Conquer Club

Twill wrote:The hiding of feedback until it can no longer be changed is intended to stop this. As long as you don't run your mouth off and say "you're getting a neg for that!" then you don't have to worry so much

I must have been incredibly unclear in my earlier posts. Due to the concept of mutual withdrawal it will be beneficial for me to give a low rating (even if it's unwarranted) to my opponent as he will then be much more interested in doing a withdrawal. It leaves me in a stronger negotiating position than leaving a high rating no matter what rating I think he will leave me, the fact that it's hidden only makes this even stronger as a strategy.

Timminz wrote:They'll only do it once to me.

Very possible. That doesn't change the fact that it would, overall, be beneficial to use that strategy. And as you only need to leave a rating lower than your opponents average to keep the benefit so many people might not realize that they are infact being "scammed".

Twill wrote:

lackattack wrote:Did you forget about the friend list exemption?

Why yes, yes I did. However I still don't think it solves the problem:

I'll re-post my suggestion from earlier.

Thezzaruz wrote: Had a thought. If the block would be a preference/profile setting (as I guess it would be), why not make it 2 tic boxes? i.e one for public games and one for private. That ought to make everyone happy right???

First off I think this just gives tons more room for abuse

my immediate thoughts were the same.

you'd be replacing one problem, with another that, potentially, would be even bigger.

chance to opt out pleassssse.

Would be nice if one could start a new game and set the Minimum Rating level for those who want to join, e.g. when creating a new game, I could set 3.5 as the minimum rating, so someone with a 3.4 or below can't join the game....it's easier on everybody,'cos the person who starts the game takes a measure of responsibility for the kind of people who will be in it.

No system is perfect, of course, but what is important is that you are trying to keep improving things.

Thezzaruz wrote:

Twill wrote:The hiding of feedback until it can no longer be changed is intended to stop this. As long as you don't run your mouth off and say "you're getting a neg for that!" then you don't have to worry so much

I must have been incredibly unclear in my earlier posts. Due to the concept of mutual withdrawal it will be beneficial for me to give a low rating (even if it's unwarranted) to my opponent as he will then be much more interested in doing a withdrawal. It leaves me in a stronger negotiating position than leaving a high rating no matter what rating I think he will leave me, the fact that it's hidden only makes this even stronger as a strategy.

Timminz wrote:They'll only do it once to me.

Thezzaruz wrote:[

Very possible. That doesn't change the fact that it would, overall, be beneficial to use that strategy. And as you only need to leave a rating lower than your opponents average to keep the benefit so many people might not realize that they are infact being "scammed".

your overall objection and statement leads me to 1 of 2 conclusions. 1# you are a horible and abusive player in all aspects and know your only defense will be to rate everyone low because you will definitely be rated low or 2# you just do not get the basic nature of the system and therefore are extremely pessimistic dure to your lack of understanding.

Soloman wrote:your overall objection and statement leads me to 1 of 2 conclusions. 1# you are a horible and abusive player in all aspects and know your only defense will be to rate everyone low because you will definitely be rated low or 2# you just do not get the basic nature of the system and therefore are extremely pessimistic dure to your lack of understanding.

Ah but I didn't say I would use it. I'm way to stubborn so I'd rather take the low rating (deserved or not) just so I could dish out a deserved low rating to an opponent.

As for your second point you are wrong again. I do get the system and that is why I'm being pessimistic. It has an inherent flaw that makes abusing it a dominant strategy for anyone that is prepared to abuse a system or that cares a lot about their rating (and all the bogus Negs handed out and the amount of discussions about Negs atm would indicate that there is a lot of people that would/is).

Thezzaruz wrote:

Soloman wrote:your overall objection and statement leads me to 1 of 2 conclusions. 1# you are a horible and abusive player in all aspects and know your only defense will be to rate everyone low because you will definitely be rated low or 2# you just do not get the basic nature of the system and therefore are extremely pessimistic dure to your lack of understanding.

Ah but I didn't say I would use it. I'm way to stubborn so I'd rather take the low rating (deserved or not) just so I could dish out a deserved low rating to an opponent.

As for your second point you are wrong again. I do get the system and that is why I'm being pessimistic. It has an inherent flaw that makes abusing it a dominant strategy for anyone that is prepared to abuse a system or that cares a lot about their rating (and all the bogus Negs handed out and the amount of discussions about Negs atm would indicate that there is a lot of people that would/is).

Until it backfires on you and the players you rated low "just in case" give you a low rating and don't care to allow the mutual removal. Then you are stuck with the low rating, doing nothing but hurting yourself in the long run.

i dont think attitude atendance and teamwork should be there
attitude and sportsmenship are the same thing "imo "
and team work is that only for partners??? if not what if you
get a bad star for having a bad partner?

i think
sportsmanship ...was he good player or bad sport

strategy.....was he good challenge or easy to beat

experience....did he make the game fun or was it unenjoyble

honorable ...did he keep his word in the games as to allience attendance rt/non-rt

something more like that

Optimus Prime wrote:Until it backfires on you and the players you rated low "just in case" give you a low rating and don't care to allow the mutual removal. Then you are stuck with the low rating, doing nothing but hurting yourself in the long run.

