Fencer: 6's would not be special - roll 2 dice each turn - every turn.

Player will be able to get pieces our more often (with either 1 or 6)

El Cid: so it's good to request something that is already done in some part of the site..... lets see here...

I request:

Ludo Express

Same board as regular Ludo.

Get out of start with either a 1 or 6

Roll 2 dice each turn. (Each turn, 2 dice are rolled - doubles are nothing special)

Each dice is separate - like Backgammon, you first make a move with Dice #1, then make a move with Dice #2 (or swap to play in other order.)

Ludo is one of the most popular games on the site - and "express" version to speed it up even more should prove to be popular also.

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.

joshi tm: I always have a lot of game ideas. Two that I will share again, and which are variants and hopefully would not be too much programming are:

Logik-6: Logik-6 is the same game as the popular Logik game, but with 6 spaces instead of 5.

Ludo Express: Ludo Express is the same as regular Ludo, with the following changes: (1) Get out of the start with either 1 or 6, (2) Roll 2 dice each turn... double mean nothing special, (3) Each dice is separate - like Backgammon, you first make your move with one of your dice, and then the other - with the same or different piece.

Ludo is already a popular game, and quicker games are always popular - so making Ludo an ever quicker game would work very well.

Of course I have many other ORIGINAL game ideas, but these 2 are variants and I wouldn't think would be a ton of new programming.

grenv: Pawns get 10 vacation days a year.

You no longer have to set vacation days - if a game is set to time out (and you have auto-vacation turned on), then the game will have an hour time added back to it - and you will lose 1 hour of vacation time. (All games will have 1 hour added to it.. so if 3 games are about to time out, you only lose 1 hour.) - then that will continue to repeat until you are out of vacation time.

* The exception of course is games that don't have vacation days - or fixed weekends - those don't have time added & will time out.

Thad: I myself would be curious if the e-mail's you get with the .it link are all from the same opponent (maybe an opponent who uses the .it) - or is it just random.

happyjuggler0: Yea, I never did understand that either. If I want to use auto-pass - then let me - Don't let my opponent FORCE me to play a certain way. If they don't want to use it and click "pass" every time - fine, let them - but let me play the way I want and not let my opponent FORCE me to play a certain way - let me play the way I want to.

Anyway, here is how I would setup auto-pass (for all gammon games, and others like Ludo)

1. An option is settings that says something like: For games with a PASS, go ahead and auto-pass for me. (Applies to all gammon games where the CUBE is not in play) - if's its a gammon game and you have a chance to double, check below for those situations. Also applies to Ludo & other similar games.

2. An option in setting that says something like: For games where there is a AUTO-Move (only 1 move available) - go ahead and auto-move for me.

3. Then in a game, like mentioned below - (This would come up for people who do not have #1 above checked, and gammon games with cube) - If a situation comes up in game where you "Pass" - let there be a check-box that says "Auto-pass until I can move a piece" - Once you move a piece, if the "Pass" situation comes back up, you will need to check that again.

---- Then also, WHENEVER there is an auto-pass or auto-move, just have a small default message says something like "coan.net auto-passed" - that way the opponent knows they did not see any message or anything like that. (Since that was one of the "reasons" some had for not wanting to have auto-pass)

wetware: There is an easy enough solution.

Don't just have an blind auto-pass for all situations - but still allow you to roll a dice, and if you are STUCK, you THEN have the option to choose "Auto-pass UNTIL I can move". (Maybe a check box above the submit box)

So if you think there may be a situation you do not want to use the auto-pass, you clearly don't choose that option.

pedestrian: .... then again, what is the problem with massive forfeits - if a person can not handle the games, then they will be forfeited when they time out. (I'm just throwing out suggestions - I don't plan to be much over 100 games at a time any time soon myself, and others timing out is not too much of an issue for me.. just throwing out ideas is all.)

