Conquer Club

Bruceswar wrote:The point you missed is that player 1 will be getting a low rating from player 2. Player 1 then goes and joins a game with player 2 only to leave him a low rating in return. Provided player 2 did not ignore him.

True, I was thinking the other way around for some reason :S

Do you like my idea of limiting it to 1 feedback to a particular individual in a certain timeframe (ie one month)? That way people wouldn't retaliate right away, and may forget about it after the month because they have other feedback that evens out what it should be?

The Fuzzy Pengui wrote:

Bruceswar wrote:The point you missed is that player 1 will be getting a low rating from player 2. Player 1 then goes and joins a game with player 2 only to leave him a low rating in return. Provided player 2 did not ignore him.

True, I was thinking the other way around for some reason :S

Do you like my idea of limiting it to 1 feedback to a particular individual in a certain timeframe (ie one month)? That way people wouldn't retaliate right away, and may forget about it after the month because they have other feedback that evens out what it should be?

Sounds like a reasonable idea to me. Deciding a time frame might be a bit harder though.

I kinda feel like sportsmanship and attitude are the same thing. Am I wrong?

not really they could be arrogent and a jerk but when it came to the game they could do the right thing.....
but i like the new system

But wouldn't doing the right thing in the game be like, teamwork? Or rather, which trait are you referring to when you say they do the right thing in the game? I'm not seein' it..

i only play singles games, how does the teamwork grade apply to me ?

lord voldemort wrote:not really they could be arrogent and a jerk but when it came to the game they could do the right thing.....
but i like the new system

Sportsmanship is not how you play the game but rather how you act playing the game.

SGUstickman wrote:A suggestion:

Feedback from other players can be valuable, but for attendance, I think that automatically compiled statistics would be a better choice.
What percentage of turns has a player missed? What percentage of games has a player been kicked for missing too many turns? These figures could be cumulative, or based on the last X number of games. I think this would be easier, more accurate, and less hassle than subjective reporting by individual players. Impossible to abuse, too!

Interesting idea, but not everyone cares if you miss a turn.

Bruce, in cases of abuse like you mentioned, it would be covered under the "no abuse" clause we have here. You could fill out an eticket and staff would look into it.

JBoy wrote:i only play singles games, how does the teamwork grade apply to me ?

You should get "no ratings" then for that category and it won't be averaged into your overall score.

wicked wrote:
Bruce, in cases of abuse like you mentioned, it would be covered under the "no abuse" clause we have here. You could fill out an eticket and staff would look into it.

Seems like more created work if you ask me. This would be much harder to prove since the first ratings would be "gone" or "changed". If you change a rating will the others still show as they did when posted or will they all show the current numbers given by that player? I know they will not be factored in as such but will they show.

wicked wrote:

SGUstickman wrote:A suggestion:

Feedback from other players can be valuable, but for attendance, I think that automatically compiled statistics would be a better choice.
What percentage of turns has a player missed? What percentage of games has a player been kicked for missing too many turns? These figures could be cumulative, or based on the last X number of games. I think this would be easier, more accurate, and less hassle than subjective reporting by individual players. Impossible to abuse, too!

Interesting idea, but not everyone cares if you miss a turn.

Fair enough. Those people will just ignore the statistic. Where's the problem?

wicked wrote:

JBoy wrote:i only play singles games, how does the teamwork grade apply to me ?

You should get "no ratings" then for that category and it won't be averaged into your overall score.

So how would one go about contesting ratings given out by a certain player. He says he only plays singles, but what if someone leaves him a 1 or a 5 for team play. Seems silly either way. For that matter what if someone leaves you a 1 for something like attitude, yet you did not say a word in chat? Would you file an e-ticket for those as well? This also raises the question of attendance. What about speed games where a person will use up all 5 minutes and the other player does not like this idea. He could leave a 1 for attendance. Personally I like the calculated idea much better as it allows for no abuse at all.

What's the difference between Attitude and Sportsmanship? I'm just wondering which category I'm going to only have 1 star in.

What if there was only the option to leave a rating for teamwork at the conclusion of team games? That would help with the "Teamwork" problem and prevent it from being skewed by non-team games, wouldn't it?

I'd rather not have the low rating block, because that segregates the community and it is up to other players if they want someone to join their game.

wrestler1ump wrote:I'd rather not have the low rating block, because that segregates the community and it is up to other players if they want someone to join their game.

The problem with that mentality is that if it is up to the player they don't have a whole lot to go on outside of the number s. By enforcing a block of some sort you provide the motivation for players to play fair, play nice, and get along for the most part. If they want to bitch and moan at each other they can do it on the wall and then delete it when they've said their piece if they want.

If you have the block as an option to turn on and off, the "elitists" can have their peace by turning it on and feeling whatever peace of mind they feel by blocking out the lower players and the rest of us can leave it off and give others a chance to prove their worth.

