Opponenet Reliability Rating?

[Dicke Bertha]

Opponent Reliability Rating?

What about adding the possibility to give your opponent credit for reliability? Carrot is good, and whip even better.

 

[CyberRanger]

What about adding the possibility to give your opponent credit for reliability? Carrot is good, and whip even better.

That's an interesting concept. Maybe something simple like:

1. Completed game in a timely fashion
2. Completed game but took over two weeks to complete turns
3. Didn't complete the game but told me the reason why
4. Opponent just disappeared!

 

[CyberRanger]

That's an interesting concept. Maybe something simple like:

1. Completed game in a timely fashion
2. Completed game but took over two weeks to complete turns
3. Didn't complete the game but told me the reason why
4. Opponent just disappeared!

and of course we would need one more:

5. Not Rated

 

[Dicke Bertha]

WestPointer; you're obviously an intelligent man!

Seriously, I mean this in a positive way; being of a punishment culture, where everything that is not expressively allowed is illegal (sure admire countries where is it the other way around; make life easier - as I understand the US); a little expansion:

I have opponents who disappeared; I will report the game as a win out of courtesy to my other honest/faithful/disciplined/hard whatever you choose to call them opponents.

I have opponents who abandon a game with more or less lame excuses; well, I accept it, but won't play them again. No report.

I have opponents who have to put the game on hold indefinately, because of real life issues, I hope to see them again and will rejoice to have the pleasure of taking up the game again. No report obviously.

I have opponents who stick it out when it is obvious they will gain nothing, better to throw in the glove, they are excellent and admirable!

In the end we all know what opponent we will accept or be happy play in the future, don't we? So my point is, rather than punish the bad oppponents, credit the good ones. So a system which allows positive feedback, but not negative, would be ideal. In the end, the lousy opponents will stand there with no positive remarks, enough indication...

Saves the earnest loads of time and effort.

Just my rationale.

 

[CyberRanger]

Dicke - I don't really understand what your saying. Would you bullet out what you would have as the criteria/ranking options?

 

[Dicke Bertha]

Westpointer, I was thinking simply giving credit like:

1) very reliable pbem opponent
2) reliable pbem opponent

and having no negative options like 'unreliable' etc, since that could be misused...

Your criteria are better still, but maybe the idea as such is not good after all.

 

[06 Maestro]

Westpointer, I was thinking simply giving credit like:

1) very reliable pbem opponent
2) reliable pbem opponent

and having no negative options like 'unreliable' etc, since that could be misused...

I like it. I have had several game dead end; some for good reason, some not. If I could choose an opponent by a "deligence rating", I would be happy. While we're at it, how about an oath? A well known player sent me a pledge at the start of a game-I liked it. Just a short little dity stating a code of conduct regarding cheating and game completion. Some might think it silly, but it will be enough to keep an honest man honest, which I believe the vast majority of military history buffs are. This would be something that would raise some eyebrows on other related sites-good.

 

[Dicke Bertha]

Maestro: I thought I was the only one who had encountered this!

WestPointer: in my view, the only way to "rank" an other player would be pertaining to a specific game submitted to WARS.

As an example, I could have played ten opponents on the WARS system. Five of those thought I was uninteresting to rank (could mean I am crap and untrustworthy, or they suspect I cheat, or they hear TOAW beeps all through replay, or see their postions shelled at the end of replay etc etc) I will have no credit from those obviously. Three thought I was OK, and two thought I was excellent as an opponent. Thus my ranking would be 20% excellent, 30% good, 50% N/A. A viewer of my WARS stats would see; 10 games played, 2 players found him excellent, 3 good, 5 have said zilch. The game reports on WARS will provide the extra info necessary. If four of those five zilches show my opponent registering an OV because I disappeared, I would imagine I'd have a pretty hard time finding new oppnents... Which is good! You see what I mean?

 

[CyberRanger]

I like it too! We need more player and staff input. Maybe the title of this forum is intimidating or something!

 

[tigersqn]

Westpointer, I was thinking simply giving credit like:

1) very reliable pbem opponent
2) reliable pbem opponent

and having no negative options like 'unreliable' etc, since that could be misused...

Your criteria are better still, but maybe the idea as such is not good after all.

This is a good idea.
I've had it happen too many times that an opponent bails on me. Sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not so good reasons.
I normally don't even report those games though, so I may be off-base here.

 

[nemo]

If four of those five zilches show my opponent registering an OV because I disappeared, I would imagine I'd have a pretty hard time finding new oppnents... Which is good!

Or you could be crumbling under challenges from fellow gamers eager to report such easy OVs .
That said, I find the idea interesting.

