At least it's official now, 3 = average!

[zimmah]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read this carefully please, and HELP US TO GET A FAIR AND GOOD RATING FOR EVERYONE!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like you can see in this poll, there is a lot of confusion around the rating!

what exactly does getting a 4 star mean? did i behave pretty good to get such a good rating, or did i actually behave pretty bad to get such a bad rating? there is no way to figure out but to pm all your raters and ask them yourself. however this makes no sence at all, we have a rating system to SAVE you the time and work you need to check the complete background of a person, instead of making you spend more time on it. it should be so clear that you can see in just a matter of seconds if someone is worth playing or not! right now this is not the case.

let's get the GO's/WM's to fix this problem A.S.A.P., because NOONE has any advantage of this rating, and the future updates will only make it WORSE THEN IT EVER WAS BEFORE do NOT let this happen to conquerclub! i'd suggest the following updates:

1) make the star system more clearly to everyone, like on youtube, whenever you mouse over your cursor above any number of stars, you'll see what the meaning of the star is (either really good or really bad, or something in between) make it so clear that there can not be any discussion about it. because what we NEED on this website is a rating that is fair for everyone, and everyone understands. because now whenever you see somoene with like 3 stars, you will never know if he has behaved 'just normal' or 'pretty bad' and that sucks.

2) add the option to leave a comment along with your rating, like 'i gave this player 4 stars on teamwork, because he was really good to team with and he fortified his troops to me even without me asking for it, also communicates very well and plans the next moves. this will say MUCH more about a player then just a few stars could tell!

3) link the rating to a game. so all the games are archived on CC, but there isn't even a link towards them? what's the point here? why archive them if you ain't gunna look em up anyways? i think you should be able to see for yourself what made that player that outstanding to deserve a full 5 star, or a 1 star for behaving that bad, you should be able to look at the game and see for yourself 'he deservered to get that rank' or 'i think there is no reason to give him X amount of stars'

----------------------------------------------------------------
anything above this line is added in an edit
--------------------------------------------------------------

there is a lot of discusion about the new rating, therefore i created this little poll.

please remember the following things:

Rating is based on BEHAVIOR and NOT ON SKILL, for skill we have medals, score, and rankings.

Rating effectifly filters out the players with BAD BEHAVIOR (like cheaters and deadbeaters for example) soon you can even filter players with a bad rating out from your games automaticly, so they won't even be able to join.

Rating will aloow you to see how fast a player takes turns (really slow, really fast, or in between), how fair a player is (secret alliances, multi's etc.) how good a player would fit in your team (does he fortify a lot to friends or not, etc.) and how friendly someone is. that's why there are 4 different ratings.

you have a rating from 1 to 5, the common '5 star rating' for those who don't know yet:

1 star = bad
2 stars = below average
3 stars = average
4 stars = good
5 stars = excelent

much like the grades at school, like A to F, just without the F. 1 star being an E, 2 stars being a D, 3 stars being a C, 4 stars being a B and 5 stars being an A

look here for more information about 5 star ratings

this is how the ratings are ment to be used. so who is with me for a FAIR RATING for everyone?

not just hand out random 5's to everyone 'for not being ass much of an idiot you could have been' but give out 3's for that reason, and give out 5's only to totaly awesome players (not awesome skilled, but awesome friendly and fast to take turns)

[wcaclimbing]

I agree.

[FabledIntegral]

Agreed. This new system is significantly worse than the old, with people handing out 5 stars left and right when it should be a rarity.

[PLAYER57832]

What we need is some kind of reference point in the ratings descriptions.

I mean, so far I have gotten 3 stars, 4 stars and 5 stars ... for all basically the same kind of play, with one exception. The exception being someone with whom I have played many times before. (who also gave me all 5's).

A poll might help weed things out, but remember -- only a small number of folks visit the forums and only some of those answer polls

[zimmah]

Agreed. This new system is significantly worse than the old, with people handing out 5 stars left and right when it should be a rarity.

QFT, look at the poll, 44% voted 5 stars, while it should be closer to 0%

[zimmah]

What we need is some kind of reference point in the ratings descriptions.