How about something like:

Rooks - if you have NOT had a game time out in the past 6 months: 2,000 game limit
Rooks - if you have had a game time out in the past 6 months: 1,000 game limit

Black rooks - 5,000 game limit. (another black rook perk.)

happyjuggler0: Yea, so for the "Time per move:", you would have the following options:

standard vacation

fixed weekend only

no days off

limited vacation - 3 days

limited vacation - 5 days

limited vacation - 7 days

Options for tournament AND private games would be good (along with site & team matches). And of course, the limited vacation is if they have vacation days to use. And for tournaments, I would say per round - so if you make it to round 2, you get those days reset for the "limited". Maybe make those with a "black dot" to show the difference between the green & red dot games.

I would like to see something else.

I would like to see tournament be able to be setup where it only allowed up to X number of vacation days/hours per round.

So instead of making a tournament with NO VACATION - we could make, for example a tournament where a player can use a MAX of 5 days vacation (120 hours) per round. [maybe with presets of 3 days / 5 days / 10 days -- maybe with different color circle for each type to go along with red circle games.)

... that way vacations are still available in case of emergencies, but hopefully keep out those who drag the tournament out. (Then again, now that the vacation "exploit" is fixed, hopefully once someone's vacation is out for the year - they will not get any more until Jan 1 so it won't be as big of an issue as it has in the past.)

Thad: I actually agree - I think that once a person starts a pond, they should be allowed to complete it even if their membership turns to a pawn. I seem to remember that Fencer also was thinking of changing that at some point...... but my memory is not the best, so I could be mistaken.

But for the history of the ponds on this site - they were introduced as a "premium" for paid members. That is as pawns, they were able to play all the same games as paid members - so for the first (more than 2 player) game, it was introduced as something special for the paid members.... as I understand it.

Undertaker.: As a side note, joshi tm talk about "Extra games" was because he through out another idea - a "Round Robin" type of team tournament - So Player 1 will play all players on the other team.... and so on. (so for a 5 player team, 2 games per - you will get 10 games instead of 2) - for each fellowship (so up against 4 other fellowships, 40 games instead of 8 - so yea, lots of extra games under the round robin idea.)

Trying to think of other ideas - is to possible weight each team tournament game - so for example, if you play and win against someone who is within 100 ratings of you - games worth 1 point. If you beat someone that is below 100, you only get .8 points. If you beat someone who is 100 or more, you get 1.2 points. (or something like that... I just pulled those number out of my head. Not sure if I like this idea, but just throwing it out there.)

Groeneveld: Then team A would still win 4/1 - I think the point being made is some teams pick the super strong team, leaving most other fellowships little chance of ever winning - so it's an interesting idea to possible give other fellowships more of a chance

Undertaker.: At first I was going to say "I would hate to see a team captain basically choose me as a sacrifice to a high level player" ---- but I then seen that it would mostly be a blind pick - that is the team captain will choose the order of the 5 - but you can't see the other of other teams so it would be more left up to chance. Like I said, interesting idea.

MadMonkey: I actually love the event box.... since I actually could care LESS about what happens in a game (I know what happened - I JUST PLAYED IT) - so to have them all in one place, it makes it easier to delete all.... without missing a non-system message that sometimes gets slipped in there.

"...is not wanting a game to "get away from you" in the event of a chain-autopass, such that when you look at it again you don't even recognize it as the same game you last moved on...."

I think it would be easily solved to still show every move for each play (with maybe an option to skip all autopass/move turns)

For for example.
Turn 1 - Player A is on line, makes a move in a game - submit. (Other player has an auto), game right away come back to Player A.
Turn 2 - Player A is on line, makes a move in a game - submit. (Other player has an auto), game right away come back to Player A.
Turn 3 - Player A is on line, makes a move in a game - submit. (Other player has an auto), game right away come back to Player A.
Turn 4 - Player A is on line, makes a move in a game - submit. (Other player has an auto), game right away come back to Player A.
Turn 5 - Player A is on line, makes a move in a game - submit. (Other player has an auto), game right away come back to Player A.
Turn 6 - Player A is on line, makes a move in a game - submit. (Other player now is able to make a turn, so game goes to Player B.

