Conquer Club

FabledIntegral wrote:

pissedoffsol wrote:i'm not happy with it either.

it's too easy to simply bad mouth for no good reason.

like take this game for instance.
http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=2569052

i kicked green's ass, and won the assasin game nice and square. no chat, just a nice GG at the end.

He leaves me a
4/5 for fair play
a 4/5 for attendence (never missed anything, and never went more than 12 hours between my turn)
and a 3/5 for attitude.

WTF?

attitude? i said GG, and that's all. it's not like he got chatty either.


So, what do i do? I'm tempted to leave him 1's across the board. I realize this is 'wrong', but it's f'ed up that he basically ruined my rating score for no valid reason, and there's no where for ME to respond to the comments. I think that's the major flaw with the system-- not able to leave comments on the score against you.


Negatives (or 1's) WILL come in for no good reason, and i think it's only fair that we be able to respond to our ratings.

I would have given you straight 3's. That's not ruining your score, you dolt. It didn't "ruin" your rating score, he gave you an accurate score. Your rating is just overinflated from all the other idiots that gave you 5 stars.

same here, i gave out 3's across the board to everyone, one guy with 3's for everything except for a 4 for teamwork complained to me: 'why did you leave me such a bad rating, i didn't do anything wrong'

really guys. keep in mind that 5 is not average, 3 is!

This new system is an absolute disaster. Funny thing is, you can give any1 a horrendous rating whether deserving or not and it will never be changed or contested and on the flip side, any1 can give the worst player the best rating, joke! The only thing it will do is rid the retaliatory negatives. As I've stated a million times, get rid of this pathetic "RATING" system and play the game of risk, ffs!

At the moment my rate is 1, only because I played a game with two multis (Pending status by the mods) and gave them:
1 for fairplay (no reason to explain)
2 for attendance (they have missed at least two turns each)
1 for attitude (They kept acting like nothing was happening)

The result is that he (two multis) gave exactly the sme rates, but I wasn't the one cheating, I haven't missed a single turn and have been always polite (even wanting to send he to hell!).

With the previus system, I left a neg and they couldn't do anything, because people would look into the game and chat logs and verify the information... Now there isn't even the game nunber to check if the rates make justice...

This new system is wonderful for the multis! There should be a space to imput justificatives for the rates. This way it would avoid people give bad rates only to harm others...

Game:
http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=2529237

Players (multis):
[player]Enderhall[/player]
[player]GLNGF[/player]

wicked wrote:The ratings numbers haven't even popped up for the majority here. Give it some time to play out, k?

you know for yourself that the raing system isn't even close to the feedback system. it hasn't even been out long enough for most people to get a rating, but already TONS of peope are complaining.

i can give a whole list of thinks that need to be changed and why they need to be changed. the rating system is in no way perfect, it doesn't even come close!

examples:

people still give out random bad ratings, it's basicly like leaving a negative without having to write any comment, you only make it easier for people to abuse te system! leaving a comment never was the problem. bad comments (aka flaming) only makes the person writing the comment look like an idiot, and is in no way harming to the person recieving it, in fact the rating itself might become a problem, if it gets abused a lot.

sollution: add a comment to the rating, and make it so that not the moderaters can edit it. but the person recieving it togehter with the person writing it (just like you can withdraw/edit the stars yourself, you can also withdraw the comments the same way, and only that way), there! problem 1 solved

another big problem with the system is that is is unclear what's considered to be 'good' 'bad' and 'average' if you only look at the poll i recently created you'll see that like 40% voted '3 stars' as being 'the normal average everyday player' while another 40% thinks '5 stars' is for this purpose, some say 4 stars or even 1 star.

there is too much confusion around it and therefore in no way gives an accurate rating!

so don't tell us to give it time, but fix it now and make it work!

codeblue1018 wrote:This new system is an absolute disaster. Funny thing is, you can give any1 a horrendous rating whether deserving or not and it will never be changed or contested and on the flip side, any1 can give the worst player the best rating, joke! The only thing it will do is rid the retaliatory negatives. As I've stated a million times, get rid of this pathetic "RATING" system and play the game of risk, ffs!

this is exactly why you should at least be able to put a comment along with the rating

So in a speed game, you're expected to take your turns promptly. How do you do above and beyond what is expected for attendance? If I finish all my turns within the 5 minute period should I get a 3 or a 5? The subjectivity there isn't very helpful. One might think someone who takes their turns too quickly isn't thinking things through, so it could go either way. And without comments to say things like "missed a turn" or "ran out the clock just to be a jerk", you can't substantiate anything.

