I would not like to see a rating drop just because a player is not playing that game anymore - why should they be pentelized for things like no internet access for long periods of time, but would like to come back and play later down the road.

What I would like to see is possible after 2-3 mounts without a finished game of a game type, that their rating is simply "hidden" from the Ratings page. That way if they do come back and play again, they can simple start where they left off and their "hidden" rating will become visable again.

Is the feature that enables you to see from someone's profile page, 'show games played against me only' still on the 'to do' list to be fixed ?? :o)

I'd appreciate, 1) that players who haven't finished at least one game during the last six months aren't displayed in BK's default rating list of that particular game. I.e.: 1.1) By default BK's rating list should display only players who are still playing and who are still interested in this game. 1.2) For historical reasons an additional rating list option "show all ratings" (including inactive players) would be useful.

Furthermore I'd appreciate, 2) that the rating of a player who has stopped playing a particular game "decreases by time". For example: Not having finished at least one game during the last 3 months AND not having at least one running game, counts as about one lost game in terms of rating.

My suggestion: Inactive players' BKR should be decreased by 1% per month, i.e.: A 2000-player will lose 20 points/month (or 5 points/week), a 1500-player 15 points/month (or 4 points/week), if he isn't playing and hasn't played at least one game during the last 3 months.

It 'd encourage players to defend their BKR, 'd help to keep the rating list up-to-date, and historical ratings 'd be still visible via the "show all ratings" option.

Example: The rating of a 2000-player 'd drop to 1980 after 3 months of inactivity, to 1921 (after 6 months), to 1864 (after 9 months) and to 1827 (after 12 months). Those of a 1500-player to 1485 (after 3 months), 1440 (6 mon), 1398 (9 mon) and 1370 (12 mon). A 1000-player: 990 (3 mon), 960 (6 mon), 931 (9 mon) and 913 (12 mon).

page 3 had been worse..;) danke

Yes, it's still in the list. On page 2, I guess :-)

Fencer, once you said that an "ignore feature" (so you can mute who you dont want to read messages from on the dbs) could be added in the future.
Is it on your "to do list"?..i know it has nothing to do with playing the games :)

Thanks Fencer, appreciate fast response.

The response is on BK.com board.

Fencer or whoever knows for sure: Do you lose the same amount of points if you resign rather than play the game out? Or do you lose less when you resign over playing it out? There is no way to check as once one of them is choosen, cannot take it back and try the other way.

Can we have a psychodrama workshop board?

If they dont play their rating is meaningless so who cares.

i have the same issue with some established ratings as well. There are people who play 25 games and then stop playing. How long before they stop being on top?

Upchuck makes a good point. Google likes 10,500 more than 2000 or whatever the "real" number is. I'm not even talking about deleting accounts, really. This is about ACTIVE players who acquire a ridiculous provisional rating and then stop playing. ie, they don't defend their titles. That irks me, but that's all it is, just an annoyance. Without naming names, all you have to do is compare prov to est ratings with # of games played for certain ppl and you'll see what I mean..

Quite, if all you remove is the name, what's the point?

Why delete inactive accounts if the system still stores all their games? Their profiles can't take up too much space.

Why would you lose your archived games just because someone else left the site or had their name removed for inactivity?

I wonder if it doesnt have more to do with Fencer being able to boast 10,500 players, instead of a lower total if inactive accounts were deleted. There are even some who have more than one account, and are only allowed to play one. I think those accounts, especially, should be removed

Okay about the ratings but if for example Skalpone's account was deleted would we lose his archived games? Would I lose my games with him? What harm do quiescent accounts do?

Ughaibu,I have understood this in this way that the hided rating would be reactivated if the player plays again.Redsales,I think too,that complete inactive accounts should be deleted after we say 6 or 12 months not online.

I think no play for a year should mean your rating disseappears and you start again. If you haven't lost your skill prove it by regaining the rating by actually playing.

I don't see Fischer on the FIDE list, so there must be a mechanism for removing inactive players.

Fencer, do you ever delete (pawn) accounts that are inactive for more than a certain period of time, say a year?

For example Skalpone has had no internet access for his present academic year, his rating initially suffered from timed out games, since when being inactive is not his decision. Had he been here but refusing to risk his rating it would be a different case.

It was a suggestion to hide the ratings of inactive players..

To be meaningful degradation of rating needs to be tied in with time on the site (without playing the relevent game) and total number of rated games.

Degrading the rating? What if it is below 1300? And what if the player starts playing again? Does their x-month break mean that they have lost all their skill?

As to the refusal to take challenges, I renew my request to do something about keeping the ratings current. No activity for a long period of time should either start degrading the rating, or just eliminating it.