The reality is that most players are going to fall between the 3.5 and 4.5 category I would think, possibly even lower, that means even with the block turned ON, a player with a 3.8 can still have players with 1.8 join their games. That is actually a pretty big gap, and players that have ratings that low are likely rated that way for a reason and deserve to have to work at it to improve their rating.

Sorry, I'm probably being dumb, but I couldn't see the bit where you could leave prose?
Written comments are the key.

suggs wrote:Sorry, I'm probably being dumb, but I couldn't see the bit where you could leave prose?
Written comments are the key.

That falls under the wall part which is self moderated.

Optimus Prime wrote:Yep, make the ratings block an option to turn on or off, and you are good to go in my book.

Everything else seems to make pretty good sense to me.

As far as pre-populating the wall is concerned, why not? The players will have the option of cleaning them up and can keep the ones they like and trash the ones they don't. No real reason not to give them that choice if you ask me. It's not going to harm anything, and if someone wants to keep a positive comment left by a player they played a lot a long time ago, why not let them?

I really can't think of a good argument NOT to pre-populate the wall to be honest.

I agree with Optimus, this great. i'm impressed with the work that must went into this too.

(1) % turns missed and % games kicked stats should replace attendance feedback
(2) attitude and sportsmanship can be combined into a single feedback category
(3) teamwork feedback should only be for members of the same team in a team game
(4) Don't have a game play feedback rating because it would discourage reasonable experimentation. Plus it feels good to occasionally suicide on a moron that ruins a game when you can see that the outcome is now obvious because he was either stupid or evil.
(5) feedback should last for 12 months (or longer) but only affect the ratings calculation for 6 months

(6) if you get a negative feedback score that you would like to challenge in a game with 3 or more players, the highest rated player who is not the feedback giver or receiver should be able to judge whether or not it is COMPLETELY unwarranted if the receiver of the feedback requests this review. However, the third party would not be required to render judgment if they didn't want to.... well I like this idea even though I realize the code behind it would not be trivial or probably even reasonable! Someone else might be able to state it better and think of a better or simpler implementation... Or maybe feedback could be weighted... in other words, feedback from someone with a 5.0 would be counted 2x vs that of someone with a 2.5. This way designated jerks couldn't dump on you so hard.

I highly disapprove of the ranking of a person not being included in feedback. To further specify, an idiot that makes a total trash move... yeah it's expected of a cook, but some cooks get their rank from deadbeating, others get it from certain reasons... and I know a lot of players that know HOW to play the game better than others but their ranking fluctuates. Like I've seen Bruceswar fluctuate between Sergeant and Colonel consistently. DAT_WAT_SHE_SAID is another player that I haven't seen above a fairly low rank, a Lieutenant, and I haven't seen him make poor moves either, he just plays most games with high rankers so he rarely wins them, instead of noob bashing those at his rank and moving up.

Sportsmanship = covers fairness/fair play, suiciding, secret alliance suspicion, breaking alliances, someone delaying their turn so you don't miss yours, etc...

Attitude = behavior in chat, foul language, sore losers, gracious winners, "great chatters!", whining about dice, etc...

wicked wrote:Sportsmanship = covers fairness/fair play, suiciding, secret alliance suspicion, breaking alliances, someone delaying their turn so you don't miss yours, etc...

Attitude = behavior in chat, foul language, sore losers, gracious winners, "great chatters!", whining about dice, etc...

Terrible defs of those words if you ask me. Game play needs its own category. Otherwise this system is worthless. Suspicions without proof are worthless. Even with proof sometimes they are worthless aka O.J. Simpson? Seriously if that is the best CC can come up with then I do not know what to say.

Bruceswar wrote:

wicked wrote:Sportsmanship = covers fairness/fair play, suiciding, secret alliance suspicion, breaking alliances, someone delaying their turn so you don't miss yours, etc...

Attitude = behavior in chat, foul language, sore losers, gracious winners, "great chatters!", whining about dice, etc...

Terrible defs of those words if you ask me. Game play needs its own category. Otherwise this system is worthless. Suspicions without proof are worthless. Even with proof sometimes they are worthless aka O.J. Simpson? Seriously if that is the best CC can come up with then I do not know what to say.

That's just it, Bruce, the system is not supposed to be measuring the gameplay skills of players. The system proposed by Lack is to gauge the behavior of players.

If you want to comment on the gameplay of an individual, learn how to do it tactfully so as not to offend (yes, it is possible to do even in the worst case scenarios) and post it on their wall. Easy as pie.

Overall, I like this proposal.

I agree with pre-populating the wall.

I think that if there is a ratings-cap on games option, that it SHOULD apply to private games as well. There are a lot of private games set up through the callouts forum, based on score alone. Just because I want to play with people of similar skill, doesn't mean I want to play assholes.