[PC] Salute Rating System (Thumbs-Up)

[Dorieus]

New Rating System


Concise description:
A much simplified Rating System of 'salutes'.

Specifics/Details:
A single 'salute' is given to an opponent to commend him/her on fairplay, gameplay and attitude. When x number of 'salutes' are accumulated, player receives a medal or a point bonus.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
It will eliminate most, if not all, of the problems manifest in the current rating system.
No more ratings abuse.
Simple and easy to understand.
Current ratings are removed, everyone starts afresh.

My apologies if the above is out of format.

[rhp 1]

New Rating System


Concise description:
A much simplified Rating System of 'salutes'.

Specifics/Details:
A single 'salute' is given to an opponent to commend him/her on fairplay, gameplay and attitude. When x number of 'salutes' are accumulated, player receives a medal or a point bonus.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
It will eliminate most, if not all, of the problems manifest in the current rating system.
No more ratings abuse.
Simple and easy to understand.
Current ratings are removed, everyone starts afresh.

My apologies if the above is out of format.

+1

[Dorieus]

any more opinions?

[Criticalwinner]

What if they are bad? They get an anti-salute? How do we know the playstyles (deadbeat/miss turn/secret dip) of repeat offenders if we wipe everything clean? What if you don't play alot, and you don't get that many salutes? People won't want to play with a "low-saluted" person. Right direction, wrong execution; Let's give it another go.

[Dorieus]

Thanks for your points.

“What if they are bad? They get an anti-salute?”

If they are bad, they don't get a recommendation. More importantly, if they are good they don't get a bad rating, and their rep cannot be damaged by an embittered player.
I think we all prefer no rating left than some of the ratings I and many others have received. 'Suicider, Sore Loser, Cheap Tactics, Poor Strategy', and I happen to be none of the those things.

“How do we know the playstyles (deadbeat/miss turn/secret dip) of repeat offenders if we wipe everything clean?”

The current ratings does not safeguard us from deadbeat/miss turn/secret dip. They tell us nothing, it's merely someone's opinion, often given impetuously after a heated game.
I admit that a new ratings system would not completely solve the above issue. Perhaps a listing of all the violations of the rules committed by a player on his page, accompanied by the note/warning/ban given by admin, would.

“What if you don't play a lot, and you don't get that many salutes?”

You won't get rated any more with the current ratings if you don't play a lot.
At the end of a game there can be a check-box, something along the lines of, would you recommend this player Yes/No?, that you must tick to proceed. This would ensure that more ratings are left.

[Criticalwinner]

“What if you don't play a lot, and you don't get that many salutes?”

You won't get rated any more with the current ratings if you don't play a lot.
At the end of a game there can be a check-box, something along the lines of, would you recommend this player Yes/No?, that you must tick to proceed. This would ensure that more ratings are left.

But even after 2 or 3 ratings, your rating could still be 5.0, giving the impression that you are a nice player to play against.

That being said, this suggestion is getting better and better.

[Dorieus]

Ok, to put the above in some order:

Salute/No Salute options are incorporated in the game page. To exit a completed game you must tick either. This will ensure that a rating is always left.
If your experience of an opponent is a positive one, you tick the 'salute' box at the end of a game. Said player accumulates 'salutes' and is rewarded with a medal.
If your experience is negative, you tick the 'no salute' box. A ratio of salutes/opponents is displayed, followed by a percentage (50 salutes/100 opponents = recommended by 50% of all opponents).

A verdict of cheating/abuse ought to be given by admin and admin only, not by another player who might just be pissed off because you broke his bonus or something. All such cases can be listed on the player's page for everyone to see.

So, with a quick look at any given player's page you will see a recommendation percentage (strategy, sportsmanship, turn-taking etc.) and any violation of the rules that player may have committed (deadbeating, secret dip, chat abuse, etc.).

[Dorieus]

In the previous post, my suggestion is modified and, at least I believe, improved.

I still think this is a good idea. I would appreciate some more feedback, perhaps from one of the decision makers of CC?
Is there something I'm missing?
Is it just too big of a change for CC, a case of don't f**k with the formula?

I'm of the opinion that the formula is wrong and I am literally and genuinely begging to differ.

[Fewnix]

i suspect CC wants to keep the current rating system. How about adding, for personal use, a "rating" say a plus sign for like, minus sign for dislike? that can work similar to the unique defeat icon provided an individual using map rank- grey for defeated you, white for you defeated them, for a (...assassin, speed, doubles, whatever)) medal? I will bow to the wisdom of those who make things work, but the idea is when players are considering joining a game, they can see if those who are already signed up are people they have played before and they would like to play with again or there are players signed up they would rather avoid. Not as harsh as foe'ing someone, it just may be you had a bad experience and might be advised to skip joining that game.

So if say I was using Game Finder to find a Feudal Epic game to join and there are as usual dozens of possible games to join, , I can be selective about joining a game with 2 or 3 players already sighed up . IF I had given a minus for some reason to one or more players waiting for someone to join them, . I could use Game Finder to check the past games and see what the problem was, might still join the game but keep on alert. To emphasize the positive a game awaiting players some players having plusses beside their names is a warm place to go. If this could work with Game Finder, that would be awesome, Find me a Feudal Epic game awaiting players that have people signed up I like playing with!!!It would be like walking into Cheers and everyone knows your name.

[PLAYER57832]

New Rating System


Concise description:
A much simplified Rating System of 'salutes'.

Specifics/Details:
A single 'salute' is given to an opponent to commend him/her on fairplay, gameplay and attitude. When x number of 'salutes' are accumulated, player receives a medal or a point bonus.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
It will eliminate most, if not all, of the problems manifest in the current rating system.
No more ratings abuse.
Simple and easy to understand.
Current ratings are removed, everyone starts afresh.

My apologies if the above is out of format.

To begin, the problem today is not so much lack of salutes... seems most everyone gets and gives all 5's unless they are a jerk or playing jerks, with not many exceptions. A lot of us tried to be "honest" in our ratings at first, but many of the categories and tags don't mean much.

The overall problem is deciding just what makes a "good" player and play. A person can play well, be an excellent sport and still lose. Another person can be a jerk, play poorly and still win due to some flukes....and most people fall somewhere in between. Too many people want to say either "he won, he's obviously good".. or just the opposite "he lost, so he got lucky.. I am the better player,".

We need room to tag some people who truly are jerks.. be it the ones who rate poorly because they get beated or folks who think insults are proper daily communication or any one of a myriad of other types of behaviors. I would also like to see more clarity in the positive. Being a good sport means a LOT. But, helpful??? Unless its team play, or someone helping a new player just understand the rules, "helpful" can be too much like "unannounced alliance". Etc. BUT.. as noted above, there are already several proposals to modify the current system. None have been adopted.

[vodean]

this is a nice idea, but could never really work

[Dukasaur]

In the previous post, my suggestion is modified and, at least I believe, improved.

I still think this is a good idea. I would appreciate some more feedback, perhaps from one of the decision makers of CC?
Is there something I'm missing?
Is it just too big of a change for CC, a case of don't f**k with the formula?

I'm of the opinion that the formula is wrong and I am literally and genuinely begging to differ.

You don't need to apologise. You're perfectly correct that the current system sucks. There just doesn't seem to be any consensus on how to fix it. If you search the Suggestions archives there are probably 15 or 20 good ideas, but they go in different directions, and none of them seem to have caught the support of a large number of players.