Czuch:

Czuch: 100% agree

I know i put forward a lot of Feature Requests, but thinking about it, most the things would of been found out given a proper testing period before releasing to the site & therefore would not have to be mentioned and looked at is if it was just nit picking

Czuch:

coan.net: I have a whole fellowship (IE paying members), dedicated to multi player games, full of people waiting for that one too!

Fencer,I dont think anyone will disagree that you have a great site here, and that you certainly are more responsive to our wants and needs than any other site owner.... having said that, my opinion is that people would prefer quality over quantity, and you have provided many new innovations when the old ones are not yet perfected.

For example, you rating system is adequate, but it is not state of the art, and there is no reason for the best turn based game site on the web to not have the best possible ratings sytems.

You wasted a lot of time begrudgingly implementing an auto pass type of system that people do not find adequate or meeting our requirements, and you get nothing but greif for your efforts.

You gave us ponds to alleviate our craving for multi player type of games, but I dont remember one update made to the format that has been requested, IE more control in the number of players or other variables like the amount of the bonus etc

I understand there is a lot to do and a lot of requests and you really can never please everyone. But you have only added to the amount of requests and complaints by adding and adding before perfecting.

Like I said before.... the best gamesite on the web should have the best of everything, not the most

Fencer: Something from you I would be supplying the Prize

If you mean, using Byes, i am surprised it was not introduced when you brought in Elimination Tournaments as they are part of it.

There is certainly no point in trying to create a large one on BrainKing, as once you get to one milestone, say 65 players, you then need to find another 63 or you get to 127 and can not find one more to get your 128, the Tournament can not start and will be deleted.

Having Byes would at least let those who enter play.

I do not call that wanting, i call it common sense, letting those who want to play.......PLAY

Fencer: I want BrainWar

MadMonkey: And you probably think that you are the only one who wants something from me, right?

Czuch: Someone else just asked me why i bother as well

I am starting to wonder myself now. I was just trying to bring some happiness to others, though that does not seem to be allowed here anymore

MadMonkey: Why bother when all of the real money is in a brainface type of website?

Fencer: So it will have to be 32 or 64 ?

Thats sad, sorry everyone who misses out, i tried

MadMonkey: Absolutely not.

Fencer, have you had chance working on using in Byes in Elimination Tournaments that do not get the required amount of players yet ?

Once the current Madhouse PRIZE Tournaments starts, i want to release another PRIZE one.

This time though i would like to do an Elimination one using between 10 and 20(who knows) BrainKing games, and those who take part MUST play in every game.
I will give points to how far a Player gets in each one, then total them up, and the Winner will be the one with the most points overall. In the event of a draw, i will set another Private Tournament up for those involved.

If we had Byes, then no one would have to miss out. Of course i could just say first come first served, but would like for everyone to have a chance

Snoopy: they have stopped working for me too since yesterday, when you click on smiles I just get a blank white box

Vikings: oh, ok. Surely page numbers would be better

MadMonkey: they are there, you have to click on the 20th photo to enlarge it and then hit next to see any further, I'd suggest you start a 2nd photo album

When viewing a Photo Album LIKE HERE , what happens to the Photos when you get past 20 ?

I have 23, but how do you get to them ?

Snoopy: did you click on Change smileys?
make sure you have it set for mouse click.

Snoopy: my "white box" as you call is has all hte icons dancing, bouncing etc.......do a refresh, might help

they worked perfectly for me

Czuch:  I have to confess I know nothing about ponds or how the BKR system works there.  I know that in backgammon large ratings swings are possible, though 500 points would be extreme.

alanback: yeah, it doesnt really matter much anyway, except maybe you can tell me how, when I time out in a pond in the first round, and then a year later I have my rating calculated and I go from 2400 to 1900, that really is a measure of my ability?

Obviously if you want to measure my true ability in pond games, then I am a lot closer to 2400 than to 1900....

Dont misunderstand me, I fully realize that I messed up in a big pond, and my rating will reflect that, but why does it have to wait until the whole pond is finished? I should have gotten that 1900 rating a year ago and moved on from it, instead, I spend a year building my BKR in other smaller games, only for waste. It just doesnt make any sense to me

Czuch:  I think you have overlooked the fact that the purpose of the ratings system is to measure your ability, not to allow you to manage your rating.

AbigailII: Wouldn't 1800 make more sense than using 2200 in this particular case?


Not really, since the only way someone would have such a bkr drop is if they had timed out on a bunch of games or something strange like that. I would think it would be more fair to take their "true" ranking, not the one they got from a bunch of timer outs?


Anyway, any comments on doing a pond bkr straight away after a person has actually fallen and therefore technically already lost the game? Why wait for the whole pond to finish, especially like the one I mentioned, where I could have finished another 50 or 100 ponds since I fell in that one and the time it actually finished?

"Splash, you fell in the pond. Old BKR 2315 new BKR 2245."

Instead of... ""your pond is finished 1 year after you fell, your BKR when you splashed was 2315, your BKR now is 2600, your new BKR 1950"!

