Pedro Martínez: we have a bug tracker?

Artful Dodger:

Sometimes tournaments take a very long time to fill or to activate and during the intervening time players that signed up have been inactive at the site for a very long time.  This results in unnecessary forfeits.  Perhaps players should be removed from tournaments if they have not logged onto the site after a certain length of time or perhaps an option can be made that allows the creator of the tournament to select whether inactive players will be kept in the tournament.  Some players naturally move slowly but probably make more than one move over a three or four month period. Most players probably enjoy a tournament more if the players are active players; forfeits after 1 move provide little entertainment value for anyone.

Talen314

talen314: If you want tournaments with fast players, you can create one with no holidays and one move/day, for example.
I think everyone is free to play or not and is free to choose his speed for playing. So I think that players who join a tournament must not be removed from it, the creator has to choose the right adjustments.

I know this has been asked for in the past (as it is on my list lol) but can we have another column on the main page (under opponents turn) for red dot games to let us know the time we will have to move ONCE our opponent has moved. When i went to bed last night it was 2 days before i had to make any moves, but of course red dot games (as in this set up - Time: 3 days, Bonus: 8 hours, Limit: 15 days, no days off ) do not fall into that ONCE your opponent has moved, hence Time-outs. At least we would have some idea if we had something to go by

MadMonkey: Oh yes, I agree, I like very much this idea.

It would be helpful especially in cases where the Big Bosses are not online much, if Little Bosses were able to edit moderators please.

I have a new idea about as try become team tournaments more competitive and interesting, and would like to share it with all you.

Unfortunately, some people prefer choose strong teams to play and, this way, there’s a big disparity between teams. Many times, before team tournaments started, seeing all teams already signed, I and probably many people know who will be the winner, and this is very sad for competition.

To try changing this situation, my idea is that each team captain could choose the position of their players in tournaments. Example:

Now
Team A                                                                  Team B
- Player 1 - 2200 points                                          - Player 2 - 2100 points
- Player 2 - 2155 points                                          - Player 2 - 2050 points
- Player 3 - 2000 points                                          - Player 3 - 1900 points
- Player 4 - 1800 points                                          - Player 4 - 1600 points
- Player 5 - 1750 points                                          - Player 5 - 1500 points

Probably, team A would win 5-0.

My idea
Team A                                                                 Team B
- Player 1 - 2200 points                                         - Player 1 - 1600 points
- Player 2 - 2155 points                                         - Player 2 - 1500 points
- Player 3 - 2000 points                                         - Player 3 - 2100 points
- Player 4 - 1800 points                                         - Player 4 - 2050 points
- Player 5 - 1750 points                                         - Player 5 - 1900 points

Team A preferred keep the order of their players and team B decided change it, so probably Team B would win 3-2. Besides, in a team tournament, there're some teams playing and each team captain will have a different idea to order his team, so will can there be many surprises.

This is my main idea. But there's a question...when a team captain signed his team, the real order of players cannot appear visible for everybody. So, the information of players will must appear for pontuation like now (and will change when the tournament start), or is hidden by ???????? like in "run around the pond".

What do you think about that?

who says that in the old situation team A would win 5/0
it happens ofter that a player with 100 or 200 points defeats a higher ranked player

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.

coan.net: Exactly. Moreover, the strategy of the strongest team (A) could be good to beat the team B, but could be bad to defeat team C, etc...
I don't want to mislead anyone... obviously, the team with the best players will always have more chances to win, but with "my format" the element of luck and surprise would be greater.

More, I think the captain would have a much bigger role than now, where only signs the team and little else does...

Undertaker.: I like it and think it's a great idea

cd power: I don't like that, because pairing now will be reliede more on luck.

How about a round-robin style Team Tournament? Play against everyone of the other teams, but that will give you a hell lot of extra games.

cd power: Thanks. :)

joshi tm: Extra games? Sorry, but i think you didn't understand my idea. You would play the same number of games (if there're 5 teams, so you'll play 8 games, 2 games against each opponent). However, each captain decides the position of their players. This way, if you're the 3º best player of your team, your captain can decide that you will play like first player or last player of team. It's a strategy question. Then, you could play with best player of team B, with 5º best player of team C, with 4º best player of team D, etc, but you'll never play with best player of team B and with other player of team B in same tournament...you only play against one player of each team like now.

