Conquer Club

I was going to post this as a suggestion, but decided it should be up for discussion FIRST.

Concise description:
SIMPLIFY the ratings and offer better, clearer instructions.



Specifics: (note: I place rating "titles" in color, explanations are italicized and would be in overal instructions and/or at top of ratings page -- at least to start)

Return to 3 ratings, either overall or in categories +,0,-
+ Positive: Enjoyed playing, would play again
0 Nuetral: I disliked some things about the player, but might play again or won't play, but other people probably would be happy to play this person.
- Negative: I strongly disliked this player and reccommend avoiding

The rating is in regular print, the explanation in italics(in Introduction or as a kind of "pop up"/explanation at top of rating list)

3 OPTIONS:
1. Categories, with 3 levels (+,0,-) and tags

Attitude:
Cheerful/friendly
Helpful (helps understand game, map, but without giving one player an advantage)

Tolerant/moderating (for a player who tries to smooth conflict or who puts up with a "jerk" well. [/color]--- would mostly be given by 3rd-6th players, not the 2 involved).
Complainer
Insulting/rude (swears, etc. ... perhaps when losing, but also just generally)

Gameplay:
disliked strategy Player did something you did not like, perhaps "suicided", "double turned" in freestyle, missed turns as strategy, etc. (note: this makes it more realistic and subjective ... anyone can have an opinion, it does not say that the strategy actually IS bad, just that the person disliked it).
liked strategy (again, a simple "kudos")
Quick (person took their turns unusually fast)
Slow (person too their turns unusually slow)[/color]
Poor sport (deadbeats when losing, insults others when losing, takes "revenge", reveals information to non teammates in fog, makes threats)
Not Trustworthy (breaks alliances, suspected multis, etc.)
Learning ([i]someone who is new or has little experience on the particular map/settings, though I would suggest NOT using it for new maps--since that just tells us the map is new, not about that player, really)

Good Teammate
Bad Teammate
Unable to speak English well.

2. Same as above, but with separate Teammate rating that would ONLY be rated by fellow teammates

OVERALL ratings by opponents would be rated gameplay, just like for singles -- you liked their strategy, did not, etc.

TEAM PLAY would be specific for teammates:
Did not communicate sabotaged team ([i]attacked teammates, ruined proposed plans and did not offer any alternatives, ignored advice of more experienced players,etc.[/i]
Poor English
Good teammate (coordinates well with other teammates, listens if not experienced, offers suggestions if able politely, etc.)
Lone Ranger (went with own plan against advice, but did communicate, strategy might or might not have been decent, but did not coordinate with others).


3. Go back to an overall 3 level rating -- neg, neutral and positive
BUT have tags, MUCH SIMPLIFIED & CLARIFIED tags
Tags would be as explained in #2, but not seperate.

OR:

Keep 5 stars, but simplify Ratings (how? -- discuss)
Maybe keep things as they are, but simplify to "GamePlay" and Attitude OR just 1 rating, with tags?

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

[pause while the multitudes stop laughing at Player suggesting a simplified system]


Okay, now that you have stopped laughing, I think the fact that I (well known for complicating things!) feels this is too, too much speaks VOLUMES!

I started with the list that Lack posted, deleted a few and then added explanations.

I am also adding a poll.

I think they just used most of your ideas in the new system.

Your poll is more complicated than the new feedback system,
since all any player has to do now click on three stars...
the new section of selections is optional.

oVo wrote:Your poll is more complicated than the new feedback system,
since all any player has to do now click on three stars...
the new section of selections is optional.

Better now?

I believe simple is better. They should replace the star system with a simple positive/neutral/negative system and pair that with the current descriptive tags. That would contain everything I, and I'd think most people, would want to know about a player.

well i think that the ratings should be more like an inverse decay function. Perhaps like this. Your rate them from 1 to 9. But then the rating goes into a funtion. perhaps R = 2^(x/3). So if someone leaves you a 3, your rating is two. If they leave you a 6 your rating would be 2 squared. If they leave you a 1, it would be the cube root of 1. This would probably clear up all the confusion and make things more fair and easy to understand. : )

Georgerx7di wrote:well i think that the ratings should be more like an inverse decay function. Perhaps like this. Your rate them from 1 to 9. But then the rating goes into a funtion. perhaps R = 2^(x/3). So if someone leaves you a 3, your rating is two. If they leave you a 6 your rating would be 2 squared. If they leave you a 1, it would be the cube root of 1. This would probably clear up all the confusion and make things more fair and easy to understand. : )

Here here, however, I think you have missed one small point. If R=2^(x/3) then surely Q = Q0ekt, in this we can then assume that the decay rate (k) is constant, and should this be the case, then k can control whether the rate is positive or negative.

In this case all ratings would ultimately mutate into.....feedback!

Yes, I think the solution would be to integrate both sides of the equation and then order some jelly donuts.

neutral shouldn't have any negative connontations

neutral should be given to your good ol average player, average play. most times there is nothing much to rate

positive should only be for exceptional players playing exceptional games

the reason is because you won't get ratings that mean anything as the majority will be positive, the occasional neutral and negative, and everyone ends up with the same basic score like right now 4.9-4.6 which of course means absolutely nothing

0 Nuetral: I disliked some things about the player, but might play again or won't play, but other people probably would be happy to play this person.