 |
|
 Feature requestsDo 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. For further information about Feature Requests, please visit this link on the Brainking.Info site : http://brainking.info/archives/20-About-feature-requests.html You are not allowed to post messages to this board. Minimum level of membership required for posting on this board is Brain Pawn. Mode: Everyone can post
<< < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 > >> 8. September 2006, 16:47:31 Subject: Re: Binabik: Just click the "back" button in the browser. I'm not sure why we have a cancel move button. 7. September 2006, 08:10:54 Subject: Re: imsoaddicted: Ok, that might be it. thx 7. September 2006, 06:57:28 How come we can't turn off banner ads permanently any more? Has that feature been revoked? 31. August 2006, 22:29:00 Subject: Re: "move and stay here" for battleboats variants only King Reza: Ambiguous chess? Assuming you weren't joking, you can't see the result until the other player makes a move. 31. August 2006, 17:42:40 Subject: Re: "move and stay here" for battleboats variants only plaintiger: I play backgammon and chess variants. I like to play one or the other sometimes, so i'll run through all the backgammon games and leave the chess until I have time to think about them. 13. August 2006, 23:49:23 Subject: Re: invisible game $ONE$: Nonsense, this isn't poker and the analogy shouldn't be drawn. Poker is all about concealing your hand if not called, it's part of the game. Keeping chess games private is not. No more private games please. 13. August 2006, 05:23:32 Subject: Re: invisible game mctrivia: But who would be bothered trying to do that? Get a life people! lol 13. August 2006, 03:43:40 Subject: Re: invisible game *BOB*on*Bush*: Battleboats has a winning strategy? I think you want them to be private to hide the fact that there is no winning strategy 12. August 2006, 21:14:26 Subject: Re: invisible game hexkid: What are you trying to hide exactly? 12. August 2006, 16:48:30 Subject: Re: Snakes and ladders mctrivia: except? srntyChutes and Ladders is the same game. 10. August 2006, 22:54:31 Subject: Re: Main page invitations Walter Montego: Try typing them into notepad and pasting them in when you're ready to send. 10. August 2006, 19:56:07 Subject: Re: Main page invitations Walter Montego: I think that's a signal your messages are too long! ;) 10. August 2006, 17:38:03 I'd also like to see a swiss tournament type, especially for chess variants. 10. August 2006, 15:21:41 Subject: Re: elimination-tourneys seedings... All: I vote for 4 systems (chosen by organizer) 1.Random each round 2.Random, but brackets known at the start 3.Seeded (1 vs 64, 2 vs 63 etc) Reseed each round based on current rating 4.Seeded, bracket known at start. :) 9. August 2006, 16:40:30 Subject: Re: elimination-tourneys seedings... diogenes: Do the seeded players always meet early here, or is it at least random? 7. August 2006, 23:34:16 Subject: Re: New game mctrivia: not sure what mathematics has to do with it, but I disagree with the conclusion. 7. August 2006, 23:24:21 Subject: Re: New game gambler104: Well Spanish and English for instance. In the case where a letter exists in one and not the other that's ok, just limits the words it can be used in to that language (e.g. "w" wouldn't appear in a Spanish word. 7. August 2006, 23:20:29 Subject: Re: New game gambler104: lol, actually i was referring to the original request, not your explanation :) Some languages could coexist, but it would be kind of klunky. 7. August 2006, 18:00:34 Subject: Re: New game gambler104: yeah, um, that didn't make a lot of sense. Not to mention the letters are different in each language (even if they are the same, the frequency should be different). Perhaps a multi-language version is possible where either language could be used and the letter frequencies were somehow averaged between them? :) 2. August 2006, 15:35:46 Subject: Re: auto-pass (dont hit me, maybe here comes something new) gambler104: If doubling is an option, then autopass is clearly not going to kick in. However the choice should be "double" or "pass". Where doubling is not an option we should autopass. 20. July 2006, 15:43:50 Subject: Re: Copyrighting "En Passant" *BOB*on*Bush*: lighten up, it was a joke. Walter, it's en passant in english as well, kind of like tete a tete or piece de resistance (Fr Sp?) 18. July 2006, 23:04:12 Subject: Re: furbster: That seems a little harsh. 18. July 2006, 22:38:25 Subject: Re: Limits on allowed games Skittles: 400 then, i was just picking a number out of the blue. Fencer: I just looked around, but can't see where it's explained. 18. July 2006, 21:27:34 Could someone explain this tournament to me for example? A WHAM BAMS #1 (LUDO) First brain prize. How come the brains don't add up to 100%??? Where do the remainder go? 18. July 2006, 21:11:23 Subject: Re: Limits on allowed games ScarletRose: Hear hear!!!!!!!! No need for more than 200 in my opinion. You could guarantee moves all the time at the level, particularly if you opponents were also limited. I second the request. 18. July 2006, 15:44:33 Subject: Re: Added Rule for Anti-Chess Marfitalu: The rule has been in effect for more then 500 years, does anyone claim to have played prior to that?? It was introduced at about the same time as the 2 square pawn move to combat the effect of evading the enemy pawn too easily. Other rules introduced at about the same time: Castling. Unlimited Queen and Bishop moves. There aren't that many rules really, it shouldn't be hard to learn them!! I did when I was about 6. 