[09-Jun-2008] Ratings & Medals

[quackaddict]

How about having an "uber" medal for defeating x unique opponents on each of Standard, Assassin and Terminator?

[kaydub]

can there be an explanation of what each number of stars mean?

I don't know if I should be scoring as 3=average or all 5s unless something bad happens...

good point.
and maybe what each category means. how do you rate attitude if they dont say anything in chat? do you give them a 5 since they didnt say anything mean or a 1 since they don't even say good game?

[wcaclimbing]

I'll be using a 3 as average for all of mine, just cause that makes the most sense to me. I just don't want someone to be mad if they get all 3s from me.

On a different subject, I'm getting an email every time someone writes on my wall, and I cant find the button to make them stop. what do I do to turn off the emails?

[AndyDufresne]

How about having an "uber" medal for defeating x unique opponents on each of Standard, Assassin and Terminator?

More medals will come in the future, this is just the first batch.

can there be an explanation of what each number of stars mean?

I don't know if I should be scoring as 3=average or all 5s unless something bad happens...

I think something may be added to the instructions page...


--Andy

[rallison]

I just read through this entire thread so far, and I think a lot of people will just take time to get used to the new system. I think it will be good once everyone gets used to it, but I do have 2 suggestions:

1. Add a notes field to the ratings. This was the best part about the old ratings system, because comments could be tied directly to the ratings given, so people could see for themselves how valid the rating was.

2. Have the option to import all old feedback onto the wall. I know this was discussed earlier in the proposal thread, and I think it is a very good idea.


Other than those two suggestions, I think the update rocks! The medals really give everyone an idea of what kind of games people like to play, and encourage people to try new stuff out. Awesome job!

[BaldAdonis]

Suggestion: add a medal for winning tournaments. If the organizers are improving community, then the participants help.

[t-o-m]

Suggestion: add a medal for winning tournaments. If the organizers are improving community, then the participants help.

they could have marks on aswel as in 1 for winning 1, 2 for...


Suggestion:
a new style of medal is introduced for the person who has defeated the most number of people on the certain tyoe, e.g for the terminator ther could be a platinum medal that is silver but slightly tinted pinky/purple?

[midor]

I've only checked a few of the backboards so I don't know if this is covered -

But didn't the bad players and the ones you should look out for just get a pass?

[cre8tiff]

I think the ranking is what it is and no amount of "suggesting" is going to change it.

I myself will choose to express my displeasure by not renewing. I would suggest others do the same.

[AndyDufresne]

I've only checked a few of the backboards so I don't know if this is covered -

But didn't the bad players and the ones you should look out for just get a pass?

You can still view the old feedback via their profile.

I think the ranking is what it is and no amount of "suggesting" is going to change it.

I myself will choose to express my displeasure by not renewing. I would suggest others do the same.

I'm sorry you feel this way, cre8tiff.


--Andy

[Nigelus]

I added this to the instructions:

You can't rate the Teamwork attribute when you have never played a team game with the member in question.

Great new system. I would like to see a "strategy" rating though.

We don't want attributes based on skill because the goal of ratings is to encourage good behaviour. For skill we already have score, rank and medals.

Hey Lack,

I understand the liability involved with your new ratings - And, the reasons for your need to take out the feedback feature.

However I disagree with your last statement. Ranks & medals alone don't reflect a single person's capability - As a newer player who rose quickly... And then, could only get onto games with newbies, I've lost quite a few ranks... I've also run into many players who have had similar problems with DBers/suiciders in the past, which tank their scores/rank.

And, I've had "vets" of CC who call me "inexperienced," but I can't get the experience or rank (which only "implies" competency) if I can't play with like-ability/strategic players. And, don't tell me that people don't just play with their friends to improve their scores & rank... They obviously do...! So, newbies are at a disadvantage and will only get lucky to stumble onto decent players after they've gone up & down the ranks for months.

Does this level the playing field? Does it effect players evenly - A resounding "No!" The vets will keep looking good & "play with themselves." And, the good noobs won't get the opportunity to prove themselves with the more erratic players at the lower ranks - And especially, the non-premium members who don't care if they DB & kill your score/rank... 'Nuff said...!

Cheers,
Nigelus.

