>> Descriptive tags for ratings

by **Gold Knight** on Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:29 pm

It might even be easier if CC made a list of comments, basically covering all the different aspects of a game, and make them similar to a link: select the links that are associated with that player, and it could tally how many people said a certain thing about this player, instead of having several differently worded comments that mean the same thing. I dont know yet exactly about my idea, still might be a little bit too complicated, but i feel that if we are abandoning individual feedback (which I prefer), that everything should be uniform to make things easier...

by **super Mario 009** on Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:42 pm

how about 'coward' if they attacks and/or eliminates the weakest player in a game, and 'fighter' if they go for the strongest player in a game.

by **gloryordeath** on Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:46 pm

super Mario 009 wrote:how about 'coward' if they attacks and/or eliminates the weakest player in a game, and 'fighter' if they go for the strongest player in a game.

how about "smart" and "dumb" if you want to put it that way... :roll:

by **super Mario 009** on Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:57 pm

gloryordeath wrote:
super Mario 009 wrote:how about 'coward' if they attacks and/or eliminates the weakest player in a game, and 'fighter' if they go for the strongest player in a game.

how about "smart" and "dumb" if you want to put it that way...

not really, if someone thinks they can attack the strongest player and break his bonuses and does it and keeps fighting and eventually wins then he would be fighter, but if he thinks he cant win so retreats and lets the other guy attack him and eliminate him then he would be coward.

by **gloryordeath** on Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:15 pm

bonuses don't always make a game smart placement and efficient troop use can out way trying to hold and keep bonuses.

by **super Mario 009** on Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:38 pm

i know, but let's say he gets lucky and beats the stronger guy.

by **gloryordeath** on Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:50 pm

so now we rate people for skill on how lucky they are? are you high? you jump on the mushrooms Mario you don't eat them.

by **stahrgazer** on Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:32 am

Stars not being used consistently isn't going to be fixable; not really. Some believe 3 is a great ranking if there was no problem, others believe 5 is what "no problem" should be given.

If a player chooses to rank 1 of the sections but not rate the others, the system reads that as ranking 1 star on the unranked part.

An Example:
Some players believe attendance is "poor" if a player simply couldn't be around at one of the other player's convenience, and rank that way even if the player giving the poor rating is the cause for a game going overlong beyond rt. (HUH??? What she say?) Player A mistakes his allotted time to play and departs a "real time" game 15 minutes after it began, then returns 24 hours later insisting it's now time for a realtime game. Player B cannot do realtime the second night. Player A rates B poorly and sticks to that ranking, refusing to accept that it is unreasonable.

An Example:
Player A and B grapple over a continent. Meanwhile, Player A attacks player C once, player B attacks player C once, but Player A gripes (wrongly) that Player B is not attacking Player C at all. Player A ranks Player B wrongly and refuses to correct it.

The point: CC cannot correct player idiocy and because it cannot, ranking is ineffective except at extremes (a 1 or 2 star player would be obvously bad, a 4 or 5 star player is obviously not bad but in between you cannot really tell).

Feel need to comment about a poor ranking? Suggestion: Write on your wall.

CC programmers, you did a good job. Perhaps only keep "x number" of rankings in the average?

by **super Mario 009** on Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:48 pm

gloryordeath wrote:so now we rate people for skill on how lucky they are? are you high? you jump on the mushrooms Mario you don't eat them.

then how do you think i get bigger and gain lives. :roll:

ok fine if you dont like those then how about 'logical' and 'illogical', and no they dont replace fighter and coward.

also how about ones that say if the player didnt get much attention and didnt get attacked much, and one for the opposite, saying the player got teamed-up by many opponents, and not necessarily because he was the strongest player. i dont know how to define those in one word.
maybe 'neutral country' and 'evil emperor' ?

by **Lexitonia5** on Sat Jun 28, 2008 12:49 pm

That would be and excellent addition to the rating systme.

by **PLAYER57832** on Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:50 pm

If tags are used, they need to be objective.

"suicided" is objective "stupid" is not really.

I think we have to be careful, though about tagging styles of play. I hate to say this but it really does seem( ... from reading old feedback, looking at the games, reading various complaints, suggestions and just commentaries within the forums... and looking at their games) that the highest majority of folks who complain about "skill" are really the ones with poor attitudes, the ones who themselves don't really have the best strategies.

They are the folks who want to blame others rather than improving their own play.

Everyone has a grouchy day now and then, but .... if you are having a problem with constantly having to "tolerate" poor players ... YOU might well be the one that is being "tolerated".

