how about the blackhole version

grenv: The number of games you have really has little bearing on how fast you play. I currently have 24 games going and can only make about 1 move per game per week do to internet problems and limitied time yet in the past I have played people with over 3000 games that made a move every day. I also very seldom find people that will play 20 moves a day. If we are both convienently online at the same time ocasionally you get that but usually you miss each other resulting in 1 or 2 moves a day on a game.

If you want fast games keep short time limits this puts you first on there play list.

MadMonkey: I would agree. If you have all your games left in a tournament and no one else has any, then I think you need to start playing quicker. Aside from that, I don't think that there should be a major problem.

gambler104: It doesnt bother me at all, but i do know quite a few it does annoy. Like i said, when you enter any game or tournament the rules of it are there for you to except, for both/all players.
No one should have to message anyone(maybe the Tournament organiser), though i know it happens. All i would say is that i do think some players should look at the tournaments they are in more, then they would know if they are the only ones left playing games in it.
Maybe if some people used the drop box and goto next Tournament game they may get through them quicker.

MadMonkey: I think that the simplest thing to do is to message an opponent or a tournament player if you want them to move faster. More times than not, they will go ahead and move much quicker. I know for me, I might not move in a game every day, because it is too hard to go through and find them. So I might not move too often in games that have a time limit of seven days. But if you message me, I will move quicker and I believe most people do this.

Marfitalu: I hope the compare BKRs feature request isn't overlooked. I think it is a great idea.

imsoaddicted: Number of games is an indication though. Once a day isn't all that fast, players with only 20 games going often play 20 moves per day, which is more like it. :)

I'd rather play 20 moves in one game than one move in 20 games. Much more enjoyable.

Jason: I agree, i have alot of games, but still make at least one move on each every day, unless i am not here long LOL

AND i also i agree with snowhugs, some people have too many games & wait till the last day virtually to make a move in a Tournament, so holding it up, BUT then again they are also using the rules laid down. They have a certain time to make a move before they timeout, so why not use it.

Its catch 22 then, some of us want to speed Tournaments up, some dont. Problem is, the ones that dont till always win, as the tournament wont carry on till there game(s) is finished.

snowhugs: it shouldnt matter how many games someone has if they keep within the time-limit and i know from speaking to ppl on here to put a cap on game limit alot of members would leave

snowhugs: I dont think that this should be a feature , some people have many games going and can play faster than those with only a few , i dont think it would be fair to exclude someone because they have x amount of games going.

Flummoxed:


i totally agree with you on this one of my players who i have alot of games with has over 5000 games on the go, way to many, and very of putting

this is radical,but WOULD SOLVE issues surrounding fast players waiting on slow movers.
instead a setting for time per game.
each player elect in his prefs how fast he wants to play games.
7 day
5 day
3 day
1 day
12 hours
the problem of players having different "play"settings from each other could be solved in on interraction between players in which a game time is agreed.and the setting for that game could be altered.
this would at least easily ID the fast or the slow players from the word go.

but this is a system wide change & might be good to try on a game site starting up.what ye all think?

hexkid: oh i like that feature very much

Fencer: 97.3% of the work is already done

Started games with Fencer
Started games with hexkid
Started games with imsoaddicted
Started games with joshi tm

But enjoy the movie.

hexkid: If you click the ''Show only finished games'' from <insert opponent> with me, the the number beside of Ongoing games already shows the number of games youre playing with that opponent.

hexkid: Absolutely not! I want to see Casino Royale first, then I can implement it.

When we visit a user's profile and select the "Finished games" tab we can limit the games displayed to only the games played with me.
Can we have that added to "Started games" too?

i guess it's something we really can't do much about as long as point counts are being played, cause thats where all the games came from.

nightmagic: I agree. That is how I do it too. I start games with a two game time limit. Some wonderful, crazy players still can play 5000 games at the same time and manage to keep up, making daily moves with me. The only reason why I like the game limit criteria as a feature request is that when I commit myself to a one or two day per move game, I don't allow room for myself to have a few extra days when work or holidays keep me from getting to a computer. Yet when I start a game with a seven day limit, some players will take a year to complete it with me, maxing their time to the last hour on every move and consistently using their weekend days. Anyway, brainking is the best.

emmett: thats why i started playing games 2 days or less, some with 400, 600, or more games move once a week. it also pays to check them out to see how many games they have running first before taking the game. and see how often they move.so many have there games set to days that they make the game move to the points movement that alows them there points.

grenv: I think i must agree with you on this.

All confused people: Grinning because I remember asking for something similar. I'm sick of playing people with 800 games going that never move.

Flummoxed: A picture of a grinning happy face, nodding in agreement.

grenv:

Flummoxed:

Flummoxed:

When a new game is created please could it be possible to specify, in addition to a BKR range, a limit on the number of started games that your opponent has running.

the thing about this.it is a clever idea for a word game,but the graphics do not need to be elaborate.
the required graphics for the program would not be very complex to code.
it could be put together relatively very quickly if desired.
I dont think I have seen this game anywhere,so I think it is a unique idea..I hope.

ok,the game:
how about a board of squares,say 15 X 15...or 20X20.
each player in turn simply places a letter on any square.
players alternate turns placing letters.
the object is to create words.the bigger the better score,adding to existing words is allowed.
trying not to help your opponent,but helping yourself is the strategy.

a variation on the game could be that for a turn,in place of placing a letter on the board.
any letter on the board can be changed,and any words resulting from this would be scored.

