Conquer Club

lackattack wrote: But I think it's more elegant to have 4 equal categories that could apply to any combination of game options.

I'd rather have the categories be specific enough to give some useful info.

And why not make it 5 categories then? Having cooperation/team play being rated dependent on what settings used?

wicked wrote:Should it be limited further to only rating your actual teammates, and not opponents in team games?

No. It's pretty easy to tell when opponents are working well together.

wicked wrote:But "coordination" isn't present in every game, and some people are very much anti-coordination. So if I don't believe in it, why should I be rated in it? Coordination is mostly alliances, and a good percentage of people here are against those, which is why we allow feedback for it, to warn others that's how you play... however, that shouldn't correspond to a negative rating since people view alliances in two very different, very distinct manners. Player A would rate someone excellent for coordination if they made an alliance, whereas Player B would rate someone lousy for the very same action. That's why "coordination" won't work and teamwork will. And what about 1v1 games? No coordination there!

As long as you define the categories, people will get it (as much as they can).

If it requires a little extra coding, then I still don't see the big deal. Just stroke Lack's ego a bit and he'll put forth the effort.

Wicked has a very good point here that I never even thought about. I would fall very much into group "b" and would rate harshly for alliances in my own games. I'm so sure that grouping team games with non team games is such a good idea in the long run. It seem to me that it would muddy the water.

lackattack wrote:

hulmey wrote:what co-opertion could possibly occur in a singles match? I sometimes like to "camp" in games and received a far bit of abuse for doing it! does that mean i play the game badly or just am using the right tactics at he right time?

Asides from the obvious diplomatic cooperation, there is often un-discussed cooperation that occurs because it is in those players interest. There is nothing wrong with "camping" as a strategy. However, at some times, i.e. when the balance of power tips past the point of no return, it can be considered poor behaviour. In those cases a lack of cooperation could be considered poor sportsmanship and something we as a club want to discourage.

It is not too much work to program Teamwork to check if you've been teammates before. But I think it's more elegant to have 4 equal categories that could apply to any combination of game options.

(Game) Awareness?
It means how attuned you are to the broader picture and the pattern of play. So, as an example, if someone is set-up to take out a player and you attack that player in their only unreachable territory, you are showing that you have not absorbed the big picture.
I think this accommodates the concepts of teamwork, and 'co-operation' in non team games without it having to mean alliance.

Awareness is good. Teammates that don't act like they're on a team, players that don't go for their assassin target, etc etc can ruin the game for others.

That's more vague than Sportsmanship and has nada to do with teamwork. I can be "aware" and be a poor teammate, so really that shows me nothing. And all newbies will get low marks here, which would be discouraging to them.

Bizarrely I agree with Wicked...

You either rate for Teamwork or not.

I don't think you can slip it into another rating without it ruining the rating.

I say have 5 rates... 4 for all games - and teamwork for a team game.

No need to check if you've been a team mate before - just allow rating after a team game has just finished.

Why should you be able to change a team mate rating after a singles game that you played a team game with someone ages ago?
(This will make the coding easier too)

Also agree - that you should probably only be able to rate teammate on your team...

Although I have played in games where it is clearly obvious that someone is useless at team games on the other side and have rated accordingly.

C.

One issue is the initial period where you can rate everyone you've left feedback for previously. That won't be "after a team game" for the coding.

What's the 5th category? Coordination is gameplay, which Lack said he didn't want to rate.

I never said coordination, I said cooperation. Being uncooperative is behaviour, not skill

wicked wrote:But "cooperation" isn't present in every game, and some people are very much anti-cooperation. So if I don't believe in it, why should I be rated in it? Cooperation is mostly alliances, and a good percentage of people here are against those, which is why we allow feedback for it, to warn others that's how you play... however, that shouldn't correspond to a negative rating since people view alliances in two very different, very distinct manners. Player A would rate someone excellent for cooperation if they made an alliance, whereas Player B would rate someone lousy for the very same action. That's why "cooperation" won't work and teamwork will. And what about 1v1 games? No cooperation there!