 

[Dicke Bertha]

I like it. I have had several game dead end; some for good reason, some not. If I could choose an opponent by a "deligence rating", I would be happy. While we're at it, how about an oath? A well known player sent me a pledge at the start of a game-I liked it. Just a short little dity stating a code of conduct regarding cheating and game completion. Some might think it silly, but it will be enough to keep an honest man honest, which I believe the vast majority of military history buffs are. This would be something that would raise some eyebrows on other related sites-good.

Well, regarding oaths, I really liked the idea of a check-list before starting a game, as put forward in another thread. I really hate this topic, but even more I hate people who take up my time, and then .... nothing comes out of it. I feel like a total idiot sending them e-mails and perhaps having the honour of listening to some ditty-datty. I seriously encourage anyone who ever had a problem with me in pbem play to step forward and show the TOAW world what a cheater I am. I hate bad discipline, I hate excuses, I want results and steadfastness. I will answer any turn within a week, or give notice, and damn if I will behave like some opponents I've had.

Now, you have to understand I am Swedish, we think ze Germans are sloppy and unorganized... :devious: The Swiss on the other hand... :thumup:

 

[Palantir]

Or we could use the "E-Bay" method and have 2 column's next to each players name- a positive & negative box.
After a PBEM game you simply check whichever box you feel is reflective of your opponent. There is already a comment section under each endgame report and feedback or replies can be put there.

Obviously a player with positive marks will be respected and played again.

 

[06 Maestro]

I'm not sure on the current policy of registration on "WARs" with regards to use on the forums. Are two seperate registrations still required, or if someone is posting is it safe to assume that they are on the ladder? About a year ago I started a game of Tobruk 3.7 with a previously well known fellow here and took it for granted that with over a thousand posts, that he was on the ladder. By turn 7 it was clear that I had a victory coming my way (would have been the my only victory in the 3.7 game) at which time he stopped playing and didn't respond to my e-mails. It was a frustrating event; I can't help to wonder how many good people quit playing because of contact with crybabies/sore losers that only waste other people' time. He wasn't even on the ladder.

 

[CyberRanger]

I'm not sure on the current policy of registration on "WARs" with regards to use on the forums. Are two seperate registrations still required, or if someone is posting is it safe to assume that they are on the ladder?

Two registrations are not required (or possible) anymore. The user information (password, email, avatar, etc) that you have for the forum is the same as for WARS; the ladder in essence has become part of the forum.

However, your opponent must still join the specific ladder at the
WARS Ladder Control Center. Once a forum member does this, he can report games on that specific ladder and his name will appear on the drop-down list of available oppponents when others report a game.

In EXTREME circumstances, the admin staff can manually "join" a forum user on a ladder. I would only envision doing this if I felt confident (copies of emails between the two players) a player's opponent has disappeared without first joining the ladder or, if some reason, a player needs helping joining.

My suggestion - before you start the game, go into the WARS LLC, pretend you are ready to report the game, and make sure your opponents name appears on the drop-down list.

 

[laszlo.nemedi]

I don't want to rate my opponents on reliability.
I think it would be better if we would register the start date and the end date of the games, so a turn rate can be calculated. In this method the abadoned games can be seen, and you could see people with a lot of abadoned game as not good.

Anyhow registering the running games would be good!

 

[switch_back]

I myself had an incident where the hardrive in my machine died very recently, which destroyed a few games I was playing, I would hate to be rated as un-reliable or something like that, due to something which was not even my fault :crosseye: I did give my opponents continual updates on my situation however.

 

[rasmus]

I have had a few times where I was slow in responding due to RL issues. I have always tried to inform my opponents. The thing I hate the most is when opponents stops playing and responding to PMs and Emails and then start advertising for new opponents. I have often felt the temptation to announce them, but have refrained from doing so in order to keep the civil tone on this forum. I think a way of politely pointing out this foul behaviour would be welcome.

 

[Palantir]

Some sort of indicator is needed for just Rasmus's problem.
There are some players out there who do this as a normal course of action- dropout when the going gets bad and then just pick up another game. Everyone has run into this and "our" normal reaction is to just not play that person again. But all that does is let other good players get stuck playing this poor-sport with the same results.

It would be nice to be able to quickly check and see the general feelings (positive/negative) about a possibile opponent. And the comment section below would always allow for him to reply such as - "HD melted down vs XX, had flu vs YY, etc."

We don't need a complicated system as once a "bad" player starts getting negative marks & no opponents he will most likely leave and go bother players on some other site.

 

[Wolf]

I have had a few times where I was slow in responding due to RL issues. I have always tried to inform my opponents. The thing I hate the most is when opponents stops playing and responding to PMs and Emails and then start advertising for new opponents. I have often felt the temptation to announce them, but have refrained from doing so in order to keep the civil tone on this forum. I think a way of politely pointing out this foul behaviour would be welcome.

I agree entirely - this has happened to me a few times, I have refrained from posting as I wonder if they have received my last turn and don't want to cause any problems. I would welcome an official policy on what to do in this case.