I hope our fearless leader sees this ,if so please comment.

Is this possible Fencer?
When I click on Image history I would like to be able to click on one of those previous images that I used.  Would save some time of having to re-upload it and then be verified.

Mr. Shumway,MadMonkey: wow awesome perfect for when i want to doodle with my art ;)

Jason: Just done it, it took about 2 seconds. Restarted Firefox and its there to use, just place your cursor on the edge/corner of the box and stretch it like a normal window.

Great one Mr. Shumway, i can see me using it alot, and not using my notepad again

MadMonkey: did you manage to install it ? wouldnt work for me;(

Mr. Shumway: Great stuff, thanks i will have a look at it

MadMonkey: As long as this feature isn't implemented, you might have a look at Resizable Textarea, which is a firefox extension that let's you freely adjust textboxes' sizes with the mouse.
(It somehow doesn't work on the inline reply-box on the boards)

Could the 'Change description:' & 'Change extra description:' (why do we need 2 ??) boxes be made bigger when editing a Fellowship or at least an option to do so. A lot of us try to get alot of information in there, including links etc.. and it does all tend to get a bit confusing. I know we can use notepad and then copy it in there which is what i do, but when you may be only changing a small thing it can be time consuming (though i do have alot of time lol).
I think it was mentioned before about changing the size of the box in our notepad as well, thats needed for the same reason.

I´ve just set up a new fellowship which can be seen as an extension to this one, but rather than deal with all desired features it will only serve as a discussion board for introducing and being introduced to games which at the moment have not been incorporated in the BrainKing reportoire....yet. :)

If you are interested in learning about new, bizarre, obscure, whacky or simply overlooked game types, or if you think it is an utter disgrace that certain games cannot be played here yet: then do visit:

With gaiety, song and even a little dance (!) I´ll welcome anyone interested

**edited to make link not change language to nl**

MTC: I agree 100%.

pauloaguia and nabla: I would also have the same suggestion about the "not counted" option, which I don't see the point of anyway and would prefer if, instead, all unrated games were also not counted and the not counted wasn't a seperate option

What is the point of an unrated and counted game anyway? besides messing up finished game statistics.

pauloaguia: I would have the same suggestion about the "private game" attribute (although in fact I would even prefer if private games didn't exists) which can easily get unnoticed. And all this would be consistent with the fact that the "no vacation" attribute is already marked in red : simply marking in red all non-standard game attributes.

Could unrated / uncounted games be marked somewhat differenlt than others? It's happened to me on some occasions to made a brilliant win (or an humilliating loss, as well) only to find out in the end that my BKR wasn't updated. The last time it happened to me just a little ago, I was 1 game away from an established rank. And now I still am, because I just accepted the game almost blindly not looking at its properties carefully enough.

Suggestions, by order of preference (and probably ease of implementation too):

• The text "unrated game" at the game page could be made red or something that stands out easilly.
  
• On the waiting games list (or incoming invitations) the game could show up with a little grey dot next to it.
  
• There could be a Setting to choose wheather or not Unrated games should be displayed in game lists.

mctrivia: Good suggestion on the options, except that the third option is "send anyway" ;)

grenv: Well then as one person requested ask someone to send them a message asking why they route it and that they have you blocked so you can't respond.

I think the warning message when trying to send someone a message on your block list should also ask you if you want to "unblock and send", "don't send message", "send anyways".

Rose: Well in this case it's even more confusing since the note was a real request for some feedback on a recent tournament, so I assume the user was not expecting me to be blocked.

grenv: I think it used to be called Enemies List didn't it? Or maybe I'm just mixing it up...
Anyway, you got the idea ;)

Mr. Shumway: I do like the idea of notifying you that the user you are about to post a message to has you on block so don't waste your time writing to them. I have done this a few times. Gotten a message, go to send an in depth reply only to have a message come up telling me I was blocked.. WHY write me and tell me off then ask me a question, BUT have me on block the second you write me the note? Very childish!

Best thing to do is just put that user on block (so they can't unblock, harass you more, then block again) and just ignore them and forget about them.

Some users can be very childish in the way they play like that - ignoring is the best way to deal with those type of users.

pauloaguia: ok, better warning messages would work as well. I notice you use "enemies" rather than "blocked users". "Enemy" is a better description :)

grenv: why not just notify you when you attempt to write a pm to someone who has you on block? you would simply stop immediately ;)

grenv: It wouldn't work. As per my example, that user would be able to nag you for a whole week...
A better requirement could be "only replies to posts made after putting the user on block". Which would probably not work very well, if the unsuspecting user would first block someone and then sent the other a message saying "you're blocked now so you won't be bothering me any longer". In this case, he would have inadvertly oppened a hole through the block.

How about if a warning message was issued pointing out that "you have this user on your enemies list. He will not be able to reply to your message" when someone is trying to send a message?

pauloaguia: That's easy to avoid, just put a time limit. Any response within a week gets through.

Any other potential problems? If not I think we have a working set of requirements. :)