I am writing this here to engender discussion, before posting in suggs and bugs.
Premise 1: MOST (not all!) people want to play games with folks reasonably close in skill without a lot of complaining, or "nastiness". Funny or friendly chatting is nice, but generally an 'extra".
Premise 2: The current rating system barely helps us weed out those folks from the rest.
Premise 3: The tags, while well-intended, were not "vetted" quite well enough, (sort of rushed) and could use some adjustment.
Possible fix:
KEEP 5 stars. Either change to an overall or keep "as is"
BUT clarify, change descriptions
5 stars = highly recommend this player. Keeps a good attitude, winning or losing. Plays to best of ability without giving up (until maybe very end -- 1 territory left is usually a pretty good indicator of losing). Maybe be achieved in one game, particularly a long one, if showed exceptional attitude, skill, etc. (put up with a lot of flack from another player without getting negative, kept positive despite terrible dice/drop, etc.)
4 stars -- reccommend, perhaps with MINOR reservations. Either have not played this player much, especially winning and losing games both OR there is some minor issue ... maybe some minor complaining that could be just a "bad day", left suddenly without explanation when playing real time... may be using a strategy I don't like ('double turning on freestyle, for example .. missing turns on purpose), but I have not played person enough to see if it is really a pattern.
3 stars-- nuetral. Perhaps uses strategy I dislike. Perhaps is a bit too negative or not nice enough in chat.
2 stars-- don't recommend, but issues are not severe. Perhaps likes to
talk down" a lot in chat. Perhaps I suspect a multis, but not yet ready to prove it. Perhaps is nasty frequently, especially when losing. Perhaps is just a plain terrible player, but not willing to admit this (tries to tell other players how to play), etc. maybe breaks truces (? maybe should be a 1)
1 star -- FOE LIST! Person was very beligerant or frequently beligerant, deadbeats whenever losing, is a multis, makes unannounced alliances. Has a habit of breaking truces, etc.
TAGS:
good sport (pleasant despite odds, helpful to new players, etc)
poor sport (whines when things don't go "right", beligerant to other players, quits when losing etc.)
newbie... wait and see
suspected multis or secret alliances
PROVEN multis (note... prefer other solutions such as changing rating color, etc.)
Poor strategy.
Swears/bad language
Poor assassin play
not trustworthy
The following are issues for "information" "only". They don't matter to many, but do to some.
Slow
Quick
Silent/no chat (note, this is just for information ... )
Poor English
ADDED STUFF
IMPLEMENT a separate Teammate rating. This would ONLY be available to fellow teammates (opponents would use tag below, if they wish). Being a teammate is not the same as being an opponent and plain needs a seperate rating.
Teammate tags (may check any that apply): good communicator/listener ; poor skill
Mark cheaters (see thread)
Put down not just the rating each person gives, but also the number of times that person has rated.
Consider averaging each person's ratings, rather than just replacing.
