Conquer Club

just a thought
funny how every ones rating on conquer club is above average I'm thinking 4 star should be average and five star be above average.
So after bad their could be like terrible or cheater or something like that

Yeah, it's strange how everyone is extraordinarily great at everything. That's why I almost never rate anyone, I just don't want to expend the energy of explaining to some 95% of all my opponents that they get 3 stars because they were average.

Like many grading scales, CC is essentially a curve. The only thing that matters is the relative placement on the individual scale.

The people in school that get A's dont necessarily get 100% on everthing, but they are the best in the class.

Those who get F's are simply the worst in the class.

So, An "A" does not always mean the same thing. An "A" at harvard means something completely different than an "A" in community college.

IN CC 5.0 means really nice, or really new...((and somewhat lucky))
3.0 means very vocal, usually negatively, or ((new and somewhat unlucky))

the tags work very well, except with the newest of players, whos scores are wildly swung by one bad rating.

What good are ratings, when everyone has the same rating... Most people, excluding new players, have a rating of 4.5-4.8.

Then again, if you give someone a bad rating you are liable of getting accused of ratings abuse, or have your inbox spammed, so it's no wonder the ratings are the way they are...

I like it for later use. I see someone with a half-star after the game finished, and I say, "OH, I played him before, let's see... AH! It's that asshole again, well, his 1s are justified. Very well, move on move on."

But seriously, I've really cut back because it's just a waste of time unless I really enjoyed or really disliked playing with that person.

i just rate to get medal but the point of ratings was reely to replace the old thing
i forgot what it was
you like write a review on them
this was stopped because of all the foolish talk

I once suggested a combination of the old and new systems.

Ratings are given on a per game basis rather than as one rating about how someone played in the 20 games you've been in with them over the last 3 years. There are three ratings that I for brevity's sake will call "good", "bad" and "neutral", and instead of tags you get to write a text about your opponent. If your opponent doesn't like what you wrote they can delete the text, but not the rating. To clarify: The rating of "good, "bad" or "neutral" you gave your opponent stays even if your opponent deletes what you wrote about them regarding a specific game.

I wonder what became of it...

natty_dread wrote:What good are ratings, when everyone has the same rating... Most people, excluding new players, have a rating of 4.5-4.8.

When the majority of people have a rating of 4.5-4.8, it makes those with a rating of less than 4.0 really stick out

What people seem to forget or take into account is how this rating system is to be used.

FAIR PLAY. Covers honesty - diplomacies - cheats - cheap tactics. If a player doesn't use crap tactics and plays an absolutely fair game it deserves 5 stars.

GAME PLAY. Covers if YOU enjoyed the game and if your opponent made some dumb moves. I tend to overlook the occasional mistake if it was a very well played game. If someones mistake cost me a game I could of won well then there you go. It has nothing to do with bad or good dice.

ATTITUDE. Covers what it says. If an ass & a cheat & rude 1 star it is. If completely silent never a 5 star.

If turns missed without good reason it tends to subtract from all 3 ratings.

Now when you come across those that have played thousands of games and have 3. whatever and lower that is a red flag.