Do 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.
Listo de diskutaj forumoj
Vi ne rajtas afiŝi mesaĝojn en ĉi tiu forumo. La minimuma necesa nivelo de la membreco por afiŝi mesaĝojn en ĉi tiu forumo estas Brain-Kavaliro.
happyjuggler0: I think each user should be able to set his/her own default time limits. I *hate* seven days/move as my default. I prefer Fischer settings of 3.1.5. I would also like to have 'Random' as the default for who moves first.
BK should give each user the ability to set the defaults up as s/he wants.
Only now did I finally realize why so many people here select 7 days per move when creating game invitations. It is because the default setting is 7 days.
I wonder if someone who has the ability to create polls could pose a question to users of BK and ask what they think the default setting should be?
For example if it were to be 5 days, then everyone could still play only once a week without dipping into vacation time.
I personally prefer much shorter games, but that is another issue. People can choose to pick any time limit they want of course, but perhaps if new people (who are more likely to blindly pick the default settings) wound up with shorter time limits then their games would move along faster and they would enjoy BK more.
Same goes for tournament setting defaults. I'd like that to be even shorter if possible so that when someone carelessly forgets to change the time limit they don't wind up creating a tournament that lasts far longer than they wanted to.
I don't know if it is possible, but when looking for another user game filter, could our name be added on the friends group? If I go to any user's current games, I have the drop down box to filter by opponent. On that drop down box I have (as in my main page) the list divided by my friends and the ones that are not my friends. However, since I can not add myself to my friends list, my own name gets lost in middle of the "other users". I hope there isn't any user that considers himself(herself) as not being his(her) friend, so I think no one would mind this option, if it's possible to program...
3 Pips instead of 6 3 pieces per person 1 Dice only - No doubles Doubles can be done - a dice is rolled before each game telling you which dice numbers is the doubles One double roll only...
coan.net: If you roll a six and another number, would it be taken as 2 separate moves? What if you roll 66? Or would sixes be nothing special in this variant?
Is it possible to create a "Show running games" option in team tournaments, like there is in single player tournaments? Sometimes it is a bit tricky to see if the running games will last for long, because we have to search for each of them.
diogenysos: Yes, your suggestion of a Fisher Clock on tournaments would be an excellent solution. I second it! (Incidently, I was a rook when I entered this tournament, and will be again when there is a sensible autopass feature in Backgammon - but on this one I am not holding my breath))
pgt: Well, sorry to say that, because its not a solution and looks more like a "discrimination" - but especially for pawns (like you) being stuck in such a tournament is very bad because it blocks a free gme-space. So maybe pawns should be excluded of "more-than-x-point-matches"???
Nope. No way. But this leads me to another option - like fishers clocks there could be a tournament option which defines the "complete-match-time": We have had it 30 years ago when we played chess by using postcards. One game had to be finished within, for example, one year.
You are lucky!! I am in one tournament when my last move was made on 19th February 2007 - that's over 5 years ago. Tournaments that run this long are just a joke. I have noticed that the one outstanding game has got to 10-7, and these are 13 point matches. And these players are taking about two weeks between moves, so it looks like being another year or two until this tournament can progress. There are 135 players in this tournament, and these two inconsiderate players look like holding up the whole tournament for some years more. Ridiculous.
Thad: My comment is as much about the ability of one person to hold so many hostage. It's a single round tourney, but I will send a PM for fun. Thanks!
How about a feature to end a tourney once it is already decided who will win? For example, I have won all the games in a running tourney that may not finish for another year or 2 because a certain pawn who has more than 2200 running games is involved. My last move was October 5, 2011, and one of the games (11 pt match) is still at a score of 3-0. Until that game ends, as a pawn I cannot join any more tourneys.
Fencer: "breaking the record of the longest option description" should be awarded with at least 20 achievement-points
seriously, you could bring some extra achievement-points in, or simply some of your personal choice, to award some of the most creative feature-requesters...
how about a different color light next to player names,to not only show that that player is on-line,at the moment,...but to show that player is ALSO playing from an ISP being used by another player?
However the third one is the one I want the most. Almost every game I play is multi-game, and some of them are as long as 21 points. It is obnoxious to receive a message that tells me nothing useful at all.
Fencer: A choice of boxes to check off would be good if you are serious about this.
