Vikings: I think he said that the game would show you all the cards left in everyones hand....

also, wouldnt having the people who dont make a move, to lose their highest card discarded to the winner of that rounds pile, be more of a disadvantage to them than to lose their lowest card?

coan.net: I would suggest that timed out players would have their lowest remaining card played so that they lose any advantage, also I would suggest that their be a field next to each player showing which cards have been discarded sinse the game would be too long to possibly use your memory as to what cards have been played

AbigailII: Abigail, I would recommend that you play a pond run or two, and see how that works, I think that would satisfy your understanding of how the time control would work in a game like war strategy, and it would also help you understand better about time outs in those types of games as well!

Fencer: If I were to implement a multi-player game like the proposed Strategy War, I would allow any time control that's now possible with regular games. Which means that if a turn starts, the clock of all players start to run. If a player moves, his/her clock stops. If all players have played their move, the moves become visible for the other players, the system resolves the moves (count scores, etc), and the next turn starts (all the clocks of the players run again). That means if the time control is five days/move, but all players have made their move on the second day, the next move starts on the second day. This still allows the possibility for weekends, vacation days, and even a Fisher clock. I would not allow a player who has timed out to get back in the game - once (s)he has timed out, (s)he's supposed to be out of the game. For strategy wars, the system makes the rest of the moves for the player. In a game like 10000, I'd let the system make non-scoring moves for timed out players. For say, multi-player Ludo, I'd remove a timed out player.

This doesn't answer the question "What to do with players resigning?".

Fencer: It looks to me like AbigailII doesnt play any ponds at all, and i think her complaint was more directed at her perception that you have to move in a pond every day, and that if there were more than 5 moves that would cut into her weekend and she would end up timing out in all her games?


Abigail, you should give ponds a try, just because they dont allow vacation or weekends, they still have possible time limits of 3 or 5 or7 or any amount of days between turns that you want to play, not to mention the faster limits like 1 hour


Although I would like to see maybe 1 or 3 minute time limits available as well

Fencer: The only thing that I can think of which would make some people happy is to have the ponds (or similar multi-player games) be defined with the option of "move to next round when possible"

And that would be when everyone has made their pick, even if there is time left, go ahead and move to the next round. Possible after someone submits the move in a pond (or similar), have system check to see if all other moves have been made - it so, move on - it not, wait.

I say that it should be an option for the creator to pick since I know some might like to be able to change their pick after they already made one - plus lets say I'm going to be gone for 3 days, I know I can "survive" a 2 day pond since I know from the start of round 1, to the end of round 2 - I will have 4 days - time for me to make a move in both rounds - and if round 1 ended early, I could time out in round 2. Very picky I know - but just a reason why it should be an option to choose and not default.

AbigailII: Ponds can be defined with 1 hour per move.
Besides that, do you have a better idea?

coan.net: I'd be really disappointed if, in the case Brainking would get multiplayer games, the games were implemented as ponds currently: having to make a move once every 24 hours. Unless it would be games that are over in less than five moves, I'd never play such a game.

Czuch: As AbigailII said, just flipping cards over randomly like the original war game would be some-what boring, at least for a turn based game site.

When I designed Strategy War, it was somewhat based on the old War card game - but designed in a way that would (1) make it less random, hence the name "strategy", and (2) work with multiple players - similar to the current pond system here - where all player make their turn simultaneously - with the results shown at the same time.

Each player gets 1 suit of cards - 2 through ace (13 cards) - and on each turn, you get to pick which card to play. In the main game (non-dark variant) you can see what your opponents have left - so even though there will still be a lot of "luck" in the game in guessing what your opponenet will play, you can use some strategy to try to figure out what to play and keep which will help you in the long run.

AbigailII: As for the time out rule - how ponds work now, if a player times out during 1 round - they just get the same bid as last turn - and if they are still in, able to come back. This is an important feature for ponds since it is a game where vacations do not come into play. That is why the "time out" rule was put into this game - so if someone does have to miss a turn for some reason, they will lose their biggest card, but would be able to come back and still play. They can't win anything in the round the timed out in, just sacrifice some points to the game.

Time outs would not extend the game at all. If the game has a 1 day time limit, like ponds - everyone has 1 day to make their move. If they don't, they lose their best card - but can still play the next round. Like ponds, weather they play or time out - the round time limit would still be the same.

- - - - -

Now if it was just a 2 player game, then I think a time out would be lose of game. I never really designed the game as a 2 player game.... even though I did mention that down below. But after thinking about it for a few minutes, if a 2 player "regular" game was also introduced, then my opinion is a time out would be lose of game.... since vacations could then be used in that game situation.