Later in the day, Player B comes on line - see's game, and SEE'S Turn 1 (Of course unless they have the skip option checked)
Turn 1 - no move, hits submit. Since player A already made a move, game comes right back to Player B
Turn 2 - no move, hits submit. Since player A already made a move, game comes right back to Player B
Turn 3 - no move, hits submit. Since player A already made a move, game comes right back to Player B
Turn 4 - no move, hits submit. Since player A already made a move, game comes right back to Player B
Turn 5 - no move, hits submit. Since player A already made a move, game comes right back to Player B
Turn 6 - Oh, they now are able to make a move - makes it, submits - and now game goes back to Player A

So 12 turns (6 for each player) is played quickly - moving the game along. Both players don't "miss" in action [unless then choose to skip it].

That way no one is "lost" or doesn't know what happens.

Thad: There is also the "show inactive players" link on the list so you can see everyone, including those who are not meeting the 1 finished game a month (or every 6 months for members)

nodnarbo: Lets use an example: 10 people vote on a poll - 3 different options:

Option #1 - 8 of the 10 people vote for this one (so 80% of voters picked this one)
Option #2 - 5 of the 10 people vote for this one (so 50% of voters picked this one)
Option #3 - 7 of the 10 people vote for this one (so 70% of voters picked this one)

Once I pictured that example, it was more clear to me what you were talking about (hopefully help others & Fencer if he decides to add something like this.)

nodnarbo: It took me reading your message a few time to understand what you are saying, and now I do - AND AGREE.... maybe a link to toggle back and forth between the current way and the way you propose to take the percentage from the number of voters (and not number of votes).

I would also like to see Opinion Polls be sortable so the top vote winner will be sortable - so when there are polls with 20+ options, it will be easier to see the top voted option.

Groeneveld: Actually only the tournament creator gets the message, not the people who signed up. (but if it is added, hopefully it is an option - I already get too much "junk" mail here on my BK Message box of information I don't really need.)

Fencer: With Ludo being one of the more popular games with no variants, you could always throw out a quick Ludo variant to take a break from the new BK version.

As an idea:

Ludo Express

Same Board, pieces as regular ludo

Get out of start with either a 1 or a 6

Roll 2 dice each turn. Each turn, 2 dice rolled. (6’s don’t do anything special – doubles don’t do anything special – Just 2 dice rolled each turn by each player)

Each dice is separate. Like Backgammon, you first make a move with Dice #1 – then make a move with Dice #2 (or swap and move first with Dice #2, then Dice #1 – order is up to player) You can move the same piece twice, OR move 2 different pieces – 1 with each die

So for example, first turn of the game, you roll a 1 & 6 – you have 2 options. Use the “1” to get out of start, and then use the “6” to move 6 spaces – or use the “6” to get our of start, and then use the “1” to move 1 space.

You can split the dice up between different men. You can use the “1” to get a piece out, and use “6” on a different piece on the board.

NOTE: If you own man is sitting on your “start space”, you have to move it BEFORE you can get another piece out of the board.

If you can move – you have to move. (only pass if you have no move) Plus it is possible to move with 1 die, and then pass the other if there is no move with that one. I would say make it like the gammon games. BOTH dice must be used if possible. If only one of the dice can be used, the highest is used.

The rest are the same rules as regular Ludo

There are a couple of things that I do right now with .css to help me with playing my BK games a little quicker, and would LOVE to see these options introduced into BK so everyone can use them without having to use the .css.

1. Over all - move more (non-important) information BELOW the game board. For example, do I really need to know the flag, ranking, rating, last move, link to rules, link to discussion boards for most of my game playing? Answer = NO. (but at times this information might be needed, so why not make a "streamline" way for the game board to show up that has move of that information below the gameboard that way if we do need it, we can simply scroll down and look.

