bullcrap - 1 star for fair play, 3 star for attendenced

[TyLord IV]

My previous rankings were always very good.
Now I get 3 stars for attendance. I freaking check CC over 20 times a day. My boss would kill me if he know how often I was playing. 3 stars for attendance my ass!

One star for fair play. what a load of crap.

I stopped playing CC a couple of weeks ago to take some time off because I was playing it too much. I am slowly adding more games.

Now I don't know.

I did just wake up, slept like crap, maybe I am cranky.

[steve monkey]

I agree with you, your low ratings in those games seem completely unwarranted. You were someone who under the old system had 100% positive feedback and were therefore a 'good' player, yet under the new system due to the vaguaries you are now labelled a 'poor' player. The problem is with the system not with you.

[TyLord IV]

How about "The System" ranks a person's attendance ranking. Have "The System" calculate the star value of how much time on average passes when it's your turn. Have "The System" remove a star when you skip turns. "The System" can more accurately rank the attendance star value than people can.

[detlef]

My guess is that the crap storm this new ratings system is going to cause is going to make the classic map fiasco seem trivial.

[MajorRT]

My previous rankings were always very good.
Now I get 3 stars for attendance. I freaking check CC over 20 times a day. My boss would kill me if he know how often I was playing. 3 stars for attendance my ass!

maybe I am cranky.

Maybe that was a 3 for attendance at WORK?!?!

[MajorRT]

Review of the game in question shows that you didn't miss a turn, or deadbeat, and all your moves were made in less than 10 hours, some within minutes. CLEARLY you should get a 5...

[BENJIKAT IS DEAD]

I agree that these ratings can be very silly.

I just got a 3 for attendance in a game that was completed in 39 minutes... (and no it was never agreed that it was to be rt).

Game 2596368

Why on earth I got just 1 for fairplay and attitude for the same game, I have no idea whatsoever

[zimmah]

I agree with you, your low ratings in those games seem completely unwarranted. You were someone who under the old system had 100% positive feedback and were therefore a 'good' player, yet under the new system due to the vaguaries you are now labelled a 'poor' player. The problem is with the system not with you.

actually he's rated 3.3 which means he is just plain average. and even if he had 100% positives in the old system, 90% of the player had a 100% positive feedback, so he's still average.

you are right about the attendance though. strangely one give you a 1 for no reason while someone else gave you a 5, and if it's true what you say about playing 20 times a day than a 5 should be more in it's place here. but besides that (and the 1 for fair play maybe, tho i don't know what happened in that specific game) it's not that bad anyways.

i'd just put them both on my ignore list and forget about them.

[FabledIntegral]

I agree - Ben if you completed a game in 39 minutes, either give a 4 (possibly 5, if the game lasted quite a few rounds), but I would consider that above average for a casual game. Eh, what can you do. There is flaws apparently.

[zimmah]

How about "The System" ranks a person's attendance ranking. Have "The System" calculate the star value of how much time on average passes when it's your turn. Have "The System" remove a star when you skip turns. "The System" can more accurately rank the attendance star value than people can.

yes, i think that would be best, at least for attendance.

btw, i think he just gave you a bad rating, just because he still thought you cheated. hence the 1 for fair play. still even if you would have cheated you'd still deserve a 5 for attendance, that would still mean you'd cheat, but just faster then others (you know i'm not saying you cheated) for this particular game i'd rate him a 2 for attitude, 5 for attendance and a normal 3 for fair play. i'd probably rate you a 3 for attitude and FP and a 5 for attendance also.

[Hound]

seeing how this is going I'm probably just gonna stop rating folks and ignore it altogether. I mean, how do you fairly rate average attendance? If you never miss a turn is that average? Or do you get an average if you take less than 12 hours between turns? How long does the average player take? All of this is highly subjective and we have no way to measure it. It's based solely on impressions unless someone goes through the game logs to refresh their memory. I don't know about the rest of you but when you have more than a few games going, it's a little difficult to do that.

If you look at the ratings as they stand now, it looks like 4+ is the average. So those players that are being rated 3's will look like wankers. Guess I'm a wanker!

