Conquer Club

wicked wrote:

CAPK81 wrote:Why dont you just tell us how many turns the players have missed ? How many they have taken on time. Thats what i care about not what someone thinks about how i am a team player when they have never been on my team !

I think this is a good idea - just scrap the attendance rating and instead have a # turns missed stat on the profile page.

gotta agree with your here Wicked. The attendance rating isnt done properly. If you look over my ratings you will see a bunch of "1's" for attendance but I never missed a turn. Almost every example is because players want to play real time but they set the game up for 24 hours per move. I joined the game thinking I had up to 24 hours but I get nailed with a "1" because I dint sit there and play the entire game. If I wanted to play a real time game, than I would join a game from that section. Some of these players I have PM'd asking for a reason. Some dont reply and some do. The ones that do, always say, "oh, I thought you were another player I wanted to give a 1 too" or "sorry, I filled it out wrong", but they never fix them. There are also players that just leave 1's across the board for no reason... I guess because they think its cool

Random idea I had while reading this thread; not sure how easy it would be to implement or anything though.

Seeing as 3 stars is considered 'average', or that it is intended to be, would it be possible to code it in such a way that the majority of ratings given have to be 3s? For example, for every 5 you give you have to give 3 3s, and for every 4 2. This would mean that people are encouraged to save the high ratings for the players who are truely exceptional.

wicked wrote:

CAPK81 wrote:Why dont you just tell us how many turns the players have missed ? How many they have taken on time. Thats what i care about not what someone thinks about how i am a team player when they have never been on my team !

I think this is a good idea - just scrap the attendance rating and instead have a # turns missed stat on the profile page.

I like this idea.

congobill wrote:

Matroshka wrote:

wicked wrote:

CAPK81 wrote:Why dont you just tell us how many turns the players have missed ? How many they have taken on time. Thats what i care about not what someone thinks about how i am a team player when they have never been on my team !

I think this is a good idea - just scrap the attendance rating and instead have a # turns missed stat on the profile page.

I like this idea, but just to add , I think there would need to be a distinction between missed turns and being kicked for missed turns. I also think there should be some sort of ratio or percentage involved that factors in total turns and/or games.

I have to agree, but I don't think there needs to be a distiction between missing turns & being kicked out for missing turns, they are one in the same.

An attendence rating could be easily calculated (turns taken)/(turns taken + turns missed) x100 = attendence% If you want to keep the star rating system for attendence just make 5stars=100%, 4stars=80% ext.

People who miss a lot of turns and get kicked out (if they do this habitualy) will end up with a terible rating without making any special rating for it.

I like your idea, then add the average time a player needs before starting their turn and attendance will have been completely automated. No stars needed, just the numbers.

fwblb wrote:

wicked wrote:

CAPK81 wrote:Why dont you just tell us how many turns the players have missed ? How many they have taken on time. Thats what i care about not what someone thinks about how i am a team player when they have never been on my team !

I think this is a good idea - just scrap the attendance rating and instead have a # turns missed stat on the profile page.

I like this idea.

As long as it is shown in context...

Someone missing 2 turns in 500 is a lot different to someone missing 2 turns in 10...

C.

CAPK81 wrote:Why dont you just tell us how many turns the players have missed ? How many they have taken on time. Thats what i care about not what someone thinks about how i am a team player when they have never been on my team !

I support your idea capk81 with all my heart!!

Pedronicus wrote:The attendance part of the ratings should be automated.
If you take your go in under 2 hours 5 stars
under 6 hours 4 stars
under 15 hours 3 stars
under 23 hours 59 minutes 2 stars
miss a go - 1 star.

Agree in general...

Just report the number/percentage of missed turns. But it is not clear why it is essential to know how quickly people take their turns... It goes against the philosophy of this site that you can visit it once a day

Okay, let's say we had missed turns % on your profile instead of the "Attendance" attribute.

How could we factor that into your overall rating score?

lackattack wrote:Okay, let's say we had missed turns % on your profile instead of the "Attendance" attribute.

How could we factor that into your overall rating score?

i would say either

1) you can round by percentage. 100%=5 stars, 80%=4 and so on...

or

2) just leave it as a completely separate entity, because i have a feeling if you do this 90% of the players will look at this number FAR more then any others

lackattack wrote:Okay, let's say we had missed turns % on your profile instead of the "Attendance" attribute.