(Most of my suggestions are things that will help play quicker WITHOUT having to scroll down... no scrolling down can save a lot of time.)



2. In the Dice Poker Games - Have the dice choice ABOVE the board. As you see in my screenshot of what I do with my own .css, it does not show up neatly (covers things up) - but then again going back to #1 - it's mostly useless information anyway. But for how I do it, I can now see my dice choice & game board without having to scroll down. The "official" way right now below the board, on some monitors I will have to scroll down EACH TIME I want to roll the dice



3. THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT... and simple. Have a "Move" button near the top of the page. Still keep a move button & all the "comment boxes" down below the game board so if I want to "chat", I can scroll down and still do so - but for 99% of my game playing - I want to make my move & submit it and go to the next game... having the "Move" button at the top (and same place on the screen for EVERY GAME) makes things go so quickly... and is so nice.

grenv: Exactly what I was thinking when I was reading that.

I don't feel I have the right to try to push my opinions on how someone should play on others.... just as I don't think others should try to force their opinions on to me.

OPTIONAL - and when I say OPTIONAL, EACH PERSON should have a choice on how THEY ALONE want to play. If I want to play with autopass/autoplay turned on for my moves, and my opponent wants to have it off with their turns - GREAT - that is each of our opinions on how we want to play.

My personal thoughts is I come to BrainKing to play games... not just push submit on a website doing pointless things that have no input from myself.

I did recently post some ideas for some Battleboat variants on the Battleboat board, and would love more comments good/bad about any of those.

Battleboats Board: http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=40

Another thing I would like to see is a Ludo variant - it's the #1 game, yet does not have any variants. One thing people seem to like on this site are (A) Luck and (B) Faster versions of a game, so I bring to you:

Ludo Express

Same Board, pieces as regular ludo

Get out of start with either a 1 or a 6

Roll 2 dice each turn. Each turn, 2 dice rolled. (6’s don’t do anything special – doubles don’t do anything special – Just 2 dice rolled each turn by each player)

Each dice is separate. Like Backgammon, you first make a move with Dice #1 – then make a move with Dice #2 (or swap and move first with Dice #2, then Dice #1 – order is up to player) You can move the same piece twice, OR move 2 different pieces – 1 with each die

So for example, first turn of the game, you roll a 1 & 6 – you have 2 options. Use the “1” to get out of start, and then use the “6” to move 6 spaces – or use the “6” to get our of start, and then use the “1” to move 1 space.

You can split the dice up between different men. You can use the “1” to get a piece out, and use “6” on a different piece on the board.

NOTE: If you own man is sitting on your “start space”, you have to move it BEFORE you can get another piece out of the board.

If you can move – you have to move. (only pass if you have no move) Plus it is possible to move with 1 die, and then pass the other if there is no move with that one. I would say make it like the gammon games. BOTH dice must be used if possible. If only one of the dice can be used, the highest is used.

The rest are the same rules as regular Ludo

Snoopy: I also don't like the idea of being able to switch out players in middle of a site team tournament. IF it were allowed, I would like to see:

1. The replacement player can not have played for another team in the same tournament (Oh, that team is out - lets grab their best player and put them on our team.)

2. The person being replaced would have to had been off the site for (lets say) at least 30 days.

3. The replacement can not be more then 300 points higher in their rating then the person they are replacing. (of course if someone leaves the site, their rating can drop as games time out - so maybe their rating at the time the tournament started.) (again, to stop a team from grabbing "ringers" / great players to help their team.

So with those rules, I think it would almost be easier to not allow replacements.

NOW having said that, I agree with I think EVERYONE that all tournaments including team tournaments should continue on the next rounds once it is known which players/teams will continue on to the next round. (THIS would also help solve many - not all - of the cases where players leave the site between the time a tournament starts and the next round.)

Since this is feature requests, I will request what I would like to see with the tournament list.

1. Having 20 "fee" prize tournaments at the top of the list is a pain, having to scroll down through. I would like to see either (A) be able to close that box to not see it at all, or (B) limit it to 5... and next to the title "Top entry fee prize tournaments" add a (see all) which will filter and show all of them if clicked.

