Conquer Club

The attendance part of the ratings should be automated.
If you take your go in under 2 hours 5 stars
under 6 hours 4 stars
under 12 hours 3 stars
under 23 hours 2 stars
miss a go - 1 star.

these are just loose suggestions - a poll would be a good idea for the first 4 categories

the attendance ratings should be worked out as mean average over the amount of goes each person takes per game. Attendance can be based on pure math times and shouldn't be another way to be abused by disgruntled players trying to reduce someones overall rating or making a deadbeat look good because you beat him and always gave 5 stars regardless of attendance.

This should happen to every single game you play to create a really good mean figure for each player.

Speed games should be amended by dividing what ever agreed time limits per star rating by 360 (360 x 4 = 1440, which is the day in minutes)

People who take their goes quickly should be rewarded with accurate rankings. Personal opinions of what constitutes fast play are bollox.

No... someone could miss a single turn in a 100 round game and get 1 star attendance? Hardly. That's 4 stars, borderline 5 stars still, especially if they gave a reason for missing that single turn.

Also, some people in cc are from different countries (not me, but other people) and because of time zones, it is more difficult for them to take their turn immediately after the people in the U.S. do.

However, I like the general idea, there's just a lot of these little things that need to be figured out.

Personally, I think in a Casual Single game, there should no rating of below 3 stars (3 stars = average) be allowed if one never misses a turn.
That's what Casual games are for (different for team games though where you have to talk to your teammates)

At least that could be automated by restricting the options there.

This should be based on a time scale. Like over a month's time, how many turns they missed.

I have thought about this a bit but refrained from posting in all the "attendance" threads. But if an automation is coming then I have to put my 2 cents out there. As I see it you could either go the easy route and just record/show a deadbeat stat, i.e % of games each player has deadbeated in. Or do it properly and have a rating that gives a better picture of each players behavior. And IMO the latter would be preferable.

What I has been thinking about is a system that considers 3 factors; the average time you spend on each round, the maximum time for each round and turns missed completely and keeps in line with the 5 star system we have now. THe specific times can be discussed and altered as suitable ofc.


5 star - avg turn time < 8 hours, no turn longer than 14 hours*, max 1 turn missed per 40 rounds
4 star - avg turn time < 12 hours, no turn longer than 18 hours*, max 1 turn missed per 30 rounds
3 star - avg turn time < 16 hours, no turn longer than 22 hours*, max 1 turn missed per 20 rounds
2 star - avg turn time < 20 hours, max 1 turn missed per 10 rounds
1 star - deadbeat

* The "no turn longer than x" does not include turns completely missed as those are covered by a separate factor.


And IMO it doesn't matter if there was a reason for the missed turn (stated in chat or not) as the turn was still missed and as such affected the opponents. I might think better of the player though if he/she announced it/explained it.

HOw about skipping the stars and just giving the number of missed turns and deadbeats as a percentage of the games played.

That is, if I miss 1 turn in 100 games, I will have a 99% rating. If I miss 20 turns in 100 games, I will get an 80% rating.

this probably WILL cause more problems during shut-downs,but perhaps they could plan for this and program in an "override" ability, strictly for those cases.. or just figure that even 20 misses in 1000 games won't show.

PLAYER57832 wrote:HOw about skipping the stars and just giving the number of missed turns and deadbeats as a percentage of the games played.

That is, if I miss 1 turn in 100 games, I will have a 99% rating. If I miss 20 turns in 100 games, I will get an 80% rating.

this probably WILL cause more problems during shut-downs,but perhaps they could plan for this and program in an "override" ability, strictly for those cases.. or just figure that even 20 misses in 1000 games won't show.

With some tweaking this is the best idea I've heard so far

FabledIntegral wrote:No... someone could miss a single turn in a 100 round game and get 1 star attendance? Hardly. That's 4 stars, borderline 5 stars still, especially if they gave a reason for missing that single turn.

Maybe more the average rather than missing one single turn.

PLAYER57832 wrote:HOw about skipping the stars and just giving the number of missed turns and deadbeats as a percentage of the games played.

That depends on what we want from this feature. Do we just want to know who the deadbeats are (as a percentage shows) or do we also want to know who's a fast, average or slow player (as a more advanced system could show)???