I mean, so far I have gotten 3 stars, 4 stars and 5 stars ... for all basically the same kind of play, with one exception. The exception being someone with whom I have played many times before. (who also gave me all 5's).

A poll might help weed things out, but remember -- only a small number of folks visit the forums and only some of those answer polls

maybe ask the Game Operators or something to put a big blue notice on the website and explain how the rating works, like:

RATING FOR DUMMIES

[BaldAdonis]

maybe ask the Game Operators or something to put a big blue notice on the website and explain how the rating works, like:

RATING FOR DUMMIES

Sure, but then none of you would read it. :p
5 stars makes sense. Those are the people I would want to play again. The ones who aren't annoying. Less than 5 means there was some fault somewhere: missing a lot of turns, secret alliances, obnoxious chat, etc.

[edbeard]

maybe ask the Game Operators or something to put a big blue notice on the website and explain how the rating works, like:

RATING FOR DUMMIES

Sure, but then none of you would read it. :p
5 stars makes sense. Those are the people I would want to play again. The ones who aren't annoying. Less than 5 means there was some fault somewhere: missing a lot of turns, secret alliances, obnoxious chat, etc.

exactly. 5 means everything was great. 3 is someone that is questionable but not horrible (in terms of whatever rating it is) and 1 is horrible.


So in my rating world, most people get all 5s.

The only people I'm really looking to avoid from ratings are people getting frequent 1s and 2s. Others I'll base on personal experience or word of mouth.

[GabonX]

The problem with this suggestion is that most people will give a 5 rating for the average player. People who deviate from this and give the average player a 3 will make it look as though these players were below average in their conduct as 5 is going to be the standard rating that most people give.

[The Fuzzy Pengui]

I voted 5.

For me, 5 means that they did everything correctly and didn't make any mistakes. They also were fine in chat and they seemed to have a good strategy.

4 would be maybe 1 or two small mistakes, that didn't cost the game but were a screw up (imo)

3 would be a few mistakes and missing a turn.

2 would be bad strategy, a mistake that cost the game, or maybe deadbeating.

1 would be completely stupid random attacking that had no point, deadbeating, or being really vulgar and obnoxious in chat.

as mentioned before me, 3s would be ok players and with more experience i would play them again. 4s and 5s would be "yeah, i'll play them in a heartbeat"

[CoffeeCream]

I voted 4

Most people I've played against or with are solid players. The most common complaint I have is when people don't show up to take their turns so I'm glad that's part of the new star rating. I also think the old rating system was unfair because when someone left you a negative feedback and negative feedback you left them was considered retaliatory. Hugely unfair. Whenever something changes people originally don't like it. After they come to accept it thing calm down.

[FabledIntegral]

maybe ask the Game Operators or something to put a big blue notice on the website and explain how the rating works, like:

RATING FOR DUMMIES

Sure, but then none of you would read it. :p
5 stars makes sense. Those are the people I would want to play again. The ones who aren't annoying. Less than 5 means there was some fault somewhere: missing a lot of turns, secret alliances, obnoxious chat, etc.

No it doesn't. 5-stars means beyond the ordinary. You go to a 3-star restaurant, you might want to eat there again. Go to a 5-star restaurant, and it's mindblowing. 3-stars would be someone you wouldn't MIND playing again, you weren't necessarily impressed, but you weren't annoyed either.

Anyways, this is just going to leave people friggin' fishing for 5's. Once again, most likely you'll all get 2 stars from me, as that's what I expect to give out on standard (as I find most play/behavior substandard).

[Incandenza]

Since, as clearly can't be stated enough, these rating are about BEHAVIOR, not quality of gameplay, I'd say that 5 is a pretty fair number for most people. Friendly in chat? Took your turns in a reasonable amount of time? No sketchy behavior (less a concern for me, as I'm mostly 1v1s these days)? payed attention to chat and planning in team games? 5's across the board

Seems that the people most adamant against awarding 5's are the people affecting an air of superiority about the quality of their own gameplay, which, in case such people weren't paying attention at the top, is precisely NOT the point of the rating system.

EDIT: what I'm really getting at is this: for me, the rating system is more about alerting me to bad playing experiences, given that good playing experiences are the norm here.

