FabledIntegral wrote:Which is why teh system is flawed. What is a 5-star restaurant? A 5-star movie? Things that are mindblowing - you encounter them rarily. It's something that absolutely impressed you, out of the norm. If you're handing out 5-stars to someone who didn't necessarily do anything wrong, then there is NOTHING to distinguish THAT player from a player that is above and beyond.
What's the point of even having other ratings if 5 is going to be the standard by people? Show me WHAT rating system is effective when you base the standards/default on the absolute top possible given score. There is no incentive to even try to behave above and beyond, assuming that rating is an incentive to people.
This system, because of people like you, is even worse than our old system. It had the potential to accurately judge people, but people who mindlessly hand out 5's is ridiculous and skews the entire system for people who truly rate accordingly. Well you might want to avoid me - as if you don't do anything impressive you'll probably get a 3, aka average, and a 2 if you show even slight signs of stupidity, aka "slightly below average."
i think he does have a point here, however i guess most people will still hand out 5's to everyone. and why? because they would like to see all 5's on their own page, that's why. too bad for you, the other person will not see their rating in time to rate you back with all 5's anyways so it's useless.
i think this whole system is good but needs some time to get used to.
i suggest though to keep this in mind:
* Fair Play: covers suiciding, secret alliance suspicion, breaking or respecting alliances, chivalry, etc...)
1 star = very unfair, high chance of cheating, etc. most likely somoene you put directly on your ignore list
2 stars = possibly a bit unfair, like breaking truces, trying to make secret alliances etc.
3 stars = average, not unfair, didn't do anything 'wrong' nor did anything exceptionally good
4 stars = good, makes alliances in game chat, doesn't break them, might even remind you of ending the truce/alliance 1 or 2 turns before they end
5 stars = excellent, one of the fairest players you have seen
* Attendance: covers deadbeating, missing turns, deliberately prolonging rounds, finding a babysitter to keep things moving, etc...)
1 star = deadbeater or someone who misses multiple turns in a single game, without any warning
2 stars = pretty slow to take turns, might even miss a turn maybe even two
3 stars = average, doesn't miss any turns, finds accountsitter if he/she goes on vacantion, if he/she might miss a turn he/she warns beforehand that he has little or no time to take his turns and couldn't find a sitter in time
4 stars = good, takes turns pretty fast and doesn't miss turns, much like 3 stars just takes turns even faster
5 stars = excellent, takes turns so fast that you think he's like on CC 24/7 or something (not litteraly but close)
* Attitude: covers behaviour in chat, foul language, sore losers, gracious winners, "great chatters!", whining about dice, etc...)
1 star = bad. someone who is being a racist, uses fool language, complains about the dices all the time, curses, etc. just very bad behavior
2 stars = below average, not very bad but still not good either, might use fool language or CAPITAL LETTERS a bit too often to be average
3 stars = average, at the start of the game sais something like 'hi, good luck and have fun' doesn't complain too much about the dice or any other things, might chat about other things but mainly about the game off course. doesn't get cocky while being on the winning hand neither complains when on the losing hand
4 stars = good, great person to play with and fun on the chat, off course wishes you luck and fun (i often see people say good luck, but hardly ever 'have fun')
5 stars = excellent, even better then good, very nice person, great to play with or against, someone you would really leave a positive feedback
* Teamwork: covers playing with teammates - coordination, communication, etc...
1 star = attacking(killing) his own teammates (except to get a continent or something off course), not communicating, making very dumb moves even though you told him/her to do otherwise, getting all bossy and tells you what to do even though you know it wouldn't work and yell at you because "you don't know what you're doing, while obviously it's the other way round" etc. basicly you'd rather have this person rather as an enemy then have it as a 'friend'
2 stars = below average, doesn't communicate well and isn't really someone you'd really team up with again. not as bad as it could be, but still not very good either (remember it's about teamplay, not about skill!)
3 stars = average, communicates and plans the next move, fortifies armies to you rather then making himself as strong as he can while you are losing all your armies to the enemy
4 stars = good, tries to get the TEAM to win the game and doesn't try to win all on his own, includes but not limited to: fortifing his armies even though you didn't asked for it, planning, communicating, letting himself be killed by a teammate if he is weak to give out his cards to friends rather then to hand out the cards to the enemies, etc.
5 stars = very great teammate
i think if everyone has about the same standard in rating we would have an awesome rating system where you can see who is worth playing and who isn't
REMEMBER: there is going to be an update that filters out players with lower ratings, meaning you will effectifly filter out the bad players (with too much 'negatives') so it's best too all give the same kind of ratings and not like half of CC gives out 5's to everyone, the other half gives 3's to everyone. and really you got to ask yourself what is best for the community? would you really like everyone to have 5 stars? or would you rather see the ones that REALLY disserve 5 stars to get 5 stars and the other ones like 4 or 3 stars? and the really bad players with like 2 or 1 stars so they can hardly join any games anymore because of their own bad behavior?
i would vote for a FAIR RATING for everyone, so who's with me?
(just posted by lack to the announcement thread).
