 |
|
 BrainKing.comBoard for everybody who is interested in BrainKing itself, its structure, features and future. If you experience connection or speed problems with BrainKing, please visit Host Tracker and check "BrainKing.com" accessibility from various sites around the world. It may answer whether an issue is caused by BrainKing itself or your local network (or ISP provider). World Of Chess And Variants (videos from BrainKing): YouTube Chess blog: LookIntoChess.com Sinulla ei ole oikeutta kirjoittaa tälle alueelle. Tälle alueelle kirjoittamiseen vaadittu minimi jäsenyystaso on Brain-Sotilas. Moodi: Kaikki voivat lähettää viestejä
31. Heinäkuu 2003, 16:51:11 Otsikko: Money for a new server, player with many games It cannot be that there are 6000 user the most play free and pay nothing and some other "Brainrooks" are paying their amount and some of them play so many games 200-400 so that the server is collapsing!
For a player with 200-400 games the brainrook amount is to less! It cannot be that there is no money for a better server, no money for the programmer who works hard for a nice site and earns nothing for his work! But he has to make a reset every one or two hours round about the clock because we all can play and play and play....! And the best is all are crazy and happy if there are players with hundreds or thousands of games! Have you all considered that fencer at one day says "Good bye",finishs Brainking and then our nice site is away forever! That`s why I suggest to reform the structure of the membership: 1.Brainpawn: As before but only free for one year! 2.Brainpawn: After one year he pays 6 Dollars in the year, that is really not much! 3.Brainknight: As before 4.Brainrook: As before , but limitation 150 Games That is a lot of games but if somebody wants to play more games he should buy a second account! 31. Heinäkuu 2003, 17:43:48 Otsikko: Re: Money for a new server, player with many games I do not favor limiting either the advantages or the number of games Rooks can initiate, but I do strongly believe the price for a Rook membership should increase. For what they receive, a more reasonable price would be $45 or $50 per annum.
I have my own complex set of reasons for purchasing a Knight membership, but admit the Rook is by far a much more attractive deal. Why is it that, of the paying members, there are roughly twice as many Rooks as Knights? It is simple really. The benefits for Rooks are a lot greater than those of Knights for only a marginally steeper cost. Current contracts must be obliged, of course, but at some future point a price increase for Rooks should be worked in. Putting limitations on Pawns is meaningless. It sounds good in theory, but any user can get around it by simply creating another account. |
Päivämäärä ja aika
Ystävät palvelimella
Suosikki keskustelut
Yhteisöt
Päivän vinkki
|
|
Tekijänoikeudet - Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, kaikki oikeudet pidätetään. Takaisin alkuun |