[gloryordeath]

How many times must you play someone to judge fairly???

[FabledIntegral]

Since, as clearly can't be stated enough, these rating are about BEHAVIOR, not quality of gameplay, I'd say that 5 is a pretty fair number for most people. Friendly in chat? Took your turns in a reasonable amount of time? No sketchy behavior (less a concern for me, as I'm mostly 1v1s these days)? payed attention to chat and planning in team games? 5's across the board

Seems that the people most adamant against awarding 5's are the people affecting an air of superiority about the quality of their own gameplay, which, in case such people weren't paying attention at the top, is precisely NOT the point of the rating system.

Quality of gameplay = fairplay in my eyes. I had someone suicide me last game, that's hardly fair play.

Thing is, there's a difference between being friendly in chat, and handing out a 5 to someone who merely says "gg" at the end. There's a difference between taking turns in a REASONABLE amount of time, which once again boils down to average, is a nice AVERAGE rating of 3. If it's reasonable, does that mean they were exceptional? No, it means they were friggin' average. 3 is NOT a bad score, it is the score that if you're using a proper rating system that MOST players have. How effective would ratings be if all reasonable restaurants got 5-stars for food quality? How effective would health ratings on restaurants be if they gave an A to restaurants that were "reasonably" clean. How effective would grades be in trying to assess competence in a subject, if 90% of students got A's. There's a reason people don't set "reasonable" as premier.

Seems to me the people that want to throw 5's across the board are those who could care less about a rating system that works and just want 5's back across their own name.

[zimmah]

ok let's say you have a car, like say a basic car, it doesn't look bad, it drives like 120 miles/hour (you wouldn't need to go faster anyways, freeways have a limit in most countries) it accelerates and handles just fine, etc. no real problems with it. but it is still a standard everyday car like everyone elses.

now would you rate this car a 3 or a 5?

let's say you rated it a 5. after a while you get promotion at your work or something and get more money so you buy a new car, one which looks nicer, has a lot better grip etc. how the hell would you rate that? another 5? then it would basicly mean the car would be the same as all other, while it's clearly better then your old car

now let's say you rated the other car a 3, then it's perfectly fine to rate the new car a 4, or maybe even a 5 for being such a nice car.

a 3 star rated car wouldn't mean the car has a flat tire or any other malfunction, it would be more like:

1 star = totaly crappy shit car that doesn't even work 99% of the time (the other 1% being downhill probably)
2 stars = not bad car but it might have some malfunctioning every now and then (like having problems to start the engine sometimes)
3 stars = the average car 80% of the people around you drive in
4 stars = a good car, looks nice and shiny, has a nice grip, just very nice to drive in this kind of car
5 star = a totaly amazing car that will make you go 'WOW' just by looking at it

and that's how basicly the whole 5 star rating works.

[Molacole]

Fair Play
Attendance
Attitude
Teamwork
Overall


I see where you're going with this and all but, some options are pretty much all or nothing imo.

Fair Play -
I see this as they either played the game legit and tried to win to the end or went all out on somebody who ruined their chances. That imo is completely fair so they deserve a 5. Now if some idiot starts making alliances I will be giving them a 1 because I never saw them as fair. I personally don't see the need for a 2-4 option in this one but, that's just me

Attendance
If they deadbeat I will leave them a 1 and if they have a legitimate excuse or just miss 1 turn then I'll give them a 5. Again I see no need for a 2-4 option.

Attitude
You're either funny or not and you're either a cry baby or not. I couldn't give two shits about shit talking, but if somebody isn't funny with it or just flat out bitch and moans then they'll be getting a 1. Otherwise I see myself giving them a 5. Once again no need for a 2-4 option on this one either but, that's just how I see things.

Teamwork
This is definitely worth while imo. If they're a hell of a player then they'll get a 5. If they need direction they get a 4. If they need advice a 3 if they suck then they'll be getting a 1. I'll only give 2's to people who suck, but honestly tried to do they right thing.

Overall
I'll only be giving 5's for people who know how to play. 3's to people who have a good understanding and a 1 for people who just flat out suck at this game. 2's and 4's wont do me any good.


