Conquer Club

I think 'attendance' should be automatically calculated by computer. It should be simple enough for the servers to calculate how long you take to play each turn, on average. Only casual games need rated for 'attendance'. The range would be 1 minute to 72 hours -- give someone 5 stars for average play under 4 hours, 4 stars for 4-8 hours, 3 stars for 8-12 hours, 2 stars for 12-24 hours, and 1 star for an average turn time greater than 24 hours.

Adjust those breakpoints as you like, but this one simple, automated rating is undoubtedly more useful to those looking to join games than any other. Fair play and good attitude are important, sure -- but fast casual play is golden.

Under 4 hours - rofl - some of us occasionally like to go to sleep for 8 hours at a stretch, or even work!

We get 24 hours to take a turn. Full stop.

Could be automated based on number of missed turns though, with no turns missed = 5 down to full deadbeat = 1

mightyredarmy wrote:Under 4 hours - rofl - some of us occasionally like to go to sleep for 8 hours at a stretch, or even work!

We get 24 hours to take a turn. Full stop.

Could be automated based on number of missed turns though, with no turns missed = 5 down to full deadbeat = 1

I agree, we get 24 hours to take a turn. However, is taking a full 24 hours for each turn average? I don't think so, and I'd like to know if someone who does think so is in a game -- before I decide to join that game. I'm sure we can agree that averaging under 4 hours to take a turn is excellent -- that's the idea behind 5 stars -- excellence. Remember, it's an average, so over time your 'attendance' rating would become very accurate.

We can argue about the timing of various star ratings, sure. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the average is closer to 12-24 hours. Come to think of it, it would also be simple to run the numbers and find out what the average and mean times are for taking a turn, for everyone.

The point is, it's an automatic rating, that everyone gets, and is uniformly applied. It doesn't even have to be stars -- it could be the actual average time in hours and minutes -- posting that might even encourage people to play more quickly. Everyone here is competitive, or they wouldn't be here. Let's leverage that competitive desire to make the gaming experience better for everyone.

mightyredarmy wrote:Under 4 hours - rofl - some of us occasionally like to go to sleep for 8 hours at a stretch, or even work!

We get 24 hours to take a turn. Full stop.

The only time 4 hours is even a reasonable expectation is in a 2 or 3 person game OR, maybe if you happen to have a game with folks who all operate on the same schedule as you.

Even then, folks have lives to live.

I LIKE playing with folks in Europe or Australia ... even though they are awake when most of us sleep.

mightyredarmy wrote:Could be automated based on number of missed turns though, with no turns missed = 5 down to full deadbeat = 1

This might work.

I could possible see a 5 for folks who do take quick turns, but any one who takes all their turns in the time alloted should get no less than a 4. Miss one turn, get a 3. Miss more turns, get a 2. Deadbeat and you get a 1.

Really, though I think this would make more sense if there were a larger scale. Which, if automated, might be possible.

Attendance is just that Attendance. It is not how quickly you play your turn after another player, or how many times in a day you can play. unless it is a speed game.

This is a casual gaming site. I play most of my turns when I get home from work. Sometimes I
get home and have several games with less than an hour left to play my turn. Other times when
I go into work later in the day I have 12 hours left to play my turn. Some players might only
log in once a day.

My point is that it seems you are trying to establish the "average" to your standards.

I don't know, I'm not much of a taking-turn Nazi myself, although I am taking mine rather fast ATM (hopefully, that changes once I figure out something to do with myself ) but I could see an objective score based on how often you play being useful. Hell, maybe it doesn't even factor into your overall rating, but it would help people figure out who they'd like to play with. If I logged in 10 times a day, I might find it annoying playing with people who only logged in once, compulsively checking your games is boring when there's nothing new, which is why people get angry about stuff like this. The person logging in 10 times would have reason to avoid playing with somebody who logs in once irrespective of differences in playing ability and the like. My $.02.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

mightyredarmy wrote:Under 4 hours - rofl - some of us occasionally like to go to sleep for 8 hours at a stretch, or even work!

We get 24 hours to take a turn. Full stop.

The only time 4 hours is even a reasonable expectation is in a 2 or 3 person game OR, maybe if you happen to have a game with folks who all operate on the same schedule as you.

Even then, folks have lives to live.

I LIKE playing with folks in Europe or Australia ... even though they are awake when most of us sleep.

mightyredarmy wrote:Could be automated based on number of missed turns though, with no turns missed = 5 down to full deadbeat = 1

This might work.

I could possible see a 5 for folks who do take quick turns, but any one who takes all their turns in the time alloted should get no less than a 4. Miss one turn, get a 3. Miss more turns, get a 2. Deadbeat and you get a 1.

