New Feedback System Preview

[bringiton4]

This looks good, except this category called Attendance.

Mentioned earlier in the thread as well, but sorta died off. Why can't we get actual site calculated numbers on % turns missed, % games kicked out for missing three turns?

I know it's been mentioned that some people don't care about these numbers. Great, they won't read them. Frankly, these are probably the SINGLE most important numbers - I HATE waiting 15 minutes in my speed games for people to just leave without even mentioning it.

I realize attendance might capture this somewhat, but a automated system is far more accurate and neutral.

[max is gr8]

I would never mark someone on attendence, I have a social life and so do other people, to be honest I think the section should be speed games only, casual games I expect every player to miss at least one turn

[moonarus]

great idea! thanks for doing this guys. one idea.... maybe you have to have a certain rating to promote.....? just an idea....!

[bringiton4]

I understand your point about casual players, Max. Fair enough.

Then let's have it for speed only. I just want to have a fool-proof way built in so that I can TELL who consistently deadbeats and misses turns, in speed games (where, by definition, you should generally not).

[Twill]

Think of these situations though.....

.... posting games in callouts (either chat or forums)... you don't know who's going to join

.... the "rank" games in callouts, where large groups of people have a common group password and new people you don't know get the password daily

Is there any valid reason not to include block in private games? Would it hurt anything/anyone to include it?

Tourney games and Battle Royales will NOT be included if blocks are allowed for private games.

The number of games created in callouts is *tiny* in comparison to the number created by friends and clans.

To say that the 95% of people who create private games have to switch off their block (if they have it on) to play with their friends or clan mates/challenges so that the 5% who are creating a rank game (which they can just as easily make a rank/rating game) is a mistake in my opinion.

Mentioned earlier in the thread as well, but sorta died off. Why can't we get actual site calculated numbers on % turns missed, % games kicked out for missing three turns?

That's a whole other beast and requires a whole other chunk of code outside the scope of this update. Yes, it may come in the future, but until then a crowdsourced option is going to have to do

Moderating - It seems a bit strange that both players rating should be deleted if only one of them is questioned but any way could work as long as it's mutual. No staff moderating (generally speaking) should be fine too.

the reason for mutual withdrawl is to remove the

"mine is fine, remove yours." "no, mine is fine, remove YOURS" "OK, you remove yours first"

That can go on for surprisingly long...

Added ideas - I have posted about this earlier (and seen others do too). There needs to be a time dimension to the feedback/rating too, i.e anything older than 12-18 months or more than 250-500 games away should just be discarded and never shown again. A rookie making stupid moves or a jerk being set straight shouldn't have to suffer indefinately for his/hers mistakes, and if they persist with playing/behaving like crap their newer ratings will show that anyway.

If you get a couple negs then 250-500 games down the line the averaging out of that is going to be so insignificant that it's essentially the same thing (unless you were a REALLY bad player for a REALLY long time)

[ParadiceCity9]

Can somebody generous being summarize what's happened in the past few pages?

[wicked]

The number of games created in callouts is *tiny* in comparison to the number created by friends and clans.

Just quoting that because I know you can't back it up with any actual data. This varies by user.... significantly. What you just made up there applies to people in clans sure, but not to everyone here.

It all depends on what types of games you most often play. There are some people who only play clan games, yet others who are in chat callouts nightly looking for realtime games. Both types of players would have different needs in terms of blocking people; the latter would want the block in place on private games. In chat and in the callouts forum, you post a number and have no clue who may join. So how can you make the block work for those people as well? I personally don't care either way, just trying to come up with a system that works for everyone, not just those in clans.

[codeblue1018]

Or a simple fix as previously stated; rid the feedback system outright. Play the games as they are meant to be played. This is a game site not a popularity contest. Your rank determines your ability. Plain and simple!

[AndyDufresne]

Or a simple fix as previously stated; rid the feedback system outright. Play the games as they are meant to be played. This is a game site not a popularity contest. Your rank determines your ability. Plain and simple!

