Should someone leave negative feedback based on what style someone plays in a singles game? Like this...
Plays defense rather than trying to establish himself for a win. He'd be fine at diplomacy, but this is risk so his lose-lose desperation strategy doesn't work.
To me, leaving negative feedback on someone's gameplan at playing the game is not right.
Anyone agree?
Last edited by Master Bush on Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"You know what they say about Love and War...." "Yeah, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's War."
If the person leaving the feedback was your partner they have a right to question your lack of "strategy." However, it would be better discussed in a PM or game chat.
I have not left negative feedback when a partner attacked me, so your example does seem questionable.
General Guster wrote:If the person leaving the feedback was your partner they have a right to question your lack of "strategy." However, it would be better discussed in a PM or game chat.
I have not left negative feedback when a partner attacked me, so your example does seem questionable.
He said it was a singles game. Unless that person has the title of "Risk God(ess)", they dont need to leave a negative remark regarding strategy.
Master Bush wrote:Should someone leave negative feedback based on what style someone plays in a singles game? Like this...
Plays defense rather than trying to establish himself for a win. He'd be fine at diplomacy, but this is risk so his lose-lose desperation strategy doesn't work.
To me, leaving negative feedback on someone's gameplan at playing the game is not right.
Plays defense rather than trying to establish himself for a win. He'd be fine at diplomacy, but this is risk so his lose-lose desperation strategy doesn't work.
I think that its kinda funny in a sick and twisted way
It would depend... after playing only one game with someone? Yeah, its kinda silly... But if I had played 5 or more games against the same guy and every time he just sat there not attacking, just deploying and fortifying, and all 5 times he lost, I think I'd be justified to provide feedback as a warning to other players. This is one reason I think we need a Neutral feedback.. its not bad, its not good, but its something that might help other players.
95% of negative feedback is complete dribble. If you enter a game with the intention of trying to win it, and you do not cheat, there should be no reason for receiving negative feedback. Most, but not all people who leave negative feedback are usully just whinning and are clueless on how to play. I think we should force these people to join "CCCC" conquer club clueless clan, where they can have their own forum and discuss important matters such as, " why do we always lose", "why is he attacking me when I only have only 1 territory left (in round 2) ", "what's a continent",etc........
I've left only one negative feedback and it was based on what looked like strategy. Either that or just inconsitant play. I have a problem with anyone that uses missing a turn as a means of building their armies as part of their strategy. I'm sure I'm not the only person that feels that way and the negative feedback was left so that anyone considering a game with that individual would know in advance that they routinely missed turns.
I'm actually involved in a game right now that has one player that has missed half his turns, but he is still kicking because when he comes back he gets all of his armies. When this game is over I will be leaving negative feedback on him.
Strategy is one thing, missing turns is another. If I was playing live in the same room with a player and they werent playing their turn because they were watching TC, I'd flick'em on the nose. Negative feedback is about the closest you can come online.
But...missing turns isnt what I would call "strategy"
I will only leave negative feedback for cheating or missing turns as part of the strategy. I am not going to comment on someone's lack of talent or strategy. I do find it wrong for someone to miss turns with the sole purpose of getting 6 or 9 armies at once. If they do that, the other players should get together and take that player out of the game.
What's wrong with missing turns strategically? It's very rare that it's a good idea against competant opposition. Occasionally it can be in a freestyle game though, and I have done so (once).
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
- Galileo Galilei
if they suicide on me I'll leave negative feedback or if they decide to seek out allies early in the game I might consider leaving poor feedback as well.
All feedback really does is give people a general idea of what type of player the person is so I see no problem with leaving them neg FB if they play like an idiot or just plain out let somebody run away with the game when they could've easily prevented them from gaining so much power.
If somebody goes for a risky move and spreads themselves too thin and gets eliminated and the game is decided by that then I would just look at it as an unlucky roll of the dice or poor timing.
yeah if the person is horrible or having them in your game will just ruin any strategy because he will decide who wins by attacking whoever then I'll definitely let people know to stay out of games with them in it.
