I don't want it, but that has more to do with a crappy rating from pre-RR times when I wasn't going to waste my evening on continuing a game that was obviously ruined already and should be drawn or canceled.

I still think a fresh start would be best if we're going to introduce them as requirements.

There was already partial forgiveness by an NMR wipe.

Well, that counts for the moves received-count too and I'm pretty sure my RR would be higher if the moves received/NMR count were included, so I actually see that as an argument in favour of wiping it all.

....but RR is by definition a history-based measurement. If you wanna prove it's no longer representing you then raise it higher by playing non-RR controlled games.

If I abandoned ruined games which no one cared about, often games I could've won because of CDs (which is very cheap in my mind), I didn't see that as proving me to be unreliable and since there was no arbitrary rating, that left exactly 0 reasons to continue for me.

Now there is such a rating and if I would've known that years ago, I wouldn't have CDed so much.

It says next to nothing about my reliability, only about my desire not to waste time on ruined games and just get on with real games.

Swiping it to the date RR was implemented will still leave enough data to show who's unreliable NOW, which is what it's all about, right?

It helps no one if I'm classified as very unreliable because I'm not.

steephie, to justify being unreliable because others have been so in games you've played might not fly with some. On PlayDip, there's a group called Classicists for reliable players. They do take into account reasons for NMRs and surrenders, but I don't think such reasons as you've offered would be accepted. Part of being reliable is playing out such distasteful games. Do you really think it's okay not to do the right thing because nobody's looking? I do think some sort of rolling reliability measure is sensible. Even if someone was unreliable in the past, they may have cleaned up their act.

Yes, reliability ratings for setting up games would be awesome.

@zaneparks: I think it's okay if no one is harmed by it.

Steephie....you quit roughly a third of the games you played. You are hardly a poster child for reliability forgiveness.

Zane does make a good poi t about a rolling reliabiliy rating that just looks at say...the last 12-24 months

I'm interested to look at something like the last two years of your games, or 50 games, whichever is higher. I think that's the next step if this version is unsuccessful. I like the idea of forgiveness for poor commitment if there's good evidence that the player is committed now.

Since RR is a percentage, you can always climb up by playing more games in the current system (unless you've been incredibly unreliable).

Actually I just checked my last two CDs (2013!! Obviously I'm extremely unreliable!!). They are both League games and I went through them in detail and as far as I can see I did not miss a single phase in either one, so something seems seriously wrong with the feature. Anyone wants to check what's up there? In fact I drew as the #1 player in one of them, featuring players such as 2ndWhiteLine and Draugnar, so that was a pretty good game.

I'd also like to stress again that that's 2013.
I can't be bothered to go through all games but I wonder in how many of them I actually CDed.

Clearly the Reliability Rating is, despite its name, very unreliable itself though.

As a newbie. I think this is a good idea and the last twelve months should be sufficient. People and circumstances change ;-)

Also worth mentioning is that I played like 10 games at once in my unreliable period, now I recognise one as my sweet spot, occasionally ending up with more.

To clarify why I'm saying that:
That's why I'm recovering so slowly. Because I'm taking a reliable approach now. It's counter-intuitive since my rating would be good if I followed an unreliable policy instead.

Steephie: I'm not really sure what you're saying, but I can confirm that your rating wouldn't be better if you were continuing to be unreliable. I haven't looked at your recent record, but the only way that your rating will go up is by not missing turns and not CDing.

I'm not terribly fussed by someone going into CD with one or two units about to be destroyed and prefer it to those who log in to press ready leaving all their units in position. Tho' I personally will always fight on as long as possible, I am really fed up by the 1 missed orders in my record, caused by having problems with my equipments in a live game! I've since realised with 16 units it's best to make some of the moves, save, make some more... etc., just in case. Hopping mad to press Ready, to be told that the turn had finished.

I also think there needs to be some sort of mod intervention possible: I was yanked off to hospital 4 times and ended up spending 9 months in hospital with no access (and tbh, no interest in) a pc. Fortunately I wasn't in any games at that time, but I can imagine how dispiriting it would be to log back in, finally, to find a vast blot on your record!