That creates more problems than it solves really.


--Andy

[edbeard]

Regarding the private games blocking and callouts. I think it was you, Wicked, who said they could always create a '2000 points +' and '3.5 rating +' callout thread. But, I think an optional tag seems more appropriate because if I pay my money and want to play a private game with someone, I should be able to play with ANYONE I want.


Anyway, I think it's obvious this is an inferior system. You're just not going to get the same knowledge from being able to read what people say in negative feedbacks. The amount of work it took to moderate shows how good the system was. If it's good, it'll be hard to upkeep. But, it was definitely too much work to moderate so it had to change.

The good thing about the system is you'll be able to see a wider range of a player's reputation. But, I'm not sure how much of a benefit this is. Before you could really only see the really bad players. These are pretty much the ones all people want to avoid.

It seems like abuse is much easier on this because of the anonymity. You don't have to worry so much about retaliation I guess. Though, if I have a 3.8 rating and after a game I have a 3.5 rating, then I know someone gave me a bad review!


One thing I think will definitely happen is people who I gave negative feedbacks to and tried to give me retaliatory feedbacks will give me low ratings. Or even just the ones I gave the negatives. I think this will be commonplace and to be honest I'd prefer if you could just lock the old rating system and start this new one fresh. That way the old ratings can't be abused. Being able to see what people actually wrote is way more informative and throwing those away seems foolish.

[waiwai933]

I have a question. If a "low rating block" is implemented without optional On or Offs, how would someone with a common rating below 2.0 be allowed to play any games?

[lackattack]

The number of games created in callouts is *tiny* in comparison to the number created by friends and clans.

To say that the 95% of people who create private games have to switch off their block (if they have it on) to play with their friends or clan mates/challenges so that the 5% who are creating a rank game (which they can just as easily make a rank/rating game) is a mistake in my opinion.

Did you forget about the friend list exemption?

I have a question. If a "low rating block" is implemented without optional On or Offs, how would someone with a common rating below 2.0 be allowed to play any games?

If it was not optional, players with 1.8 would have to either start their own games or stick to joining games with players of 3.8 stars or less.

[Optimus Prime]

It seems like abuse is much easier on this because of the anonymity. You don't have to worry so much about retaliation I guess. Though, if I have a 3.8 rating and after a game I have a 3.5 rating, then I know someone gave me a bad review!

However, there is no anonymity. When the ratings appear after the game has been archived you will see who gave you that rating. Also, once you get past 15-20 ratings (which I believe will happen VERY quickly) you aren't going to see a shift from 3.8 to 3.5 in just one game. Unless all 5 other players in a game gave you 1s across the board (unlikely).

One thing I think will definitely happen is people who I gave negative feedbacks to and tried to give me retaliatory feedbacks will give me low ratings. Or even just the ones I gave the negatives. I think this will be commonplace and to be honest I'd prefer if you could just lock the old rating system and start this new one fresh. That way the old ratings can't be abused. Being able to see what people actually wrote is way more informative and throwing those away seems foolish.

You know, he does make a pretty good point here. Perhaps the 2 week grace period to "re-rate" someone using your old feedback isn't worth the hassle. Just pre-populate the walls with the previous comments, let the owner of the wall sort through them at their leisure, and off we go!

[edbeard]

I'd rather they just stay in a separate section. Who isn't going to remove their negative feedbacks if placed on the wall? There's no point to put the option if everyone is going to remove them. As I said, if we delete the old feedbacks or put them in places where they have the option to be deleted, we're throwing away useful information.

[Timminz]

The number of games created in callouts is *tiny* in comparison to the number created by friends and clans.

To say that the 95% of people who create private games have to switch off their block (if they have it on) to play with their friends or clan mates/challenges so that the 5% who are creating a rank game (which they can just as easily make a rank/rating game) is a mistake in my opinion.

Did you forget about the friend list exemption?

I'm not sure if this is the first reference to the 'friend list exemption', or if I just missed it before, but I think it's the perfect solution to the rating-block. Please don't remove the option from private games.