2. I never understood why a tournament can go 30 days past start date - that is just WAY too long. YES - it is nice that it goes past the start date, but 5 days should be plenty. Within those 5 days, it will give the tournament creator time to change the start date if needed if they want to extend the time, or just let it go.

3. I think there should be a limit of 20 public tournaments to sign up for from 1 person. 20 may sound high, but 20 would be a good number - I know for myself when I was created a lot of the "Fast Start - First 5" tournaments, I could easily get 10-15 tournament up on the page, which wasn't too much since for the most part, all of them would start within 1-3 days (before even reaching the date since it was set to start when full) - So a limit of 20 public tournaments I think would be good. (With fellowships being unlimited as it is now.)

pauloaguia: Wow, you think starting 1 live pond every hour would be too many - Heck, I was expecting to hear complaints about it not being enough - that people would be done with their pond at 10 minutes past the hour, and have to wait 50 more minutes for the next live pond to start.

Yes - A Optional Pop-up to remind you to play would be great. Not sure if a pop up to put your bid in would help much since you would probable want to go to the page and take a quick look at past bids & totals left & such to make a good educated bid.

I mention this game idea every once and awhile, and I know there was interest in it in the past, but thought I would mention it again:

http://www.coan.net/strategy-war.html

The game would be set up similar to ponds (multi-players, 2-10 players) - and could even work pretty well as a live game also.

.... anyway, just wanted to throw out that idea again.

I think Live Ponds are a good idea (AS LONG AS the normal ponds keep working the way they do)

My thinking on the game:

1. Only SYSTEM live ponds – no user created live ponds (if you make only certain system ponds, the hope would be enough will sign up for those, where if you start creating a lot of them… it might dilute the players.)

2. Live Ponds – System starts a new one EVERY HOUR, on the top of the hour. So 24 ponds a day. Starting at 1:00am, 2:00am, 3:00am, ….

3. Live Dark ponds – System starts a new one EVERY HOUR, on the ½ Hour. So 24 dark live ponds a day. Starting at 12:30am, 1:30am, 2:30am…..

NOTE: By starting it on the top of each hour (and ½ hour for dark), it will allow the users to know EXACTLY when the next pond is starting. If I know I will be here at the top of the hour, I know I can play through a live pond pretty quickly.

TIME PER MOVE.

I would suggest that the time for each move is 1 minute to place a bid. EXCEPTION – for the FIRST bid, maybe make it a 2 or 3 minute time frame to place their first bid. This is so people won’t time out if their clock on the wall is a little fast/slow. After the first bid, the limit goes down to 1 minute per bid.

IF everyone who is still in has placed their bid before the 1 minute time frame, then PROCESS the round and go to next round. (no point in waiting.)

NUMBER OF PLAYERS:

I would say as long as 5 players join the live pond, then start it. It won’t be as fun as bigger ponds, but still something.

STATISTICS:

1. Keep stats SEPARATE from normal ponds.

2. Keep 3 different stats for live ponds. (Live ponds under 10 players), (Live ponds 10-19 players), and (Live pond 20+ players) So a Live Pond rating would look like:

Live Pond 1768/1819/2012

(with the 1768 as the under 10, 1819 is 10-10, and 2012 for 20+ players)

Why different stats for number of players – Because the game is played very differently depending on the number of players. With less players, you need to be aggressive and take chances… with more players, it is more of trying to wait out some of the other aggressive players & know when to make your move with your own aggressive play.

OTHER RULES:

Everything else, including time outs should work just like the do in ponds currently.

grenv: As AbigailII does, I never set vacation days anymore even if I know I'm going to be gone - I just let autovacation take over and use what is needed, and sounds like that will be the only option in the new version. So limiting auto vacation to only 2 sounds like something that will punish many because of the abuse of the few.