@ATC: My point was is that if I would continue playing in 10 games at a time and would only occasionally miss a turn, my rating would be much better than what I'm doing now: one or two games at a time, being completely reliable.

Please adress my other points though. This was just a sidepoint.

I did not CD in some of the games listed and my last supposedly CD was 2013 (and I didn't actually CD in the last 2 games, so perhaps 2012).

Why don't you take up that last part with the mods, steephie. That alone would give your RR a bump

I want gated RR games. Right now, I try to join only high point games to eliminate the randomness caused by unreliable newbies (usually it is them). I think many people have found ways to cope with lack of RR (passwords work for some), but an automated gating system would be used by me absolutely.

As for improving your RR, you can always play more games and demonstrate that you're for real. I like ATCs 2-year or 50 game (whichever is less?) idea. If you are serious, play a bunch of live games and get that old history out of your record. It's then partially in your control how fast you can rehabilitate your RR.

steephie email atc directly so he can look into that. My RR has issues too which he as happy yo fix. There are some bugs

Steephie: your record is correct. I'll PM you.

Okay that was explained to me, but I still think it counts for something that, although I've been playing during that period, my last CD was in a game that finished in July 2013.
So I agree that it would make sense to only include the last 12-24 months.

As far as I know, RR is now bug free (though I'm happy to be proven wrong on that if appropriate).

I haven't manually fixed anyone's RR (although it is possible). Each time there was a problem, the bug that caused the problem was fixed. And, in one major case where the problem was difficult to fix in past games, we wiped all NMRs from before a certain date (6th feb, I think, but don't quote me). This means that those with low RR stats generally should be lower- but we figured an overestimate was better than an underestimate.

I think it's likely that if a player had a major life event that ruined an otherwise perfect record, we'd make exceptions, but I don't really want to open the door to "but my internet went out!" or "but I had to leave" requests. The point of RR is to predict whether a player will CD or miss turns in a new game, and changing the historical record doesn't really help with that goal.

"I think it's likely that if a player had a major life event that ruined an otherwise perfect record, we'd make exceptions" Why? : )

Slippery slope right there.
Most of my CDs were due to a mess IRL.

I'm quite interested in the drop-off idea, and it seems popular. We had this in one of the original designs for RR, but decided to go with a simpler initial solution. Simpler is usually better if it works.

I really like the idea of incentivising people to play highly reliable games, and I think a drop off would create a stronger incentive than no drop off. No promises though- I'm not the only person making decisions on feature design, and there are lots of other features we want to get working, too.

Forum feedback is always useful, so thanks!

Abge: I'm probably going to regret saying that :) Perhaps "likely" was a bit strong- I should have said "I hope it would be considered".

A reason you might want to alter the RR information is that going in to hospital suddenly is really only one unreliability "event". But, if you're in 10 games, then you might CD in all 10. I think this is different to CDing in 10 games, once per month. However, both are treated the same in the current system. We had ideas for a system that was based on these "unreliability events", but it turned out to be considerably more complex and even then it would still have scenarios that it modelled badly.

There are clear counter arguments to allowing change, of course. For one, where do you stop?

The current policy is not to manually alter the reliability information. It's a good policy, and I think there'd be a lot of discussion before an exception was made.

I would only advocate changing the data if it meant that a reliable player couldn't get games any more. But, I'm hoping that RR never results in users not being able to find games. The point of RR is to allow people who don't really miss turns to play together, by finding players who are also not going to miss turns. Not to prevent members getting games.

A counter-point, if I may be so bold, is that a CD impacts a game the same no matter what the cause. I realize it is a game, and I have had people CD because they were hospitalized. We paused the game and waited for their return. But, at the end of the day, it is they who left the game, not the 6 other players who cannot be reimbursed for their time. If a player is asked about their poor RR and they explain they went to the hospital, no one worth playing with would hold it against them. If RR is at the discretion of the mods then it is not particularly useful metric, imho.