Dmitri King wrote 8. July 2003, 23:07:03

"I will address this directly to The RAt, since you spoke on behalf of the non paying members, but any pawn is welcome to answer this:

HOW do you suggest Fencer increase revenue? I am sure you realize that 250 memberships does NOT provide enough revenue to run this site. We all hope that Fencer will run the site forever as a hobby, getting almost no sleep, just because he is a fan of board games. But, that might be too much to ask. So, I repeat my question: How do you suggest increasing revenue? You oppose measures to restrict what pawns get, calling such measures "attempts to discourage pawns from coming to the site," so what do you suggest?

I'll help you out with this one: To increase revenue, there has to be either 1) more memberships or 2) a higher membership fee charged. "

I agree. There has to be an increase in revenue. But the matter is a bit more complicated than what you make it sound like. Here are a couple of points I use when I think of how to do it:
a) there has to be enough players on the site for it to actually work
b) most players are not willing to pay to play - I mean that there are always places where you can play for free (I was actually going to put up one for myself and a friend of mine, but then I found this place...)
c) There are always some who are willing to pay, maybe 10-30% of the users - depending on things like price and what you get for it
d) increase in price reduses the number of players willing to pay
e) decrease in what you get if you don't pay increases the percentage of willing payers, but might actually decrease the number of people doing it
f) each player can be said to cost x $ to the site

Now, the obvious answer is to increase the amount of players, as about the same percentage is willing to pay. This would lead to increase in revenue... Unfortunately more players means more processing power required and therefore increases expences too. Furthermore, this is not easily done...

Other alternative is to increase the percentage that is willing to pay. This is what has mainly been discussed here (I haven't read the latest posts yet, sorry if I'm mistaken. I'll answer this one first). It might work, usually it does not. IYT tried it, and it didn't work very well, and they had a huge amount of players to start with (compared with brainking). I don't suggest this line of action.

The last and toughest alternative that I can think of is increasing the total number of players while decreasing the cost of a single player. To achieve this, the following seems essential:
1) reduce the amount of processing and data required for using the site. I mentioned before that there is a huge amount of useless information on the screens. I believe that processing times could be cut to a third by simplifying the design (depends on how it's implemented, of course). Just look at the main page and ask your selfs, how much of the data is dynamic and how much of it do you really need. Amount of HTML seems about ok to me...
2) improve the usability of the site - I mean the frequent down time experienced... It might be a good idea to start blocking out us non paying members if the site is getting full - with a friendly (and quick) message informing us that the site is nearing it's peak operating level and therefore only paying members are allowed to log in.
3) advertice. It's expencive (unless you spam - do that and I'm gone).
What this really means is hard work and a possibility of a potential outcome. You propably already know, or at least are quickly finding out, that it's difficult to make money on a site like this. Usually the best you can hope for is to make it finance itself... And then again, some do make it. :-)

Well we have to come up with something to cut down on all the posts. You have to admit that somedays it crazy (mostly down to quizes, which i love also).
No longer have you left the board to go back to your games & there is another 10 messages there LOL (and all the time thats more pressure on the server).

I believe Blaze asked for a separate board just for quizzes, but it was felt there was already enough boards. (I think that was the reason!)

harley: As much as i agree with you (now that doesn't happen often LOL) i think the boards do need sorting out.
The quizes here are great fun & attract alot of attention. How about asking Fencer to create a board for them on there own (out of General Chat).
That could solve 2 problems:
1. People talking about other things and feeling they are getting in the way of the quiz.
2. Only make the quiz board avaliable at certain times of day/night - which could be done as we already know the times when the server is put under the most pressure.

Andreas: This has been brought up a number of times & alot of people have in fact turned there 'Refresh' off in order to help with this.
There always your refresh on screen or the F5 key anyway lol :)

Is it possible, that "Refresh" functionality is causing so often server downtimes? BrainKing.com is almost always down at 23:00-24:00 Germany time (at least last few days).

Assume I set a refresh to 10 sec (this is what I actually had some time ealier). Then in 1 hour my page will be automatically reloaded 360 times.
Some people have a flat rate Internet access and if they forget to close this browser window, then BrainKing.com will be hit 24x360 = 8640 times! And you can also open several windows and all off them will be automatically reloaded causing high server load...

Maybe if the moderators were allowed to delete some of the messages sooner? I mean some of the boards have TONS of messages that have been there for quiet some time. I'm not sure how much space that takes up, but it surely adds up.