How could we factor that into your overall rating score?

It could be converted into stars maybe. Something like:

5 - 96-100%
4 - 90-95%
3 - 80-89%
2 - 70-79%
1 - < 69%

Percentage is turns taken on time. Not sure on the exact percentage ranges, but that's the general idea.

Screw the bloody stars for attendance, do away with them. They are not necessary.

All that's needed is missed turns/turns taken and the average time needed to take ones turn. Numbers, not stars. Maybe throw in the overall average of all players on the site so everyone knows where they are on the scale and be done with it.

kletka wrote:

Pedronicus wrote:The attendance part of the ratings should be automated.
If you take your go in under 2 hours 5 stars
under 6 hours 4 stars
under 15 hours 3 stars
under 23 hours 59 minutes 2 stars
miss a go - 1 star.

Agree in general...

Just report the number/percentage of missed turns. But it is not clear why it is essential to know how quickly people take their turns... It goes against the philosophy of this site that you can visit it once a day

Actually it is in line with the philosophy of the site and system. An average rating Should be someone who does not miss a turn in a game and plays once every 24 hours that is a average. A CC addict plays every second they can and the 2 different types of players should be distinguished between. This could be done on a automated basis with the stars being calculated based upon criteria defining turn speed and and missed.

I mean can you honestly say that a person who takes a turn once every 20 or so hours which is average deserves more credit then a person who almost always takes there turn as soon as it is available? The major problem with everyone giving 5 for everything is that those that truly deserve the 5's for exceptional play and or devotion to the game are not being distinguished from the average Joe who just plays once in a while and is not really that active other then turns in a game. If there was a way to force the game to be rated as the system intended it would be great and automated stars for attendance would be 1 unarguable step...

Could the average turn time be a statistic under the players profile instead of a visible rating?

yeti_c wrote:

fwblb wrote:

wicked wrote:

CAPK81 wrote:Why dont you just tell us how many turns the players have missed ? How many they have taken on time. Thats what i care about not what someone thinks about how i am a team player when they have never been on my team !

I think this is a good idea - just scrap the attendance rating and instead have a # turns missed stat on the profile page.

I like this idea.

As long as it is shown in context...

Someone missing 2 turns in 500 is a lot different to someone missing 2 turns in 10...

C.

How about if the system on the rating screen marks a star based on a calculation, such as 5 stars for no missed turns, 4 for 1-2 missed turns, 3 for 3 missed turns, 2 for more than 3 missed turns and 1 for kicked for missed turns, and then the rater can then modify if for example in the log the person missing the turns etc had good reason for missing the turn. This at least would provide an initial star rating that if necessary the rater could bump up or down.

Soloman wrote:
Actually it is in line with the philosophy of the site and system. An average rating Should be someone who does not miss a turn in a game and plays once every 24 hours that is a average. A CC addict plays every second they can and the 2 different types of players should be distinguished between. This could be done on a automated basis with the stars being calculated based upon criteria defining turn speed and and missed.

I mean can you honestly say that a person who takes a turn once every 20 or so hours which is average deserves more credit then a person who almost always takes there turn as soon as it is available? The major problem with everyone giving 5 for everything is that those that truly deserve the 5's for exceptional play and or devotion to the game are not being distinguished from the average Joe who just plays once in a while and is not really that active other then turns in a game. If there was a way to force the game to be rated as the system intended it would be great

My point exactly. Thank you for understanding what I was proposing and putting it so well.

Actually, an average rating should be for someone who takes their turn as fast as the average for turn-taking on CC is, and for those who miss about as many turns as the average amount of turns missed on CC is. Better and you get more stars, worse and you get less.

Stars for attendance are a mess anyway, except for missed turns you only really notice how fast or slow the player who goes right before you is. Just calculate the numbers automatically and put them in people's profiles, it would save everyone a lot of work. The logs have all the necessary information.

MeDeFe wrote:Actually, an average rating should be for someone who takes their turn as fast as the average for turn-taking on CC is, and for those who miss about as many turns as the average amount of turns missed on CC is. Better and you get more stars, worse and you get less.

Stars for attendance are a mess anyway, except for missed turns you only really notice how fast or slow the player who goes right before you is. Just calculate the numbers automatically and put them in people's profiles, it would save everyone a lot of work. The logs have all the necessary information.

