idiotic retaliation feedback that runs rampant and has nothing to do with anything...

Need I go on?

Optimus Prime wrote:What was wrong with the old way of doing feedback was the constant bickering between players about negative feedback. The insane amount of time the mods have to devote to trying to figure out if the feedback is valid or not, the idiotic retaliation feedback that runs rampant and has nothing to do with anything...

Need I go on?

I was recently told that one mod in particular spends approximately 20 hours per week moderating the current feedback issues.

lancehoch wrote:

Optimus Prime wrote:What was wrong with the old way of doing feedback was the constant bickering between players about negative feedback. The insane amount of time the mods have to devote to trying to figure out if the feedback is valid or not, the idiotic retaliation feedback that runs rampant and has nothing to do with anything...

Need I go on?

I was recently told that one mod in particular spends approximately 20 hours per week moderating the current feedback issues.

Yep, and I for one would rather that particular mod spend those 20 hours each week working on helping improve the site in other ways.

now this sounds great
A similar ranking system happened on ebay about a year ago but the way you have set it up here at least you can see who left what rating.
Go for it!

wicked wrote:Think of these situations though.....

.... posting games in callouts (either chat or forums)... you don't know who's going to join

.... the "rank" games in callouts, where large groups of people have a common group password and new people you don't know get the password daily

Is there any valid reason not to include block in private games? Would it hurt anything/anyone to include it?

Tourney games and Battle Royales will NOT be included if blocks are allowed for private games.

honestly it is a wasted feature if there are group private rank games then the consequence for giving the password out is that anyone with the password can play the scenerios show that those organising the game must either be open to the player they are inviting or more selective. Ibelieveagain that it is contradictory in nature to block people with the password to join it is to much failsafe in that case it should only block open games not password protected...

Optimus Prime wrote:What was wrong with the old way of doing feedback was the constant bickering between players about negative feedback. The insane amount of time the mods have to devote to trying to figure out if the feedback is valid or not, the idiotic retaliation feedback that runs rampant and has nothing to do with anything...

Need I go on?

Minimize / Eliminate making tickets for feedback then and encourage players to settle it by playing a game to determine whose negative stays. I did that with one of the players that has left me a feedback. Also, if people are going to play on this site or leave a negative than they should not feel exempt from getting one themselves.

Is this possible to just not promise that a moderator will get involved in feedback left?

yess... you essentially used my suggestion!

one question, though: what's the difference between "attitude" and "sportsmanship"?