Czuch: In Strategy War, all players should move simultaneously, so the game *COULD* be implemented in such a way that moves can be made simultaneously as well. Note that I say could - in logic moves are (from a game mechanics point of view) simultaneously as well, but it's implemented sequential. The suggested 10,000 game could easily be played with each player moving at the same time as well (which would any advantage a player has based on turn order). So, if the game would be implemented, then it could be implemented in such a way all players moved in parallel. Then again, Dice Poker, Triple Dice and the battleboats variants could have been implemented in such a way that players moved in parallel, but their moves are sequential as well (giving the second player a tiny advantage).

As for flipping cards at random in 'strategy war'; that wouldn't be much of a game. There's no decision to be made by the player - the entire game could be played by the computer (tournaments would be decided seconds after they start).

Remains what to do with players timing out. It was suggested that in strategy war, a random move would be played. But what to do on the next turn? Can the player come back in? If you allow the player to get back in, it means that if the player doesn't come back, each move will have to wait for a timeout. Which means that some games could take a long time. It's probably better to say that if you timeout on one move, the the rest of the game, the system will play a random card. For 10000 I suggest that a player that has timed out is supposed to be making non-scoring moves for the remainder of the game.

coan.net: Just re read the rules, sounds like a great game addition for this site, and it would be very interesting indeed to see how the strategy would work itself out!

Have you played this game at all, and how did it work for you, did it seem like more luck involved than anything else, when all is said and done, or did you find that a solid strategy could really work?

coan.net: ah, i see now, I misunderstood it! It sounded like everyone got to see how the other person played in front of them, which I guess doesnt make much sense because then you would also have to change the order of play after each round.

I think my way sounds fun too, and probably would have a lot more strategy, but not too good for a turn based site


The only difference in your war game compared to the one I know as a kid, is that we used to just flip a card at random, and your game allows us to pick from whatever card we have left?

I think there could still be some very interesting strategy the way you have it outlined, if I understand it correctly now!

Okay, all we need is for fencer to have Liquid make it a top priority, I can hardly wait!

Czuch: The game I mentioned, Strategy War works like a pond does - with each making their pick whenever they want - and then when the time limit comes, all players "flip" their card over to see who wins. (Like the card game war - which is what this game is based from)

I want another, or more, multi player game here as much as anybody, but after thinking about it a little....

The thing with a game like the ponds is that all players make their moves in the same time period, independent of what other players are doing on that particular turn.

But with games like the ones being mentioned, each player would need their own turn. So, for example, with 7 players, even a one day per move limit would mean at least one week between turns per player.

Not that its really that big of a deal, except lets say it was 6 players, then you turn would come on a monday one week and then a saturday then a friday etc, then you throw in your weekend days.... you get the point.

Anyway, some people dont mind really long drawn out games that take months to complete, but I guess what I am trying to get at is that we might want to consider having shorter time limits available where we could get a group together and play a complete game in an hour or whatever? Maybe 1 or 3 minute per move limits, but I can also see problems with that as well.

I guess i really have no point, just rambling on a bit, talking to myself.....

Any comments, ideas, or suggestions?

Does anyone know of another multi player game that works more like the pond runs do?

Another good multi player game maybe?


10,000


Played this as a kid and now got my own kids hooked on it.

coan.net: yes i like the idea of a multi game like that looks like fun fix us up fencer please

Fencer: Please, not to take your mind away from a new multi player game or anything.....

but I had an idea for a list like our friends list works now, except it would be for members of our fellowships, where we could take a look and see what they are all up to, and whatever our friends list does now?

coan.net: That looks like it could be a fun game, and pretty easy to implement as well!

coan.net: That's a good idea.

Fencer: Strategy War would make a nice multi-player game.

Maybe make a 2 player game available to everyone, and then make a 3-10 player pond-type version of the game that can have the same membership restrictions as ponds do.

Czuch: No idea.

Fencer, any idea when we will see another multi player game here?

MadMonkey: the ability to put global time limits on would be good. I don't want any captain to sign me up ever for games with no days off and time limits under 3 days would be nice if I could set that in my settings and captains could not sign me up for that unless I say otherwise for a specific tournament. Say captain can send beg request to me for a 2 day limit tournamewnt and I can press the accept or decline button.

mctrivia: Yes, we need something, and various ideas have been mentioned over a while

I think the best idea is in a players profile, on the list that says which Teams they are a member of to have a little available yes / no toggle that they can set for each Team. This would then show up beside there name in the appropriate Team (in the pink box).
This would save having to keep leaving & re-joining Teams.
Something that could be added as well, is when signing a Team up for a Team challenge or Tournament, the system could then check each player to make sure they are eligible to play in a certain Tournament / Match

When a Team is entered for ANY competition, i think every player who has been picked should get a *IMPORTANT* PM sent to them to let them know.
i.e. You have been selected to play in XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX starting XX/XX/XX please contact either Team Captain or Big Boss if you are unable to play.