[lanyards]

What kinds of things would fall under "Special Contributions" to recieve that medal? And so the MODs hand the Map Maker Medal, Tornament Medal, and Special Contributions Medal out manually?

--lanyards

[cre8tiff]

I've only checked a few of the backboards so I don't know if this is covered -

But didn't the bad players and the ones you should look out for just get a pass?

You can still view the old feedback via their profile.

I think the ranking is what it is and no amount of "suggesting" is going to change it.

I myself will choose to express my displeasure by not renewing. I would suggest others do the same.

I'm sorry you feel this way, cre8tiff.


--Andy

I understand there was mention of "involvement from the user community", but I cannot believe that is actually true. How such an ill-conceived measure could not only pass, but be coded an implemented without SOMEONE seeing major loopholes speaks poorly of the game designing capacities of the powers that be. I understand that the game design of this site was created by another long ago (and not in the Internet world), so perhaps game design isn't needed here. But as a professional game designer, this smacks of "just getting rid of something we find irritating" more than a true game playability enhancement. Frankly, is is very disappointing. And it calls into question what other game-changing ideas are in the works that will be implemented without thorough thought or consideration for game play.

[AndyDufresne]

What kinds of things would fall under "Special Contributions" to recieve that medal? And so the MODs hand the Map Maker Medal, Tornament Medal, and Special Contributions Medal out manually?

--lanyards

As I mentioned earlier, it's hard to say any one thing is a "Special Contribution."

Once we get out the backlogged Tournament and Cartography medals, the manual process will be smoother.


--Andy

[Nigelus]

I've only checked a few of the backboards so I don't know if this is covered -

But didn't the bad players and the ones you should look out for just get a pass?

Midor,

They absolutely got absolved & the noobs who were making headway get the shaft... Even though player's feedback on them was ALL positive. (Time for me to start over again...)

It does discourage newer players from continuing and will only get you 1st timers to sign and keep the vets. From a "business perspective," you've just become an elitist club/fraternity. Come on in, if we happen to like you, we'll keep you. However, most of the screened candidates don't get in... I'm guessing the CC owners want volume - This doesn't encourage it...

I hate to "whine" & "complain" about the new system, but there are obvious pitfalls with the change. And, there are other "fair" & "upstanding" vets who feel the same way. At least, continue revising it... Your first version here is just a stop-gap measure for liability, correct? If you want to discourage "bad behaviour," then have strict & immediate consequences for obvious bad behaviour... That's what's in the disclaimers in our contract that we signed and on all the Pos/Neg/Neutral boxes we've checked - If they agree with YOUR contract, then they should get booted. But, that may lose you clientèle, which hurts the pocketbook.

One CC'er mentioned that you should be honest about your real reasons for implementing this new rating system... I think that would assuage most of the negative commentary about your new rating system, if you just told us the "real issues." We'll understand.

In contrast, everyone loves the new medals... So, kudos for that...! We all know you're doing the best you can do under certain circumstances, so I'll stop griping now... And, get back to playing...! At least for awhile...!

[AndyDufresne]

I understand there was mention of "involvement from the user community", but I cannot believe that is actually true. How such an ill-conceived measure could not only pass, but be coded an implemented without SOMEONE seeing major loopholes speaks poorly of the game designing capacities of the powers that be. I understand that the game design of this site was created by another long ago (and not in the Internet world), so perhaps game design isn't needed here. But as a professional game designer, this smacks of "just getting rid of something we find irritating" more than a true game playability enhancement. Frankly, is is very disappointing. And it calls into question what other game-changing ideas are in the works that will be implemented without thorough thought or consideration for game play.

We currently have something in the works (hopefully soon) to better reach a larger number of our users when we come looking for feedback. For the forum topic, you can visist the first post and click on the links provided.


--Andy

[jiffers]

The best thing CC could do reduce cheating is offer a randomized join. It would be like Game Finder, but would join you to whatever game matches the criteria AND guarantees that all players were randomly assigned to the game. It would be especially useful for team play, as your chances of getting a good teammate rather than a poor one would be even.

[AndyDufresne]

One CC'er mentioned that you should be honest about your real reasons for implementing this new rating system... I think that would assuage most of the negative commentary about your new rating system, if you just told us the "real issues." We'll understand.

I think we have been pretty clear about the reasons, even during our consultation phase (which perhaps can be done better in the future!).

