[26-Jul-2008] Ratings Reloaded

[Raf_THFC]

Good stuff - thanks guys.

[maique]

maique, there was an intentional move away from "bad, neutral, good" for various reasons. There has been some discussion in the community consultation of moving back towards that, so head on over there and see what's been said and add your voice!

Thanks for the info Twill, but i had already read the entirety of the latest community consultation and had already added my comment, or rather, testament to the discussion. But mine was the last one before the most recent update, so I thought I might as well make a shorter and more to the point comment here as it would more likely be read.

1 to 5 ratings are too nuanced to get everyone on the same note, i think. And CC should be about the game more than the nuances of how one rates or gets rated.
It should be intuitive, not based on a ruleset that's unenforceable, unenforced and not followed (even if were not followed by "only" 25% of raters, it would still make the rating guidelines sort of invalid or, better put, irrelevant).
So pardon me for insisting on a 3 point scale, whatever you want to call each individual step. (And insist I must that "Average" will put people off, whilst "neutral" was just that)

There are people suggesting that everyone in a game should rate for a person to be rated, or something to that effect.. This doesn't make too much sense to me. I understand them wanting to weed out the more irrational ratings, but just use the feedback response. I really don't think rating should be compulsory. Quite the contrary, I'd rather someone not say anything rather than rate for no reason...

...or coz they want a stupid medal. Have I said I find the Ratings Medal absolutely ridiculous and counter productive? Even if your only intention were to get people to rate so you could have more test cases to improve the rating framework, just asking would be fine. The medal doesn't necessarily create a critical mass of valid ratings).

[Rivertrance]

thanks for the upgrade. It was bothersome when there were so many deadbeats in the speed games!

THUMBS UP!

[Roveriver]

I'm still relatively new to this. What is everyone's definition of a "deadbeat?" The attendance % of turns taken on time is great and seems to eliminate the need for a 1-5 star rating for attendance.
As for deadbeats, if there's the expectation for players to take their turn every 3 hours, or whatever the expectation is, then don't enter a game that has 24 hour time limit for a turn. I've never played in a speed game, and unless I have zero responsibilities in real life [I'm not suggesting speed game players DON'T have responsibilities ] I will continue to shy away from them.
So, is a "deadbeat" someone who waits until the "eleventh hour" to make every single move?

BTW, when the budget affords, I'll be upgrading to premium as this is an awesome site

[whitestazn88]

no, a deadbeat is someone who doesn't show up for turns at all...

i suppose you could think of it as you're beating the dead, because the dead aren't doing anything anyhow

[dogwood8]

This looks like a step in the right direction, but I don't think I like seeing the "Attendance" value disappear. I recently played a game with a player who waited until the 23rd (and 1/2) hour on each of his turns. The fact that he showed up consistantly is going to boost his attendance %, but his prior rating was quite low because he (or she?) was ranked low in that category.

Any chance we could have BOTH the meter and the attendance category?

~Storm~

[hulmey]

The Attendance meter isnt working well!!!

Username: DomQuebec Rank: Colonel Score: 2657 Games: 2327 completed, 1147 (49%) won | Find all games with DomQuebec Attendance: 98% of turns taken

He is a serial deadbeater. If he is losing he deabeats.HOw could he possibly have 98%??

[PepperJack]

Instead of the rating wouldn't it more useful to have an average time to take start turns included with percentage of turns taken? It would have to have casual and speed games separated but it offers more utility than just the percentage on it own.

[tender]

Good changes. Thanks for the better system of rating other players.

Any reason why the attendance can't be at the top of the ratings page instead of buried in the profile? They are really both integral parts of the overall conduct of an individual player as seen by the other players. Having associated data on two different screens is a bit awkward to use.

Here here.
I like this update better than the last, that's for sure.

[ahunda]

I liked the old feedback system better than the ratings. It was telling me more about the respective player, and it was often fun to read. But I don´t care enough to really get involved in all the discussions & threads about the issue.

I have one complaint though: Since positive ratings for Team-Play were obviously automatically translated into "Good Teammate" tags, I have now several of those tags from people, that I never was on a team with. I didn´t understand, why those people were allowed to give me a Team-Play Rating anyway. It´s kind of stupid ...

[DarkMalkin]

The new improved system is great. Twill said something about more to come, after enough tags... curious about that.

Now, browsing a little through my recently finished games, I realised almost no player has the Gameplay ratings... (tags were obvious)... kinda a lot of work of adding the gameplay... were I remember what happened...

Anyway, this system is much better and the tags offer a possibility to describe what the game "felt" like. Being able to answer to ratings is also great, since one of the things that really buged me on my 3rd or 4th game, here on CC, was a 3-3-3 rating for no good reason. Alright, maybe the fairplay and other one are opened for discussion, but as for attendance, I took my turns in less then 4 hours, as opposed to players who took 20+ hours and received from that player a 5 star rate for attendance. I received a 3-3-3 because I was a newbie. That's dumb. And all the discussion about the ratings was fairly pointless, as it was obvious (and someone said this... somewhere) that a 5-5-5 was positive, 3-3-3 neutral and 1-1-1 negative. Now that you can answer to a rating, you can point out to the unjustified ones.

Great job!

Edit: When I say the discussions were fairly pointless, I' reffering to how the ratings were used by most and how those discussions couldn't change that.

[fishydance]

I have one complaint though: Since positive ratings for Team-Play were obviously automatically translated into "Good Teammate" tags, I have now several of those tags from people, that I never was on a team with. I didn´t understand, why those people were allowed to give me a Team-Play Rating anyway. It´s kind of stupid ...

I concur. I have a bad team play rating from someone who was not on my team. I played one game against him and beat him. How is that team play rating relevant?

Another concern I have is the speed in casual games. I sometimes play with persons who are on the other side of the world. Often they are sleeping when I play, and I am sleeping when they play. It seems unfair to expect quick turnaround in such a situation, and giving (or getting) a low rating doesn't seem right.

[yeti_c]

Great stuff Lack...

Although - I'm wondering where the Tag Clouds are?!

Are they coming in the next update?!

C.

[rgbubba]

I agree, this rating system is what we needed. Thanks!

[Androidz]

Pretty good stuff but regiveing every1 gameplay star is dumb. :/