Conquer Club

Rating a player 1/5 across the board as a form of revenge is simply wrong and a gross misuse of the system as I understand it. If you have a beef with a player that has nothing to do with Gameplay or Fair Play, you shouldn't use low ratings to take revenge. A low score on Attitude, and several nasty tags are fair, but the other two categories are distinct, and ought to be evaluated on their own merits.

As you might have guessed, I have been subjected to this inappropriate treatment, and it's clearly wrong. I know I'm not the first. To make matters even more absurd, I have played just ONE game against the player in question (Roadwarrior in case y'all are wonderin').

I've written to a moderator about it, but I wonder if anything will be done. It's a real drag to have a perfect 5.0 rating marred by one grossly misguided and disgruntled player (who happened to suicide against another player out of anger/revenge).

Thats the weakness of the new ratings system. Im afraid that your going to have to live with it. I mainly give all 1's or all 5's (negative or positive). Neutrel means you dont get a rating

This was discussed a LOT when the system first came out. Check them out, if you wish, but the bottom line is as Humley already said... there is NO moderation.

I do leave 3 or 4 's sometimes ,but if a player is exceptionally good I'll leave 5's .When a player is bad .I think they deserve 1's .This has nothing to do with personal issues .Its just that they suck at Risk and I want to warn the cc world .

KoE_Sirius wrote:I do leave 3 or 4 's sometimes ,but if a player is exceptionally good I'll leave 5's .When a player is bad .I think they deserve 1's .This has nothing to do with personal issues .Its just that they suck at Risk and I want to warn the cc world .

Except that IS an abuse of the system. The RANK tells you if someone is "good at Risk" or not. Attitude and fair play were specifically disstinct from Game Play. IN fact, game play was not even included at first. It was added AFTER because people were using "fair play", etc to rate folks play.

IF you feel someone has played poorly, then rate them poor in Game play and check the "poor strategy" or such. Don't claim they had a "poor attitude" unless they really did.

Fair Play is directly linked to gameplay .IE if you haven't a clue how the map works .Its hard to play fair . Gameplay is directly linked to fairplay .Poor risk players mostly have a bad attitude towards the game.If someone is good loser and exceptionally polite I guess I wouldn't give a 1 for attitude .All this knowledge in hand look at the last rating I received .The guy deadbeated and left me all ones .
A floored system indeed .

The rating system is crap simply because it isn't being moderated. The mods should either step up and start dealing with the multitude of rating abuse threads in C&A or get rid of it completely.

Yeah I know - I've heard it before that the mods don't have time to deal with the complaints of rating abuse but that is why they got rid of the old feedback system - because they were spending too much time responding to unfair feedback reports. Changing the way we leave feedback and removing the mods has done nothing but given people free reign to abuse the system.

For once, I'll say that the mods probably aren't responsible for moderating this system. They are responsible for enacting the system, however, which I'll say is crap. As I look down my list of games, I don't see anyone lower than a four, except for one person who only has one rating. Brilliance in action, I think.

(useful thread) I agree w/ some of these people, the mods NEED to step up and do this, or at least put more mods in, some mods should be rating mods, other forum mods. And the mods we all know and love (Lack, Optimus for example) Should be The Genereal Puropse Mods.

Is a 4.9 a bad thing?

oVo wrote:Is a 4.9 a bad thing?

Nah. That's just as good as half of the player-base.

I think we should just have tags, and no ratings. Since they actually describe how a person played not just a generalization that fails since everyone's average is 4.6 - 5.0

The Neon Peon wrote:I think we should just have tags, and no ratings. Since they actually describe how a person played not just a generalization that fails since everyone's average is 4.6 - 5.0

ONLY if folks are honest, but as seen above... some folks keep insisting that the only thing that matters is strategy. Interestingly, though KoE_Sirius is actually reasonably high ranked, MOST who have this opinion are not.