I'm totally against closing any discussion boards. Part of what makes this site what it is is the friendships we all have here. We have a laugh on the boards, ask serious questions, and generally support each other. The boards that are just for specific games are well used, people can go happily there and post details about a game and know it will be well received and discussed with others who have a love of that particular game.
The general and members boards are where we can just kick back and have a laugh with our friends. And of course the features board etc are needed.
Of course this is primarily a game site, but it also has the best community spirit on the net (IMHO) and this would not be achieved if we could not use the discussion boards to get to know people.

server problems: Having accounts that are not used just take up a little hard drive space, and does not really have much to do with the current problems with the server slow time.

I do like the idea of (some-what) closing much of the discussion boards - but only for pawns (see message of mine below).

I just don't like the idea of adding more levels of membership. I myself am a Rook, and I really don't want to see the Rook membership change (unless more is added - then I might not complain).

---------
Vikings: I know for myself, I prefer to just play then to just win - and to have a game just end or be forefited in the middle (even if it is a win for me) would not make me too happy. Someone else mentioned to let them finish the games that were already started but not start any new games, I also don't like that idea - for the fact if a person only has a couple of games, they may not play as much and also slow down things (plus the other problems that were talked about before) :-)

BBW

Elma, I think you have missed the point. Revenue needs to be increased. I don't really see your suggestions as increasing revenue. Perhaps pawns will give the server downtime as reason for not becoming members, but I am not sure if I buy that.

if after 3 months games are deleted, they could be concidered a forefit since it is their inaction of not becoming a member in a timely fasion that caused the game to end. That way members would not feel they missed out on an oppertunity.

I have a few suggestions that might help solving the problems. On the player list there are a lot of Brain pawns that haven't played for month.
Delete them from the site.

Something else that might help: close the discussion boards. 90% of the messages doesn't add anything. Brainking is a game site and not a chat room.

Add more member levels all with a limited number of games. For example 150 games for a Brain rook, 250 for a higher level and so on.
Now some Brain rooks play 300 till 500 games at the same time. In my opinion that is not healthy, they need help!

you made an excelent post. I was about to post, but you said everything I was going to say. But, I'll add some words anyway.

I am puzzled by people like unacanta, with comments like

"Non paying pawns accomplish this, if you discourage people from coming to your site then the pool of new players disapates. "

and people like The Rat, who talk about how important the non paying members are.

I do not think people understand the economics of this situation veyr well. This site costs money to run. The pawns often mention how thye are essential to the site, which might be. But, at the same time, they are contributing NO money to the site.

Is this because they cannot afford a membership? that they so desperately want to become a member but just can't manage the minuscule membership fee? Unlikely. NO, more likely is that the brain pawns have no reason to buy a membership because they are satisfied with hwat they have.

I will address this directly to The RAt, since you spoke on behalf of the non paying members, but any pawn is welcome to answer this:

HOW do you suggest Fencer increase revenue? I am sure you realize that 250 memberships does NOT provide enough revenue to run this site. We all hope that Fencer will run the site forever as a hobby, getting almost no sleep, just because he is a fan of board games. But, that might be too much to ask. So, I repeat my question: How do you suggest increasing revenue? You oppose measures to restrict what pawns get, calling such measures "attempts to discourage pawns from coming to the site," so what do you suggest?

I'll help you out with this one: To increase revenue, there has to be either 1) more memberships or 2) a higher membership fee charged.

option 2 is not desirable, because with the number of members currently, a raise in the prices would not help much, and it would irritate the members because it owuld mean we are further financing the free loaders.

so that leaves option 1, getting more memberships. So, the question becomes one of "How do we increase memberships?"

one way is to add features. BUt, the suggestion that this site does not have enough features is preposterous. There are more than enough features, and anyone who says he is not becoming a member because "there are not enough games or features" is likely lying.

Another way is to keep the membership price the same BUT make it more important to have one by WIDENING the gap between what members have and what non members have.

OBVIOUSLY, if you have too small of a gap, people will have little incentive to become members.

But, people constantly reply with the tiresome remarks such as "But there is ALREADY a big gain from becoming a member. non members can only enter one tournamnet, canot join fellowships, BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH............"