Personally I think it should be used as a 1 or 5 vote cast almost like a yes or no type of answer for each option. Otherwise the people in the biggest clans or who have the most friends will end up with the highest ratings on average.

[zimmah]

Seems to me the people that want to throw 5's across the board are those who could care less about a rating system that works and just want 5's back across their own name.

true, have mentioned that earlier too somewhere. it's just like that, people who give out 5's to everyone expect 5's themselfs. maybe they don't even know it themselfs but it's true.

people please understand 3 = average, 3 is NOT BAD if you have an average score of 3 you should be HAPPY with it, then it means you're just normal, like the rest of us.

if you have a 4 you should be very happy, like getting a B for your math test, and if you got a 5 you could consider yourself the most kind person on CC, and not just 'oh sh*t i don't got a 5, now mommy will send to my room again for bad behavior' you should worry when you get a 2 or a 1, because that means below average or even bad

one more time folks:

* = bad
** = below average
*** = just fine (average)
**** = above average (pretty good)
***** = freaking heavinly, like an angel or something <-- like you'll be that happy to see that person again. like you'd wanna kiss him/her

[zimmah]

Fair Play
Attendance
Attitude
Teamwork
Overall


I see where you're going with this and all but, some options are pretty much all or nothing imo.

Fair Play -
I see this as they either played the game legit and tried to win to the end or went all out on somebody who ruined their chances. That imo is completely fair so they deserve a 5. Now if some idiot starts making alliances I will be giving them a 1 because I never saw them as fair. I personally don't see the need for a 2-4 option in this one but, that's just me

Attendance
If they deadbeat I will leave them a 1 and if they have a legitimate excuse or just miss 1 turn then I'll give them a 5. Again I see no need for a 2-4 option.

Attitude
You're either funny or not and you're either a cry baby or not. I couldn't give two shits about shit talking, but if somebody isn't funny with it or just flat out bitch and moans then they'll be getting a 1. Otherwise I see myself giving them a 5. Once again no need for a 2-4 option on this one either but, that's just how I see things.

Teamwork
This is definitely worth while imo. If they're a hell of a player then they'll get a 5. If they need direction they get a 4. If they need advice a 3 if they suck then they'll be getting a 1. I'll only give 2's to people who suck, but honestly tried to do they right thing.

Overall
I'll only be giving 5's for people who know how to play. 3's to people who have a good understanding and a 1 for people who just flat out suck at this game. 2's and 4's wont do me any good.


Personally I think it should be used as a 1 or 5 vote cast almost like a yes or no type of answer for each option. Otherwise the people in the biggest clans or who have the most friends will end up with the highest ratings on average.

ok let's quote myself here:

