Conquer Club

A possible alternative to the star ratings system might be what I call a "flag system"


It's much simpler and conveys more detailed and acurate information even with the simpler format.

Here's how it would work, (roughly, haven't thought it in depth yet, just a new idea):

There would be a set number of flags or attributes that can be assigned to each player.

A possible attribute list might be:
Deadbeater
Plays Fast
Chat Jerk
Cool Chat
Cheater
Great Teammate
Jerk Teammate


The list could go on...I need imaginative help here.

At the end of the game if you chose to rate a player you would choose to set the appropriate flags for that player.

So you could see that PlayerABC got a lot of deadbeater and jerk chat flags on him and stay away. No vague 1-5 rating but a definite 15 deadbeater flags. Whereas PlayerXYZ seems to have a lot of folks think he's a great chatter and plays his turns fast.

That has potential. However, one thing that comes to mind is that there's nothing to average the data against. How many opponents did that player face to earn those flags? I mean, one guy could have 5 jerk flags after one game and another could have 5 jerk flags after 100 games. There's obviously a massive difference between the two and you can't just go by total games played because all of us have a significant amount of games played prior to this new system.

None the less, it does make more sense than what we have now.

JimRocky wrote:A possible alternative to the star ratings system might be what I call a "flag system"


It's much simpler and conveys more detailed and acurate information even with the simpler format.

Here's how it would work, (roughly, haven't thought it in depth yet, just a new idea):

There would be a set number of flags or attributes that can be assigned to each player.

A possible attribute list might be:
Deadbeater
Plays Fast
Chat Jerk
Cool Chat
Cheater
Great Teammate
Jerk Teammate


The list could go on...I need imaginative help here.

At the end of the game if you chose to rate a player you would choose to set the appropriate flags for that player.

So you could see that PlayerABC got a lot of deadbeater and jerk chat flags on him and stay away. No vague 1-5 rating but a definite 15 deadbeater flags. Whereas PlayerXYZ seems to have a lot of folks think he's a great chatter and plays his turns fast.

i think it woud be hardly any differnt than the stars rating. still a lot of players might abuse it, and it will only be a shitload of flags on each profile (either negative or positive flags) and like said above, it's hard to tell if a person with 5 negative flags has 'earned' thos in 1 game or in 100

The flagging system would suffer from the same core problem which the star rating and the commentary system have...user error. The unfortunate part is not that the system isn't sufficiently comprehensive, but that there are those that use it as vendetta tools/expressions of disappointment at losing/etc.

foregone wrote:The flagging system would suffer from the same core problem which the star rating and the commentary system have...user error. The unfortunate part is not that the system isn't sufficiently comprehensive, but that there are those that use it as vendetta tools/expressions of disappointment at losing/etc.

Granted the flag system would be open to user abuse, (all proposed systems will have this weakness, )it would at least show something. A person that has jerk and deadbeat flags is something I can see. 3 stars means... nothing I can see or tell for sure.

There might also be added a display counter to indicate over how many games or ratings the flags were received. That issue with this system could be easily alleviated

JimRocky wrote:

foregone wrote:The flagging system would suffer from the same core problem which the star rating and the commentary system have...user error. The unfortunate part is not that the system isn't sufficiently comprehensive, but that there are those that use it as vendetta tools/expressions of disappointment at losing/etc.

Granted the flag system would be open to user abuse, (all proposed systems will have this weakness, )it would at least show something. A person that has jerk and deadbeat flags is something I can see. 3 stars means... nothing I can see or tell for sure.

I see your point. I just feel that in the commentary sytem if somebody made such a comment, ie deadbeat, I could at least respond by saying "I didn't miss a turn" or somesuch. Whereas this would allow them to make the "comment" without my response. With those choices I'd rather have the stars where they can't make unmoderated random accusations.

What's wrong with playing fast?

nice try but that's way to sloppy and would be much harder for the mods.

GoVegan wrote:What's wrong with playing fast?

Nothing, he was pointing out good and bad flags. Looks like someone needs a proper meal for once.

Deadbeaters and cheaters don't even need to be feedback-driven. The server probably already has the data on who got kicked out for missing too many turns and how many times. The mods could brand cheaters on their profile page so the rest of us don't have to go digging through 100 pages of cheating and abuse threads.

The rest are subjective, I'd rather read somebody's explanation and make my own decision.

gloryordeath wrote:nice try but that's way to sloppy and would be much harder for the mods.

Try not to be a dim bulb all your life.

It's not way too sloppy as it's not a finished idea. It could be neat.

It's no harder that the rating system for the mods. With ratings they have to tally responses and average them.
With this system they just have to tally responses, and thats it. That would be easier numb nuts.

If you are gonna detract from my ideas have a good reason not just a blurb out of your dim bulb mouth.

Maybe lack has something up his sleeve.

Bruceswar wrote:Maybe lack has something up his sleeve.

You know, I bet he does.