WELL, CLEARLY this gap is not veyr wide at all, because 90% or more of the users are SATISFIED with what they have without a membership!

somebody 'on delete' might stall the games ... ~*~

<I see one obvious drawback. Say a member is in a game with a non-member at the time the non-members 3 months expire, this means the game is terminated. If I was the member playing the game I would feel I'm being denied the opportunity to complete a game based on a policy directed at non-members. I still say limitation on the number of games played as a non-member is the best incentive to become a paying member.>>>>

a response with a possible solution: After 3 months, the account is put on "to be deleted" status. the games in progress can bew finished, but nothing else can be done unless a membership is purchased.

with one message I was quicker after noticing you ... :D ... ~*~

PS
if the Empire of Evil would not be already occupied
by msn gates of chAos, AOL could qualify easily, too :P

I had a few problems accessing AOL tonight, but I'm here now and thats quite enough from both of you! :oP

I missed you ... :") ... ~*~

It depends how many extras we'd be talking about, BBW! If they could access fellowships and post to/read boards that they couldn't before, then I think they would try to have more than one account. Or start a new name every time the 'freebie' test time ran out.
Its a difficult question really because I think there is already more than enough incentive for people to join. I couldn't imagine only having a pawn membership now. I really have no idea why more people don't join! A couple of people have said to me that they are waiting until there is 24 hour un-interrupted access. But I say its not THAT bad, and we know it is being sorted out. It sure hasn't stopped me from enjoying my membership privileges. I'd encourage everyone to at least try being a rook for 6 months, you'd never look back! Its not so expensive (lets not get on that again, its just a loose comment! lol) and worth it jsut for a trial if nothing else. I challenge anyone to try being a rook for 6 months then be happy to go back to being a pawn!

Yea, I think that Fencer should start trying (if possible) to limit the number of accounts that one person/household can make accounts with.

I mean they should not be a strict as IYT that bans accounts if 2 people use the same computer, but more probable could be done.

Then again, I don't think too many people who keep creating new accounts just to get "extra's" - I'm sure there would be a few, but I would think very few.

Yeah that all sounds good, but maybe much work to make sure that people didn't just sign in under different names all the time and take advantage of having the 'extra things' almost permanently?

Yea harley, I was thinking about that when I wrote it, but I'm not sure how to get around it.

Actually, One thing I would do is not just give them the first month that they sign on with the "extra" things like seeing a Fellowship - since a new user could take a week or 2 just to get use to the site, it would not let them really get to "know" the site. I would let the Pawn decide when to have a "friends of BrainKing" trial - where they can see the Fellowships, possible read more messageboard (if it was limited), use things like the friends/enemies list (if it was limited), etc..... (I hope I explained that well enough)

That all sounds very reasonable, BBW, the only thing I disagree with is the trial of one fellowship.
Suppose they choose one from random because they don't really know any of the people who are in fellowships, then they really dislike what they see there! Its always possible! I think most fellowships have 'slow periods' where there is not much posting going on and a lack of tournament games. If they hit a fellowship at one of those times it could create a bad impression and they may go away thinking they're not missing much.

Goal: Get more people to buy memberships

Ideas I don't like:

1. Limit Pawn moves (example: 25 moves per day). This is one of the things I hear as as the biggest complaint about IYT - and one of the reasons some people come here is to get away from IYT - so to do this may upset more people then get them to pay. Also, it can slow down paid members who play pawns with only a limit number of moves. ++++++ BUT, as a side question - what are some of the Pawns moving a day? Would it be an idea to limit pawns to say 50 or 75 moves per day? Where it would not hurt many pawn EXCEPT for the ones that take a lot out of this site for free?

2. Limit Pawns to 3 months. Like others have said, some tournaments/games last longer then 3 months, and it can hurt the ratings when people have to keep using a new account every 3 months

3. Limit Pawns to only "basic" games. For example, they can play chess, Backgammon, etc..... But they can't play some of the variations like Dark Chess, Atomic Chess, Crowded Backgammon, Backgammon Race, etc.... Only the "main" games". I liked this idea when I first thought about it, but after a little time of thinking - some of the variations do not get many players now - and to limit that even more might really hurt some of the games.