[FabledIntegral]

How about "The System" ranks a person's attendance ranking. Have "The System" calculate the star value of how much time on average passes when it's your turn. Have "The System" remove a star when you skip turns. "The System" can more accurately rank the attendance star value than people can.

yes, i think that would be best, at least for attendance.

btw, i think he just gave you a bad rating, just because he still thought you cheated. hence the 1 for fair play. still even if you would have cheated you'd still deserve a 5 for attendance, that would still mean you'd cheat, but just faster then others (you know i'm not saying you cheated) for this particular game i'd rate him a 2 for attitude, 5 for attendance and a normal 3 for fair play. i'd probably rate you a 3 for attitude and FP and a 5 for attendance also.

Which oddly enough - the 1 + 5 would average out to a nice 3, showing an overall display of average. Oh the irony of this system.

[detlef]

seeing how this is going I'm probably just gonna stop rating folks and ignore it altogether.

That seems pretty logical. I just erased all the feedback I'd already left. Hell, they were all 5s anyway.

[Soloman]

3 is average get over it if you are playing beyond average in that players oppinion you will score higher if not you will not do not sweat it just play...

[detlef]

3 is average get over it if you are playing beyond average in that players oppinion you will score higher if not you will not do not sweat it just play...

Says you. However, the way things seem to be playing out, 3 is not average at all. It seems like nearly everyone either has 5s or close to 5s, so 3 is decidedly below average. Perhaps that was not the intention, but it is how it is playing out.

Sure, we should not care about our ratings especially based on the highly random and inconsistent nature of them. However, as long as they're there people will care about them.

[zimmah]

seeing how this is going I'm probably just gonna stop rating folks and ignore it altogether. I mean, how do you fairly rate average attendance? If you never miss a turn is that average? Or do you get an average if you take less than 12 hours between turns? How long does the average player take? All of this is highly subjective and we have no way to measure it. It's based solely on impressions unless someone goes through the game logs to refresh their memory. I don't know about the rest of you but when you have more than a few games going, it's a little difficult to do that.

If you look at the ratings as they stand now, it looks like 4+ is the average. So those players that are being rated 3's will look like wankers. Guess I'm a wanker!

how many times do you see someone miss a turn? (except for new players, they pretty much deadbeat becasue they decide they don't like CC so they miss several turns or even deadbeat) but seriously out of all the players here that have at least played 10 games, how many of them miss a turn on a regular basis?

not many i guess.

so yes, it's perfectly fine to hand out 3 stars for not missing a single turn. except maybe for really long games.

i think about 12 hours or so, maybe a bit less. when rating for attendance i just have a quick look at the gamelog and see if the times between turns are reasonable, if they take like 18+ hours for multiple turns (they might be slow on 1 or 2 turns, but if they are that slow on all their turns they'll get a slightly lower rating (aka 2 stars))
i think the 'average' player needs between 8 and 12 hours.

[FabledIntegral]

3 is average get over it if you are playing beyond average in that players oppinion you will score higher if not you will not do not sweat it just play...

Says you. However, the way things seem to be playing out, 3 is not average at all. It seems like nearly everyone either has 5s or close to 5s, so 3 is decidedly below average. Perhaps that was not the intention, but it is how it is playing out.

Sure, we should not care about our ratings especially based on the highly random and inconsistent nature of them. However, as long as they're there people will care about them.

Then you're getting a more positive rating that's now skewed, so don't complain.

[Soloman]

3 is average get over it if you are playing beyond average in that players oppinion you will score higher if not you will not do not sweat it just play...

Says you. However, the way things seem to be playing out, 3 is not average at all. It seems like nearly everyone either has 5s or close to 5s, so 3 is decidedly below average. Perhaps that was not the intention, but it is how it is playing out.

Sure, we should not care about our ratings especially based on the highly random and inconsistent nature of them. However, as long as they're there people will care about them.

then I advise not playing me because if I am not wowed by your speed you can expect a 3 from me...

[Hound]

So zimmah, your standard for average attendance is not missing any turns? How do you get an outstanding, taking extra turns?

The problem is that some might rate average attendance as 1 miss in 20 rounds, with an average of 12 hours between turns. Someone else will give a 1 or 2 for that same performance. Since these ratings are dependent on the person giving the rating and the categories are waaaay too broad, it will never be useful or indicative of player behavior.