I think that would help a lot of Captains / Bosses out, not having to change Teams and find new players.

A thing that i mentioned to Fencer a few weeks ago, is the ability to change a Team play if the Tournament has started BUT the player has not played a move.
Really, being a Team competition, you should like every other game in the world be able to change a player any time as you are working towards a common goal.
This of course brings into the structure of Teams here, should our own rating matter, or should Team ratings be just that, Team BKR Ratings worked out on there results wins, losses and draws

I say yes myself lol

Could you make it possible to make tournament restrictions by percentile instead of hard BKR. Say I wanted to create a tournament for the top10% or bottom 10% or maybe +-10% of me in every game type this would be a different restriction for each game type and not possible to set up currently.

MadMonkey: I second that could we alos have an option that if the team captain creates a game(for the old way and for waiting room) that you are in that it would message you with a link so you can tell the captain you are not available to play. Not all captains ask if you are available in advance.

Could we have a Waiting Room for Team challenges please Fencer
Its nice having the option to just challenge another Fellowship from the Team page, but often others decline them, and then you have to set up another.
Would be nice to pick a Team for something and leave it in the Waiting area for another Fellowship to accept

jessica: Welcome to the the one half of one percentile of the world's population. I often wondered how to crack that club.

joshi tm: As paulo says, the Knight would have to get there and make the play.

I have been trying to find more rules about the game, but there are few hey, but we can make some of our own if needed

jessica: Why would have to know anything about soccer to play this game?

joshi tm: knights can kick it back inside again

that would be one game that i wouldn't play as i know almost nothing about soccer.

MadMonkey: But what happens when the ball touches a board side? Since you have to kick it away..

joshi tm: True, thats just my idea as why they are both on black, as in soccer it is possible for every player to score

MadMonkey: Not each player has to score in Soccer.

MadMonkey: Definetly European in American you do not kick the ball atleast not most of the players

jessica: Looking about, it can be either, but European seems the favored one.

grenv: I understand what you say, i think the reason they are both on the black square is that the goal is on a black square. If a bishop was on white, he would never be able to score

MadMonkey: don't like that the bishops are on the same color, should we switch knight and bishop on one side. As long as all kicks are done in one turn it might be pretty good.

will it be European football or American football.

MadMonkey: Monkey gets my vote, sounds cool and it is football.

How about Football Chess

There are so many smileys now, and more being added all the time...... it would be nice if when we see one we like used by someone else, that we could just click on it to add it to our list, it would just be a little easier?

AbigailII: I was suggesting that the langauges that are supported could have something on the profile... just like when you sign on you see all the flags on the right side, why not have those on the profile to signify what language you speak? Fencer likes the idea, and that is all that matters. I am sure the idea will be added on when he doesn't have higher priority things to do, and has time to do the coding and whatever else it entails!

Almost every member of BK doesn't make a big deal about which flag is used for what language. Just as long as the flag that represents that language is one that makes sense! Almost all understand that it signifies a langauge and nothing more.

It would be great if the card game "Lost Cities" could be added to brain king :-)

Czuch: Or Fencer could add "Inverse Filter" like he did for the Main Page where you can filter your games.

On the ponds pages it shows the ponds that we have already signed up for....

I understand how this might not work on tournaments with more than one game type, but for the tournaments with only one game type, could we also have it show which ones we have already signed up for?

When we visit the Ponds page we are allowed to filter for the type of pond that we want to view.

But for me, I dont like the rain ponds but I do like the dark and regular ponds.

Can it be made to filter to view more than one type of pond at the same time?

AbigailII: this site already associates flags with languages... and though a few have complained about it, most just don't care...

rednaz23: Would it be possible to show what languages each person speaks in their profile by having the representing flag of a language for each country shown?

That's a nice hornets nest, associating languages with country flags. Take for instance 'English', whose flag would you want to use for that? Insult the Brits by using the US flag? Annoy the Welsh by using the Union Jack? Confuse most people by using the English flag? The Canadian flag is out, because that might mean the person speaks French. Australian flag perhaps? And what about French? The flag of France? Belgium? Switzerland? Monaco?

Only a few languages have flags, Esperanto for instance. And then there are languages that are not an official language of any country.

You're better off to use the ISO standard for languages.

Fencer: It does not have to be all languages.  You can make the table with just the languages suported so far(witch you already have that table made) you can add to it later if you like.