Do you miss something on BrainKing.com and would you like to see it here? Post your request into this board! If there is a more specific board for the request, (i.e. game rule changes etc) then it should be posted and discussed on that specific board.
Justaminute: Well, we have hasami shogi example. The rules were changed some years ago in Brainking.
Raistlin: But 2 matches is an option of each player to create the game, not change anything. :(
There're some possibilities:
- change the size board to 8x8 (like i said before);
- with 7x7, maybe black player be the first to play and do 2 moves, one for white player and other for himself and only then the white player play. The white player go on beeing the first player, but, at first, he will have a bad move, played for black player. It's a little similar with happen in swap five in line.
It's a pity didn't change anything, because game is funny and much more people would play it if it was more balanced.
joshi tm: I must agree with you..."a team with 5 2100+ players is tough to beat, random or not random". However, for me it's the best option, keeping the same type of tournament and with same number of games. :)
But you give me a new idea...until now, we have always the same type of team tournament, so why not allow some types of tournaments? The old format, "my format" and round robin format? The creator of team tournaments could choose what type of tournament people would play.
I don't know if this possibility is difficult to implement, but would be fun to change the type of tournament. Single elimination tournament is a bad option for team tournaments, so we would have others types of team tournaments...
Coan.net, what do you think about a public opinion poll about these ideas? :)
coan.net and joshi tm: Ah, thanks for the explanation. Still about joshi tm post, yes, the pairing would be based more on luck, but in my perspective that would be better than you knew you don't have chances to win a team tournament, right? So, what's the problem?
I'm going give you some examples: Goldfinger The Chess Club had a very strong team and they only won 8-6 on final, because Grim Reaper and King Reza lost by time-out. Do you like to play these tournaments where everybody knows who will be the winner?
Now, see that: July 2009 Freddy Krueger Massacre Chess My team won, because when this team tournament started, the game (Massacre Chess) was new on BK and the players position wasn't clear...many players didn't still have rating, so his position was random and that particularity allowed a "surprise".
So, with my idea would be possible create more surprises and interest for team tournaments.
But ok, we can keep the old format and go on with 2 or 3 strong teams and who know, in soon, you'll only see team tournaments with 4 or 5 teams (or worst, tournament doesn't start because there only be 2 or 3 teams). Many people prefer don't play, because they know they don't have chances to win, so why play? There's no funny, no competition...nothing.
Mélusine: No problem. The discussion is always a good way to get a consensus and, who knows, better ideas. :)
However, in your explanation, i cannot find an only point of disagreement. You said that when you're the highest player, you prefer to play with an opponent with a similar BKR...i agree 100% with you...me too. And if you're the highest player of your team, with 1900 points, for example, and your opponent has 2300 points, where is the interest and balance? :)
In past, i remember i was the player with best BKR of my team and the weakest opponent player had a BKR more high than me. In these cases, the weakest team cannot do anything, but with "my idea", the possibility to order players is the only strategy to surprise opponent teams.
This format is specially directed for strategy games, where the luck factor doesn't exist and usually there aren't surprises about who will be the winner.
About your idea, it's necessary there be similar bkr's between all players to become true and possible. :)
joshi tm: Extra games? Sorry, but i think you didn't understand my idea. You would play the same number of games (if there're 5 teams, so you'll play 8 games, 2 games against each opponent). However, each captain decides the position of their players. This way, if you're the 3º best player of your team, your captain can decide that you will play like first player or last player of team. It's a strategy question. Then, you could play with best player of team B, with 5º best player of team C, with 4º best player of team D, etc, but you'll never play with best player of team B and with other player of team B in same tournament...you only play against one player of each team like now.
coan.net: Exactly. Moreover, the strategy of the strongest team (A) could be good to beat the team B, but could be bad to defeat team C, etc... I don't want to mislead anyone... obviously, the team with the best players will always have more chances to win, but with "my format" the element of luck and surprise would be greater.
More, I think the captain would have a much bigger role than now, where only signs the team and little else does...
I have a new idea about as try become team tournaments more competitive and interesting, and would like to share it with all you.
Unfortunately, some people prefer choose strong teams to play and, this way, there’s a big disparity between teams. Many times, before team tournaments started, seeing all teams already signed, I and probably many people know who will be the winner, and this is very sad for competition.