From the first post:

After a lot of brainstorming and community consultation, we've developed a ratings system that takes the best of feedback (i.e. it encourages good behaviour and discourages bad behaviour) and avoids the problems with feedback (i.e. it required full-time staff to settle disputes between pissed off members - which was often a mission impossible). It's called ratings and is fully explained in the Ratings section of the Instructions.

To continue with the current feedback system, Lackattack would have to hire more and more dedicated staff to work endless on the feedback complaints. And really, this would be fine, if such a thing was possible...but unfortunately it isn't. We hope to free up some time for the dedicated staff to work on more pressing issues.

And we are always open to suggestions and feedback. If you've been here for CC's history...you'll know that if something goes horribly bad (check out our first feedback system, Grievances in the announcements below) we look to fix and change it.

We are definitely here to assist and serve the fine users of CC...we all wouldn't be working if we didn't care. If I didn't care, I'd never show up to CC forums and just a play a few games...but I do care.

The best thing we can do is look at how we can craft a feedback system that has the best of both worlds (I.E. from a user perspective and from a staff perspective). I know if we all work together, we can find a wonderfully pleasing middle ground. I know it.

In contrast, everyone loves the new medals... So, kudos for that...! We all know you're doing the best you can do under certain circumstances, so I'll stop griping now... And, get back to playing...! At least for awhile...!

I thought I'd leave this post with a positive note, so I'm glad you enjoy the medals! A few upgrades and improvements to Medals will come in the future, along with more attainable medals. I look forward to then! (I often remind Lackattack not to eat, sleep, go outside, so he can work on updates.


--Andy

[Hound]

Gotta say I'm not loving the new ranking when joining games. I'm flying blind, or else I have to link to each player, then follow that link to their feedback. Really slows the process or else it increases the risk that I'll join a game with some abusive loud-mouth jerk. ( I usually like to limit my games to one jerk, me!)

Seems to me that anything less than a 5.0 is like handing out a negative. I'm just handing out 5's unless someone really stands out as a f***stick. Based on the rankings that I'm seeing so far that seems to be the trend. So I'm gonna guess that as this evolves people will stop playing with folks that don't have 5.0 across the board because they really can't tell why someone got dinged. The Wall is useless, reviewing the old feedback will get tedious and eventually it will go away anyway.

[Esn]

Well, as long as we're giving useless suggestions here, I'll add another one:

Get rid of the manual "Attendance" ranking and have it be entirely automatic.

What is there to lose? Attendance isn't subjective anyway.

[bob72]

Great start the bloody ratings when I happen for the 1st time in 12 months to forget to give my mate my password and go away for 5 days.

How many months/years will it take for me to get my rating back from 1


least have some warning guys come on.....

[Esn]

To continue with the current feedback system, Lackattack would have to hire more and more dedicated staff to work endless on the feedback complaints.

I don't quite understand... is this some sort of legal thing, then? Is letting someone say "this guy sucks" opening you to the possibility of a lawsuit while letting someone say "I rate this guy 1/5" legally ok?

But if you must keep the current system and not allow any comments (which is probably what you will do, since not allowing people to comment on others seems to have been the whole point of changing it), would it at least be possible to link each rating to a specific game, so that people can see the logs themselves and see whether the rating is justified?

[azezzo]

I'm sorry to hear that the old feedback system became too much work for the mods to control, that being said why weren't the habitual offenders removed from the site?

I for one still believe in freedom of speech, and am not a fan of political correctness.

If the language in feedback was the problem, then whats to stop someone from being obnoxious in the game chat ? I know of a high ranking player who CONSTANTLY is verbally abusive in the game chat, it is part of his strategy and "normal" game play. That player did not care about negative feedback, which he ammassed quite abit.

So, I guess that if you were a colonel or higher then you could get away with muder?

Perhaps it is too dificult to enforce good sportsmanship?

[MOBAJOBG]

Does unique opponent includes deadbeat in a 1vs1 freestyle game to gain the Medal achievement?

[Tommy Tucker]

I left a rating for an opponent and he wrote on my wall explaining that this attendance was actually excellent. I went back and checked... he was right. I tried to change his rating but the only option I had was to withdraw it totally.

Is there a way to amend ratings rather than withdraw totally?