I have in mind the original option of choosing "don't show event messages when I end a game with my move", as well as the following options:
"Don't show event messages saying a game that is part of a multi-game match has finished if it is not the final game of the match"
Another option:
"Don't show event messages saying a game that is part of a multi-game match has finished if it is not the final game of the match unless it is accompanied by a written message by my opponent"
The few who have commented on this below have shown that it is a matter of personal preference. That is exactly why I am requesting it to be set up so the individual can choose how they want to see it (please note; I am not asking for this tomorrow; it would simply be nice sometime in the future). Frankly, customization instead of standardization is the way of the future for the service industry, and I think BK sort of fits into that service industry category for what it provides.
To be fair; I have been managing to view what I want to view without a lot of extra time spent in the events page. Note that many times I am one of biggest movers and I have a lot of events that are happening, so I am probably receiving more events than most people (outside of a few who set up a ton of tournies and those playing more than me) so my stance on this is probably biased to making those things easier when looking at mass data because I have a lot of data to sort through!
cd power: I also agree with you. I keep all my events but currently have 251 unread messages. I dont need a message to tell me a new fellowship tournament has started, there is a link for that. However i agree i would rather time was spent on new games than administration projects.
MadMonkey: I read all of the final posts, too... I actually like reading the events. Oftentimes, I will click on the tournament link in that final message to see where the tournament stands, and then I will delete the message. Sure, it can also be done before I make my final move, but it's also nice to have it all in one place (Events) in case I wish to reference it later. I never have a large accumulation of event messages... I can play for hours and maybe get up to 20 messages, so I take the 1-2 minutes before I sign off and quickly browse and delete the messages. I can't imagine anyone is finishing hundreds of games in one sitting, not even the people that have 3,000 games going on. Just keep up with your inbox and don't let it get out of control.
And for Fencer: Just remember that it is impossible to make everyone happy. I would rather see time spent to add new games or to fix bugs rather than add/delete features that are a matter of personal preference anyway.
MadMonkey: i read all the final post of a match (to check rating change and tournament table) .. but i dont read game reports when it isnt the final game of the match ..
if there would be a filter, then i think there should be a distinction between the final game of a match, and the earlier in the match
Fencer: After just deleting hundreds of various types of messages from the events page (95% of them unread) i would agree with what rednaz23 says
Personally i never read any messages in the event page apart from Tournament is finished OR Team match over.
I know this is personal choice, so i think either a filter OR some sort of Settings would be good. This has been mentioned a few times in the past, even before the Event box was brought in and all messages used to go to the Message box. I never saw the point of all these messages.
Creating a lot of Tournaments means i get HUNDREDS of messages telling me Next round of your tournament is started which i have no reason to know about really, i wish i could turn them off.
Diverting them straight to the Trash was always my idea if we couldn't turn them off
This isnt a complaint Fencer, just something to improve the site and make it easier for players to find what they are looking for amongst a lot of stuff they are not interested in
------------------------------
Oh, and what is going on here. I just replied to you, and Previewed my post before posting it. In the Preview of your post box your name is Null
rednaz23: That's how it worked 10 years ago, system messages had been sent only if your opponent made the final move. But a lot of people has asked to be informed each time a game is finished, so I had changed it. Nobody complained about it since then.
Justaminute: You miss my point... I don't need to see a notification when I am the one that makes that last play. All of that information you listed below (and a lot more) is already on the page when I make my final move, if I am curious, I'll look then!
What I am asking for is an option to see only your opponents final move notification. Again, this would be a settings option, so only those wishing to see it that way would. Secondly, if that is not possible, a way to sort in the events page (For English it always says "You" or "Your") would be the next best thing. I ask for this for people like you and me who want to see the notifications but already am aware of what I did... however, people like me don't want to sort through numerous events (I often have 50+ events). That should be simple to understand and easy to implement (as far as I understand).