i suggest the following to keep in mind

* Fair Play: covers suiciding, secret alliance suspicion, breaking or respecting alliances, chivalry, etc...)
1 star = very unfair, high chance of cheating, etc. most likely somoene you put directly on your ignore list
2 stars = possibly a bit unfair, like breaking truces, trying to make secret alliances etc.
3 stars = average, not unfair, didn't do anything 'wrong' nor did anything exceptionally good
4 stars = good, makes alliances in game chat, doesn't break them, might even remind you of ending the truce/alliance 1 or 2 turns before they end
5 stars = excellent, one of the fairest players you have seen
* Attendance: covers deadbeating, missing turns, deliberately prolonging rounds, finding a babysitter to keep things moving, etc...)
1 star = deadbeater or someone who misses multiple turns in a single game, without any warning
2 stars = pretty slow to take turns, might even miss a turn maybe even two
3 stars = average, doesn't miss any turns, finds accountsitter if he/she goes on vacantion, if he/she might miss a turn he/she warns beforehand that he has little or no time to take his turns and couldn't find a sitter in time
4 stars = good, takes turns pretty fast and doesn't miss turns, much like 3 stars just takes turns even faster
5 stars = excellent, takes turns so fast that you think he's like on CC 24/7 or something (not litteraly but close)
* Attitude: covers behaviour in chat, foul language, sore losers, gracious winners, "great chatters!", whining about dice, etc...)
1 star = bad. someone who is being a racist, uses fool language, complains about the dices all the time, curses, etc. just very bad behavior
2 stars = below average, not very bad but still not good either, might use fool language or CAPITAL LETTERS a bit too often to be average
3 stars = average, at the start of the game sais something like 'hi, good luck and have fun' doesn't complain too much about the dice or any other things, might chat about other things but mainly about the game off course. doesn't get cocky while being on the winning hand neither complains when on the losing hand
4 stars = good, great person to play with and fun on the chat, off course wishes you luck and fun (i often see people say good luck, but hardly ever 'have fun')
5 stars = excellent, even better then good, very nice person, great to play with or against, someone you would really leave a positive feedback
* Teamwork: covers playing with teammates - coordination, communication, etc...
1 star = attacking(killing) his own teammates (except to get a continent or something off course), not communicating, making very dumb moves even though you told him/her to do otherwise, getting all bossy and tells you what to do even though you know it wouldn't work and yell at you because "you don't know what you're doing, while obviously it's the other way round" etc. basicly you'd rather have this person rather as an enemy then have it as a 'friend'
2 stars = below average, doesn't communicate well and isn't really someone you'd really team up with again. not as bad as it could be, but still not very good either (remember it's about teamplay, not about skill!)
3 stars = average, communicates and plans the next move, fortifies armies to you rather then making himself as strong as he can while you are losing all your armies to the enemy
4 stars = good, tries to get the TEAM to win the game and doesn't try to win all on his own, includes but not limited to: fortifing his armies even though you didn't asked for it, planning, communicating, letting himself be killed by a teammate if he is weak to give out his cards to friends rather then to hand out the cards to the enemies, etc.
5 stars = very great teammate

[Molacole]

Zimmah wrote:
i suggest the following to keep in mind

* Fair Play: covers suiciding, secret alliance suspicion, breaking or respecting alliances, chivalry, etc...)
1 star = very unfair, high chance of cheating, etc. most likely somoene you put directly on your ignore list
2 stars = possibly a bit unfair, like breaking truces, trying to make secret alliances etc.
3 stars = average, not unfair, didn't do anything 'wrong' nor did anything exceptionally good
4 stars = good, makes alliances in game chat, doesn't break them, might even remind you of ending the truce/alliance 1 or 2 turns before they end

that's how much of your quote I read before I ignored the rest.


You would give somebody a posotive rating for making an alliance when most veterans understand the game enough to know alliances are never needed. I have never been in a game where I felt it was important to announce who is over powered or needs to be attacked. your self quote did nothing for me.

[ParadiceCity9]

Cheating and deadbeating, neither are bad behavior.

[Molacole]

basically your whole debate comes down to arguing peoples opinions. I promise you this is pointless.

your 5 star rating theories or cars and restaraunts or whatever you conjure up sounds good and all but, keep in mind those ratings are given by professionals who actually know what they're looking for. Now you can say the rating options we have are just common sense and don't require professionals or what not. One thing I have learned is that common sense isn't so common

[BaldAdonis]

The ratings aren't for grades or restaurants (or cars or movies or iTunes, or any other terrible analogy you can come up with). They're for courteous behaviour in games. Did the player get mad that you attacked him, and spent the rest of the game just trying to kill you? Then he deserves a low rating. Was the player more or less "fair"? Then that's a 5. It's not very complicated.

Trying to introduce outside sources will skew your results more than giving a 5 to everyone who isn't an ass. Our way is good, because it identifies who is obnoxious (they consistently get less than 5). Your way is bad because it makes ratings more subjective than they need to be ("That was a fun game, although it wasn't as good as that steak I had at the 4-star restaurant last night, but was definitely better than that 2-star movie I saw afterwards. I'll give a 3.")

Feel free to rate people like that, just stop complaining when others don't follow your lead. I suspect the only outcome will be that people who give 5s will give 5s to each other, and you and your ilk will give 3s to each other, and we'll all look better than you.

[MajorRT]

Looks like most of us will rate average=3, and some of average=5, so the true mean/median will be about 3.8-4.0

[Robinette]

1 Star


2 Stars


3 Stars


4 Stars


5 Stars