OK then, "cooperation" won't work either. ^^^

wicked wrote:That's more vague than Sportsmanship and has nada to do with teamwork. I can be "aware" and be a poor teammate, so really that shows me nothing. And all newbies will get low marks here, which would be discouraging to them.

hmm i do not agree (of course as i suggested it) the fact that it is vague is the point and works to serve different mistresses

If you are aware and do not act upon that Awareness (presumably because you see the strategy another way?) and are proven wrong then in the subjective view of your team-mate (or single player expecting 'cooperation' for the broader sake of the game) you were not in fact 'aware' of the implications to the game.

Presumably, with the exception of their own victory, no player will be aware that something is right for the prolongment of the game and then act in another way?
if they do, their rating deserves to be a low one anyway, as they are knowingly making it more easy for an opposition player to win.

- So i would say you can not be a good teammate/cooperator and at the same time be unaware of their needs.
And by the same measure, you cannot be perceived to be aware of the right team/game move and then not act upon it!

- And as to noobies getting low marks: surely that is the whole point; to try to teach them that they had made a mistake and to seek to improve?

Anyway you can qualify the titles; will there be a 'key' which explains what each rating should engender?
If so, the titles are simply there to represent your intended target for rating.
You can even call it Tactical Awareness if you like, so it is a little more focussed.

I'm leaning towards Jimiski's point.


--Andy

so when is this new feed back system going to start?

wicked wrote:One issue is the initial period where you can rate everyone you've left feedback for previously. That won't be "after a team game" for the coding.

What's the 5th category? Coordination is gameplay, which Lack said he didn't want to rate.

I think that the initial period should not exist.

lancehoch wrote:

wicked wrote:One issue is the initial period where you can rate everyone you've left feedback for previously. That won't be "after a team game" for the coding.

What's the 5th category? Coordination is gameplay, which Lack said he didn't want to rate.

I think that the initial period should not exist.

yep. it's basically throwing away tons of information about players. Except in the few cases where people actually go back and rate people.

Even if 90% of people do this, that 10% lost is a very bad thing. Not only would we be moving from a good system to an inferior one (you can't get the same info from ratings that you get from words), but we'd be getting rid of the good stuff we had. Just let the old stuff be viewable and start fresh.


I know the transition is necessary and the old one has to go so don't take this post as saying 'stick with the old way' because it is not. I also know I've said the same thing three or four times, but there's been no official response to this and talk about the 'initial period' hasn't really happened lately. Obviously there are many things to do before the system gets underway, but I don't want to see this initial period suddenly start when it's really just an awful idea.

You could argue, "hey we don't want two different rating systems around' but I think tossing two-plus years worth of ratings outweighs having the old stuff stick around. Just have it be viewable from a person's profile or wall.


How many people are really going to go back and rate old games? How many of people with negative feedbacks are going to give the person who gave them a neg a low rating? When you consider how many games people have played, how many people are not playing any more, or just the tediousness of having to go back to rate players on games that happened as far back as two years ago, it doesn't make sense to have the initial rating period.

What if there was a way to display the old feedback and then slowly phase them out by dropping anything older than a determined about of time, like 6 months?

I don't like that either.

Shouldn't it be my decision if I want to not play with someone because he suicided against someone two years ago?

Yes. That would probably be silly of me, but that should be my decision to make.

The rating system shouldn't be 'this is who I am for the past six months'.

I have seen several players on the site change in the time span of a year or even 6 months. We all know how many people claim suiciding even though it's just their own opinion, so why not use this as a chance to cut some people some slack? Besides, I bet a lot of the people that left those old feedbacks aren't even on the site.

Most poeple aren't going to remember how you played unless it was recently anyway. However, they should still be afforded the option to rate past people they've played with during the transistion.

wicked wrote:Most poeple aren't going to remember how you played unless it was recently anyway. However, they should still be afforded the option to rate past people they've played with during the transistion.

so just lock the old system and let people read that. that's much better than the initial period.