Ideas I like:

1. Limit pawns to how much they can post on the discussion boards. I would limit them to 2 post on most board (and let them post more to the "system" boards like BrainKing.com & Feature requests - since sometimes it takes more then 2 post to say things. Possible also limit pawns to only a few of the "main" boards to read? (This is a game site, and the boards are not part of the "games") Another idea to add to this is not allow them to post to any board except to the "system" boards with problems and such - and possible only give a 1 month "trial" of reading the other boards before they can't even read them either! (again, game site - not a chat site. This will not take any game play away from pawns - just "extras" away)

2. I still would love to see a pawn able to join 1 fellowship as a Guest for 1 month. This way they can see some of the discussion that goes on in the fellowship, plus see the tournaments and such - and possible if a pawn see's what is in a Fellowship, they might decided to pay to do more in the fellowship.

3. If there is a time of day (say between 5-7pm - whatever time zone) that is extremly busy and sometimes puts the server into the "maxed out" area, why not block pawns from signing on during this time period. This will still give pawns unlimited moves and play time during the other 21 hours of the day - but possible block them from even getting signed on during the busiest 3 hours. And if this happens to be the time that they like to play, they may possible pay some money to play during that time.

4. Drop the limit of NON-tournament games for Pawns to 10. And also allow them to still join 1 tournament at a time. (So if they happen to join a tournament with 7 games, the most games they can have at one time is 17) This will also help Pawns who try to join a tournament then find out they don't have enough game space.

5. Take other NON-GAME functions away from Pawns. For example, don't let them keep friends or enemy lists. Don't let them save boards. Don't let them see things like who is on-line. Limit the amount of "data" they can put in their own profile. No auto-refresh. Maybe even NO vacation for Pawns. (possible some other things that I can't think of right now) - But the idea to not take away any "game" things - but to take away other non-game things.

OK, that is all I can think about now.

BBW (BIG BAD WOLF)

for those virtually living on the site can't change simple arithmetics
i.e. less messages = less traffic
I don't mind them btw, as long as they also play board-games here ... ~*~

PS guess even 12 msgs per day should be enough
- they merely use a parallel messenger - bingo ...

I still say limiting number of games on the go will do the trick, less games = less moves.

Gubbe: Don't worry. If I like it, it does not mean that I want to implement it :-) It is only my first impression. Actually, there is one more drawback - if a strong non-paying player will create a new account because of deleting his old one, his default BKR will be set to 1300 [as for each new user] and it will negatively affect BKR of his opponents who lost a game with him.

Some observations on tony and una's points made (i hasten to add that i play here and virtually nowhere else and will continue to do so)

nobody wants to discourage people from coming to the site, and tony is not suggesting we try to.

the economics of this site appear to be such that fencer is struggling with both time and money resources to keep the site going in a smooth fashion at all times.

we therefore need the site to generate more money to support its operation, and one major way to do this would be to encourage non-paying members to become paying members, and certainly not to discourage them! the incentives to become paying members rather than non-paying need to be looked at, it appears to me that we are giving away an awful lot of bics to sell a very few and as a result the service being provided sometimes suffers.

tony's suggestion is one way to increase the incentives for pawns to upgrade. three months is a long time and pawns would get to play all games for free during that time. as una says, there are plenty of other sites which offer free games, so they are free to play wherever they want. if however the site gets so full of non-paying members that it struggles to provide a correct service to paying members, then that is not right, and that will discourage everybody!

it may be that fencer could consider some of the other facets of the site which could be made available only to members once they have upgraded to paying membership, without excluding non-payers who want to play games. it is already possible to create tournaments for paying members only, fellowships are only available to members. maybe 20 games is too many for non-payers, after all, they are getting to play for nothing - but then as una says, they enhance the site for all users so nobody wants to exclude non-payers at all.

at the end of the day i don't know what causes the problems with the site, fencer must do - is it just a question of money? how much money are we talking about? does the rate of increase in membership mean that fencer will get enough money to achieve his new server aims in 6 months? a year? 10 years?? be nice to know what you think about it fencer, you know what the problems are better than we do.

I'm a relatively new member here, transferred from IYT. I had two reasons to leave IYT:
1. regular down time (propably due to heavy usage)
2. restrictions for us non paying members (20 move limit).

This site isn't much better in aspect one, but I've enjoyed the possibility to really play here, not just hang around for 10 minutes a day. And I know I'm not alone...

I also know that us non paying members dont seem that important, but if we leave... A site like this needs a certain amout of players to work, and I think that brainking is hanging on the edge here already. I mean there are only 95 players online at this very moment.

So I advice you to think very carefully any changes to policy that might lower the amount of users on the site (I work for a company that gives advice on such matters - this one's free :D).

