Moderator: Community Team
5 Stars when you play almost immediately after me, have missed no turns, took no longer then 3 hours From available turn
I am an adult I usually have access all day even at work. My priorities are just fine and my life is balanced. But based on what you have said no I would not give you 5 stars since take turns in a normal leisurely fashion and thus you would be an average player and get a 3 because you have done nothing spectacular to impress nor have you done anything offensive as you do have 24 hours to take a turn...SlayerQC wrote:5 Stars when you play almost immediately after me, have missed no turns, took no longer then 3 hours From available turn
Are you insane?
I play evenings and mornings and I dont deserve a 5 stars???? They give 24hours for a reason.
Play IMMEDIATELY AFTER YOU???
Dude, are you a kid?
If so you might want to reconsider your priorities or else you'll be homeless or on welfare as an adult.
again there is nothing wrong with a 3 as it is average the site lists what each star level means. Why would you expect more then 3 when you are just playing average amount or average effort. In school when you just did the minimum to pass you got a C if you did a little More you got a B, when you went above and beyond you earned A. this system is remarkably similar and just like in school where every teacher interprets differently in there considerations we all have that same ability here.SlayerQC wrote:I'll refrain to comment on the rest of the stuff you wrote as I have to make sure I wake up in 4 hours to see if I have to play a turn to deserve my 5th star.
To simplify though: most of it seems highly unreasoneable.
So, everyone that doesnt speak english (it's a worlwide website, just like the original map!!) or simply want to play will never get 5 stars for attitude??
ok, over and out before I also write a novel..
per the site descriptionKeebs2674 wrote:The problem with your ratings is that you consider "Fair Play" to be how well someone played a game. That's not what fair play is. That's whether they had good strategy or not. Fair play is about whether someone follows the rules or cheats. I'd include suiciding and intentionally missing turns and breaking alliances in that catagory.
No offense to you but you do not even say good luck nor good game I would just rate you a average 3 and again it is nothing personal. I just feel the extra 3 seconds of typing show courteousness that only would delay you twice a few seconds in a game to say those simple things. To me it is just being courteous and while not required shows someone giving the extra effort to project a positive attitude.wacicha wrote:Some of the more active players including myself rarely chat. The reason is usually we are in 100 or more games. Not much time. yet most of the players who play me know that I have at least a 4 star attitude.
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
1st of fair Play is an application how you play the game and how it balances in regards to others which is essentially how your strategy affects others and whether it fair way of playing all the same thing in big picture terms. How is 3 a bad rating, based on those same rules you quoted in part why give them more then a 3 which is average for things which as you describe sound awfully average to me. The way people are treating this is like they need that gratification of being told they are doing something exceptional when they are not. I guess if it makes you feel better to lie to people be lied back to that is all on you I rather honestly gage someone and accurately let others know how the game went but again this all opinion based so do what ever floats your boat...Luvr wrote:I think Soloman and Ray Rider are WAY over the top.
C'mon people, stop making up your own system for star ratings!
From the INSTRUCTIONS:
* Fair Play: covers suiciding, secret alliance suspicion, breaking or respecting alliances, chivalry, etc...
* Attendance: covers deadbeating, missing turns, deliberately prolonging rounds, finding a babysitter to keep things moving, etc...
* Attitude: covers behaviour in chat, foul language, sore losers, gracious winners, "great chatters!", whining about dice, etc...
* Teamwork: covers playing with teammates - coordination, communication, etc...
As far as I'm concerned if you don't do ANYTHING offensive or against the rules, why not give someone 5 stars all around?
Fair Play is NOT strategy! It's FAIR PLAY.
Attendance is NOT whether someone took their turns according to the schedule that YOU would like them to. It's whether they took them in their allowed time and without missing turns.
Attitude is not being an annoying son of a bitch. There's NO requirement to chat so don't give people less stars because they don't feel like chatting or didn't even read the game chat.
Teamwork is self-explanatory even though the others should be too.
I recently finished a team game and near the end I killed my partner to get his cards because 1.) he told me to and 2.) the other team would have if I hadn't. The next time the yellow player had a turn they played then let themselves time out in case I could cash and kill them and get their cards. Yellow committed an unfair move so I gave them like 2 stars or something there but 5 elsewhere. I don't care if it's not specifically against the rules, if you let yourself time out so someone gets less cards when they kill you that's unfair play.