[zimmah]

How about "The System" ranks a person's attendance ranking. Have "The System" calculate the star value of how much time on average passes when it's your turn. Have "The System" remove a star when you skip turns. "The System" can more accurately rank the attendance star value than people can.

yes, i think that would be best, at least for attendance.

btw, i think he just gave you a bad rating, just because he still thought you cheated. hence the 1 for fair play. still even if you would have cheated you'd still deserve a 5 for attendance, that would still mean you'd cheat, but just faster then others (you know i'm not saying you cheated) for this particular game i'd rate him a 2 for attitude, 5 for attendance and a normal 3 for fair play. i'd probably rate you a 3 for attitude and FP and a 5 for attendance also.

Which oddly enough - the 1 + 5 would average out to a nice 3, showing an overall display of average. Oh the irony of this system.

which effectifly means it's perfectly fine to cheat, as long as you take your turns quickly and be nice in the chat

now seriously would you play a person with all 1's and 2's on fair play but a 5 star rating on attendence? i'd rather play a person with 3's or 4's on fair play and a 2 (heck even a 1 maybe) on attendence. and the latter might have a lower overall rating oddly enough, still that person likely doesn't cheat. i think that might just be another flaw in the system. player with a low rating on fair play will average out if they get a good score on attitude and attendance, even though they might cheat like hell.

[zimmah]

So zimmah, your standard for average attendance is not missing any turns? How do you get an outstanding, taking extra turns?

The problem is that some might rate average attendance as 1 miss in 20 rounds, with an average of 12 hours between turns. Someone else will give a 1 or 2 for that same performance. Since these ratings are dependent on the person giving the rating and the categories are waaaay too broad, it will never be useful or indicative of player behavior.

no, take most of your turns within the 12 hour period would mean 4 stars by me, and you'll get 5 stars from me if you take most of them within 6 hours (and 6 hours means you'd be checking CC 4 or more times a day, which IMHO isn't that hard)

though yes, for someone taking extra turns i'd hand out a 5 for attendance, though a 1 for fair play (would average out at 3 anyways.)

[detlef]

3 is average get over it if you are playing beyond average in that players oppinion you will score higher if not you will not do not sweat it just play...

Says you. However, the way things seem to be playing out, 3 is not average at all. It seems like nearly everyone either has 5s or close to 5s, so 3 is decidedly below average. Perhaps that was not the intention, but it is how it is playing out.

Sure, we should not care about our ratings especially based on the highly random and inconsistent nature of them. However, as long as they're there people will care about them.

Then you're getting a more positive rating that's now skewed, so don't complain.

Can I not "complain" about the fact that we're trying to implement a rating system that, for all it's good intentions, seems destined to be useless? I honestly don't care about my specific rating because I'm rather certain that almost nobody's will be even remotely illustrative. Wicked can remind everyone time and again that 3s are fine and 5s should only be used for great play but it is simply human nature to wonder what you did wrong if you don't get a 5. Thus, most people aren't going to want to have to deal with countless pms asking them to justify their rankings and are simply going to default to 5s so everyone's happy.

Once again, I give you dear JohnnyRockets, the hall monitor of CC. The guy who's hell bent on playing everything to the letter of the law and finds cheating and dereliction where nobody else even bothers to look. Check out the ratings he's been giving out in his shameless pursuit of another medal. Every single one is a 5.

[detlef]

So zimmah, your standard for average attendance is not missing any turns? How do you get an outstanding, taking extra turns?

The problem is that some might rate average attendance as 1 miss in 20 rounds, with an average of 12 hours between turns. Someone else will give a 1 or 2 for that same performance. Since these ratings are dependent on the person giving the rating and the categories are waaaay too broad, it will never be useful or indicative of player behavior.

no, take most of your turns within the 12 hour period would mean 4 stars by me, and you'll get 5 stars from me if you take most of them within 6 hours (and 6 hours means you'd be checking CC 4 or more times a day, which IMHO isn't that hard)

though yes, for someone taking extra turns i'd hand out a 5 for attendance, though a 1 for fair play (would average out at 3 anyways.)

So, what is "average" attendance to you? Exactly what earns you a 3?

[ParadiceCity9]

Ya I just got straight 4 stars for a regular game...only time I made him wait was so I could eat dinner, and he responded "thats cool". And Fair Play and Attitude? Nothing there pointed to me getting less than 5 stars for those.

[wicked]

And Fair Play and Attitude? Nothing there pointed to me getting less than 5 stars for those.

The question should be, did you do anything to earn a rating above a 3? Not, "I didn't do anything to not deserve a 5." You're thinking backwards. Don't expect 5's, expect 3's... unless you did something amazing or impressive in the game.