[PC] Update Explanatory Tags

[squishyg]

How about set them into 3 area's?



Good|Neutral/Either-Or|Bad

That would work well.

We do need to have MISSED TURN tag too. Nothing currently really applies.

I agree.

I also agree. Unless you are going to use deadbeat.

which would be inaccurate

[rein08]

Nice idea.
I think these players should be readung the rules first.
Keep it up!

[squishyg]

?

[JoshyBoy]

Nice idea.
I think these players should be readung the rules first.
Keep it up!

Huh?

[drunkmonkey]

What about some sort of "Quick Learner" tag? I recently had a game with a player who completely misplayed a map (obviously new to it), I gave him some tips, and he came back and wiped the floor with me in a new game I was looking for some sort of rating to commend him for this, and didn't see anything.

[NightWolf]

The main tags I want to see added are the pair "Good Sportsmanship" and "Bad Sportsmanship". Nothing pisses me off more than playing with someone with bad sportsmanship bitching at me for winning a game he/she could never have won with such bad strategies, or yelling off of the top of their lungs at me for not playing up to expectations etc.

EDIT:

Also, consider the fact that too many of us English speakers are learning less and less words these days than we did like 10,20, or 50 years ago and such. I'm sure there are a lot of tags people are not using for players because they do NOT know what they mean. If a word might seem obscure to many, use a couple less descriptive words to describe the same tag instead.

[The Bison King]

Additional Tags

Concise description:

• I'm suggesting that in the player rating options we add tags for Aggressive and Cautious. As it is there aren't really any tag's that communicate these concepts. The closest to tags to these right now are Suicidal, and cowardly which both have a negative connotation

Specifics/Details:

• Agressive
  Cautious

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• It will allow players to more accurately rate other players

[Darwins_Bane]

this has already been suggested here

[The Bison King]

Concise description:

* I'm suggesting that in the player rating options we add tags for Aggressive and Cautious. As it is there aren't really any tag's that communicate these concepts. The closest to tags to these right now are Suicidal, and cowardly which both have a negative connotation


Specifics/Details:

* Agressive
Cautious


How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

* It will allow players to more accurately rate other players

I guess I posted this in the wrong spot. I'm pushing for adding "aggressive" and "cautious"

[kennys777]

...

[targetman377]

if you go to suggestions thread there are a whole bunch of these threads

[Rodion]

I don't like that idea.

First of all, it shouldn't be measured in stars. Stars are there to highlight how "enjoyable" it should be playing with the player in question. So, assuming I beat someone because his dice sucked and I give him a "1" rating in the lucky category, his overall could go down and make people restrain from playing them.

Adding a "lucky" tag is something I also dislike. Many (sore) losers would give it to winners. It would be a circus of disrespectfulness (particularly if the winner replies to the backhanded compliment).

[kennys777]

...

[kennys777]

...

[kennys777]

...

[Woodruff]

I am just throwing this out there. The stars work more or less, but shouldn't there be a lucky category in the ratings to go along with all the rest. I am just saying this because sometimes, the spoils, dice, and drops are amazingly one-sided. Not all the time, and I am not complaining, but I go to rate some people, I am lucky "damn this guy was lucky!" I was just wondering if this or any other new categories could be added.
I would love to see other ideas on possible new categories, post em if u got em!

1) Look in Suggestions.
2) This specific category rating tag is dumb, frankly. Ratings should be based on how a player plays and/or behaves, not some intangible bullshit whining.

[TheForgivenOne]

Merged

[Woodruff]

I posted this is Gen. Discussion, but anyway, I think "lucky" should be a tag. I know it is not for a person's play, but there are times when I just say to myself, "damn that was lucky." For example, a great drop, followed by a 3 card rainbow in flat rate, along with wondrous dice all in the same game. That is just lucky.
Let me state for the record, I am not complaining, because I have been on the good and bad side of this topic. I would just like to see how often people get tagged as being lucky. I know there was one bad example for me, where I lost a classic map, flat rate, 1v1 w/o fog, in 3-4 (I think it was 3) rounds. I mean a 14 terr. start as automatic, and I got stomped, and I didnt even suicide my troops to end it quickly. It was just a bad ass kicking. But it was a drop, a 3 card, and great dice. That combo is enough to say, that dude is lucky!!!

Hate to be blunt, but this is dumb. You want to rate someone on something that has absolutely nothing to do with how the player plays and/or behaves? I mean, come on. This tag would mark something that is 100% out of the player's control. It doesn't even make basic sense. And no, some people are NOT "naturally more lucky" in the context of an online die roll. Good lord.

Aren't the purpose of the tags to note something about how a player plays the game or how they react to it, so that players in the future can use those tags to choose to play against (or not play against) those players? "Lucky" wouldn't really have any meaning in this context, since "lucky" would change from game to game. There wouldn't be any reason not to play against someone with the "lucky" tag, because there would be no reason to believe they would continue to be lucky.

[ljex]

moved to sugs

[Darwins_Bane]

Merged.

[PLAYER57832]

A lot of these threads keep persisting. Overall, I think the system needs to be changed.

Per just changing tags. Most of the tags are negative, but negative in ways that are not all that different. Pretty much comes down to being a poor sport. A "good sport" tag needs to be added on the good side.

.

[Herbas]

I see little point in tags when there is no overview page or anything which would quickly summarize a player for you. Right now you have to carefully check several pages of player ratings in order to get an idea what type of player he is.

[JoshyBoy]

I see little point in tags when there is no overview page or anything which would quickly summarize a player for you. Right now you have to carefully check several pages of player ratings in order to get an idea what type of player he is.

This is a good point. This is where the old feedback had an advantage.

[Jatekos]

I see little point in tags when there is no overview page or anything which would quickly summarize a player for you. Right now you have to carefully check several pages of player ratings in order to get an idea what type of player he is.

Agreed. On the ratings page, we can see the averages of the attributes (fair play/gameplay/attitude/overall), but there is no summary of the tags received.
I once suggested to "Show the most common rating tags received on player profile", but adding a summary of the tags to the beginning of the ratings page could be even better.

[skipopidid]

What about an "other" tag with a short (20ish?) discription