Forum

by **patrickaa317** on Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:09 pm

GoranZ wrote:
patrickaa317 wrote:Is this a FALLEN only thread?

I posted it in our clan forum section, asking opinions... that's why majority of the players that replied are from FALLEN, hopefully this will be only in the beginning

patrickaa317 wrote:It is a great theory but I don't think it'll really add anything.

Look at my proposal this way: I have participated in 1 of your tournaments and your tournament is light years ahead from some others that I currently participate in. And the medal you receive has the same value as the medal that others will receive for tournaments that can not be compared. Reason enough for me to continue to work on my suggestion.

I get where you are coming from with this suggestion, I think the theory is really great but if there are TO's that you don't like how they are running the tourney, request they replace you and then you don't have to worry about it. If you don't want to get replaced, then obviously you don't mind playing in a poorly ran tournament which makes the ratings system irrelevant.

by **Funkyterrance** on Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:39 pm

Seems like this would be used/appreciated by a pretty small percentage of players.

by **Dukasaur** on Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:45 pm

greenoaks wrote:if this is implemented i will stop organising tournaments.

i will not put the effort into running any more tourneys, however poorly it may be so some players can decide if my effort was up to their standard.

i put in all the effort, the tournament finished and a winner was declared. if you don't like how i ran it dont join any more.

You've got a good reputation, and you know that and we know that. But someone who is just starting to dip his feet into the tournament world doesn't know that yet. Why shouldn't there be a way for him to find out?

by **chapcrap** on Thu Nov 22, 2012 12:23 am

I still support something like this.

Here is a very similar suggestion: viewtopic.php?f=471&t=155893

by **Dukasaur** on Thu Nov 22, 2012 12:28 am

chapcrap wrote:I still support something like this.

Here is a very similar suggestion: https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 1&t=155893

Considering the poll on that was 29-2, I don't know why that was allowed to die.

And yeah, essentially the same proposal.

by **patrickaa317** on Thu Nov 22, 2012 12:36 am

Apparently I originally loved the idea. With that kind of flip flop, I should be running for public office!

by **koontz1973** on Thu Nov 22, 2012 1:14 am

This is not a bad suggestion and should/could be implemented. Why not just have the ratings on the organisers hall of fame page next to completed tournies.

by **DeluxeHazard** on Thu Nov 22, 2012 5:18 am

Not to be mean but I don't really like the suggestion. This could discourage people and they may stop making tournaments. I wouldn't create anymore tournaments if there was a possibility of not even getting a medal.

by **greenoaks** on Thu Nov 22, 2012 5:28 am

DeluxeHazard wrote:Not to be mean but I don't really like the suggestion. This could discourage people and they may stop making tournaments. I wouldn't create anymore tournaments if there was a possibility of not even getting a medal.

that's right, if mid way through a tournament things happen and it gets neglected there is no incentive to finish it off as the players are likely to vote you were crap.

by **koontz1973** on Thu Nov 22, 2012 5:36 am

greenoaks wrote:
DeluxeHazard wrote:Not to be mean but I don't really like the suggestion. This could discourage people and they may stop making tournaments. I wouldn't create anymore tournaments if there was a possibility of not even getting a medal.

that's right, if mid way through a tournament things happen and it gets neglected there is no incentive to finish it off as the players are likely to vote you were crap.

And a quick PM to players explaining does nothing. Some players will just be bloody minded and rate you for that two week holiday you had.

by **Night Strike** on Thu Nov 22, 2012 8:02 am

Most tournaments are bracket tournaments where half the participants are eliminated in the first round. Especially depending on the size of the tournament (larger tournaments would take longer), why should half the participants be allowed to rate an entire tournament when they only participated in 1 round of it?

As for the tournament set-up criteria: if people don't like the way the tournament is set-up, why are they joining it in the first place? The only way this criterion would be valid is if the organizer made a mistake and had to change the set-up in the middle of the tournament, otherwise, if a player joined the tournament, then they agreed that the set-up is good enough to play.

by **Dukasaur** on Thu Nov 22, 2012 8:24 am

greenoaks wrote:
DeluxeHazard wrote:Not to be mean but I don't really like the suggestion. This could discourage people and they may stop making tournaments. I wouldn't create anymore tournaments if there was a possibility of not even getting a medal.

that's right, if mid way through a tournament things happen and it gets neglected there is no incentive to finish it off as the players are likely to vote you were crap.

I don't honestly believe most people would give you a bad rating because you had to take a break. I think, just like player ratings, that the opposite will be true: most people will give you five stars regardless of how much you suck. So, just like player ratings, a really good TO will have a 4.8 average, while a really bad TO will have a 4.6. Again, just like player ratings, people will learn to gravitate toward the 4.8s and steer clear of the 4.6s.

by **greenoaks** on Thu Nov 22, 2012 9:56 am

Dukasaur wrote:
greenoaks wrote:
DeluxeHazard wrote:Not to be mean but I don't really like the suggestion. This could discourage people and they may stop making tournaments. I wouldn't create anymore tournaments if there was a possibility of not even getting a medal.

that's right, if mid way through a tournament things happen and it gets neglected there is no incentive to finish it off as the players are likely to vote you were crap.

I don't honestly believe most people would give you a bad rating because you had to take a break. I think, just like player ratings, that the opposite will be true: most people will give you five stars regardless of how much you suck. So, just like player ratings, a really good TO will have a 4.8 average, while a really bad TO will have a 4.6. Again, just like player ratings, people will learn to gravitate toward the 4.8s and steer clear of the 4.6s.

i suspect you are right on that, and many think we should do away with player ratings altogether. but that is a discussion for elsewhere.

if you haven't already guessed, i'm with NS on this. i don't believe we should change things because the OP has a problem with 1 TO.

by **chapcrap** on Thu Nov 22, 2012 10:28 am

To me, this isn't just about ratings, but rating tags. Being able to tag TO's as slow, fast, communicative, sends a lot of PMs, unorganized, uses invites, uses [to] tags for game invites, etc.

Having that information about TOs is good to know. Overall, it's hard to mess up a simple bracket tournament.

by **DoomYoshi** on Thu Nov 22, 2012 6:07 pm

agentcom wrote:Is there a big problem with users being consistently poor tourney organizers? If so, I fully support. Sounds like a great idea. If not, then it's just a question of whether this is worth it. I think the system needs tweaking though. Just like the 5-star system we have for ratings, your idea should probably be reduced to a Poor, Satisfactory, Excellent system or something similar. 5-star ratings systems don't really work well.

That encompasses everything I wanted to say.

agentcom is my multi. I am reporting him.