When someone deadbeats a game, where do you take stars off?
This seems like a no brainer to me but why are people taking stars off Fair Play and Attitude if someone just bails on a game (no suiciding etc.)
I don't care if you felt like having a conversation, if someone doesn't chat that's not unfair, that's not a bad attitude. Like someone said, some people play 30, 50, 70, 100 games etc. They don't feel like chatting in all of them.
Stop being a bunch of shitheads and giving people bad ratings because you they weren't up to your standards. If they're not violating what the RULES SAY are causes for low rating then suck it up and give a person 5 stars.
Personally if I play a game with someone and they don't do anything offensive and just play the game then they get 5 stars.
Keebs2674 wrote:The problem with your ratings is that you consider "Fair Play" to be how well someone played a game. That's not what fair play is. That's whether they had good strategy or not. Fair play is about whether someone follows the rules or cheats. I'd include suiciding and intentionally missing turns and breaking alliances in that catagory.
drunkmonkey wrote:I honestly wonder why anyone becomes a mod on this site. You're the whiniest bunch of players imaginable.
Ron Burgundy wrote:Why don't you go back to your home on Whore Island?
Soloman wrote:Fairplay:
Teamwork:
5 Stars Great teammate always in sync with team moves, acts wisely for team with little or no verbal coordination
4 Stars Coordinates well and communicates good strategy is cooperative and flexible with Good tactical plays in a jam
3 Stars Communicates but not always is in sync but does try and work as a team with teammates while holding own position
2 Stars Does not communicate well and a hindrance to team because of this, Does not look out for team interests
1 Star Saboteur plays as if single game, does not communicate at all, attacks & injures teammates, does not help when able
drunkmonkey wrote:I honestly wonder why anyone becomes a mod on this site. You're the whiniest bunch of players imaginable.
Ron Burgundy wrote:Why don't you go back to your home on Whore Island?
Visaoni wrote:Soloman wrote:Fairplay:
Teamwork:
5 Stars Great teammate always in sync with team moves, acts wisely for team with little or no verbal coordination
4 Stars Coordinates well and communicates good strategy is cooperative and flexible with Good tactical plays in a jam
3 Stars Communicates but not always is in sync but does try and work as a team with teammates while holding own position
2 Stars Does not communicate well and a hindrance to team because of this, Does not look out for team interests
1 Star Saboteur plays as if single game, does not communicate at all, attacks & injures teammates, does not help when able
So somebody who plays well on a team, but doesn't communicate much gets a 5, while somebody who does the same thing but clues you into what they are thinking and asking if you see anything they are missing gets a 4? To me, that is screwed up. Teams aren't just for the little armies to play nice with each other, in a large way it's about having more pairs of eyes watching the board to see what the possibilities are. Sure, the higher ranks probably don't need much help, but that doesn't mean they are always seeing everything.
And I just have one other thing to say about your rating system. If this were to become the "norm" I think we would see Attendance grayed out most of the time. Everything else are things you just notice in the course of a game, but in order to check all the hours etc etc that you have for attendance... Also I think the attendance rules are a little harsh. Not everybody can get on CC during their job/school/whatever. Personally I just go based on missed turns or not. I don't care if they go within 3 hours of the last person because if I want to play more often then I will just join more games. It is also a lot simpler to check if somebody missed any turns or not.
Luvr wrote:Personally if I play a game with someone and they don't do anything offensive and just play the game then they get 5 stars.
Ray Rider wrote:Luvr wrote:Personally if I play a game with someone and they don't do anything offensive and just play the game then they get 5 stars.
How is it of "outstanding quality or superior merit" (the very definition of excellent) to, as you say, "just play the game"?