Curiously, why do I receive an event notice that I made a move and finished a game? I am well aware that I won it or lost it, I made the final move. Can we have an option in the settings page to turn off notifications where I was the one who made the last move? I.E. I only want to see when my opponent was the last to move and the game ended...
id like to see an option where you can start a real time game - that would be one of those games that both players have one hour for the whole game, but the clocks for both tick realtime and the page refreshes when one of them has made a move id also like a sound signal when the site has refreshed and its unfocused and its my turn to move
pgt: marking a slow tournament as favorite wont make it even longer to finish ... it will make the tourmanet appear on top of the list, so players are more likely to make a move in there first
so : when you think a tournament is taking too long, you can ask your opponents to mark the tournament as a favorite for them .. when they do that, the tournament will appear in their favorite list, and will show itself above their regular games
of course it still depends on the opponent : he has to be willing to mark it as favorite, and pay attention to it ... but thats no difference from the current situation
coan.net: In games like chess and checkers i have seen a good system where you "suggest" the next few moves to the system (without the opp knowing)... if both players suggest the same sequence it gets played out automagically.
this is very useful for extended check sequences in chess, or common openings sometimes.
I think I posted awhile back these ideas on how I would like to see an auto-pass system setup - again, just my opinions, but here is what I would like to see:
1. Each person decides for themselves if they want to use autopass. (If I want to use autopass, GREAT - let me. If my opponent does not want to use it - Fine, let them click pass each time.) Right now, it's almost like player 1 decided how player 2 plays which doesn't make sense to me.
2. For games with "Pass" (non-cube Gammon games, Ludo) - have an option in setting that says "turn autopass on". Then for ALL those games, let the system "roll" the dice for me and if I have a pass - put a short auto-message of "opponent used autopass" and send it back to the other player.
3. For Gammon games with cubes - if a move comes to me where I have to pass - give me an option that says "Pass this turn & autopass moves until able to move" - this will continue to pass (not double) until I can either make a move, or my opponent doubles & I have to answer that double. FOR EXAMPLE. Lets say I have a pass, I choose to auto-pass - it will autopass for me for the next 4 turns and then I'm able to make a move. But then the next turn, I'm stuck again - SO I get the option to "Pass this turn & autopass moves until able to move". ..... You do it this way so lets say I'm to a Pass, maybe I will want to look at each turn to decide if I want to double or not.
=================
Of course there is the additional suggestion of auto-move - these would be games like ludo, checkers, etc.... if there is ONLY 1 move to make, then let the system auto-move for me.
AGAIN - These should be options that I can turn on for myself only. I shouldn't be able to force other players to play a certain way. If they want to use auto-pass, then why not let them (the game will have the same result either way.) It is pretty dumb to let one player force another player to play a certain way.
I know changing these for this system is not a priority, but just wanted to post who I would love to see if in case it ever is changed.
likewowman2cool: Fencer has stated repeatedly that he has much higher priorities in terms of making Bk a better site
This is just Fencer-speak for saying that he doesn't give a damn about backgammon and can't be bothered. (I would be surprised if it was more than a couple of hours work to implement.) Fencer has effectively already told me that he can't be bothered, and that he doesn't really care whether I pay for a subscription again or not (so I will stick to my promise and remain a pawn).
(Here is Fencer's reply in this forum 8th July 2011, when this subject was brought up for the third or fourth time"
8. July 2011, 02:19:34 Subject: Re: pgt: Ummmm. Hmmmmm. Ehm ehm. Mmmmm. Nope. Waste of time.
Aganju: But if I am still blocked on the bar, my opponent can roll again and get out of his ugly position. If his "ugly roll" forces him to unblock the bar, then the auto-pass ends and I get to roll again. "Blocked on the bar" means that, no matter what I roll, I cannot move - I can only double or "pass". If I am wrong, and there is some sensible way that I may want to double when blocked on the bar, when I did not want to double when first blocked, please give me an example.
pgt: While you are still blocked, your opponent could keep moving and being forced to open a prime, or being forced to move himself in a bad position by an ugly roll.
likewowman2cool: (For example, one could flag all tournament games that contain a long time control, thus making it easier to play those games when you don't have time to play every game each day, or each log-in session.)
So that tournaments with long time control take even longer than seven years to finish?
I personally would never use that option since I would be giving up equity.
You have all the "equity" you will ever need in the first move blocked on the bar, when you can double, or (hopefully) opt to forgo doubling while blocked. I find it difficult to imagine a game where you are blocked on the bar, and would not want to double on the first throw, but (presumably when your opponent has improved his position significantly) would want to double later. If there is something cunning and subtle that I have missed, that would increase my "equity", please explain with an example.