Nothing will be changed.

I must agree with BOTH of you on this. Yes, the ratings are ridiculously high or low sometimes, and not that meaningful. But when exactly should they been shown anyway? To me, 4 is as good an arbitrary # as any. I think, Uwe, you just have to take them for what they are: provisional BKR ratings that have no meaning outside of this site. However, on this site, they are obviously meaningful to some people who have played just 4 games and then refuse to take challenges..

they're as meaningful as they purport to be, which is not all that much, which is why they are provisional.
Actually I find it useful to see how the new players are doing, and perhaps challenge on if their rating seems too high :)
Also if I'm playing a new game it's kind of fun to see some sort of rating early on. It makes no difference to the end result so why hide it?

I wrote below why: because they are absolute not correct and not meaningful.

But why not? Nobody has presented a reason not to show them yet. Just saying "I don't think they should be shown" does not constitute a reason.

they shouldn't be shown at all - perhaps on a personal swellpage only. ~*~

Who cares if they aren't accurate? That's why they're provisional. I like to see the ratings after 4. In fact I'd like to see them after 1!

Because of the nonexisting correctness of the provisional ratings after only four played games I want suggest to show the provisional rating only when at least 10 games are played.

A solution to this problem:

After every move it's your turn again. If you hit a ship then you shoot again. But if you miss then YOU have to click pass.

This isnt autopass though

for this "Battleboats Bonus" to work, either autopass is required or a pass is required between each hit. Autopass is NOT happening (has been mentioned over and over again), and passing 10 moves in a row while your opponent keeps hitting isn't possible either. It is CRUCIAL that the move has to be submitted before it reveals the hit/miss or if it said your turn was over you could just go back and pick another square.

some variants would be difficult to pull off logistically. I think I can see Fencer's reasoning, too. Some of the variants aren't popular, so to make a subvariant might be a waste of time. I'm still itching to see Janus Extinction, but honestly, Janus and Extinction aren't popular by themselves, so the combined variant probably wouldn't catch on. I do think, Fencer, that you should use the POLLS feature to decide the next game....and i say this unselfishly, since it'll probably be something I don't vote for anyway..but that way you'll give the ppl what they want. Ok, i'm gonna go read some Che Guevera.

Yes I can read that. I was just looking at a time table as to when we can expect it. Sabotage has been on that list what seems to be an eternity. So were these newest games until the BK2.0 upgrade. It would be nice to know how soon we could expect something new like sabotage, since it is being advertised in the forum heading.

Brian1971- look at the header for this forum, it includes games in development. This includes Sabotage

I think we are getting caught up in the semantics. I dont care if you call it autopass or whatever you want to call it I think it would be a good addition to the battleboats games. IYT doesnt have it so lets have something else they dont have. IN addition to my game idea, I would like to see sabotage games here soon. If Fencer is reading this, when can we expect sabotage and its variants??

correct rian,,, except without the outrage that comes with auto pass...

However the bottom line is this idea got some positive response the last time I brought it up. I think it would be feasible to write a program to make it work whether you use what we refer to as autopass or some other program that allows for my idea to work.

Just getting ready to say that Grenv..... There is no pass cause the turn isnt complete.

Actually it's not stricly autopass. Some games allow more than one move (Amazons for instance). Just because the number of moves is unknown does not equate to auropass in my opninion.

lol grenv. However this version of boats I present is a fun version. For it to work I believe the autopass feature has to implemented into the program unless someone has a way around it.

Autopass is the work of the devil! Thou shalt be smote from the earth for even mentioning it! Or so I'm lead to believe.

Bonus Battleboats. However to make it work autopass would have to be scripted into the game program. Basically you would keep your turn as long as you hit a ship. One shot per turn as in regular boats. How it would work is you take a shot and submit the move. If it is a hit, then the autopass would activate and allow to take another turn. If it is a miss then control passes to your opponent. To prevent cheating, you would not know the result until you submit the move. I made this suggestion when BK2.0 started up on request board and battleboats board. The only thing I can see Fencer from doing it is then he has to accept Autopass for the game to work and then he would get bombarded for the feature in other games as well.

A good rule in the battleship boardgame I have is that each ship has a special attack. Subs can shoot missiles horizontally or vertically until something is het on that row/column. Battleships can hit a 3x3 block of squares, but only once, etc. Rules such as this should be considered for alternative versions i think.

Exactly - if you can place it where i've already shot then I have to literally search the whole board for every ship I look for. However, if you have to place it where I have not shot - possibly disallowing you from placing it - then it could be possible.

That doesnt sound fair...