Conquer Club

1 star = poor
2 star = below average
3 star = average
4 star = above average
5 star = outstanding

I usually give people 4 stars if they are friendly and win a game, sometimes i give them out when people lose too when they put up a good fight. I rarely give out 5 stars because people rarely deserve them. Yet when i look at other peoples ratings they are so inflated (mine included) they mean absolutely nothing.

Why can't people use the system as intended.

Instead of the mods changing the 'forting' set up they should have come up with a better rating system. This rating system has had many drawbacks to it.

Sometimes, If you have a lot of games going on, You dont even remember if the person or team deserves a great rating or not.

Vace Cooper wrote:Sometimes, If you have a lot of games going on, You dont even remember if the person or team deserves a great rating or not.

I agree, and if I win the game 5 stars for all! In fact I do not leave much under 5 stars unless the play was just that bad.

i did, 3 for average, 4 for good players, only a few 5´s for great games .... everybody went mad, many insulted me via pm, so i stopped to rate and deleted all ratings i gave before

I find it pretty insulting to give people low ratings unless they were abusive to other players during the game. Why do we even have a system to rate each other? The internet makes people feel entitled and powerful enough as it is. If you don't want to play someone again, just put them on your foe list.

For me I either give 5-5-5, 1-1-1 or don't rate them...if they wern't really great or wern't totall asswipes then I just don't bother rating them...it takes waaaay too long with the amount of games I play, and its boring just clicking whereas writing a nice little sentence was way cooler

the problem is that once you give out a few "average" ratings people take offense to it dramatically. They start to foe you even though you gave them an 'average' rating and now you can't join many games cuz of this. I have one person who foed me because of this and i must have been turned down at least a dozen time already for games i wanted to join but couldn't.

squishyg wrote:I find it pretty insulting to give people low ratings unless they were abusive to other players during the game. Why do we even have a system to rate each other? The internet makes people feel entitled and powerful enough as it is. If you don't want to play someone again, just put them on your foe list.

The old rating system was better, but not for the mods, as they had to spend a great deal of time playing referee. I would not want that job either.
I liked the ability to leave my own words, not a checked box. But what can you do, The job of moderating this is not something that the mods want to do. however, you can still get a clue as to the kind of player someone is with the current system.
I give out max. stars to just about everyone. I add some checked boxes if it is warranted. I even go to the layers wall and throw up something if I feel extra strong about the player.

I dont rate unless they deserve 5 or 0 stars

I generally will give 5 stars unless the player did something that was either just stupid [in game] or rude [in chat].

THE ARMY wrote:Why can't people use the system as intended.

Why should they?
People DIDN'T WANT that system. Forgot already?

Seulessliathan wrote:i did, 3 for average, 4 for good players, only a few 5´s for great games .... everybody went mad, many insulted me via pm, so i stopped to rate and deleted all ratings i gave before

Same exact thing happened to me.

Got sick of getting 5 PMs a day from people who never said or did anything special and asking why I left them an "average" rating.

Crazy Mexican wrote:I dont rate unless they deserve 5 or 0 stars

Basically the same here. I hardly rate anyone anymore unless they played an amazing game, or were a complete jerk.
---C

Well, you sure don't rate them the correct way...

I got a 3-star rating to from some Appalachian guy
I completely destroyed him in a Feudal war game, but I think I was just average He gives 4-star ratings to the player in Game 4227034 wich lost...
I just don't get the whole system at all

I haven't even recieved the medal for rating people.

And I plan to never get it

I usually rate people with 5 stars in all three areas unless:
1.They ruined the game (with poor strategy, deadbeating, etc.)
2.They had poor attitude.

manwiththeplan wrote:I haven't even recieved the medal for rating people.

And I plan to never get it

Rate people, then remove the ratings.

Why do you think I still have a medal for it?

The Neon Peon wrote:

manwiththeplan wrote:I haven't even recieved the medal for rating people.

And I plan to never get it

Rate people, then remove the ratings.

Why do you think I still have a medal for it?

I don't want the medal. It's my form of pointless protest. I liked the old way better but never had an opportunity to use it. I send pm's if I want to tell someone how well they played (never how badly).

I have always left good ratings for memorable players, I'm not hard to get along with. What I find ridiculous is whiny players who "mis"rate someone just because they lost to them. I was rated a deadbeat and given 1 star for each category, yet I have 100% turns taken, and won that particular game within ten rounds (can't remember the exact amount, but the game didn't last for more than a week, and that's with two actual deadbeat players).

I wish there was moderation of the ratings system or at least a way to remove ratings. I refuse to pay attention to ratings anymore because there seems to be too many players who don't understand the concept of sportsmanship.

Nodak wrote:I have always left good ratings for memorable players, I'm not hard to get along with. What I find ridiculous is whiny players who "mis"rate someone just because they lost to them. I was rated a deadbeat and given 1 star for each category, yet I have 100% turns taken, and won that particular game within ten rounds (can't remember the exact amount, but the game didn't last for more than a week, and that's with two actual deadbeat players).

I wish there was moderation of the ratings system or at least a way to remove ratings. I refuse to pay attention to ratings anymore because there seems to be too many players who don't understand the concept of sportsmanship.

The ratings use to be moderated, but it took a lot of the mods time. They simply got bored with it, and changed it to what we have now.
However, it still can be used as a tool to get some kind of a read on the players. It can not be used as a full measure of a player. They would need to add 50 or so more boxes to check.

five stars to anyone who isn't a jerk, a deadbeat, an idiot, a quitter, or a whiner.

one star to the aforementioned.

This is highly subjective. If a cook plays well for that standard of rank does one give then 5 stars or the obligatory 1 or 2 because, in actual fact, they aren't very good compared to oneself?

I give 5 stars unless they miss turns, then 1 star off each time fair play, if they cannot be bothered to respond to a good luck or a thanks for the game, then it's 1 off for attitude, if they make some crazy move like taking their own when there was obviously no need then 1 off for gameplay. etc.

I DO I DO! I thought i was the only person!

Rocket.

One problem with a 5 star rating system is the baseline of what is an average rating. I'd say that most people just expect to get a 4 or a 5 unless they are a real jerk, a deadbeat or just do stupid things. However, the ratings say that a 3 is average. By that point of view most people should be getting a 3, and only those that go above and beyond should get 4s and 5s. I generally rate players higher than a 3 unless they do things that make me want to rate them lower.

I recently looked at some ratings I got, and was offended by how low the rating was. In this 2 player game I dominated the other player, winning in 5 rounds. I also had the benefit of first turn advantage and never let the other player recover. The ratings left by manumanu after game Game 4311952 were 3, 2, 3. Compared to other rating I have received, those looked really low and unfair. I did miss a turn over a weekend, but immediately apologized for it in the chat.

Then I looked at the ratings left by manumanu and found mostly 2s and 3s, and a few random 4s. It seems to me that manumanu and I are actually using different baselines for the rating system. So which one of us is using the rating system the correct way, or is there even a correct way?

And yes I know I should not care about my rating, and just put this player on my foe list, go on and forget about it, but I look at ratings and Attendance of other players before I join a game. I am sure other player do the same thing.

And it bugs me to get a low rating for a game when I outplayed the other player. So is it really that manumanu is a sore loser, or just that this player simply rates players in a totally different way than most other players?