Conquer Club

I like to think of myself as a very reasonable person. And at the same time I extend grace when someone does something that steps across the line. It really take something pretty severe for me to not give someone 15 stars on feedback. I am amazed when someone doesn't give me 15 stars and 90% of the people do give me 15 stars. What is amazing to me is that there are individuals who unlike the others I play for one reason or another didn't give positive feedback and regardless of my record I get docked on my rating. I would like to see something in the future that would take into account our record before we are docked on our rating. What say the rest of you????

There are some people who view 3 stars as "average". Hence, you only get more than 3 stars if you're above average. Others grade differently yet.

You've got a 4.9 rating, which is very good. Honestly, when I played, I rarely looked at ratings as I was more of a tourney player. But I wouldn't really pay attention unless someone was averaging a 3 or less. That told me that there was something up with that player.

Basically, the ratings aren't that important, as most people don't rate poorly without a good reason. And if you ever do get all 1's, check the ratings typically given by that user - sometimes if unjustified, there will be a pattern of poor ratings which can be considered ratings abuse.

My favorites are the ones who give me all 1's, add comments like poor strategy, clueless, etc. Then I click on the games we had in common and find I won 5 out of 7. After a while one can just laugh because mathematically they can't move your rating.

The biggest thing I use ratings for is, if I am considering you for a team, group, clan, etc. I look at what you have given out. It gives me a great clue as to how well you fit in with others.

A few minor thoughts. Personally, I think feedback sucks. But that's just me. And it's not because I get bad feedback because I don't.

Here is supposed to be the criteria.

• Fair Play: Covers suiciding, secret alliance suspicion, breaking or respecting alliances, chivalry, etc...
• Gameplay: Measures the player's ability to play an enjoyable game (not the player's ability to win). Covers strategy, diplomacy, teamwork, etc...
• Attitude: Covers behaviour in chat, foul language, sore losers, gracious winners, "great chatters!", whining about luck, etc...

The number of stars given should be based on this scale: 1 = Bad, 2 = Below Average, 3 = Average, 4 = Above Average, 5 = Excellent.

In general if a player doesn't even say "hi" in chat, I don't score the attitude.
In general you have to suck not to get a 5 rating from me.

SO why does feedback suck? Because if you don't "win" a game you could miss a game that goes into the Finished category and miss giving feedback. It takes work to double check that this hasn't happened and I hate work. Plus 5 should not be the expected numbers.

They shutdown feed back and replaced it with a weird random rating system that is even less relevant but more difficult to write huge run on paragraphs in that make little sense by vindictive people that are actually angry at their boss/cat/mom/ex but can't insult them online so they take their frustrations out wherever they can.

Translation,
"What is feedback?
Oh, that. Why would you pay attention to it? It's just static on the Internet."

2dimes wrote:They shutdown feed back and replaced it with a weird random rating system that is even less relevant but more difficult to write huge run on paragraphs in that make little sense by vindictive people that are actually angry at their boss/cat/mom/ex but can't insult them online so they take their frustrations out wherever they can.

Translation,
"What is feedback?
Oh, that. Why would you pay attention to it? It's just static on the Internet."

I'M ANGRY AT MY CAT. Doesn't shit in the box.

Bad cat?

http://www.imgur.com/gallery/CTBsz