Concise description:
First off, I play CC off and on (first time thread), and I know a few people who play this game too. I was surprised when I saw that they changed the feedback system into a ratings system, but I think that particular facet is for the better. However, I think that the current format still is too wide ranging in averaging out someone's rating. The current system is;
1 = Bad
2 = Below Average
3 = Average
4 = Above Average
5 = Excellent
Now, since 5 is the highest number, players will rate everyone deserving it a 5, because it is the curtious thing to do. However, if someone had a crappy game, be it their fault that they sucked, bad luck with placement, rolls, or just being in the way of someone else, some people might rate them anywhere from 2-4. This gives a false imprssion of a player, and lowers their rating. I was thinking about a game I was in, how the actions of someone else screwed me over. I may get a lower rating for it, but under the circumstances I played a good game. So I was thinking, instead of a 5 star system, it should be reduced to a 4 star system with a twist;
1 = Terrible
2 = Below Average
3 = Average
4 = Conquerer
How this would work, is that you could rate everyone in the game out of a max of 3 stars. 1 would be for the deadbeat, the cheater, the alliance breaker, the bad teammate, the suicider. The 2 player would be someone who missed a turn, was not very smart in managing their forces, or weakened themself in an attempt to take someone out. The 3 player would be someone who played a good game, didn't nessasarily win but had a good stratagy and wasn't knocked out in the first couple rounds. The 3 player would be someone who was smart with their forces, managed to take a continant or bonuses, and generally just have a good game.
The 4th star however, can only go to one player in a game, who you thought played the best game, was the smartest player, or did the best under their limitations. They didn't need to have won the game, it's for who you judge was the best, though likely that would be the winner.
Under the current system, anyone from 4-5 stars is considered average to amazing. You could have someone who is a 4.6 lose all his games but be friendly, and someone who is a 4.6 who won most of their games, but got a low rating in one game because of a sore loser. In the new system however, the difference between someone who is 3 to someone who is 3.4 would be a lot. The 3.4 player would have to be one of the better players on this site in order to get that kind of rating. And if someone was a 2.3, you know for certain that they are not an enjoyable foe.
Anyways, just throwing it out there.