Also, the attitude rating is rather lame, too. If you're playing against an ace who has 7 speed games going at once, takes all his turns on time, and types simply good luck and good game at the end, why should he be penalized? Do you rate them a 3, 4, or 5? Some people just aren't good chatters. Again, this would affect their overall score, so it's not trivial.

The old system at least gave you a heads up to abusive players. When you saw hateful, racist, or just crazy stuff going down in the feedback, you knew to stay away. If you see a 2.2 rating now, you have no idea what to expect.

This new feedback system just makes everything a giant guessing game. "I wonder what they really meant with that rating." A "stars only" movie review sucks because you have no idea what sort of standards, problems, praises the critic had. The same goes for feedback like this.

I don't like the new system! Am I the only one? I like to read feedback

retrocrush wrote:So in a speed game, you're expected to take your turns promptly. How do you do above and beyond what is expected for attendance? If I finish all my turns within the 5 minute period should I get a 3 or a 5? The subjectivity there isn't very helpful. One might think someone who takes their turns too quickly isn't thinking things through, so it could go either way. And without comments to say things like "missed a turn" or "ran out the clock just to be a jerk", you can't substantiate anything.

Also, the attitude rating is rather lame, too. If you're playing against an ace who has 7 speed games going at once, takes all his turns on time, and types simply good luck and good game at the end, why should he be penalized? Do you rate them a 3, 4, or 5? Some people just aren't good chatters. Again, this would affect their overall score, so it's not trivial.

The old system at least gave you a heads up to abusive players. When you saw hateful, racist, or just crazy stuff going down in the feedback, you knew to stay away. If you see a 2.2 rating now, you have no idea what to expect.

This new feedback system just makes everything a giant guessing game. "I wonder what they really meant with that rating." A "stars only" movie review sucks because you have no idea what sort of standards, problems, praises the critic had. The same goes for feedback like this.

in a 5 minute period it's hard to determine the difference between 3 and 5, so you might as well leave it blank for most speed games. in casual games however it matter if someone needs anything between 3 to 6 hours, 6 to 12 hours or 12 hours or longer for each turn to take. (3 to 6 hours being 5 stars, 6 to 12 being 4, and 12 or longer should be just the regular 3, or something)

retrocrush wrote:This new feedback system just makes everything a giant guessing game. "I wonder what they really meant with that rating." A "stars only" movie review sucks because you have no idea what sort of standards, problems, praises the critic had. The same goes for feedback like this.

true

stupid system

wicked wrote:The ratings numbers haven't even popped up for the majority here. Give it some time to play out, k?

The real problem is that when big decisions are made ... like the change to the Risk map, the feedback, etc. only a few select people are consulted.

The ones with the most "credibility" in this regard, are the ones who make the maps, the mods, etc. Understandable in some ways, BUT (and this is a pretty big BUT!), those people are NOT necessarily representative of the community as a whole.

Only a few people bother to even enter the forums, UNLESS they have a serious complaint. Even the, many will just leave or complain in chat, maybe slow down in games ... and perhaps eventually leave, but in ways that make the real reason they left hard to track.

If you are talking about an addition -- more games, more options, medals, etc. The "limited few" is fine. BUT if you are going to make large scale CHANGES, you really need to do a better job of checking with the community as a whole, and not just a few people.

This site was great when I first joined in 2007. It has now been ruined. FFS, return things to how they once were.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

wicked wrote:The ratings numbers haven't even popped up for the majority here. Give it some time to play out, k?