Really, though I think this would make more sense if there were a larger scale. Which, if automated, might be possible.

And why should I be penalised because I go to work and live in a different timezone to the majority of my opponents. If an American or Australian opponent takes their turn after I have gone to bed, say 10.30 pm (BST), it is going to be at LEAST 17 hours before I can reply. And you are suggesting that I lose a point because of this.

Anyone who thinks you should lose a point for not playing quickly should lose a point on fair play, because this ain't.

Really why the 5 star system is so rough...if it went to a 3 star system mimicking before, there are no shades of grey and you could simply say 1 they missed 2 or more turns, 2 they missed a turn or 3 they never missed a turn. No clue why we needed the extra headache of 5...

Gypsys Kiss wrote:And why should I be penalised because I go to work and live in a different timezone to the majority of my opponents. If an American or Australian opponent takes their turn after I have gone to bed, say 10.30 pm (BST), it is going to be at LEAST 17 hours before I can reply. And you are suggesting that I lose a point because of this.

Anyone who thinks you should lose a point for not playing quickly should lose a point on fair play, because this ain't.

You aren't penalized though. Your rating should however reflect how long you use to take your turns so other people can adjust to your behavior. Just the same as people is supposed to have the possibility of playing/not playing an a-hole by looking at their rating in "Attitude".

Magiw wrote:Really why the 5 star system is so rough...if it went to a 3 star system mimicking before, there are no shades of grey and you could simply say 1 they missed 2 or more turns, 2 they missed a turn or 3 they never missed a turn. No clue why we needed the extra headache of 5...

Most likely because they wanted 5 stars for the rest of the categories...

Gypsys Kiss wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

mightyredarmy wrote:Under 4 hours - rofl - some of us occasionally like to go to sleep for 8 hours at a stretch, or even work!

We get 24 hours to take a turn. Full stop.

The only time 4 hours is even a reasonable expectation is in a 2 or 3 person game OR, maybe if you happen to have a game with folks who all operate on the same schedule as you.

Even then, folks have lives to live.

I LIKE playing with folks in Europe or Australia ... even though they are awake when most of us sleep.

mightyredarmy wrote:

Could be automated based on number of missed turns though, with no turns missed = 5 down to full deadbeat = 1

This might work.

I could possible see a 5 for folks who do take quick turns, but any one who takes all their turns in the time alloted should get no less than a 4. Miss one turn, get a 3. Miss more turns, get a 2. Deadbeat and you get a 1.

Really, though I think this would make more sense if there were a larger scale. Which, if automated, might be possible.

And why should I be penalised because I go to work and live in a different timezone to the majority of my opponents. If an American or Australian opponent takes their turn after I have gone to bed, say 10.30 pm (BST), it is going to be at LEAST 17 hours before I can reply. And you are suggesting that I lose a point because of this.

Anyone who thinks you should lose a point for not playing quickly should lose a point on fair play, because this ain't.

I don't see getting an "above average" rating as "losing" anything. Personally, I think the turns are 24 hours for casual and 5 for speed.

BUT, I know this is a sticking point for some people. So, saying that speed makes the difference between an "exceptional" and "above average" seems a possible compromise. I think most people would not care if someone got a 4 or 5 under that system.
I sometimes play quicker, but If not ... I have premium so I can make another game to play. And,

You know, it might simply come down to semantics. The word attendance implies how well you adhere to rule of taking your turn within 24 hours. That is likely why people understandably bristle at the notion of getting anything less than highest marks provided they never miss a turn.

Were a speed rating added, then people would simply have to come to grips with the type of player they were. Perhaps, for the sake of those obsessed with their overall rating, this could be separate from the rest.

None the less, it would be illustrative to know what type of player you are. It is certainly no crime to be the sort that only takes his or her turn every morning for instance, but it would be nice for those who camp here all day to know going in so they'd find each other (perhaps you could narrow game searches for only those with speed ratings of 4 or 5 and the slower players could play amongst themselves which would not only mean the quick players end up in faster games but the leisurely players don't have to take grief for not being johnny on the spot). So, maybe you'll have high marks in everything but be a 1 or 2 in speed. Big deal, it's nothing to be ashamed of, simply an illustration of how quickly you're inclined to take your turn.

Ya this is a bad idea...

edit: unless you make it like, average time of playing. but that still would be bad

ParadiceCity9 wrote:Ya this is a bad idea...

edit: unless you make it like, average time of playing. but that still would be bad

Absolutely, it's much better to judge "attendance" by some completely arbitrary time standard that each person sets for the community.

Also - look at yesterday - lots of people missed turns due to unforeseen circumstances - they would get bad ratings cos the server went down?

C.

I like the idea of doing away with attendance and instead automatically calulating how quickly players take their turns on average and how many turns they've missed per game.