Night Strike wrote:I have seen several players on the site change in the time span of a year or even 6 months. We all know how many people claim suiciding even though it's just their own opinion, so why not use this as a chance to cut some people some slack? Besides, I bet a lot of the people that left those old feedbacks aren't even on the site.

exactly. they won't be there for the initial period so that feedback will be lost. That's just throwing away good information.


having no initial period and starting everyone with a blank slate is a better option than losing information and allowing abuse of people giving negs for getting negs which will happen with this initial period (and probably with the new system btw since it's effectively self moderated).

edbeard wrote:

Night Strike wrote:I have seen several players on the site change in the time span of a year or even 6 months. We all know how many people claim suiciding even though it's just their own opinion, so why not use this as a chance to cut some people some slack? Besides, I bet a lot of the people that left those old feedbacks aren't even on the site.

exactly. they won't be there for the initial period so that feedback will be lost. That's just throwing away good information.

That's why I mentioned fading it out. Plus, there wouldn't have to be an initial period with that.

Night Strike wrote:

edbeard wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Besides, I bet a lot of the people that left those old feedbacks aren't even on the site.

exactly. they won't be there for the initial period so that feedback will be lost. That's just throwing away good information.

That's why I mentioned fading it out. Plus, there wouldn't have to be an initial period with that.

I don't really get this post. I suppose I should've edited out part of your post. What I've left now is to what I'm referring.



this part

I have seen several players on the site change in the time span of a year or even 6 months. We all know how many people claim suiciding even though it's just their own opinion, so why not use this as a chance to cut some people some slack?

is a matter of opinion. If I want to give that person the benefit of the doubt, I should be the one to do that.

Regarding the 'fading out', as I said before, the feedback system isn't meant to be 'how this person played in the past 6 months'. It's meant to show how this person played overall. If you change how you play, then your feedback will get better and your old bad ratings will be leveled out by your good ratings you get.


No one has really addressed the 'giving bad ratings in return for a negative feedback' problem. This will happen with the initial feedback period. Before, moderation removed these justly. Now, they'll be able to bypass it. Just leave this part in the past and let it be viewable and start over with new ratings.

edbeard wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

edbeard wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Besides, I bet a lot of the people that left those old feedbacks aren't even on the site.

exactly. they won't be there for the initial period so that feedback will be lost. That's just throwing away good information.

That's why I mentioned fading it out. Plus, there wouldn't have to be an initial period with that.

I don't really get this post. I suppose I should've edited out part of your post. What I've left now is to what I'm referring.

Ok, I get what you mean with that. That makes sense to me.

edbeard wrote:this part

I have seen several players on the site change in the time span of a year or even 6 months. We all know how many people claim suiciding even though it's just their own opinion, so why not use this as a chance to cut some people some slack?

is a matter of opinion. If I want to give that person the benefit of the doubt, I should be the one to do that.

As I read it, CC has always had a "forgiveness" policy. That's why they allow busted multis to buy back in, no matter how many people (including JR) protest. They take that view out of our hands because our opinions aren't always what's best for the site. Perhaps starting everyone out with the exact same rating would be the best option.

edbeard wrote:Regarding the 'fading out', as I said before, the feedback system isn't meant to be 'how this person played in the past 6 months'. It's meant to show how this person played overall. If you change how you play, then your feedback will get better and your old bad ratings will be leveled out by your good ratings you get.

No one has really addressed the 'giving bad ratings in return for a negative feedback' problem. This will happen with the initial feedback period. Before, moderation removed these justly. Now, they'll be able to bypass it. Just leave this part in the past and let it be viewable and start over with new ratings.

Ok, I'm beginning to see the downside of the feedback period. What if you can only rate a player IF you left them feedback and not the other way around? That should negate the retaliation ratings.

During the transition, all ratings left based on old feedback will be hidden until the end of the transition period, so there won't be massive retaliation.

Yes edbeard we will lose information. I expect a large majority of feedbacks will not be replaced during the transition. But that information has to go, it's too much trouble to keep

However I do expect people to leave ratings much more often than the old feedbacks, so the information should be less detailed but more accurate.

lackattack wrote:During the transition, all ratings left based on old feedback will be hidden until the end of the transition period, so there won't be massive retaliation.

I think the retaliation he's referring to is that where a player says "You gave me a negative feedback in the past, so now I'm going to give you all 1's on your ratings."