The real problem is that when big decisions are made ... like the change to the Risk map, the feedback, etc. only a few select people are consulted.

The ones with the most "credibility" in this regard, are the ones who make the maps, the mods, etc. Understandable in some ways, BUT (and this is a pretty big BUT!), those people are NOT necessarily representative of the community as a whole.

Only a few people bother to even enter the forums, UNLESS they have a serious complaint. Even the, many will just leave or complain in chat, maybe slow down in games ... and perhaps eventually leave, but in ways that make the real reason they left hard to track.

If you are talking about an addition -- more games, more options, medals, etc. The "limited few" is fine. BUT if you are going to make large scale CHANGES, you really need to do a better job of checking with the community as a whole, and not just a few people.

Oddly enough, at least 100 people, including Team CC and players who visit the forum made comments or were given access to the system prior to it's launch to give feedback, that is not a "limited few" in my opinion, especially when a large majority of those on that list (yes, I made the list) are from all ranks, memberships, and styles of play. I think those 100 people provide a fairly accurate representation of the average CC player if you ask me.

As for the change, I know that you personally do frequent the forums PLAYER57832, and yet... your name is nowhere to be found on the list of people who gave comments regarding the upcoming change. Why is that? I'm just curious because it seems that if you are going to cry "unfair" that it was not given enough feedback, you really should have taken the time to give feedback on it yourself. I took my list from the people who posted in the official request for feedback thread.

The opportunity was given for feedback to be provided on the upcoming change. It would be foolish to ask thousands of players to come and post their comments, when a slice (of which 100 is pretty decent) will provide the same overall opinion.

Player I agree word about the change needed to get out to the masses. And everytime there's a change like this, I'll bring that up again as was done this time.

So we're all agreed the ratings are infantile nonsene? Good. Press the buttons, and revert to the old system.

How long does it take to archive games?

The answer to that and much more can be found on Instructions -> Ratings

They actually found a way out of retaliatory feedback with teh archiving. I like that. However I am annoyed that all of a sudden I got a negative rating from games that were already in teh feedback system. For example, someone who I gave a negative to on the feedback setting gave me a negative back... figured it was done, now the game is archived and I ALSO have a 1 star rating from the kid b/c he went back into the old games and left a poor rating as well. Now that's stupid imo.

FabledIntegral wrote:They actually found a way out of retaliatory feedback with teh archiving. I like that. However I am annoyed that all of a sudden I got a negative rating from games that were already in teh feedback system. For example, someone who I gave a negative to on the feedback setting gave me a negative back... figured it was done, now the game is archived and I ALSO have a 1 star rating from the kid b/c he went back into the old games and left a poor rating as well. Now that's stupid imo.

actually, je's the only one that gave you an accurate rating, i took a look at the game and chat, and i'd give exactly the same rating in fact.

zimmah wrote:

FabledIntegral wrote:They actually found a way out of retaliatory feedback with teh archiving. I like that. However I am annoyed that all of a sudden I got a negative rating from games that were already in teh feedback system. For example, someone who I gave a negative to on the feedback setting gave me a negative back... figured it was done, now the game is archived and I ALSO have a 1 star rating from the kid b/c he went back into the old games and left a poor rating as well. Now that's stupid imo.

actually, je's the only one that gave you an accurate rating, i took a look at the game and chat, and i'd give exactly the same rating in fact.

I never said it wasn't accurate - you obviously misinterpreted my post. I was referring to the fact that games that were already using hte feedback system was used. I'm not about to go back to every negative I've handed out and redo all the ratings. I figured what was done with was done with. Now, when that guy truly in my opinion deserved a negative just as much back, as my chat "retaliation" that you witnessed was when he continually attacked me down to 40 armies when pink had 150 armies on the map, and he CONTINUALLY did that turn by turn, did I speak up and criticize extensively. So yes, for fair play he would get a very low rating, most likely a 1 star by me, for suiciding aka throwing the game, which is explicitly against CC rules.