Czuch: Why would using the BKR at game start make more sense than the BKR at game end? As for a counter example, take a game with a 30 day move limit. At the start, my opponent has a rating of 2200. 4 weeks later, when he makes his first move, his rating has dropped to 1800. After his first move, the game is finished in a few hours. Wouldn't 1800 make more sense than using 2200 in this particular case?

The problem is that whatever BKR you use, there will always be an example that can be constructed that shows the choice was bad. Ratings will chance over time, and games here take a long time. There's no way around it. The only answer is to not take ratings too seriously.

scottsan: click on the link to one of your started games on your main page.

alanback: Well, using the example of a tournament, if I want to play in a tournament with all people who have a similar BKR as myself, maybe because the game has a high luck value, so I make it for only people with a BKR over 2200, then the game goes on for a year and some guy beats me but they now have a 1800 BKR, does that make sense to use their 1800 BKR instead of the one we both started with?


Okay, how about with ponds then? I sign up for a large pond with 200 people and my BKR is 1900. My computer goes down and I miss the first round and come in last place. In the mean time my BKR rises to 2400 by the time this other game finally ends, and then I am killed because now I have lost to everyone else, most of whom have a lower BKR now than mine!

Shouldnt at least in ponds the rating be calculated at the time you actually lose, rather than when the thing finally ends?

after i log in how do I get to the game board for my next move?

alanback: Yes, for the reasons you said it is better to use the rating at the end of the match, as it is done.

But I don't understand your last remark about backgammon ratings. Since they don't work properly, backgammon tournaments with a BKR limit are skewed anyway, so the eligibility problem sort of vanishes. It remains a problem when the BKR is reliable though.

coan.net: Your example of a player timing out in all games looks unfair at first glance, but in fact it would be even more unfair if the ratings were taken at the beginning of the game. The rating points won by those timeouts are undeserved anyway, so the fewest points won the better.

Czuch:  Theoretically the players' ratings at the end of a match should be more indicative of their "true" ability than their ratings at the beginning, since being later in time they should reflect a larger statistical sample (i.e. more games played).  Remember your own rating will also change during the term of a match.  This is just a feature of a turn based site you can't do anything about.

One thing I have noticed that might be fixed is in setting the BKR range for a tournament.  Eligibility is based on a player's rating at the time he or she joins the tournament.  At the time the tournament starts, his or her rating may be significantly lower than the eligibility threshold.   This  diminishes the utility of being able to set a minimum BKR for entry.  This would not be particularly important if the BKR system for backgammon worked properly, but it does not so this is a major problem.
 

Snoopy: Try it now.

Snoopy: could you possibly be getting a small message saying "file is too long"

Snoopy: Have you tried typing "Ctrl +F5", that will do a hard refresh.

Snoopy: Profile icons still must be approved.

coan.net: Okay, thanks, I can see it both ways now, i guess....


I think it doesnt make sense in many ways because so many games last too long on a turn based site. It just doesnt make any sense in a game that can last over a year to base the new BKR on where we are at the end of the game instead of the beginning, does it?

Czuch: It is calculated at what the BKR's are at the end of the game.

I never liked this since if someone starts to time out on a lot of games, the first people who they start to time out with will get better BKR results... while those who time out in the later games once their opponent BKR is like 500 will get less.

But I understand why it is like this - since in most cases (not tons of time outs - but normal game playing), a persons BKR at the end of the game will more likely reflect their true rating. For example in the Knight Fight game, I started out really good with over 2000+ BKR after my first 4-15 games or so. But now my BKR is more reflective of my true talent in the game (1600 or something) so it makes more since to use the current rating to calculate the BKR change then my inflated 2000+ that I had by getting a lot of good early wins.)

I need some help please...

I thought BKR was calculated on what our BKR was when a game starts with someone, but it seems like it is actually calculated based on what our BKR is when the game actually finishes????

It doesnt make sense, since we are told during our in game play what the expected BKR change will be if we win or lose or tie, so why is it actually calculated based on when the game finally ends?

So, for example, if I want to play only people with a similar BKR to myself, but the game lasts for a year, i might end up playing against someone who is either far superior or far inferior to me, and my rating will reflect that?????

Fencer:  Thanks!  I see it's been done while I was sleeping ...

alanback: Not yet. But I want to add this feature (and a few more) during the weekend.

    Is there a page which lists all public albums?  When I click on the menu link I get a page that shows my albums and the newest public albums.  I can't find a page which shows less recent ones.

LSA: Gif, jpg, png.

I need some help with the pictures please?

What format is supported?

Because i have tried several and keep getting 'this file is not supported'

Just in case you were wondering brainbook.com is already taken but brainfacebook.com and facebrainbook.com are still available.

Artful Dodger: I was able to see your piccies.. so I guess that it is working.

Fencer:  Thanks.  I'm told the link is working fine for people so that's good.  I like the addition.  Thanks for the info.  I'm getting it now.  :) 

Artful Dodger: Until the system is improved.

Andersp: All friends.

Fencer:  Does "Friends only" include all friends or public friends only?

Artful Dodger: What do you mean "those people cannot see me"? Your album is accessible to them if you give them its URL.