To try changing this situation, my idea is that each team captain could choose the position of their players in tournaments. Example:
Now Team A Team B - Player 1 - 2200 points - Player 2 - 2100 points - Player 2 - 2155 points - Player 2 - 2050 points - Player 3 - 2000 points - Player 3 - 1900 points - Player 4 - 1800 points - Player 4 - 1600 points - Player 5 - 1750 points - Player 5 - 1500 points
Probably, team A would win 5-0.
My idea Team A Team B - Player 1 - 2200 points - Player 1 - 1600 points - Player 2 - 2155 points - Player 2 - 1500 points - Player 3 - 2000 points - Player 3 - 2100 points - Player 4 - 1800 points - Player 4 - 2050 points - Player 5 - 1750 points - Player 5 - 1900 points
Team A preferred keep the order of their players and team B decided change it, so probably Team B would win 3-2. Besides, in a team tournament, there're some teams playing and each team captain will have a different idea to order his team, so will can there be many surprises.
This is my main idea. But there's a question...when a team captain signed his team, the real order of players cannot appear visible for everybody. So, the information of players will must appear for pontuation like now (and will change when the tournament start), or is hidden by ???????? like in "run around the pond".
There're several advantages for paid membership, one of them is correct our posts when we detect some mistake. However, i think that option should be allowed to all players, because the question is become our post more clear to everybody...
题目: Re: Restrict the number of tournaments created, by each player, per month
pedestrian: Yes, i think your suggestion is a good help for this problem. In this moment, there're not much search options and if we're trying to select a specific game type to play a tournament, we find many tournaments, because most of them include all games.
Why not someting like that: select a specific game type and then appear the information (about this specific game type only) with the number minimum of players request to start that tournament.
Example: I select "anti chess" game and we have: Tournament A - 2/5 (there're 2 players and we need 5 to start) Tournament B - 4/8 (there're 4 players and we need 8 to start) Tournament C - 14/16 (there're 14 players and we need 16 to start)
There're some people creating many tournaments with same characteristics (all games and same time control) and it's confused for people choose a tournament to play a specific type of game, because some players want play the same type of game, but tournaments don't start, because players are dispersed for some tournaments.
I understand people have a good intention when are creating tournaments, but the result isn't the best and unfortunatelly these persons don't still understand it.
So, would be possible restrict the number of tournaments created, by each player, per month?
joshi tm: Of course, and it would be only possible to know how each team is placed when the team tournament/challenge start. Example: Team A Team B Player 1 (2000 points) - Player 1 (1900 points) Player 2 (1950 points) - Player 2 (1700 points) Player 3 (1700 points) - Player 3 (1600 points) Player 4 (1500 points) - Player 4 (1550 points) Player 5 (1200 points) - Player 5 (1400 points)
If players with more points won, so Team A would win 3-2, but with my idea...
Team A Team B
Player 1 (2000 points) - Player 5 (1400 points)
Player 2 (1950 points) - Player 4 (1550 points)
Player 3 (1700 points) - Player 1 (1900 points)
Player 4 (1500 points) - Player 2 (1700 points)
Player 5 (1200 points) - Player 3 (1600 points)
This way, if captain of Team A wish place his team according to rating and Team B try out other strategy, so Team B would win 3-2, if players with more points won.
coan.net: To finish about my second idea, many times when you see teams that already sign up and see rating of each player, you know who will be the winner team. Only time out can cause surprise. With my idea, there's more strategy. :)
coan.net: Lol. I think about my first idea you're thought as a team player and about second idea you're thought as just a player.
Well, present format of tournament is more adequate, i don't have questions about that, but i suggest that sometimes could be used single elimination tournament. I think that would work as a team tournament too, because it's always a competition between teams and the more strong will be the winner. Besides, a single elimination tournament with a little time control would be beneficial for brain knight, because when his team is eliminated and round is finished, can play other team tournament. However, in present format with a long time control, rounds are very slow.
About the captain switch around the order of players, i think firstly must be tryed out in challenges between 2 teams to see what people think about that and if is more funny and strategic. I think so and talking about your question, you as 4th best player can be placed in first position, but you can play against top player or againt a worse player than you. You don't know how the other captain placed his team. Ok, you can be sacrificated, but your team can be the winner for that. Well, belong to team is this, the more important is the team.
Until now, all team tournaments have same format...why not create some team tournaments with single elimination? And now it's possible use Byes. I think a tournament with simple elimination is more slow, but with an adequate time control that question is resolved.
