New Feedback System Preview

[Thezzaruz]

Bad.
If that were the case, everyone would weight attitude the lowest, and then we would all be jerks to one another in game.

Nah I think he means that he would want the rankings he sees have attitude weighed low as he don't care about it. It would leave someone else free to have attitude weighed high so that he easily spots the jerks and can stay away. It would only have the effect you mentioned if everyone didn't care if people are jerks, but then again if no one cared then that wouldn't be a problem.

IMO it's an interesting idea but it might be quite a big task to implement.

[benjij]

Since there is no way to fairly translate feedback into ratings, everyone will start off with a blank rating score


no good
heheh
i wanna still kept my feedback
lol

[edbeard]

Again, I think having a period where people rate people they've already given feedback is a horrible idea. Most people aren't going to do it and even if most do, the ones that don't are making us lose information that is valuable. Just lock the old feedback but make it viewable and start everyone off with a blank slate on the new system.

[ParadiceCity9]

Bad.
If that were the case, everyone would weight attitude the lowest, and then we would all be jerks to one another in game.

Nah I think he means that he would want the rankings he sees have attitude weighed low as he don't care about it. It would leave someone else free to have attitude weighed high so that he easily spots the jerks and can stay away. It would only have the effect you mentioned if everyone didn't care if people are jerks, but then again if no one cared then that wouldn't be a problem.

IMO it's an interesting idea but it might be quite a big task to implement.

Ya that's exactly what I meant.

[lackattack]

Guys thanks for all your input so far. It is helping a lot!

I want to avoid having a category which doesn't apply to all game types - i.e. Teamwork. Can we think of a category that lumps teammate coordination with stuff that can occur in non-team games?

One idea is replacing Sportsmanship and Teamwork with these:

Fair-play: covers fairness, suiciding, secret alliance suspicion, breaking alliances, someone delaying their turn so you don't miss yours, etc...

Cooperation: covers joint attacks (with or without diplomacy), playing with teammates - coordination, communication, etc...

Watchyall think?

[gameplayer]

Sounds great!

[gloryordeath]

Guys thanks for all your input so far. It is helping a lot!

I want to avoid having a category which doesn't apply to all game types - i.e. Teamwork. Can we think of a category that lumps teammate coordination with stuff that can occur in non-team games?

One idea is replacing Sportsmanship and Teamwork with these:

Fair-play: covers fairness, suiciding, secret alliance suspicion, breaking alliances, someone delaying their turn so you don't miss yours, etc...

Cooperation: covers joint attacks (with or without diplomacy), playing with teammates - coordination, communication, etc...

Watchyall think?

That sounds workable.

[lancehoch]

The new categories look good lack. Hopefully this gives you less headaches when it is implemented than the current system does. Have you come to a decision on the rating removal system yet?

EDIT: Will there be a notice at the top of the My Games page to notify people before the change? I would hope that lack does not want the same grief as the last site changes.

[Optimus Prime]

Yeah, those categories would work just fine for me.

[wicked]

Guys thanks for all your input so far. It is helping a lot!

I want to avoid having a category which doesn't apply to all game types - i.e. Teamwork. Can we think of a category that lumps teammate coordination with stuff that can occur in non-team games?

One idea is replacing Sportsmanship and Teamwork with these:

Fair-play: covers fairness, suiciding, secret alliance suspicion, breaking alliances, someone delaying their turn so you don't miss yours, etc...

Cooperation: covers joint attacks (with or without diplomacy), playing with teammates - coordination, communication, etc...

Watchyall think?

Think that muddies the waters. If I ask for an alliance and johny says no and I suicide, is that cooperation or fairplay? I'd rather keep the one specifically for teamwork because I might be a hella team player but don't do alliances in non-team games, so a lot of people would rank me low for non-alliances, so it doesn't show I'm a great team player.

And sportsmanship is a better term IMO, b/c someone being a good sport might not have anything to do with fair play.

[lackattack]

The thing is some people are confusing sportsmanship with attitude.

We also can't keep a category that only makes sense for certain game types - we'd either have to block it conditionally (very clumsy solution) or deal with all sorts of blatant abuse.

[Optimus Prime]

The thing is some people are confusing sportsmanship with attitude.

We also can't keep a category that only makes sense for certain game types - we'd either have to block it conditionally (very clumsy solution) or deal with all sorts of blatant abuse.

Is it really that hard of a condition to incorporate though? I wouldn't know, I don't do that type of stuff, but on the surface it seems simple to me.

[wicked]

I don't think it's clumsy at all, rather quite the opposite. You have a unique game type here in team events, so the should be graded separately, not lumped with non-team games.

[AndyDufresne]

It requires some clunky coding to make it only applicable to one game type. And even if you made a "Teamwork" for team games, it may be hard to fit the general "Cooperation" that can occur during standard games into some other category...so then we would end up with 5 areas...where coding would have to come in to ensure Teamwork doesn't come up for standard games, and whatever cooperation would fit in category wise for standard games, not showing for Team Games.

