Moderator: Community Team
Night Strike wrote:ubcman64 wrote:what i'd rather see than a rating system (since the current system is of almost no value imho) is more of an informational listing of TO's. a listing that would give all their stats such as tournaments started and finished. whether the have any abandoned tournaments. types of tournaments run, size of tournament, length of time to complete, and so on.
i think seeing this type of information would help a person determine if they want to participate in a particular TO's tournament, better than any rating system would do. think of it as CC's version of the Better Business Bureau, without the grading. my 2 cents.
The first half of those things are already in the Tournament Database and the second half are already suggestions for future updates of the database.
chapcrap wrote:I still support something like this.
Here is a very similar suggestion: https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 1&t=155893
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Night Strike wrote: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?
Night Strike wrote: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.
greenoaks wrote: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.
greenoaks wrote:quality TO's already fill tournaments quickly, poor or new TO's struggle.
this suggestion will not add anything.
GoranZ wrote:Night Strike wrote: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?
Everyone participant in a game can rate other players even he was eliminated before taking his very first turn(Example 8 player game, 8-th player eliminated from 7-th in Round 1 etc...). I see no problem in this, he participated.
GoranZ wrote:greenoaks wrote: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.
My proposal is about quality control, nothing else. Less work for Tournament Directors(the general public will influence the quality of the tournaments), higher quality tournaments and ultimately better game experience.
Dukasaur wrote: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.
Metsfanmax wrote:Dukasaur wrote:chapcrap wrote:I still support something like this.
Here is a very similar suggestion: viewtopic.php?f=471&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.
There's an important difference in that this proposal has a rating after every tournament, whereas the other proposal is more general and could in principle allow anyone to vote on TOs, regardless of number of tournaments participated in.
chapcrap wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:Dukasaur wrote: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.
There's an important difference in that this proposal has a rating after every tournament, whereas the other proposal is more general and could in principle allow anyone to vote on TOs, regardless of number of tournaments participated in.
I think that another essential difference between the two is that the other one just advocated rating/rating tags of some kind. There was no talk of medal deprivation.
greenoaks wrote:i don't believe we should change things because the OP has a problem with 1 TO.
NoSurvivors wrote:greenoaks wrote:i don't believe we should change things because the OP has a problem with 1 TO.
I was waiting for someone to say that.
Funkyterrance wrote:NoSurvivors wrote:greenoaks wrote:i don't believe we should change things because the OP has a problem with 1 TO.
I was waiting for someone to say that.
Then why didn't you say it?
WILLIAMS5232 wrote:i'd sure like to see something like this suggestion happen. instead of all the clunky adjustments on game finder page. ( which irritate me to no end )
for the record i am against taking away a medal for a succesfully completed tournament.... no matter how badly it was run. RL stuff happens and where would the line be drawn. some of my tournaments are pretty wild in style and i'm not sure how to set them up. so it's kind of like a trial run to make adjustments for a "better" sequel.
so. i support a ratings system. just not having people strip you of a medal just because they did not get what they expected out of the tourney.
Return to Archived Suggestions
Users browsing this forum: No registered users