Anyway, good site (not perfect, but good). Keep it going. :)

Worries me that Fencer likes this idea. Does it mean that you dont see a solution to improve the site?

tournaments last longer then 3 months in many cases ...

I dare to remind of my idea to decrease the amount of daily
moves ( to 30 ? ) granted, after 3 months 'extended trial ' for pawns
- even allowing to join ONE fellowship for sniffing at all features ...

after those three months also the amount of discussion-board postings
per day should be restricted (to 20 ?) ... optimizing traffic as goal ... ~*~ ;)

I am totally against the idea of deleting pawns as has been suggested. A site such as this needs a certain amount of players to keep the tournaments and games fresh and exciting. Non paying pawns accomplish this, if you discourage people from coming to your site then the pool of new players disapates.
I am a member of the 65thsquare club. I spend, as do others lots of time promoting chess. Within our club we sponser and organize tournaments and play them out on sites such as BrainKing, ItsYourTurn, GameKnot and others. For every new member we bring from our club to BrainKing we bring a potential paying member. If a structure is established such that has been proposed I will drop my paying membership here. Chessworld for example was a site that offered a certain amount of chess for free to attract paying members. They cut the free stuff down to the point where you could not even play chess, so now I don't spend money nor play at their site anymore.
What it boils down to is a matter of economics. Sometimes you have to give away some free bic pens in order to sell them by the dozen. I feel there are enough benefits to paying members that it is worth it to me to have the membership. Others who may not be quite the chess enthusiast may not consider a value here. Just depends on what you want out of your chess games.

If I can't organize and invite members from my chess club to play at a site, I simply find a site where I can. Though this is a great site, it is of course not the only one in the world of chess.

Regards

Una

I see one obvious drawback. Say a member is in a game with a non-member at the time the non-members 3 months expire, this means the game is terminated. If I was the member playing the game I would feel I'm being denied the opportunity to complete a game based on a policy directed at non-members. I still say limitation on the number of games played as a non-member is the best incentive to become a paying member.

At Gameknot.com, where only chess is played, there are 12400 players, of which I estimate 10% are members. This 10% appears to apply at IYT also.

I like this idea. But it must be discussed though before I'll make such a significant change to the current system.
Anybody knows about possible drawbacks?

As a postscript to the previous message, if Pawns were restricted to 3 months registration, I would make them feel as welcome as possible, play many games with them, make it as hard as possible for them to be leave the site!!

Fencer - please would you consider this request.

Brainking.com seems to have reached a paying membership plateau of around 250 paying members. All of us payers need more members so that we may be sure that your excellent site will continue forever! I beieve that will happen so long as you get a decnt income from your site.

Therefore, you need to turn many more Pawns into Knights and Rooks.

Would you consider deleting Pawns after 3 months registration, with all their games and statistics. Even if they sign back on under a new name, they will have lost any ratings, etc. This loss may well be important to them and cause them to take out a paying membership.

I do hope that other paying members will support this request.

Ooops didnt work, just very happy:)

What does that say, TT?

How long are you going away for, Massimo? Don't forget weekend days are already holidays so you only have to put in week days. That will give you 7 days where you will not time out.

ok I think I will lose many games on time:-(.anyway thanks to whom replied and for the wishes.

But as Brain Pawn you can set only 5 days per year.

Yep, just double checked for you, its 'Settings, Calendar, Vacation and Weekend days'.
Just tick the days you will not be here and have a great holiday :o)

Go to settings, and there you will find a holiday page, where you can tick the days you want as holidays. On these days you will not time out.

hi everyone!may I postpone my games?I am going on holiday for 15 days and else I will lose all of my games on time.I am leaving tomorrow so please let me know.thanks

I had about a dozen games to be played and here i am 25 minutes later and I have played them all :)
Thank you so much and you deserve a round of applause....
"CLAP, CLAP, CLAP"

Observations: There were two deadlocks last night, probably caused by infinite loops due to non-synchronized threads in one internal Java function. It's gonna be the subject of the third test for today.
Average CPU load was about 15-20% which is very good [until a deadlock has occured]. It only confirms my theory that BrainKing application is very fast but it occasionally gets jammed because of multithreading and related issues. Good news are that it is not hard to fix, once I know where the problem exactly lies.

It looks good; thank you.

Thanks Fencer.. today no problems in resolving the page; it has been a smooth day.. Wonderful :-) Keep the good work going; we´ll enjoy each day more!

In g:):)d fellowship, ~*Radiant*~

For all your hard work!!