In principle I agree with the automation of the attendance rating, but completely disagree that it should be filtered down to the amount of time you take.

Why should somebody be penalised for playing casual games and not checking every 20mins to take their turns? Some of us have lives/jobs/families etc.

A time scale is a very bad idea and not what the rating was intended for. If you want one based on time that should be a different one all together.

MrBenn wrote:Why should somebody be penalised for playing casual games and not checking every 20mins to take their turns? Some of us have lives/jobs/families etc.

But it is NOT a penalty. It's about displaying peoples behaviour just the same as all the other ratings are supposed to do atm or feedback did before.

I think attendance should be automated, but unless you knowingly signed onto a rt, you get a five unless you miss a turn. (In the special case I mentioned above, post it on the forum to have it appealed).

Thezzaruz wrote:

MrBenn wrote:Why should somebody be penalised for playing casual games and not checking every 20mins to take their turns? Some of us have lives/jobs/families etc.

But it is NOT a penalty. It's about displaying peoples behaviour just the same as all the other ratings are supposed to do atm or feedback did before.

Unless you seperate it out as a distinct number, it is penalizing.

I think if you wish to play a speed game, then play a speed game. That does mean buying a premium membership. Otherwise, rating folks for not spending their lives on the computer is just silly.

FabledIntegral wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:HOw about skipping the stars and just giving the number of missed turns and deadbeats as a percentage of the games played.

That is, if I miss 1 turn in 100 games, I will have a 99% rating. If I miss 20 turns in 100 games, I will get an 80% rating.

this probably WILL cause more problems during shut-downs,but perhaps they could plan for this and program in an "override" ability, strictly for those cases.. or just figure that even 20 misses in 1000 games won't show.

With some tweaking this is the best idea I've heard so far

I agree, and yeah, something needs to be done about this, I got 2 stars from some guy for attendance, and I can't remember ever missing a turn during my whole time on CC...

true story...

PLAYER57832 wrote:Otherwise, rating folks for not spending their lives on the computer is just silly.

No it's about showing peoples behavior. Just as feedback or the current rating system was/is meant to tell you if a player is a total @ss or sometimes an @ss or usually very nice this would show if he is a very casual player or not. And it's not like my suggestion was all that demanding, checking 3 times a day would assure you of a 5. Heck anyone making his moves 2 times a day (spread evenly) would be a guaranteed 4 and most likely a 5.

But as I said before it all comes down to how much information we want, a system like the one I suggested will give quite a lot while a deadbeat counter won't. Though just having a deadbeat counter would be satisfactory and waay better than the current "attendance" rating.

PLAYER57832 wrote:I think if you wish to play a speed game, then play a speed game. That does mean buying a premium membership.

My suggestion has noting to do with speed games though (would need another set of parameters for that) and not even with RT games either as the 8 hour turn time (for a 5 star rating) clearly wouldn't cut it in a RT game.

MrBenn wrote:In principle I agree with the automation of the attendance rating, but completely disagree that it should be filtered down to the amount of time you take.

Why should somebody be penalised for playing casual games and not checking every 20mins to take their turns? Some of us have lives/jobs/families etc.

Pedro wrote:If you take your go in under 2 hours 5 stars
under 6 hours 4 stars
under 12 hours 3 stars
under 23 hours 59 minutes 2 stars
miss a go - 1 star.

You seem to be missing the point that if you log in once a day, you may find a game that has 2 hours left or 23 hours left.
In each game you will probably take at least 5-10 (esc.) 20-50 (flat rate) or loads (no cards stalemate) of turns. Each turn you take will be rated and at the end of a game averaged out.

If you are a player who does log in twice a day - the worst that will happen is that the turns that started just when you went to bed will have 18-14 hours left on them which is a three star rating.
This rating system will even out over a very short amount of games.

There are players out there who log in every time they can - and these players should be flagged up as exceptional players when it comes to attendance. If you log in once a day - it's average, If you deadbeated a game after three goes, it would show you to be avoided like the plague.

I'm not suggesting that average attendance is bad, I'm trying to flag up the very best and the very worst attendees.