I would much rather see possible a limit of vacation days be a settable option on new games/tournaments - for example, setup a tournament that limits 5 vacation days per section (so a total of 1 week with weekend days could be taken by someone in one round), and have the same option in regular games. (Maybe instead of the red dot for no days off, it can be a purple dot to indicate there are other restrictions on days off on the game)

That way you the rules don't punish those who don't care how much vacation someone takes, and still allows those who want to limit vacations, but do not want to play the fisher clock games to have the option to set limits if wanted.

SL-Mark: Well I just want to make a quick post/comment since I know Fencer is working on some updates for the site.

Right now, the BKR on this site is a "Chess" rating system - which is a skilled game. So when games that start to have more luck attached to them, the "skill" rating system is not best suited for those games.... in my opinion.

I would love to see different ratings systems used for different games - like one that was designed for gammon games to be used for gammon games.. and possible others which have some luck in addition to the skill to it. (Not sure why types of rating systems are out there.... or if Fencer is interested in doing this, but thought I would through out that suggestions.)

I've read some rules, and I did not see it mentioned that you have to start with Ones, or something else low - not sure why you would not be able to just start high (shorter game, but why should that matter?)

This is how I would do it on this site (for 2 players) - Would make it a "match" of the first person to win 5 rolls (so 9 total rolls of the dice are possible)

First person - has the option to pick between 1-10 dice (total number), and then have the option to pick 1-6 (what is on the dice).

Second person has the option to either calling the person (show dice & end round), or raising the bid with either the same dice # & higher total number of dice, OR, and higher dice number and any total number of dice.

I would think most hands would last between 1-4 times between each other - and playing to 5 would make the game last around 20 moves on average (again, maybe less - or maybe more depending on the players)

--------

Of course making it a 3 or 4 player game would also be nice.

Bry: On the dice poker board, "users" can report a high score and have it recored in the board description:

http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=130

Of course it is not official, and I agree would be nice to see what the highest score someone has gotten in all the dice games.

talen314: I myself would like to see a different way to block certain users from tournament you create - that is I might have someone on block who just annoys me, but I could care less if they were to join & play in tournaments that I create.... I just don't want to listen to them is all. But an easier way to block people from your own tournaments would be nice, rather then the current way of having to manually remove them.

Undertaker.: How would single elimination tournaments work as a team tournament? - that is how would the match up work since the current format of the tournament is that it would be easy enough to make the first round be one team against another team, but the next round, the winner of each round moves forward so it would turn into where players on the same team would play themselves.

As for being able to let the captain switch around the order of players. An interesting idea, but for myself if I'm not too good of a player, and if the captain decided to place me against the top player as a "sacrafice" lose so the team can keep their top player to play someone else, I would be a little upset. That is at least now how it is setup, if I'm the 4th best of the team, I know I'll go against the 4th best on the other team - I may still be over matched, but at least it would give me more of a chance then going against their top player.

gogul: Sorry - I took your "Checkbox" as a feature request since it is on the feature request board, not asking if there was an option for it.

No currently there is not an option for it, but I personally avoid the music board for that reason. Both that & that flying dragon will freeze my Firefox browser for a few seconds (2-30 seconds) while it loads those things.

Of course I only see that dragon when I first log in, but otherwise, if it was a request to have the option - I agree with the request, and would like the ability to disable enbedded videos (instead, have a link if we want to view it.)

ChessVariant: When I think of adding a dice to the game, I can think of 2 ways to do it.... both might work.

1. Being like dice chess, where the dice # is the pieces you HAVE to attack with. Guess the question would be is if for example a knight can't capture another piece (can't move), will it be like Dice Chess where that # will not show up?

2. Dice with either 1, 2, or 3 - meaning that is how many moves you make on that turn. (so if you roll a 3, you have to move & capture 3 times). Might work better in a slightly larger board... might go too quickly for just a 8x8 board

Undertaker.: Or do something similar that is done with games with no vacation, and set weekends - a color dot next to the tournament name - like a blue dot for free prize tournament, and purple dot for entry fee tournament.