Concerning fair play - I did not miss turns, I did not suicide on anyone, nor did I do anything unsportsmanlike CONCERNING the game. Therefore you would be giving a retaliatory JUST as much as he did. You could dock me for attitude, which he did. Either way, I was only commenting on the fact that I could no longer give him a shit-piss poor rating for attitude AND fair play, which I would.

EDIT. And the only thing I actually said in gameplay, which everything was going fine UNTIL then, was

"2008-05-30 06:22:47 - FabledIntegral: You're both attacking me STILL, blue use your fucking head you dolt, you have 155 armies vs pink's 134 vs my 45 fucking armies, and I have LESS than half of EITHER of your deployments"

They were both using 100% of their armies vs me EVERY turn. For 3 turns in a row. We were equal at one point, and spontaneously, they all used 100% of their armies. How could I not suspect a secret alliance. I was deploying about 15 armies per turn, they were EACH getting 30, and they were both wiping at me. If you look at the logs I didn't complain like that until AFTER both attacked me - what "attitude" do you expect zimmah? Honestly. And he tried to even justify it - it wasn't until after I said I was going to give him a negative that he continued to just keep attacking me, willing to throw the game.

zimmah wrote:

retrocrush wrote:...
This new feedback system just makes everything a giant guessing game. "I wonder what they really meant with that rating." A "stars only" movie review sucks because you have no idea what sort of standards, problems, praises the critic had. The same goes for feedback like this.

in a 5 minute period it's hard to determine the difference between 3 and 5, so you might as well leave it blank for most speed games. in casual games however it matter if someone needs anything between 3 to 6 hours, 6 to 12 hours or 12 hours or longer for each turn to take. (3 to 6 hours being 5 stars, 6 to 12 being 4, and 12 or longer should be just the regular 3, or something)

I would disagree with you. Maybe it has to do with the way things are in school these days, where a 70% is viewed poorly, and an 80% is not bad, or in other words average. This new system's stars are 20%. I see a 60% (3 stars) as being poor. I would say the 'average' should be 5. That way the 'average player' who has the occasional slip-up will probably end up in the mid-4's, with the truly exceptional people maintaining perfect 5's or very high 4's. However other people have different ideas, and this makes ratings useless. There is no way to set a standard either. Even if the rating screen said 3/5/whatever stars are average, not everybody will follow that. Some won't read it, and some will naturally assume 3/5/whatever is average, despite what the page states, and rate based on that. It is more of a gut feeling than a thought out choice as to what average is. The positive/neutral/bad system wasn't subjective. There are good things and bad things, and times when they even each other out. Then you could comment so say how serious it was. The exceptional people stood out because they had many, many positives. The horrible stood out because of many, many negatives. It was simple, yet informative. This new system is neither. Well, it is simple in that it takes no real thought to rate somebody, but what the rating means is not simple in the least.

Wicked, I know you said to hold off on the complaining, but this is not something that will be fixed with time. True, the more ratings that are given the more this problem will become apparent. But we know it will be a problem now. Why is nothing being done to correct this?

Also, the lack of a rating for game play is a fatal flaw. As much as, say, a Colonel will want to play with somebody with a good attitude, they don't want to play somebody that will loose the game in the first 3 rounds. Sure, ranking is an indicator of skill, but somebody has to play the rankings game in order to maintain a good rank. Some people enjoy 8 player Doodle Assassin games, or other such games of chance.

Visaoni wrote:

zimmah wrote:

retrocrush wrote:...
This new feedback system just makes everything a giant guessing game. "I wonder what they really meant with that rating." A "stars only" movie review sucks because you have no idea what sort of standards, problems, praises the critic had. The same goes for feedback like this.

in a 5 minute period it's hard to determine the difference between 3 and 5, so you might as well leave it blank for most speed games. in casual games however it matter if someone needs anything between 3 to 6 hours, 6 to 12 hours or 12 hours or longer for each turn to take. (3 to 6 hours being 5 stars, 6 to 12 being 4, and 12 or longer should be just the regular 3, or something)