The exceptions are few...

by **KidWhisky** on Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:31 pm

It seems to me that this all getting really complicated. First we decide how many stars to give then we leave some tags that may or may not accuratly describe how we felt they played and then we need to have a system were we can respond to these tags. It would make a lot more sence to me just to bring back the old system. That we can say what we like in our own words. The easyest way to deal with complaints about inapropriate feedback is to leave it up to the players to work out. Plus its pretty easy to see when a player has left inapropirate or unfair feedback based on the reply and on the game chat ect. if you care enough to look for it. I guess I just really like the old system, it seemed a lot more personal and gave the site a better feeling of comunity.

by **hulmey** on Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:34 pm

KidWhisky wrote:It seems to me that this all getting really complicated. First we decide how many stars to give then we leave some tags that may or may not accuratly describe how we felt they played and then we need to have a system were we can respond to these tags. It would make a lot more sence to me just to bring back the old system. That we can say what we like in our own words. The easyest way to deal with complaints about inapropriate feedback is to leave it up to the players to work out. Plus its pretty easy to see when a player has left inapropirate or unfair feedback based on the reply and on the game chat ect. if you care enough to look for it. I guess I just really like the old system, it seemed a lot more personal and gave the site a better feeling of comunity.

by **william18** on Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:49 pm

This would be a great asset. Most people in CC rate the players honestly and don't have any reason to be jerks about it, unless ofcourse they're idiots. Plus a tag explains where the person went wrong so they don't start hunting you down in what they thought was an unfair rating.

by **AndyDufresne** on Sat Jun 28, 2008 9:06 pm

william18 wrote:This would be a great asset. Most people in CC rate the players honestly and don't have any reason to be jerks about it, unless ofcourse they're idiots. Plus a tag explains where the person went wrong so they don't start hunting you down in what they thought was an unfair rating.

And if you couple tags with the user you're rating to "write responses" on their page, if they feel someone has rated them incorrectly or inaccurately, they can very much defend themselves in a few words.

--Andy

by **MOBAJOBG** on Sun Jun 29, 2008 5:58 am

^a tiny correction ...they can very much defend themselves in a few sentences is preferable.

by **elmerfudd** on Sun Jun 29, 2008 2:26 pm

super Mario 009 wrote:how about 'coward' if they attacks and/or eliminates the weakest player in a game, and 'fighter' if they go for the strongest player in a game.

Well I guess im a coward because I will attack and eliminate weaker player. That my strategies and alot of player dont like it, but I win games that way. I have got bad rating, but i got the points too 8-)

by **hanamog** on Sun Jun 29, 2008 5:20 pm

Screw all this bullshit and go back to the old system and do what you are supposed to do as webmasters, moderate the disputes. I agree with others, I would be willing to kick in a few bucks more so you can hire someone to do that. I liked the old system, by reading the comments (of both parties) you could figure out if the rating was justified or just bull.

by **Hrvat** on Sun Jun 29, 2008 6:20 pm

NO.
Rating system is NO Good.
Tag or no tags.

I wish I did not pay for another 12 months premium.

NO to TAGS.

-------------------

Hey, lack, how are you going to get a fair opinion when your ''mod's'' are removing posts with opposing view.

Hey Cicero, are you going to remove this post as well???

Do not want new Tags.
Do not want Stars.

-

by **badmoon** on Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:13 pm

More definitive descriptions sounds like a good idea. A subset of descriptors as mentioned before might work.

by **lackattack** on Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:13 pm

Hrvat wrote:NO.
Rating system is NO Good.
Tag or no tags.

I wish I did not pay for another 12 months premium.

NO to TAGS.

-------------------

Hey, lack, how are you going to get a fair opinion when your ''mod's'' are removing posts with opposing view.

Hey Cicero, are you going to remove this post as well???

Do not want new Tags.
Do not want Stars.

Hrvat, you have already voiced your opinion about ratings many times. The Suggestions & Bug Reports is reserved for constructive dialogue and this topic is reserved for discussing a tags feature. It is not the place to rant about ratings - we have plenty of topics where you can legitimately rant about ratings but doing so here is abusive.

by **Wellzee44** on Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:38 pm

[modedit][/modedit]

by **cicero** on Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:26 pm

What about descriptive tags as ratings ?

So, in principle, instead of ticking 4 boxes for ratings and however many boxes for the descriptive tags why not just tick however many boxes for descriptive tags? And, inherent in those tags are the ratings?

Just for illustration consider this as an example for the attitude rating ...
(I know the tags aren't perfect/complete )

[ ] really friendly
[ ] coached me
[ ] ?????

[ ] friendly
[ ] polite
[ ] fun

[ ] said nothing
[ ] ?????
[ ] ?????

[ ] attempt to order me about
[ ] said nothing
[ ] ?????

[ ] rude
[ ] abusive
[ ] ?????

First set of tags is "5 stars", second set "4 stars" etc ...
I can choose tick three.
There could be more than three at each star level ...
Note the some duplication of tag descriptions is allowed so that if, to you "said nothing" is "3 star" behaviour - fine. Or if, to you, "said nothing" is "2 star" behaviour - again fine.

Thoughts ? Extensions ? Variations ?

by **KLOBBER** on Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:05 pm

Interesting idea, Cicero, but it is unnecessary; the ratings system is perfect as it is now.

by **lexie3000** on Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:24 pm

the rating system still doesn't rate much for me. if you're going to refine it further it would be good to see some options that more acurately describe a player's skill level. the only useful indicators of this at the moment are the ratings left by veteran higher ranked players. but even then it varies widely as to how players rate one another. so none of it really means much to me. keep trying though