Exactly. I do expect the system to be abused and I do expect that the average rating (site wide) will be lower than what it would be otherwise, if mutual termination of ratings is allowed.

soka wrote:attitude and sportsmenship are the same thing "imo "

The words or their proposed meaning??? I'm guessing the words as you have both of their proposed meanings in you're suggestion, just as different words. And if it's just the words then it would be more helpful if you would explain what is wrong with the words.

soka wrote:sportsmanship ...was he good player or bad sport

That would be the proposed Attitude...

soka wrote:honorable ...did he keep his word in the games as to allience attendance rt/non-rt

And that would be the proposed Sportsmanship...

soka wrote:experience....did he make the game fun or was it unenjoyble

Don't see the need for that one. Depending on how it was fun/not fun it would fall under Attitude or Sportsmanship.

soka wrote:strategy.....was he good challenge or easy to beat

Interesting one. I'd like that too but the mods wants ranking to do that job.

I agree with the guys a few posts ago, get rid of the "mutual removal" thing. it leaves it way too open to abuse.

Since the current feedback system is perfectly adequate, this whole thread is a waste of time.

If we are changing I think there should not be attendence. I often miss turns, who cares? It doesn't give me an advantage so why is there a category for it. On the front page it says

Designed for the casual gamer

. So that means if it's designed for a casual gamer why do people need a category for how rigid their schedule is

I would like the existing or the new feedback system to have an option where you can state that people with 'x%' of negative feedbacks or 'x%' or less in new feedback can't join your games.
I'm getting so fed up starting public speed games, and having to add each person after playing them once, to my foe list. Most people with a lot of negatives have got them for a reason and they normally end up playing a game that sums up why they have a lot of negs.
If this was to be implemented - people would behave because they don't want to spend an eternity playing noobs and fishing for positives to get their percentage back upto a level that allows them access to games started by players who don't want idiots in their games.

Pedronicus wrote:I would like the existing or the new feedback system to have an option where you can state that people with 'x%' of negative feedbacks or 'x%' or less in new feedback can't join your games.
I'm getting so fed up starting public speed games, and having to add each person after playing them once, to my foe list. Most people with a lot of negatives have got them for a reason and they normally end up playing a game that sums up why they have a lot of negs.
If this was to be implemented - people would behave because they don't want to spend an eternity playing noobs and fishing for positives to get their percentage back upto a level that allows them access to games started by players who don't want idiots in their games.

Apparently you have not read the thread have you? Under the new system any player with a rating 2.0 pts or more below your personal rating will not be able to join public games that you have already joined.

Optimus Prime wrote:Apparently you have not read the thread have you? Under the new system any player with a rating 2.0 pts or more below your personal rating will not be able to join public games that you have already joined.

Well that isn't really decided yet now is it... At least it hasn't been announced as done, only as up for discussion as far as I've seen.
It's a bad idea IMO but I know it's a much requested feature so I guess it will be included.

Optimus Prime wrote:Apparently you have not read the thread have you? Under the new system any player with a rating 2.0 pts or more below your personal rating will not be able to join public games that you have already joined.

I thought the 2.0 point limit was for games you created...

lancehoch wrote:

Optimus Prime wrote:Apparently you have not read the thread have you? Under the new system any player with a rating 2.0 pts or more below your personal rating will not be able to join public games that you have already joined.

I thought the 2.0 point limit was for games you created...

The concept of it is like ignore so I would assume just like ignore any games you join if you have the block turned on would stop the low rated from joining even if the person who created does not have a block I.E. your foes cannot join games you have already joined...

lancehoch wrote:I thought the 2.0 point limit was for games you created...

Don't seem so...

lackattack wrote:Low Rating Blocks
Specifically, those with overall ratings of 2.0 stars lower than yours will be blocked from joining games that you have joined

THat's from the first post, one of the reasons I don't like such a block.

First up - I agree with all of the new changes - they are far superior to the current system...

lackattack wrote:Do you think we should pre-populate the wall?

An emphatic Yes. -> as already stated - if people don't want comments on their wall - then they can remove them...
Also - I think that it should be ALL comments - not just positive...

lackattack wrote:* The low rating blocks would not apply for tournament games or your friends. Should it apply for private games?

I think it shouldn't apply for Private games - but my agrument fails for "friends" games - as you can then add people to your "friend" list... so having thought a bit further then perhaps we should leave it in for private games - with the aforementioned comments in this topic.

lackattack wrote:* The low rating blocks is always on and not set per game. However we could make it an optional setting with default OFF... obviously that would water down both the pros and cons.

Either always ON - or switchable with default ON (not off).

C.

Thezzaruz wrote:

lancehoch wrote:I thought the 2.0 point limit was for games you created...

Don't seem so...

lackattack wrote:Low Rating Blocks
Specifically, those with overall ratings of 2.0 stars lower than yours will be blocked from joining games that you have joined

THat's from the first post, one of the reasons I don't like such a block.

Then I agree with you, the block is not a very good tool. I think it should only apply to the game creator, not people that have joined.

Just popping in to say that I like the new system.

I can't wait to be rolling in the 5.0s

To lazy to read 17 pages does anyone know when this system is starting?

after you read 17 pages...

Just had an idea. What about setting personal weights on the rankings. Like for me, I don't care about attitude. I just care about gameplay. Ergo, I would weigh the gameplay ranking higher than attitude.

Good? Bad?

ParadiceCity9 wrote:Just had an idea. What about setting personal weights on the rankings. Like for me, I don't care about attitude. I just care about gameplay. Ergo, I would weigh the gameplay ranking higher than attitude.

Good? Bad?

Bad.
If that were the case, everyone would weight attitude the lowest, and then we would all be jerks to one another in game.