Conquer Club

As far as private games go... I think it's just easier to leave the blocks off them. 99% of us are going to be inviting players we want to play with anyways, and if I have to go switch the block off just to let them in and then switch it back on to cover my public games, it's just unnecessary work if you ask me.

In regards to the mutual withdrawal... I say it's not really needed. Like Lack said before, things are definitely going to average out over time, so if you get 5 not-so-great ratings out of 50 in total it isn't going to hurt you that much.

I have a feeling that "ratings" will be much more used than feedback has been so the number of ratings a player receives is going to be much higher than the feedback counts are now. Especially if I can rate a player multiple times over the course of playing them time and time again.

I know that I personally will be rating players almost 100% of the time, and I think many other players will follow suit.

Can the ratings be anonymous?

This way there won't be revenge feedback since you will know you've played a game against this player but you won't know who left you the bad rating.

Unfortunately their might be some abuse with this system as well but I think it's a valid alternative.

wicked wrote:One question still to be decided is if the blocks should apply to private games. Thoughts?

think I already posted, but I'd like the block to be optional (if not in the UCP, then definitely on a game by game basis).

Which also reminds me, I may have overlooked it, but how do newbs fit into the auto-block system? it would suck if they could only play with people with low ratings rather than the unquestionably 4.9 rated people (*cough* wac *cough*)

Oh, one more thing I just thought of... will I be able to "remove" a rating at any time, like I can for feedback now? Say I rated someone 5 months ago, and felt that they had grown and didn't deserve that rating anymore, I could give them a new rating from a more recent game and remove the old one so it doesn't count against them anymore.

Not a big deal, mostly just curious to see the thoughts on that.

I agree with wicked, the low rating block should be delayed. Then it should be implemented at a test level, which can be adjusted after a month or so if the number needs changing. I think the mutual feedback removal is a good idea, but I would like to see it in use before making a final judgment. I agree with Optimus on the private games issue.

I agree with Bruceswar 100%. I like the wall kinda thing and the ratings in theory are a good idea but in practise i learn far more from reading negative or positive feedback than i would from looking at a bunch of stars.

At the heat of the moment you get pissed off sometimes but dont actually bother to write anything. Then you cool down and think its only game and maybe the player wasnt all that bad. But with the stars its done and dusted.

It also takes the human elemnt out of feedback.

If i see a well constricted negative feedback without swearing i tend to believe it. A opposed to seeing you COCK, suck me mom's pussy blah blah.....

The low-rating block, (when/if implemented), should be an option on all public and private games (not tournament). I understand Optie's point about why would you invite someone you don't want to play against, but I'd like to reiterate my earlier comment about the private games that are filled through the call-outs forum. Just because someone has a similar score to me, does not mean they're "nice".

Optimus Prime wrote:Oh, one more thing I just thought of... will I be able to "remove" a rating at any time, like I can for feedback now? Say I rated someone 5 months ago, and felt that they had grown and didn't deserve that rating anymore, I could give them a new rating from a more recent game and remove the old one so it doesn't count against them anymore.

You can't remove it. What you can do is play them again and within that week before archival, re-rate them. In re-rating, you could set everything to "no rating", so in a sense remove it. You'll only ever have one rating for a player.

Exile, yes blocks would be optional and default would be set to Off. And good point about the new players.... here's what lack had written on the first page: Specifically, those with overall ratings of 2.0 stars lower than yours will be blocked from joining games that you have joined (provided their overall rating is based on at least 20 individual ratings). Is 20 too high? too low? about right?

Ruben, anonymity would lead to more abuse than being held accountable for your ratings.

wicked wrote:

Optimus Prime wrote:Oh, one more thing I just thought of... will I be able to "remove" a rating at any time, like I can for feedback now? Say I rated someone 5 months ago, and felt that they had grown and didn't deserve that rating anymore, I could give them a new rating from a more recent game and remove the old one so it doesn't count against them anymore.

You can't remove it. What you can do is play them again and within that week before archival, re-rate them. In re-rating, you could set everything to "no rating", so in a sense remove it. You'll only ever have one rating for a player.

Aaah, so my most recent rating of a player is the only one that will show up on their list then, correct? So I am simply overriding the previous one if I play them again. That would work just fine for me.

wicked wrote:How about new players are exempt until they have X amount of ratings?

This would be a great solution. It allows the new players to show their mettle against the higher rated players in some public games to start and then they can get say... 10 or 15 ratings before they have one displayed. I don't see why that wouldn't work.

wicked wrote:How about new players are exempt until they have X amount of ratings?

Good idea - anything else would be (imo) going against the no blocking low ranks, anyway.

you guys are too quick! Lack had already posted 20... see edited post.

20 ratings seems about right for the purposes of the rating block. I do think the new players should have a rating displayed before 20 though...

I think 4 things:
Ratings are good, but I think there should be an optional COMMENTS BOX to fill in
People Cannot be blocked until they have recieved 20 ratings
Players have motivation to rate, lets be fair I have 45 out of 54. What's my motivation to rate players. If I don't like them I can foe them in 2 clicks, during the game. If I like them I have to wait til the end of the game and click leave ratings. Nothing against the system but without motivation we will get the same problems

Optimus Prime wrote:20 ratings seems about right for the purposes of the rating block. I do think the new players should have a rating displayed before 20 though...

Optimus, why, new players cannot have a true reading until 20 feedback

max is gr8 wrote:

Optimus Prime wrote:20 ratings seems about right for the purposes of the rating block. I do think the new players should have a rating displayed before 20 though...