I have also other idea, trying become team tournament more funny and strategic. When a capitain choose his team, players are placed according to their ratings. In my opinion, that favour best teams, so i propose that capitain of each team could put players how he wants. Example: Capitain can put a player with worse rating in first place of his team and best players would be placed at the end, trying surprise the opponent team and win games where usually wouldn't win. When a capitain team sign up his team, the name of players would have to be substituted for ?, before at the beginning of tournament.
rabbitoid: I was specially curious to know more information about that because tournaments with brains. In this particular case could be declared a winner, but would be necessary to know the first, second and third place to be given brains, before all games are finished, or for give brains would be necessary wait by the end of all games. It was this my point/question.
In main page, each person can see all their games or choose see all games of a type of game or see all games against an especific player. I suggest add an option to can see all our games by type of tournament: no prize tournaments, free prize tournaments , prize with an entry fee tournaments, normal games and ponds games.
I think that add this option is good, specially because free prize tournaments and prize with an entry fee. Sometimes, people have many games and is playing a game and don't recognize that's a "special" game.
P.S. I'm not sure if "type of tournament" is the best name, but more important, at the moment, is explain my idea. :)
In single elimination tournaments, many times the number of players that sign up isn't enough to start that tournament. For example, a single elimination tournament with 64 players, but only 39 sign up, will be deleted. So, why not create an option, when a person is created a new tournament, to allow that a single elimination tournament with 64 players, but only 39 sign up in time to deadline, can start with 32 players (the 32 first players to sign up)?
My idea is: single elimination tournament with 64 players (for example) and if the number of players isn't enough, will there be an option to allow start it with 32 first players to sign up or 16 players or 8 players or 4 players.
And of course, the creator will be free for active 32 players only or 32 and 16 players or all options or don't active anyone.
This way, we can have in same tournament: Backgammon: 64 players Hypergammon: 64 players Chess: 32 players Checkers: 16 players etc.
Artful Dodger: Of course. Besides, that person and many slow players don't use auto pass. So, i can conclude they do that with bad intention, waiting win by time-out, because a simple game or tournament can take a long time.
rod03801: As Martinez said, why not? I don't see problem. I'm here to discuss holidays and auto pass, so if i mentioned a name was because that was an abusive situation and for everybody has a better perspective about my point...
Fencer: Only? For me he would have 0 days. He already spent 35 days this year and now has more 35 days. Why not create a number maximum of holidays for year, independently of number of paid membership that a player could buy?
This way, my game with this person can finish in 2050. What can i do? Nothing...maybe wait until he become poor for cannot buy more paid inscripion.
Someone has more 35 days of holidays...how is it possible? This is ridiculous. He renovates his paid membership only for win more holidays and Fencer don't must allow it. Why not stipulate a number maximum of holidays, for example 50 days for year. This way, a player can buy 10, 20 or 100 paid inscriptions, but will have always a maximum of 50 days of holidays in that year.</p>
Other question, why not become compulsory auto pass or at least create a poll about this? I know many people agree with my opinion, so why not? Sometimes, i see some polls without interest for BrainKing and this question would be interesting, i think...
Or add an option to allow create tournaments where we can choose the number maximum of games that a player must have to can play that tournament. Example: Backgammon tournament only acessible for players with less 1000 games.
If we can create a tournament for players with bkr between 1000 and 1600 points, for example, why not add this new option?
Auto pass is an option that players can use or not, so i would like to know if there's the possibility to become this option compulsory for everybody, or at least for players with a high number of games like 500 or 1000, for example.
I say that because i'm playing with ladiesmaninny32 a game with 7 days per move that started on August and until now he only did 6 moves...6 moves in 6 months. Problem is not 7 days per move, but he use holidays and when holidays of 2008 finished, he won holidays of 2009. This is ridiculous, the game will take a long time.
And ladiesmaninny32 is only an example, there're more players to do the same thing.
I don't know if this is right board, but I have a question about waiting games. In some challenges our color in the game is random. However, in last month I accepted 5 or 6 games with random color, but my color was always the same. I would like to know if this situation happen with other people and maybe can be a bug or is only destiny. lol
Can anyone tell me if is possible create one only tournament with free prize and prize with an entry fee? I never saw that and think would be interesting. For example, a random tournament with 1 year rook as prize, but for inscription is necessary 50 brains. I think would be a great idea.