It sounds much easier to have a Cooperation category cover both areas.


--Andy

[wicked]

But "coordination" isn't present in every game, and some people are very much anti-coordination. So if I don't believe in it, why should I be rated in it? Coordination is mostly alliances, and a good percentage of people here are against those, which is why we allow feedback for it, to warn others that's how you play... however, that shouldn't correspond to a negative rating since people view alliances in two very different, very distinct manners. Player A would rate someone excellent for coordination if they made an alliance, whereas Player B would rate someone lousy for the very same action. That's why "coordination" won't work and teamwork will. And what about 1v1 games? No coordination there!

As long as you define the categories, people will get it (as much as they can).

If it requires a little extra coding, then I still don't see the big deal. Just stroke Lack's ego a bit and he'll put forth the effort.

[Timminz]

But "coordination" isn't present in every game, and some people are very much anti-coordination. So if I don't believe in it, why should I be rated in it? Coordination is mostly alliances, and a good percentage of people here are against those,

Alliances are almost non-existent in my games, but coordination is crucial. I play mostly large escalating games, and a simple action such as blocking another player from a kill is generally something that requires coordination between all players in the game. It's not a spoken coordination, as anyone who knows the game type, knows how important it is to keep player A from killing player B, since that will generally cause an end-game run or kills. In fact, I'd say "coordination" is one of the most important things, strategically, in those games.

[wicked]

So you're trying to sneak gameplay into a rating? That's not behavior, that's gameplay. That's how to play escalating well, not coordination.

[hulmey]

It requires some clunky coding to make it only applicable to one game type. And even if you made a "Teamwork" for team games, it may be hard to fit the general "Cooperation" that can occur during standard games into some other category...so then we would end up with 5 areas...where coding would have to come in to ensure Teamwork doesn't come up for standard games, and whatever cooperation would fit in category wise for standard games, not showing for Team Games.

It sounds much easier to have a Cooperation category cover both areas.


--Andy

If you cant do something correctly , why both doing it? co-opertion sounds like alliances! what co-opertion could possibly occur in a singles match? I sometimes like to "camp" in games and received a far bit of abuse for doing it! does that mean i play the game badly or just am using the right tactics at he right time?

[Timminz]

So you're trying to sneak gameplay into a rating? That's not behavior, that's gameplay. That's how to play escalating well, not coordination.

It is both.

And, I'm not trying to "sneak" anything. I'm simply adding my thoughts to the discussion on the current proposal.

[Thezzaruz]

We also can't keep a category that only makes sense for certain game types - we'd either have to block it conditionally (very clumsy solution) or deal with all sorts of blatant abuse.

Why not??? Non team games have no team play component and hence there should be no team play rating.

It sounds much easier to have a Cooperation category cover both areas.

Easier shouldn't really be the reason though.

[lackattack]

what co-opertion could possibly occur in a singles match? I sometimes like to "camp" in games and received a far bit of abuse for doing it! does that mean i play the game badly or just am using the right tactics at he right time?

Asides from the obvious diplomatic cooperation, there is often un-discussed cooperation that occurs because it is in those players interest. There is nothing wrong with "camping" as a strategy. However, at some times, i.e. when the balance of power tips past the point of no return, it can be considered poor behaviour. In those cases a lack of cooperation could be considered poor sportsmanship and something we as a club want to discourage.

It is not too much work to program Teamwork to check if you've been teammates before. But I think it's more elegant to have 4 equal categories that could apply to any combination of game options.

[wicked]

It is not too much work to program Teamwork to check if you've been teammates before. But I think it's more elegant to have 4 equal categories that could apply to any combination of game options.

Well cooperation won't be equal because it doesn't apply to all game types. And it also won't work for reasons stated above. Teamwork needs it's own category.

[Optimus Prime]

Well....

What if we kept Teamwork as an option for all games, BUT put a little note at the top of the page when you are leaving a rating that states:

While Teamwork is an available option to rate for all games on Conquer Club we suggest that it only be rated following the completion of an actual team game to avoid confusion in meaning.

Or something else along those lines. I think for the most part if we had that little "tip" somewhere near the "Teamwork" rating most players would understand and pay attention and you'd have very little problems.

[Optimus Prime]

Or, even better now that I went back and looked at what the page will look like when leaving a rating for a player...

Suggested for use only with actual team games.

Add that in a small, oh let's say 9pt font, in parenthesis underneath the word "Teamwork" as you have it set up right now.

[wicked]

Shouldn't be a "suggestion" at all. You shouldn't have the option to rate teamwork if you've never played a team game with the user you're rating. Should it be limited further to only rating your actual teammates, and not opponents in team games?