Conquer Club

shouldn't there be one for "general gameplay?"

you know, to help gauge if a player is any good or not?

yep- totally agree.... was thinking there should be a skill category.

Yeah that would be cool. Nice suggestion buddy.

Lack has already said that this rating system is not for measuring gameplay, but for behavior. When will people start to actually pay attention to what he said?

Optimus Prime wrote:Lack has already said that this rating system is not for measuring gameplay, but for behavior. When will people start to actually pay attention to what he said?

Say it one more time. Do it, I dare ya

Optimus Prime wrote:Lack has already said that this rating system is not for measuring gameplay, but for behavior. When will people start to actually pay attention to what he said?

What's your point, Courtney? It's not like I'm wrong. He did say it.

I am conducting a test to see if it only takes you one more time to tell people then they will listen to what Lack says.

happy2seeyou wrote:I am conducting a test to see if it only takes you one more time to tell people then they will listen to what Lack says.

Meh, half of what I say behind the scenes goes unnoticed too, I'm just blowing off steam because everyone is bitching and moaning without giving the system a fair chance. Over half the players on the site don't even have ratings displayed yet, and even if they do, it's only 1 or 2, so there is nowhere near an accurate picture of what the system can do.

All anyone wants to do is moan and complain because a change was made without giving it a chance to prove itself. It comes across as incredibly impatient and immature in my mind, but that doesn't really matter.

I'm not moaning, when I moan it's much louder.

I like the new system

I am currently using Fair Play as a measure to gauge skill - and I hope others do as well.

For example, the guidelines involve suiciding. I consider someone (in this instance, a player named Typherin), who, in an 8-player freestyle game, had about 70 armies on the field, and decided to use his 56 to auto my 40 for no reason, a suicide. We were sitting next to each other, yet he autoed me (his reasons was because I was "cheating" because I used clickable maps). However even if he said nothing, this would be reason enough for me to give him a 1 in the "Fair play" category. Everyone had around 90 armies on the field, he had about 20 less then the rest, and he autoes me because I'm near him. What a joke. Just use fair play as skill, you can interpret it however you want, yet leaving someone to hang is easily is a very poor display of fair play.

first, to fabled, i won't use the fairplay category to rate someone's skill b/c that's a misuse of the system. it's pretty rude to rate someone as a 2 or 3 in fairplay just b/c they hung someone, considering the bad rating in fairplay really makes them look like a cheater.

and this leads into my response to optimus. yer a good bloke and all as far as i can tell, but i find your comments a bit silly. if i am a whiner who is dissing the new system before giving it a chance, then you are defending the new system just b/c.....you feel like it?

anyways, i'm not dissing the system. like you say, i have no idea how it will work out. and i didn't read any of lack's comments about it cause if i start reading up on it, i'll have to go thru the whole ball of wax, don't wanna do that. i didn't have any part in putting it together either, so i may have missed a chance then.

all i'm saying is, if we have a rating system for PLAYERS on this GAMING site, then it makes a fair bit of sense to have at least ONE category on skill at PLAYING the GAME

so that's my plea to lack.....i know there are probably lots of good reasons to have this system rate behavior rather than gameplay.....but hell the teamwork thing is about gameplay anyways.....and a useful rating system probably ought to tell us a little more than if the person curses in gamechat or skips turns.....

ps: thanks for all the hard work, optimus and lack

Nephilim wrote:first, to fabled, i won't use the fairplay category to rate someone's skill b/c that's a misuse of the system. it's pretty rude to rate someone as a 2 or 3 in fairplay just b/c they hung someone, considering the bad rating in fairplay really makes them look like a cheater.

and this leads into my response to optimus. yer a good bloke and all as far as i can tell, but i find your comments a bit silly. if i am a whiner who is dissing the new system before giving it a chance, then you are defending the new system just b/c.....you feel like it?

anyways, i'm not dissing the system. like you say, i have no idea how it will work out. and i didn't read any of lack's comments about it cause if i start reading up on it, i'll have to go thru the whole ball of wax, don't wanna do that. i didn't have any part in putting it together either, so i may have missed a chance then.