Optimus, why, new players cannot have a true reading until 20 feedback

That's not true. You could show the average rating of a player at 10 ratings and it won't be that skewed. It will take a little while for a new player to get those 10 anyways because even if they play 6 player games you can't promise that all 5 opponents in each game are going to rate them, and besides, you have to wait for those games to finish first which could take a few days or even a couple of weeks.

It makes sense to let the original rating of a new player take effect somewhat sooner both to make them feel like they've accomplished something and that they can see how they are doing so they can begin making adjustments before they hit the 20 rating mark and the potential rating block comes into effect.

Since there will be a lot of fluctuation within those first few ratings, perhaps we should hide the rating until a player has X ratings given? Maybe 5? 10?

wicked wrote:Since there will be a lot of fluctuation within those first few ratings, perhaps we should hide the rating until a player has X ratings given? Maybe 5? 10?

Why not just include the number of different players who have given them ratings? Then we could see for ourselves how "accurate" the rating is. If someone has all 1's but have only been rated by one opponent, I'd be more willing to play them than someone who's averaging 2 stars over hundreds of ratings.

How many ratings you have is already included on your ratings page. I can see this working two ways. New people will get excited about getting their first rating, so long as it's good. If it's one bad rating from one bad apple, even though we know it won't mean much coming from the bad apple, it will serve to turn off the new player.

wicked, I like your suggestion of having the ratings hidden. Would it be possible to have the ratings hidden from all other users until 10 ratings are received? So, only I can see the first 10 ratings that I receive, but after that everyone can see. Also, seeing how many people have left ratings might still be skewed. I can rate someone, but only leave a rating in one category. If the first 10 people to leave a rating do this, the overall rating is based on 10 numbers out of the possible 40 (if everyone rated all 4 categories). Given that singles games should not have a teamwork rating, this is down to 30. So would it look better if someone had a 3.5 based on 10 people leaving one category each, or 3.25 based on 10 people leaving all categories?

wicked wrote:Since there will be a lot of fluctuation within those first few ratings, perhaps we should hide the rating until a player has X ratings given? Maybe 5? 10?

That's what I was saying.

Optimus Prime wrote:

wicked wrote:Since there will be a lot of fluctuation within those first few ratings, perhaps we should hide the rating until a player has X ratings given? Maybe 5? 10?

That's what I was saying.

I think wicked was suggesting hiding it from the player himself too.

Right now, hiding ratings isn't really on the table - the pros are that you get a more accurate rating of the person. the cons are that you lose being able to tell a good newbie from a bad one. We'd also lose a little bit that warm fuzzy feeling that keeps a lot of newbies on the site: something like 85% of all feedback currently left is positive. showing off those positives is a big boost for a lot of people, especially newbies. I wonder if we wouldn't lose some of that.

As to pre-populating the wall - the reasons for not populating it is that it is not intended for feedback, which it seems to have already been pigeonholed for, and populating the wall will only solidify it in that role. Think of the wall as more akin to in-game chat, just outside of the game. It's not for feedback, it's for fun. It's not for flaming either, which is why we will moderate it in cases of blatant abuse, and why people have the ability to moderate their own wall

blocking private games is a mistake in my personal opinion. The number of people who would benefit from the call-out private games is tiny compared to those who would be negatively affected by normal private games.
If you want to make sure that people below a certain rating aren't joining a "captains only" game posted in callouts, you can do it the same way you limit it to only captains - create a "3.5* captains only" league.

As for the gameplay and definitions of existing catagories: the rating system is designed to understand the player, not their ability. Yes, rank has its flaws, but so does rating someone on gameplay you may not understand. We see so many feedbacks every day that are "he attacked me! fool! ignore!" that to add "gameplay" as a rating would only end up with this crap continuing.
The definitions are not set in stone, if you have better definitions, feel free to propose them, we'd love to hear 'em

i love the idea of the wall

i dunno if this has been suggested or whatever but when you add the wall add a new option in control panel to receive a pm or email when some1 writes on your wall

This system is setup to fail from the get go. Without a separate tab for game play or some sorta written comment that will stand and not be taken off ASAP makes this hold little value. Who cares how nice a person is? Big deal if you get called an f'ing idiot, retard or asshole. 95% of the time you did something to deserve it. I mean what are people supposed to cry if I call them a retard? This is 2008 and not 1950! This whole idea sportsmanship will include game play is total BS! A number tells me nothing about why they were rated low! I would even setting for a drop box with radio buttons you could select. Such as....

Suicided
Terrible Move(s)
Killed the wrong Target - For assassin games
etc etc etc

Check all that apply

Without knowing what happened good or bad this will just be meaningless numbers. A good idea that has gone completely sour!

Bruceswar wrote:This system is setup to fail from the get go. With a separate tab for game play or some sorta written comment that will stand and not be taken off ASAP makes this hold little value. Who cares how nice a person is? Big deal if you get called an f'ing idiot, retard or asshole. 95% of the time you did something to deserve it. I mean what are people supposed to cry if I call them a retard? This is 2008 and not 1950! This whole idea sportsmanship will include game play is total BS! A number tells me nothing about why they were rated low! I would even setting for a drop box with radio buttons you could select. Such as....

Suicided
Terrible Move(s)
Killed the wrong Target - For assassin games
etc etc etc

Check all that apply



Without knowing what happened good or bad this will just be meaningless numbers. A good idea that has gone completely sour!

I disagree I think if you see they recieved a bad rating from a player you should take the initiative to veiw the game and log and figure it out yourself I do that all the time based upon the current system and will do the same with the new system. THat is the easiest and most practical way since what you consider an idiotic move and what I consider an idiotic move may differentiate. This new system will resolve the midles feedbacks that have to moderated and people will think a little harder before they act it is essentially a grading system outside of base score and I love it so far...