I would disagree with you. Maybe it has to do with the way things are in school these days, where a 70% is viewed poorly, and an 80% is not bad, or in other words average. This new system's stars are 20%. I see a 60% (3 stars) as being poor. I would say the 'average' should be 5. That way the 'average player' who has the occasional slip-up will probably end up in the mid-4's, with the truly exceptional people maintaining perfect 5's or very high 4's. However other people have different ideas, and this makes ratings useless. There is no way to set a standard either. Even if the rating screen said 3/5/whatever stars are average, not everybody will follow that. Some won't read it, and some will naturally assume 3/5/whatever is average, despite what the page states, and rate based on that. It is more of a gut feeling than a thought out choice as to what average is. The positive/neutral/bad system wasn't subjective. There are good things and bad things, and times when they even each other out. Then you could comment so say how serious it was. The exceptional people stood out because they had many, many positives. The horrible stood out because of many, many negatives. It was simple, yet informative. This new system is neither. Well, it is simple in that it takes no real thought to rate somebody, but what the rating means is not simple in the least.

Wicked, I know you said to hold off on the complaining, but this is not something that will be fixed with time. True, the more ratings that are given the more this problem will become apparent. But we know it will be a problem now. Why is nothing being done to correct this?

Also, the lack of a rating for game play is a fatal flaw. As much as, say, a Colonel will want to play with somebody with a good attitude, they don't want to play somebody that will loose the game in the first 3 rounds. Sure, ranking is an indicator of skill, but somebody has to play the rankings game in order to maintain a good rank. Some people enjoy 8 player Doodle Assassin games, or other such games of chance.

I disagree with you. Whether what is "considered" good in schools, teachers still attempt to perform bell curves, where a majority of students will receive C's. Maybe not done in middle school and high school where grades hardly reflected one's true performance, instead reflecting "effort" put into the subject (which we all know only end results matter). In college, most professors will attempt to make the majority (and therefore average) grade either a C or C+. It might be a slightly skewed curve, but generally they try to make bell curves with C/C+ as the average, and only the actual grades/ratings GIVEN out are what counts, not what they are viewed as. You can view an A- average if you want, and A as good, but it doesn't detract from C+ being the average grade given out.

Only responding to the first bit.

retrocrush wrote:So what will it take to concede this system isn't very helpful and just revert back? A poll?

Not sure it will help, but there is a poll in General Discussion, and I started a poll, and a suggestion in Suggs and Bugs.

FabledIntegral wrote:

zimmah wrote:

FabledIntegral wrote:They actually found a way out of retaliatory feedback with teh archiving. I like that. However I am annoyed that all of a sudden I got a negative rating from games that were already in teh feedback system. For example, someone who I gave a negative to on the feedback setting gave me a negative back... figured it was done, now the game is archived and I ALSO have a 1 star rating from the kid b/c he went back into the old games and left a poor rating as well. Now that's stupid imo.

actually, je's the only one that gave you an accurate rating, i took a look at the game and chat, and i'd give exactly the same rating in fact.

I never said it wasn't accurate - you obviously misinterpreted my post. I was referring to the fact that games that were already using hte feedback system was used. I'm not about to go back to every negative I've handed out and redo all the ratings. I figured what was done with was done with. Now, when that guy truly in my opinion deserved a negative just as much back, as my chat "retaliation" that you witnessed was when he continually attacked me down to 40 armies when pink had 150 armies on the map, and he CONTINUALLY did that turn by turn, did I speak up and criticize extensively. So yes, for fair play he would get a very low rating, most likely a 1 star by me, for suiciding aka throwing the game, which is explicitly against CC rules.

Concerning fair play - I did not miss turns, I did not suicide on anyone, nor did I do anything unsportsmanlike CONCERNING the game. Therefore you would be giving a retaliatory JUST as much as he did. You could dock me for attitude, which he did. Either way, I was only commenting on the fact that I could no longer give him a shit-piss poor rating for attitude AND fair play, which I would.