18. July 2006, 15:28:09 Subject: Re: Added Rule for Anti-Chess Daniel Snyder: Just because people are ignorant of the rule, doesn't mean that the rule doesn't exist. Frankly I'm astounded that someone who plays the game can NOT know the rule. How come??? 16. July 2006, 17:13:04 Subject: Re: Vikings: Problem is not slowness of play, it is usually number of open games. With 1000 games open it's almost impossible to play quickly in an individual game. 15. July 2006, 19:35:29 Subject: Re: Fencer: Who's on holiday? Teachers I guess. 6. July 2006, 16:40:19 I'd like to request Fischer Random Atomic chess. This eliminates the opening theory (as in regular chess) and has been successfully tried on other sites (schemingmind.com for one). 3. July 2006, 20:57:57 Subject: Re: pauloaguia: ? of course ? not sure what that means, but i was just saying the 52% is probably about right - a slight advantage 3. July 2006, 20:43:17 Subject: Re: pauloaguia: I thought white had the first roll (I know they can't actually move a piece until a 6 is rolled, but the first attempt is an obvious advantage) 3. July 2006, 20:31:50 Subject: Re: hexkid: Backgammon is obviously not an advantage since there is a random roll to see who starts anyway. However Ludo does probably have a slight advantage since it's essentially a race. 26. June 2006, 22:40:41 Subject: Re: Move limitations and automatic for removing of tournaments CryingLoser: I can't take credit for that, it was SafariGal that thought of it, I just seconded it. :) 26. June 2006, 07:20:10 Subject: Re: Move limitations and automatic for removing of tournaments SafariGal: Quite right, for instance I'm not moving now because I have no games where it's my move. So that might look slow ;-) 26. June 2006, 04:46:21 Subject: Re: Move limitations and automatic for removing of tournaments mctrivia: you missed the point of the rating, which would be "how quickly does this player play". Playing once every 7 days in a 7 day game is not the same as playing 10 times a day in the same game. 26. June 2006, 02:34:34 Subject: Re: Move limitations and automatic for removing of tournaments SafariGal: I like the idea of having the rating, but I also think the group winner should be decided as eraly as possible. 26. June 2006, 00:47:50 Subject: Re: Move limitations and automatic for removing of tournaments SafariGal: Agreed, the problem is that in tournaments that should be over quickly, one slow player can ruin the whole experience. This could be partially fixed by figuring out the winner of a group prior to every game finishing, and starting round 2 before round 1 is over if all the winners can be determined. 25. June 2006, 07:06:14 Subject: Re: Automatic for removing of tournaments mctrivia: What makes no sense is someone timing out, yet a vacation day is automatically added, yet they are actively playing some other game. That's not how it was intended! 24. June 2006, 20:40:23 Subject: Re: Automatic for removing of tournaments juls31: Which i think is solved by not allowing people to move on vacation days, which is implemented on some sites. 24. June 2006, 16:51:54 Subject: Re: Automatic for removing of tournaments CryingLoser: Good idea. How about if a vacation day automatically kicks in then you can't make any more moves for 24 hours? 23. June 2006, 06:45:16 Subject: Re: Automatic for removing of tournaments whopper: If only they were punished, the auto-vac rule allows them to not be punished even while playing other games. 21. June 2006, 21:49:14 Subject: Re: My Profile + Settings Summertop: I agree, I remember looking for quite some time for the vacation page on my profile. 16. June 2006, 01:38:34 Subject: Ludo.... ...board is waaay to big. Can we make it a little smaller? 8. June 2006, 15:37:52 Subject: Re: mctrivia: How many games constitutes rated really? There is a guy on top of the Dark Chess list after 4 games and a rating above 2100, yet he beat players rated only 1200 - 1600 in that time. Playing him would be a good way to boost ratings but it wouldn't be fair. Perhaps any game against a player without an established rating wouldn't count? Instead there should be a weighting where the less established the opponents rating, the less effect the result has on yours. 6. June 2006, 22:01:26 Subject: Re: Pythagoras: Problem was I joined a stupid tournament and didn't read the rules properly. But even if I entered knowingly it would be impossible to play out the game if someone decides to wait till i sleep before moving. And someone actually admitted they were trying to win that way by the way. 6. June 2006, 17:03:35 Subject: Re: BIG BAD WOLF: I know that now. I have noticed that certain players are deliberately playing such games and then waiting for the right time to move. This is bloody ridiculous behaviour. 6. June 2006, 16:36:21 I request that these silly time limits where I end up with 3 hours to make a move don't time out while I'm asleep. In other words don't count hourly time limits from midnight to 6am or something. Be careful entering a tournament or ladder where you only get an addition 3 hours per move, since you will lose if your opponent waits to move until just after you go to sleep. 6. June 2006, 00:19:28 Subject: Re: Rated players vs. Unrated players Summertop: A better solution may be to wait until the player gets a rating, then apply that rating to the game you played against them. Unfortunately that requires some more complex programming though. 5. June 2006, 23:39:13 Subject: Re: Rated players vs. Unrated players jurek: It was pretty obviously sarcasm. After all if we only let unrated players play each other they would become rated, but the ratings would be meaningless. << < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 > >> |
Date and time
Friends online
Favourite boards
Fellowships
Tip of the day
|
|
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, all rights reserved. Back to the top |