Contrary to the opinion of those few, the REAL majority don't think CC scores are more than just something fun. And most of us will happily put those few who feel otherwise on our ignore lists. We cannot be bothered. (I have less than 10 ... and all but 2 were later busted as multis. I have left them just "in case" they return).

yep, i just got a 1 rating for beating a freemium in a trips game. i asked him kindly to reconsider and only got a bunch of nasty and crass pm's which led to my warning other players in his games. this lead to andy warning me about trolling. odd. i remember when people gave crap ratings before that people would warn others in chat so they could be put on ignore before any damage was done. now it is considered "trolling" and a bannable offense. absolute rubbish. there is no moderation of this crap system and there is no way to have a bogus rating removed and their is no way to fairly warn other players of another players intent to do damage to ratings for losing. freemiums should not be allowed to rate premium players until they complete X amount of games and receive X amount of ratings. it is garbage that a freemium with a low win percentage and less than 30 games can trash my rating, because he is sore over a loss. absolute garbage.-0

I think you got me all wrong with what I said.Perhaps it was a little short and to the point.
So here goes .I simply will not leave a rating if a player is mediocre in all catergories .
So I'll analyse the game if a player has a bad attitude .Normally a player with a bad attitude plays badly .
Equally so if a player has a good attitude I may give him some slack if he played badly and not leave an opinion .
Unless they ask coz he is new or something .If they ask I will give an informed opinion as an accomplished risk player anything from 1-5 stars .
This is the way of the world .BTW only someone with a low rank would claim my rank is high .My rank sucks coz I'll play any rank .

Logic Dictates That the Ratings System Will Never Be Used as Intended.

Lets be honest here. How many people actually go and look at the ratings of players that they're playing. I rarely do. In general I figure most CC players are going to have ratings between 4.7 and 5.0. If they're in the 4.5-4.6 range I might take a look to see why. If they're below 4.5 generally they've got some issues. I'll check at that point to see why people are downgrading the player at that point.

I do that as well, except I do not really care. I usually go to look at their games played and percent of turns taken first. then I look at some of their games, and if I want to waste time, I look at their ratings.

barterer2002 wrote:Lets be honest here. How many people actually go and look at the ratings of players that they're playing. I rarely do. In general I figure most CC players are going to have ratings between 4.7 and 5.0. If they're in the 4.5-4.6 range I might take a look to see why. If they're below 4.5 generally they've got some issues. I'll check at that point to see why people are downgrading the player at that point.

Well I don't .I normally start a speed game .Anyone can join .Rating means nothing to me .

The new rating system is weak, very weak, in many different areas. I think there should be a major sit down discussion to come up with a rating system that is effective.

I quit giving ratings. I simply foe those whom I no longer wish to play against. Who cares about what rating someone gives?

premio53 wrote:I quit giving ratings. I simply foe those whom I no longer wish to play against. Who cares about what rating someone gives?

This guy is right on the money.

U are once more very true dear barterer fellow. When i look my games history, problems i got, and or games i didnt like because of that of this whatever are those in which 4.5 or less rated ppl exist. So you defined me a new criteria, your method is goiing to work i think. Ty boss

barterer2002 wrote:Lets be honest here. How many people actually go and look at the ratings of players that they're playing. I rarely do. In general I figure most CC players are going to have ratings between 4.7 and 5.0. If they're in the 4.5-4.6 range I might take a look to see why. If they're below 4.5 generally they've got some issues. I'll check at that point to see why people are downgrading the player at that point.

Well hell maybe it should just be points Friends and Foes since ratings are largely overlooked and can be used as a tool for revenge.

Thanks everyone for your comments. I just think it's cowardly and a bit unethical to use ratings to get back at someone or settle a personal score. I mean I may get really mad at a player, but he's probably brilliant at what he does, and there is no way I'd rate him poorly based on emotion alone.

What a frikkin joke.

hatchman wrote:Well hell maybe it should just be points Friends and Foes since ratings are largely overlooked and can be used as a tool for revenge.

Thanks everyone for your comments. I just think it's cowardly and a bit unethical to use ratings to get back at someone or settle a personal score. I mean I may get really mad at a player, but he's probably brilliant at what he does, and there is no way I'd rate him poorly based on emotion alone.

What a frikkin joke.

I really respected you at one point hatch, but now that you've sunk to a measly 4.9 I'm afraid we can't play games anymore. I have no other choice than to foe you.