EDIT. And the only thing I actually said in gameplay, which everything was going fine UNTIL then, was

"2008-05-30 06:22:47 - FabledIntegral: You're both attacking me STILL, blue use your fucking head you dolt, you have 155 armies vs pink's 134 vs my 45 fucking armies, and I have LESS than half of EITHER of your deployments"

They were both using 100% of their armies vs me EVERY turn. For 3 turns in a row. We were equal at one point, and spontaneously, they all used 100% of their armies. How could I not suspect a secret alliance. I was deploying about 15 armies per turn, they were EACH getting 30, and they were both wiping at me. If you look at the logs I didn't complain like that until AFTER both attacked me - what "attitude" do you expect zimmah? Honestly. And he tried to even justify it - it wasn't until after I said I was going to give him a negative that he continued to just keep attacking me, willing to throw the game.

i ment the one for attitude basicly, fair play i can't really judge since i didn't play that game. either way in game chat i saw you swearing and cursing a lot, and yes, i understand you complain about such situations, but at the rate you complained i'd surely give you a 2 star rating. as for fair play, just a standrad 3 (i give everyone a 3 unless i suspect them of intentionally ruining the game) and as for attendance, i guess a 3 also (also just normal) so i'd basicly give you almost the same rating as he did.

however, if i was in your position, i;d also probably curse a bit (however maybe a bit less, still i'd curse and swear a little bit) and i would definitly give them a 2 or maybe even a 1 (if they are really that bad) for fair play, and for attitude a 1 or 2 also (depending on how bad they behave) attendence wouldn't get affected by it since that has nothing to do with personality, just the playing speed.

Visaoni wrote:

zimmah wrote:

retrocrush wrote:...
This new feedback system just makes everything a giant guessing game. "I wonder what they really meant with that rating." A "stars only" movie review sucks because you have no idea what sort of standards, problems, praises the critic had. The same goes for feedback like this.

in a 5 minute period it's hard to determine the difference between 3 and 5, so you might as well leave it blank for most speed games. in casual games however it matter if someone needs anything between 3 to 6 hours, 6 to 12 hours or 12 hours or longer for each turn to take. (3 to 6 hours being 5 stars, 6 to 12 being 4, and 12 or longer should be just the regular 3, or something)

I would disagree with you. Maybe it has to do with the way things are in school these days, where a 70% is viewed poorly, and an 80% is not bad, or in other words average. This new system's stars are 20%. I see a 60% (3 stars) as being poor. I would say the 'average' should be 5. That way the 'average player' who has the occasional slip-up will probably end up in the mid-4's, with the truly exceptional people maintaining perfect 5's or very high 4's. However other people have different ideas, and this makes ratings useless. There is no way to set a standard either. Even ihen they even each other out. Then you could comment so say how serious if the rating screen said 3/5/whatever stars are average, not everybody will follow that. Some won't read it, and some will naturally assume 3/5/whatever is average, despite what the page states, and rate based on that. It is more of a gut feeling than a thought out choice as to what average is. The positive/neutral/bad system wasn't subjective. There are good things and bad things, and times wt was. The exceptional people stood out because they had many, many positives. The horrible stood out because of many, many negatives. It was simple, yet informative. This new system is neither. Well, it is simple in that it takes no real thought to rate somebody, but what the rating means is not simple in the least.

Wicked, I know you said to hold off on the complaining, but this is not something that will be fixed with time. True, the more ratings that are given the more this problem will become apparent. But we know it will be a problem now. Why is nothing being done to correct this?

Also, the lack of a rating for game play is a fatal flaw. As much as, say, a Colonel will want to play with somebody with a good attitude, they don't want to play somebody that will loose the game in the first 3 rounds. Sure, ranking is an indicator of skill, but somebody has to play the rankings game in order to maintain a good rank. Some people enjoy 8 player Doodle Assassin games, or other such games of chance.

you're the one with different idea's here. it's officially 3 stars = average. and it's hard to miss, it's all over the place.

btw, doodle earth sucks, it's totaly random, especially 8 player doodles. the map is fun to play yes, but not with 8 players, some doodle assasin games even end in 1 round (even before anyone else could even take his turn!) now what's the fun of losing a game you haven't even played?