all i'm saying is, if we have a rating system for PLAYERS on this GAMING site, then it makes a fair bit of sense to have at least ONE category on skill at PLAYING the GAME

so that's my plea to lack.....i know there are probably lots of good reasons to have this system rate behavior rather than gameplay.....but hell the teamwork thing is about gameplay anyways.....and a useful rating system probably ought to tell us a little more than if the person curses in gamechat or skips turns.....

ps: thanks for all the hard work, optimus and lack

Hanging someone in my eyes is not fair gameplay. Neither is suiciding, which IS included in the description. They are virtually the same thing. Suiciding is not cheating, is it? And a 3 is standard, so whatever you want to say, a 3 hardly looks like cheating, it looks like an average score.

mate, if you don't realize the difference between "fairness" and "skill/intelligence," maybe you should remove yourself from any discussions on this topic......

Nephilim wrote:mate, if you don't realize the difference between "fairness" and "skill/intelligence," maybe you should remove yourself from any discussions on this topic......

# Fair Play: covers suiciding, secret alliance suspicion, breaking or respecting alliances, chivalry, etc...

Also on this site...

Unwritten Rules

Obviously any gross abuse of the game is forbidden. This includes but is not limited to: throwing games, intentional deadbeating, serial teammate killing, hijacking accounts.


Man, if you're too fucking retarded to realize that by definition it includes suiciding, as well as chivalry, then you can go f*ck yourself and leave this site. Screw off. It's called interpretation.

To me the problem lies in the fact that they took out the biggest strength the old system had. The ability for one to write their own opinion and for the recipient to write a response if they so choose.

I want to know what the problem is before i decide to play. If 10 people write a neg that a plyer was an anti social tool I wouldnt join. Now i have to rely on an average...that means different things to different people.

Optimus Prime wrote:

happy2seeyou wrote:I am conducting a test to see if it only takes you one more time to tell people then they will listen to what Lack says.

Meh, half of what I say behind the scenes goes unnoticed too, I'm just blowing off steam because everyone is bitching and moaning without giving the system a fair chance. Over half the players on the site don't even have ratings displayed yet, and even if they do, it's only 1 or 2, so there is nowhere near an accurate picture of what the system can do.

All anyone wants to do is moan and complain because a change was made without giving it a chance to prove itself. It comes across as incredibly impatient and immature in my mind, but that doesn't really matter.

Our new rating system at work: please, follow the link below:

http://www.conquerclub.com/player.php?m ... =Astroheat

Iron Butterfly wrote:To me the problem lies in the fact that they took out the biggest strength the old system had. The ability for one to write their own opinion and for the recipient to write a response if they so choose.

I want to know what the problem is before i decide to play. If 10 people write a neg that a plyer was an anti social tool I wouldnt join. Now i have to rely on an average...that means different things to different people.

fair points there.....

If nothing else, there appears to be a disconnect in language here:

hanging means to take a legitimate shot at another player in an escalating (and sometimes flat rate) game with the intention of rolling over cards or gaining a prohibitive advantage. Sometimes these killshots go bad, and there's not a player on this site worth his or her weight in salt that hasn't watched a sure 100 points go up in smoke at the hands of the fickle six-sided furies. Of course, some people have a lower threshold than others when it comes to killshots, but given the volatile nature of escalating games, I tend to give other people the benefit of the doubt.

suiciding means irrationally killing some or all of an opponents armies for absolutely no conceivable strategic reason. This may or may not occur when an unentangled player has a prohibitive advantage. This may or may not involve someone ruining another's chances of for various reasons including "you're a dick", "I'll lose fewer points if the other guy wins", "ZOMG u r teh suxxor b1tch i boned ur mom", and other such pleasantries. Sometimes it's just someone making a retarded decision.

The former started off as a legitimate strategy that ended up going poorly due to dice.

The latter is employed by the petulant, the dim-witted, and the vengeful.

The point being, just because someone took a swing at you, doesn't mean they were dumb to do it. More to the point, a mark of one's quality as a player is to be able to differentiate between hanging and suiciding.