I dont miss any turns and im already getting dinged with 3's beacuse I dont play real time. This is as bad as receiving a negative feedback. I like the auto idea but your outline is not reasonable.

yes well...i got rated for attitude.....as a 3 or 4/...all i said was gg!....LOL now im a 4.9:P

clapper011 wrote:yes well...i got rated for attitude.....as a 3 or 4/...all i said was gg!....LOL now im a 4.9:P

im getting 3's for attitude and said nothing in game chat. also, 3's for teamplay and the players leaving the rating are on the other team. We need to get these issues corrected.

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:I dont miss any turns and im already getting dinged with 3's beacuse I dont play real time. This is as bad as receiving a negative feedback. I like the auto idea but your outline is not reasonable.

it is going to take so long for this thing to level out... and freemiums aren't the only people blowing up ratings over RT that aren't set up as RT.. it is ridiculous. how would the automation work out, though?-0

It's ridiculous to base an attendance rating on how quickly people take their turns. I'd guess that roughly 10% of the people I play with are in my time zone (UK), 25% are from the rest of Europe, 60% from North America and 5% from the rest of the world.
Now in some games I'm following a player from the UK or Europe and can take my turns very quickly. But if I'm following someone from Australia for example, then there's bound to be a delay. In both cases my behaviour is exactly the same (taking turns as swiftly as I can), it's only the circumstances which have changed.
The way I look at it, is that if you took all your turns in a game then you get a 5, miss a turn and get a 4, miss a couple and get 3, deadbeat and get a 1. Timing just shouldn't be a factor in an 'attendance' rating.

Ok. I see everyone's points here.

I agree that 'Attendance' is the wrong word. In fact, it's kind of a useless rating, but I think we can all agree that some sort of information about whether a player misses a lot of turns is important, or at least a factor, in deciding to join a game. It doesn't matter so much what we call that metric -- what's more important is that we have the information.

I'm merely pointing out that whatever the metric we measure this by, it's something that could, and should, be automated. We're already seeing people going down in 'attendance' even though they play on time -- because some people rate everyone 5, some rate everyone 3.

I think that the actual time taken for a turn, on average, is interesting and important -- would it prevent me from joining a game? No, but it would be an incentive to join a game with other very responsive players.

We're all HIGHLY COMPETITIVE. That's a given, considering the nature of this site! I'm not suggesting that people who take the full 24 hours be penalized in any way. I am suggesting that, if we had a measure of average turn time, people would strive to improve that metric -- and I see that as a positive.

In any case, the 'attendance' rating should be automated, and I think the name should be changed. Whether it measures turns missed or time between turns is less important than standardizing and automating.

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:I dont miss any turns and im already getting dinged with 3's beacuse I dont play real time. This is as bad as receiving a negative feedback. I like the auto idea but your outline is not reasonable.

According to the guideline of the SITE, getting a 3 is not the equivalent of getting "dinged", JR. Yes, you don't agree with the guidelines of the site, but that doesn't mean getting a 3 is bad.

Optimus Prime wrote:

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:I dont miss any turns and im already getting dinged with 3's beacuse I dont play real time. This is as bad as receiving a negative feedback. I like the auto idea but your outline is not reasonable.

According to the guideline of the SITE, getting a 3 is not the equivalent of getting "dinged", JR. Yes, you don't agree with the guidelines of the site, but that doesn't mean getting a 3 is bad.

So how do you gain a five star rating for attendance then?

Hi,

I think that the new system doesn't really work.

With the old system I had between 30 and 50 positives with 0 negatives. Now since some people rate on 3 and others 5, I have around 4.3. This may not seam bad to the people who rate on 3 but it will for the people who rate on 5.

There isn't only the problem of attendance. Attendance of course is important but it is important to note that some people around here have lives. In the introduction page it actually takes that into account saying all you need is 5 minutes before work while drinking your cofe. Should people be penalised for following these guidlines?

Or maybe the site should make a distinction between those who play 24/7 and those who play once a day as the rules state they should. It is true that sometimes I wish players would take their turns faster. But real life is way more important than a game.

This does not mean that I disagree with the attendance rating but it should only be used against people who miss turns for no proper reason.

Optimus Prime wrote:

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:I dont miss any turns and im already getting dinged with 3's beacuse I dont play real time. This is as bad as receiving a negative feedback. I like the auto idea but your outline is not reasonable.

According to the guideline of the SITE, getting a 3 is not the equivalent of getting "dinged", JR. Yes, you don't agree with the guidelines of the site, but that doesn't mean getting a 3 is bad.

when I click on a 3, it reads "average". a player that makes every move in his game is not average. A player that misses 1 turn is average.