I don't believe that this is the be all and end all of criteria--I think Visaoni brought up a good point about rating a teammate--but I'd say it's generally very good.
actually it is a grade we are grading each player based on a single test which is the game we played with them. Average is average and if it is not above and beyond average it should be rated as just that average. I used my criteria as what I grade people by I based that upon basic sense and understanding of the system that is now in place I have had to grade people in real life(doing training)and this system is similar to one used there also. A above average person at work makes sure all is completed before they leave with out prompting or being asked to stay, a person that is willing to go above and beyond even that is a excellent employee, but a employee who comes in and gives there 8 is not late but just does there job to the t of minimum expectations is a average employee period. This is a basic system that can be broken down and applied to just about anything in life.Luvr wrote:Because not disobeying the rules and playing like you're supposed to (within allotted time period, fairly, not being offensive, being a team player) IS excellent. Why do you feel the need to ask for more from a player? People are comparing this to grades in school but it's not. There's no chance at getting into a better post-secondary from playing this game (as far as I know). I think most people come here to play a game similar to Risk not be graded by some obsessive-compulsive players who check to see if you take your turns within 3 hours of it becoming your turn.
Soloman wrote:actually it is a grade we are grading each player based on a single test which is the game we played with them. Average is average and if it is not above and beyond average it should be rated as just that average. I used my criteria as what I grade people by I based that upon basic sense and understanding of the system that is now in place I have had to grade people in real life(doing training)and this system is similar to one used there also. A above average person at work makes sure all is completed before they leave with out prompting or being asked to stay, a person that is willing to go above and beyond even that is a excellent employee, but a employee who comes in and gives there 8 is not late but just does there job to the t of minimum expectations is a average employee period. This is a basic system that can be broken down and applied to just about anything in life.Luvr wrote:Because not disobeying the rules and playing like you're supposed to (within allotted time period, fairly, not being offensive, being a team player) IS excellent. Why do you feel the need to ask for more from a player? People are comparing this to grades in school but it's not. There's no chance at getting into a better post-secondary from playing this game (as far as I know). I think most people come here to play a game similar to Risk not be graded by some obsessive-compulsive players who check to see if you take your turns within 3 hours of it becoming your turn.
Luvr wrote:Ray Rider wrote:Luvr wrote:Personally if I play a game with someone and they don't do anything offensive and just play the game then they get 5 stars.
How is it of "outstanding quality or superior merit" (the very definition of excellent) to, as you say, "just play the game"?
I don't believe that this is the be all and end all of criteria--I think Visaoni brought up a good point about rating a teammate--but I'd say it's generally very good.
Because personally I'm not so arrogant as to ask more from a player than what is required of them (for attendance) or what is courteous of them (attitude/fair play). It may not be "outstanding quality or superior merit" but for an online multiplayer game it's good enough if they don't make my experience here or my time in the game with them unpleasant. There's enough people here that do (either consciously or not) upset the game for people that I'll wait and give them lower ratings instead of someone who just feels like playing a simple game and not chatting or whatever. I didn't say I don't give out lower ratings, I just don't if they don't deserve it.
Luvr wrote:Soloman wrote:actually it is a grade we are grading each player based on a single test which is the game we played with them. Average is average and if it is not above and beyond average it should be rated as just that average. I used my criteria as what I grade people by I based that upon basic sense and understanding of the system that is now in place I have had to grade people in real life(doing training)and this system is similar to one used there also. A above average person at work makes sure all is completed before they leave with out prompting or being asked to stay, a person that is willing to go above and beyond even that is a excellent employee, but a employee who comes in and gives there 8 is not late but just does there job to the t of minimum expectations is a average employee period. This is a basic system that can be broken down and applied to just about anything in life.Luvr wrote:Because not disobeying the rules and playing like you're supposed to (within allotted time period, fairly, not being offensive, being a team player) IS excellent. Why do you feel the need to ask for more from a player? People are comparing this to grades in school but it's not. There's no chance at getting into a better post-secondary from playing this game (as far as I know). I think most people come here to play a game similar to Risk not be graded by some obsessive-compulsive players who check to see if you take your turns within 3 hours of it becoming your turn.
Except you're not paying people to play how you want them to.
Luvr wrote:Because personally I'm not so arrogant as to ask more from a player than what is required of them (for attendance) or what is courteous of them (attitude/fair play).
Luvr wrote:It may not be "outstanding quality or superior merit" but for an online multiplayer game it's good enough if they don't make my experience here or my time in the game with them unpleasant.
Luvr wrote:There's enough people here that do (either consciously or not) upset the game for people that I'll wait and give them lower ratings instead of someone who just feels like playing a simple game and not chatting or whatever.
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users