Incandenza wrote:If nothing else, there appears to be a disconnect in language here:

hanging means to take a legitimate shot at another player in an escalating (and sometimes flat rate) game with the intention of rolling over cards or gaining a prohibitive advantage. Sometimes these killshots go bad, and there's not a player on this site worth his or her weight in salt that hasn't watched a sure 100 points go up in smoke at the hands of the fickle six-sided furies. Of course, some people have a lower threshold than others when it comes to killshots, but given the volatile nature of escalating games, I tend to give other people the benefit of the doubt.

suiciding means irrationally killing some or all of an opponents armies for absolutely no conceivable strategic reason. This may or may not occur when an unentangled player has a prohibitive advantage. This may or may not involve someone ruining another's chances of for various reasons including "you're a dick", "I'll lose fewer points if the other guy wins", "ZOMG u r teh suxxor b1tch i boned ur mom", and other such pleasantries. Sometimes it's just someone making a retarded decision.

The former started off as a legitimate strategy that ended up going poorly due to dice.

The latter is employed by the petulant, the dim-witted, and the vengeful.

The point being, just because someone took a swing at you, doesn't mean they were dumb to do it. More to the point, a mark of one's quality as a player is to be able to differentiate between hanging and suiciding.

Hanging does NOT have to do with taking a legitimate shot at someone. Hanging someone is putting someone else in a situation where it is NOT beneficial to the player who did it, and not beneficial to the player that received the action, and ALSO puts the player on the receiving end in a position of elimination by other players. For example, player A would hang player B if player A killed him entirely in NA, and left him in Oceania, even if he had no intention of attacking player A in oceania, and thus giving player C also in Oceania a very easy kill and possible sweep, even though it did NOT benefit in any way player A from killing player B in NA.

if there would be a rating for skill, then it has to be seperate

besides, we have already a rating for skill, it's called the rankings

Hrvat wrote:

Optimus Prime wrote:

happy2seeyou wrote:I am conducting a test to see if it only takes you one more time to tell people then they will listen to what Lack says.

Meh, half of what I say behind the scenes goes unnoticed too, I'm just blowing off steam because everyone is bitching and moaning without giving the system a fair chance. Over half the players on the site don't even have ratings displayed yet, and even if they do, it's only 1 or 2, so there is nowhere near an accurate picture of what the system can do.

All anyone wants to do is moan and complain because a change was made without giving it a chance to prove itself. It comes across as incredibly impatient and immature in my mind, but that doesn't really matter.

Our new rating system at work: please, follow the link below:

http://www.conquerclub.com/player.php?m ... =Astroheat

click his player profile, and click the add to foe's list button. done. that way he will at least not give me a bad rating.

FabledIntegral wrote:

Incandenza wrote:If nothing else, there appears to be a disconnect in language here:

hanging means to take a legitimate shot at another player in an escalating (and sometimes flat rate) game with the intention of rolling over cards or gaining a prohibitive advantage. Sometimes these killshots go bad, and there's not a player on this site worth his or her weight in salt that hasn't watched a sure 100 points go up in smoke at the hands of the fickle six-sided furies. Of course, some people have a lower threshold than others when it comes to killshots, but given the volatile nature of escalating games, I tend to give other people the benefit of the doubt.

suiciding means irrationally killing some or all of an opponents armies for absolutely no conceivable strategic reason. This may or may not occur when an unentangled player has a prohibitive advantage. This may or may not involve someone ruining another's chances of for various reasons including "you're a dick", "I'll lose fewer points if the other guy wins", "ZOMG u r teh suxxor b1tch i boned ur mom", and other such pleasantries. Sometimes it's just someone making a retarded decision.

The former started off as a legitimate strategy that ended up going poorly due to dice.

The latter is employed by the petulant, the dim-witted, and the vengeful.

The point being, just because someone took a swing at you, doesn't mean they were dumb to do it. More to the point, a mark of one's quality as a player is to be able to differentiate between hanging and suiciding.

