There are no restrictions on second and next rounds.

OK, I don't think I have seen this question before, and it is something that might happen in one of my tournaments soon.

I have a tournament with 2 sections. Section #2 is complete with a pawn as the winner. (Section #1 has 3 more games to go).

My question is, if the pawn is up to 20 games when the second round starts, will he forfet the tournament games or get more the 20 games?

Thanks!

BBW (BIG BAD WOLF)

Just an idea Fencer: give us any idea of the price for a new server and offer a lifetime Brain rook membership for the one that finds a source or sponsor who can provide the server or the money to buy one

Why restrict seeing members who are online or friends or enemies? Those make no sense whatsoever. I, along with many others I know, would probably buy a membership here if we could a decent server or reliability. I have DSL and I can get into everyother site but at times like 4-8pm 6-8am its impossible to get in. Probably 1/10 tries in those time frames. It either brings up server maxed out or just nothing and it keeps trying to load.

Okay gentlemen :-) it was just a thought; while reading the previous messages, this boggled up.. But, thanks for explaining the obvious more technical part concerning the site performance.. :-) Hopefully the bug will be recognised soon and this site will be smooth again.

~*Radiant*~

Radiant-- storing old messages uses almsot no resources. message opsts are veyr small to begin with, in terms of how much space they take up, and additionally, site performance has little or nothing to do with how much data is stored.

Storing a few messages in db doesn't really affect the operations of the site (unless something really stupid has been done when setting db up) - and as Fencer pointed out, the problem is not with slow operation, but rather a bug in the server.

As for me becoming a paying member, it's a bit off topic here, and as far as I'm concerned a closed one too (for now anyway).

I know someone from Finland playing here as a paying member Rook: "kitti"

Perhaps he might be able to help you with the paying proces?

Goodluck :-)

I have yet read some of the postings here concerning the slow responce time of the servers BK is running on. It´s good to see, that people in here are positive to find solutions together, but I have too little time to read all of the postings, sorry :-)
So, what i want to add here, perhaps someone already mentioned it before - then sorry again.. :-)

This counts for ALL boards: the fellowship boards as well!

Remarks:
*Why do we still have the opportunity to read posts from the date this site started?

*Does anyone in here really looks up threads posted in December f.e.?

*Does any thread goes really back 3 months ago?

I mean to say here, that we possibly don´t need all those extra pages. Why not delete every 2 monts the past posts? I can imagine, for boards as BK.com and Features.. boards directly pointing to the core of this site; you want to keep all of the idea´s players have posted. But those perhaps you might be able to store those at a backup server. Keep them off from the mainserver.

It´s just a thought..

And perhaps concerning the Messagebox: add the feature to save messages and align that DB also on a backupserver..

Just a few thoughts.. :-)

Anytime :o)

The Rat: See Jetty homepage.

Thanks harley, but I'll wait and see a bit further. 10-18 dollars (or even more) is not much, but the trouble of sending it and such is a pain in the ass... Besides, I don't really need any of the extra services at the moment (maybe when my holidays start - this really messes up my work). Anyway, I like to see how the site's operating for a bit longer before I go to all the trouble.

Fencer: what? Testing everything all at once is the _only_ way to do it!!! :D

OK, I appreciate what you're doing, I really do. And I can really understand how having a regular, full time job can seriously affect your normal life = this site. :)

BTW, is the deadlock caused by the Mortbay Jetty application server? It's about the only component on your technical info page I'm not familiar with, and would really like to know if it has some bugs (for further use)...

Edit: Hmm... It seems to say that it's the database driver... Forget I asked. :)

Nope, only one of them. But thanks to the second processor I am able to handle the deadlock without hard restart of the whole server - which could take up to one hour.
There are no other reasons for 100% CPU usage. I've been monitoring it each day during several months and I know where the problem lies. But, of course, killing threads is only one possibility that can be tried, there are more options, I simply cannot test them all at once :-) You know, this site is not my full-time job.

The Rat, there are many other ways of paying for a membership, right down to sending cash through the post :o)
There are a number of representatives found at BrainKing.info that can discuss alterative payments with you.

Edit... none are from Finland as far as I am aware but we would all do our best to advise you if you like.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that you had two processors in your servers, and any java thread would run on only one of them... Is all of the processing done on one thread or does downtime only happen when two (or more) threads are maxed out?

Anyway, killing those threads after given time-out is probably not a good idea, as there might be other reasons for 100% cpu usage (like: a lot of users - killing the thread would only make things worse). Of course if that's all that can be done, then that's what must be done... :(

I'd really love to try and help you out, but:
a) I don't have the time
b) I don't know enought of your system
c) you seem quite competent your self :D

Thanks for the site anyway. Maybe some day I'll even pay something (for the record, the reason I'm not a paying member is that I don't like to pay on the net with anything except Nordeas "button payment" - and that's only implemented here in Finland, possibly in some other northern european countries too). :)

To make it clear - when a deadlock occurs, it simply means that one "thread" is consuming all CPU resources, most likely due to an infinite loop or similar problem. In such case, redirecting non-paying members to the Server Down page does not help. What I would like to implement is some reliable framework for "killing" such offending thread after it was consuming more than 90% of CPU resources for, say, one minute. This task is more related to Linux than Java and has almost nothing to do with the BrainKing.com application.

Simple solution is quite easily implemented. The server knows how many users are logged in at any given moment, and propably some value can be set, after which (auto)login for non-members redirects the user to the page I mentioned before...

The "correct" way to do this would of course be to monitor the actual strain on the servers - much more difficult, although possible.

Edit: Fencer of course knows best. I have no insights to the software. :)

Edit2: 10-30% was a rough estimate, or as some people like to call it, a guess. :)

If it was easy, it would be already implemented :-)
I am just tracking down the suspicious lines of code where a possible deadlock can occasionally occur.

like the idea of members only at peak times, is it easy to implement though?
rat mentioned 10-30% of users will be willing to pay, is that a percentage of registered members (given that here there are over 4000 and 10% would be a bundle more payers than we appear to have) or a percentage of regular users? What is the actual percentage here? if it is about right then the only clear way forward would seem to be to wait for the membership to increase naturally?

There is always placing a site link to BrainKing in any e-mail u send to friends etc.... or on profiles of other sites.
This may make people come to BrainKing, the problem is getting them to become members so Fencer can improve the site.

Any idea is appreciated, of course :-)

well good i hate the idea but just thought i'd throw a hat in the ring!

Ads and banners are useless, this kind of income does not work anymore, the former "boom" is definitely over. I see no reason to place banners anywhere on BrainKing.com - unless some company makes an offer like "we will pay you $1000 each month if you place our banner there". And even in this case the banners would be completely hidden for paying members.

what about getting people/companies to advertise (banners)on the site like they had at iyt which only members can switch off, it's another incentive to have a membership? and it would increase the revenue as we all know is needed.
AND b4 you message back i hate the idea of having ad's on here but if needs must to keep it running while we get enough memebers to run independently then......

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.