That way a quick look can see those tournaments.

MadMonkey: .... plus it's played on a pente type of board where you can place your piece anywhere... and not a line4 type board where your pieces "falls" to the bottom of each row.

But if you like line games - play a game or 2 of Connect6 - it is a VERY fun game.

rod03801: I agree that Behemoth Chess seems to be way too reliant on luck - that is my whole strategy in the game is just wait it out - try to quickly make a little room for my king to move around, and try to move it out of a direct line of the "Behemoth" when ever I can.

Having 3 kings on a 10 x 10 board (spread out) might be an interesting idea.

My idea is to keep it the same, but make it so the Behemoth can NOT kill the king - just kill everything else. That way the players STILL has to play chess - still has to try to capture the other players king, but while trying to capture it, your attacking piece might be eaten by the Behemoth so you have to move to a different attacking piece. That is how I would change the game (well make a different variant.) It would put a little more "chess" back into the chess game.

MadMonkey: Oh man... I was planning on creating a 128 player tournament, sign myself up, and start it to get 127 free wins!!!!!

(oh yes, getting a "Bye" should do nothing with ratings or stats - should not count in the system as a win, lose, or even game played. Just kind of "pushes" you to the next space waiting for the next round to start. Of course having games in other rounds start if both players are ready would be another request, but think we should stick with one request at a time. )

MadMonkey: And I forgot the first thing the system should check. First check if a smaller tournament will work. (So if it was setup as a 128 player tournament, and only 30 players signed up - then scalling down to the 32 player tournament will be the first step. Then second step is to fill with 2 fakes/byes.

MadMonkey: YES - I think Byes would be the best solution.

I would not think it would be too hard to (from the programming side) image putting "fake" ghost players called "empty" into all the empty spaces, and just have them "lose" against whoever they play so the real player automatically moved into the next round.

Snoopy: I'm not sure if that would be a good idea. (Note - I like to use autopass, and in my opinion - should be automatic anyway.... but that is a different complaint.)

Anyway, I would not think it would be a good idea since for some reason there are some people on this site who may not want to play with the autopass feature on, and only sign up for tournaments with it turned off - so they sign up, and all of a sudden it starts and it's not what they signed up for.

Or a better example - I create a tournament with autopass on, you sign up - then right before it starts I turn if off - leaving you stuck in a tournament with it off when you signed up for a tournament with it turned on.

Anyway, point being that it might cause more issues to have options that are editable that can create a different type of game then what people originally signed up for.

Ceiter: Yes - for 2nd rounds of tournaments (and 3rd, 4th, etc...) For new tournaments, it will kick you out if you don't have enough free spaces.

So with 20/50 game limit (pawn/knight), you can go over the limit when 2nd rounds of tournaments start - and can be over the 20/50 game limit.

MadMonkey: The only small issue with that is if I sign up for a tournament with random position with each opponent, and then after I'm signed up - the tournament creator changes it to something I don't like (like same position with all opponents) - then that would not be too fair to the users signed up.

BadBoy7: Right now there are a couple of 30 second tables - once out of "test" mode, there can be some 20 second or even 15 second tables. (could even go down to 10 seconds)

grenv: There are separate ratings for Ponds, Dark Ponds, and Rain Ponds

grenv: The rule of taking a persons last bet if they time out was put in as a way to compensate for not allowing vacation days in the game. Big ponds can take months (and even more then a year) to play - and since you can't use a vacation day on a pond while you might be away, many will plan ahead and place a slightly "higher" bet that will hopefully keep them in place for the rounds they will miss, and hopefully be around when they get back.

I guess there is a concern about "equal information" - but the problem is in many games (like Battleboats - I can look at my opponent past games to figure out if they like to place boats near each other - if they normally place them near the edge - figure out where they normally like to shot at first so i don't put my boats there, etc...). I guess the good solution would be to jut place in the dark ponds if you really worried about this.