Hanging does NOT have to do with taking a legitimate shot at someone. Hanging someone is putting someone else in a situation where it is NOT beneficial to the player who did it, and not beneficial to the player that received the action, and ALSO puts the player on the receiving end in a position of elimination by other players. For example, player A would hang player B if player A killed him entirely in NA, and left him in Oceania, even if he had no intention of attacking player A in oceania, and thus giving player C also in Oceania a very easy kill and possible sweep, even though it did NOT benefit in any way player A from killing player B in NA.

hmmm... there are times when you might take an opponent out of one part of the board to keep him from winning the game... so it is quite possible the same person who thinks they were suicided on perceives that it was done for no good reason... in your example, what if it was not a gimmie for player C... player C could either play it safe, OR he might go for it also, and if unsuccessful would have created yet another hanging,,, such is the life of an escalating player...

Of course, players with shallow strategy can do all kinds of pointless moves, and it would be good to have a way to rate them based on our own perception of the game...

but let me tell you a story... with the old feedback system i found myself the victim of a idiot high ranked player that has left more than his share of negative feedbacks...

Feeback wrote:Negative: I was in a strong position to win when she took out a safe country and hung me - there was no possible gain for her so it was either rank bad play or she prefered to see somebody else win - its not the first time she has done it to me recently either.This game is part luck and part skill but it shouldnt be about losing because another player decides to screw you.
Robinette's response: ohhh... a touch of paranoia/persecution complex. he takes unexpected outcomes as planned personal attacks. since you have so much trouble dealing with other players moves you might be better playing 1x1 here. or other games like chess or backgammon. jerk.

So, what will this jerk do with the new system? He'll probably leave all 1's when he interprets the gameplay incorrectly, just like before.

Optimus Prime wrote:

happy2seeyou wrote:I am conducting a test to see if it only takes you one more time to tell people then they will listen to what Lack says.

Meh, half of what I say behind the scenes goes unnoticed too, I'm just blowing off steam because everyone is bitching and moaning without giving the system a fair chance.

This is an oft-used argument but nobody has backed this up with any reason why this will work itself out.

Those of us who are "bitching and moaning" are bringing up specific reasons why this thing is doomed. Certainly it's not too much to ask of you to actually address those reasons rather than just writing them off as "bitching and moaning".

You mentioned that nobody has enough ratings yet. Care to guess what happens when everyone gets more? It will be exactly as random as it is right now because there is no way to enforce a consensus on what means 3, what means 4, and what means 5. More often than not, people will default to 5s. These will be offset to a very small degree by those who insist that the basis should really be 3 or 4 and basically everyone will end up with essentially the same score, that score being about 4.5 or likely higher. Of course the same types that got tons of negative feedback will get a lot of 1s and 2s. However, I don't recall many who didn't have at least as many positives. Assuming that translates to 4s and 5s, even their score will be around or likely above 3. Especially when you consider that you have at least 2 other criteria to balance that out. I mean, if you're a cheat but always take you turn quickly and are friendly in chat, you're getting 3.67 for that game alone. Say every other game, you play against somebody who doesn't think you're a cheat, now you're likely averaging a 5 against that and your overall ranking is 4.33. Which is just a hair below everyone elses even though you cheat in half the games you play.

Well, what happens if you're the guy who just shows up and plays but happens to have most of your games against guys who use a strict rating and give out 3s for just showing up and playing? You'll have the same or lower score as a known a-hole/cheat/deadbeat what have you. What good will that be?

So, that is my prediction and it is based on what I'm seeing in these discussions.

Care to give me a thought out reason as to why this is not going to be the case?

happy2seeyou wrote:I'm not moaning, when I moan it's much louder.

best post of the day
and i agree with opie....people arent giving a chance or complaining they didnt know it was going to happen...hence when they do i tell them not so nicely to shove it....hence i have had several warnings this week

As A player I like what happy2seeyou stated about her verbal qualifications.

But seriously--- Any thing in any way done to better Lack's baby by lack is not met with verbal abuse. He must feel like the breadwinner at home works hard all day, Knows he did a great thing then gets home and every one complains that he was not listening to them at all. What a thankless group we have here. I love the site I love the Dice I even love(ok that may be to strong) OWEN!!!


I can understand a thread or two or enen 10, but this constant bickering back and forth is just not constructive.