[Optimus Prime]

I'd rather they just stay in a separate section. Who isn't going to remove their negative feedbacks if placed on the wall? There's no point to put the option if everyone is going to remove them. As I said, if we delete the old feedbacks or put them in places where they have the option to be deleted, we're throwing away useful information.

But, some people that have negative feedbacks have them from a very long time ago, and they really might not have any worth anymore.

[ParadiceCity9]

I'd rather they just stay in a separate section. Who isn't going to remove their negative feedbacks if placed on the wall? There's no point to put the option if everyone is going to remove them. As I said, if we delete the old feedbacks or put them in places where they have the option to be deleted, we're throwing away useful information.

But, some people that have negative feedbacks have them from a very long time ago, and they really might not have any worth anymore.

ya like mine...

[edbeard]

It still happened. If a player wants to ignore whatever reason you had a negative feedback for because it was from two years ago that should be their decision. If they want to not play with you because of that they should be able to see it.

[lancehoch]

I'd rather they just stay in a separate section. Who isn't going to remove their negative feedbacks if placed on the wall? There's no point to put the option if everyone is going to remove them. As I said, if we delete the old feedbacks or put them in places where they have the option to be deleted, we're throwing away useful information.

Some people also leave inside jokes as negatives. I mean it would be pretty easy to have the person go and add it back onto the wall, but this is another option.

[Thezzaruz]

I personally don't care either way, just trying to come up with a system that works for everyone, not just those in clans.

Had a thought. If the block would be a preference/profile setting (as I guess it would be), why not make it 2 tic boxes? i.e one for public games and one for private. That ought to make everyone happy right???


I still think that the block idea is crap though because of the way it is meant to work. It seems wrong to me that the preferences of someone joining a game should affect who can/can't join after him even though the creator of the game (or others joining before) might not want it. (I have the same issue with the way the Foe-list works atm but that is for another thread).

[Thezzaruz]

Moderating - It seems a bit strange that both players rating should be deleted if only one of them is questioned but any way could work as long as it's mutual. No staff moderating (generally speaking) should be fine too.

the reason for mutual withdrawl is to remove the

"mine is fine, remove yours." "no, mine is fine, remove YOURS" "OK, you remove yours first"

That can go on for surprisingly long...

Very possible. I just see the situation where you give a guy a low rating while he gives you a high one. So why should you give up your high rating even if the low one you gave was a bit harsh???

Added ideas - I have posted about this earlier (and seen others do too). There needs to be a time dimension to the feedback/rating too, i.e anything older than 12-18 months or more than 250-500 games away should just be discarded and never shown again. A rookie making stupid moves or a jerk being set straight shouldn't have to suffer indefinitely for his/hers mistakes, and if they persist with playing/behaving like crap their newer ratings will show that anyway.

If you get a couple negs then 250-500 games down the line the averaging out of that is going to be so insignificant that it's essentially the same thing (unless you were a REALLY bad player for a REALLY long time)

Sure it averages out, I just don't see why they should weigh in at all when they aren't at all relevant anymore?

[gloryordeath]

Sorry if I missed this in the thread already. What would stop groups of friends, or clans from getting together and passing out top ratings for everyone? Just to make them look better.

[Night Strike]

Sorry if I missed this in the thread already. What would stop groups of friends, or clans from getting together and passing out top ratings for everyone? Just to make them look better.

Nothing, so what's the problem? If you're in a clan with someone, chances are pretty high that you like playing games with them and would rate them high anyway.

The only problem is if a clan bans together to give someone ELSE a bad rating.

[AndyDufresne]

The only problem is if a clan bans together to give someone ELSE a bad rating.

Which would most likely fall under "Gross Abuse" and would then be punishable.


--Andy

[gloryordeath]

I was saying more like giving everyone 5 stars in everything just because your in the same clan or telling your buddies to do it for you and you'll do it back. Then it becomes a who do you know not how good are you really.