This may surprise you but a large # of people do not miss turns n there average game in fact rarely miss A turn in 20 or 30 games. It is not average to miss a turn and doing so is in my and a lot of others opinion below average and a deadbeat to me is a automatic 1 start a person who misses 3 turns a automatic 1 but then that is me, buts as I said missing turns does not equate to average play...

Atarihero wrote:These solutions do not address the Core issue:

The OLD System worked fine for EVERYONE except lazy mods and players with bad attitudes.

Just a word of advice... I don't think you should be going around calling all the mods lazy since you really have no clue what kind of work they do. Yes, part of the reasons for changing the system was to decrease their feedback workload so that they can focus on other projects, but that is not the entire reason. The Mods volunteer their time, yes, but they are not lazy simply because they don't want to listen to all the self-righteous and holier-than-thou complaints about feedback all day long.

You say it worked great for everyone but a few, but the number of feedback complaints the Mods dealt with completely tears that idea to shreds.

Ratings can work with some proper adjustments and a community that is willing to learn how to use them properly. Lack spent two weeks listening to all the moaning and complaining, and now he has 4 separate ideas for fixing things and is asking for the community to help him implement them properly.

Do us all a favor and rather than clamor to scrap the whole idea go put some constructive and worthwhile criticism into the 4 threads dedicated to helping improve the system that the community so readily states as having flaws. If you are going to comment, make it count, otherwise you aren't helping the problem you are so concerned about.

Atarihero wrote:These solutions do not address the Core issue:

The OLD System worked fine for EVERYONE except lazy mods and players with bad attitudes.

I beg to differ. The old system did not work fine. It was confusing and was often used to get a "last word" in for a game. (Ironically this abuse happened both ways but positive feedback abuse was never really worried about.)

This isn't to say the new system is perfect, but I do believe it is going in the right direction.

Soloman wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:Actually, an average rating should be for someone who takes their turn as fast as the average for turn-taking on CC is, and for those who miss about as many turns as the average amount of turns missed on CC is. Better and you get more stars, worse and you get less.

Stars for attendance are a mess anyway, except for missed turns you only really notice how fast or slow the player who goes right before you is. Just calculate the numbers automatically and put them in people's profiles, it would save everyone a lot of work. The logs have all the necessary information.

This may surprise you but a large # of people do not miss turns n there average game in fact rarely miss A turn in 20 or 30 games. It is not average to miss a turn and doing so is in my and a lot of others opinion below average and a deadbeat to me is a automatic 1 start a person who misses 3 turns a automatic 1 but then that is me, buts as I said missing turns does not equate to average play...

If the average player rarely misses a turn, the average player still occasionally misses a turn. All turns missed divided by all turns taken will tell you how often it happens on average.

If it makes you happy it shouldn't be a problem to add the information of how many games a player has deadbeated out of.

MeDeFe wrote:If it makes you happy it shouldn't be a problem to add the information of how many games a player has deadbeated out of.

But even then all deadbeats are not created equal. It is one thing to deadbeat from round 1. It is another to deadbeat in a game you thought was only going to be a week long that lasted two months and ran into a time where you were away from internet access.

wicked wrote:

CAPK81 wrote:Why dont you just tell us how many turns the players have missed ? How many they have taken on time. Thats what i care about not what someone thinks about how i am a team player when they have never been on my team !

I think this is a good idea - just scrap the attendance rating and instead have a # turns missed stat on the profile page.

I think that's good, but it should be related to total number of turns taken. If a new recruit has deadbeated out of 3 of their first 5 games, they'll have 9 missed turns, and that should be differentiable from someone who's played 1000's of games and missed a total of 9 turns. I think a simple percentage of turns missed, or ratio of turns missed to turns taken would work wonderfully.

Edit - I probably should have finished reading the thread before I posted that, as it seems a lot of people agree.

Hi.

My sugestions will be a little off-topic but hear me out. (sorry for the poor english)

The best way to have relliable information about the players is to automate (at least part of ) the rating process.
Of course this means more work for lack.

For example, missing turns or deadbeating should be automated. It would be nice to just go to a players page and see the total nº of games deadbeated by him or the nº of turns missed per game.

An average of the time left when the player took its turn in his games can tell you if his a fast player or not.

Also the turn in which the player was eliminated can give you some information. If he lasted to the last turn or if he was eliminated on the first turns.


Hope this helps the site.
Cheers!

neves wrote:(sorry for the poor english)

Looks proper to me