Undertaker.: Team tournaments are my favorite and I don't like your idea (sorry !).
I explain why :
I know these 2 situations : to be the highest BKR of the team and to be the lowest BKR in another one.
When I'm the highest BKR (so a rather good player), I prefer to play with an opponent with a similar BKR because a closed game is more interesting than a game where I'm sure to win easily.
When I'm the lowest BKR, I always hope to have an opponent with a similar rating so as to have a chance to win, because it's very sad to play a game with no possibility to win.
I imagine your idea differently :
So as to " mix " the teams, we could do like that : it would be possible to play with an opponent only if the 2 players have a difference of BKR below 150 (for example), so all the teams would have players with low, medium, and high BKR.
The choice of the difference could be an option.
Like that, the teams would be more well-balanced.

Mélusine: No problem. The discussion is always a good way to get a consensus and, who knows, better ideas. :)

However, in your explanation, i cannot find an only point of disagreement. You said that when you're the highest player, you prefer to play with an opponent with a similar BKR...i agree 100% with you...me too. And if you're the highest player of your team, with 1900 points, for example, and your opponent has 2300 points, where is the interest and balance? :)

In past, i remember i was the player with best BKR of my team and the weakest opponent player had a BKR more high than me. In these cases, the weakest team cannot do anything, but with "my idea", the possibility to order players is the only strategy to surprise opponent teams.

This format is specially directed for strategy games, where the luck factor doesn't exist and usually there aren't surprises about who will be the winner.

About your idea, it's necessary there be similar bkr's between all players to become true and possible. :)

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.)

Undertaker.: My point of disagreement was about the examples : I woudn't like to play a game with a BKR 2200 and a BKR 1600, however my position may be : 2200 or 1600.
But, I must admit I hadn't thought to the " terrible " example you mentioned : " In past, I remember I was the player with best BKR of my team and the weakest opponent player had a BKR more high than me ".
This confirms my idea : a team with several and different BKR and no possibility to play when the difference in ratings between 2 players is too big.
But this is also a little restrictive.

coan.net and joshi tm: Ah, thanks for the explanation. Still about joshi tm post, yes, the pairing would be based more on luck, but in my perspective that would be better than you knew you don't have chances to win a team tournament, right? So, what's the problem?

I'm going give you some examples:
Goldfinger
The Chess Club had a very strong team and they only won 8-6 on final, because Grim Reaper and King Reza lost by time-out. Do you like to play these tournaments where everybody knows who will be the winner?

Another example:
Nov 2008 Taphephobia (Amazons)


Now, see that:
July 2009 Freddy Krueger Massacre Chess
My team won, because when this team tournament started, the game (Massacre Chess) was new on BK and the players position wasn't clear...many players didn't still have rating, so his position was random and that particularity allowed a "surprise".

So, with my idea would be possible create more surprises and interest for team tournaments.

But ok, we can keep the old format and go on with 2 or 3 strong teams and who know, in soon, you'll only see team tournaments with 4 or 5 teams (or worst, tournament doesn't start because there only be 2 or 3 teams). Many people prefer don't play, because they know they don't have chances to win, so why play? There's no funny, no competition...nothing.

Undertaker.: Still a team with 5 2100+ players is tough to beat, random or not random :)

The fairest idea would be round robin, but then there's that annoying amount of games, maybe work them away in time-specified rounds, like a soccer competition? So players get one opponent per team, and after a while (say 1 week) the next round kicks in so they get another opponent from the other teams. A quick player can finish the eight games they get within the one week period.

For short games like Hyper Backgammon the time period can be even shorter. But for longer games like Go they time period should be even a month, and then still will be games running.

joshi tm: I must agree with you..."a team with 5 2100+ players is tough to beat, random or not random". However, for me it's the best option, keeping the same type of tournament and with same number of games. :)

But you give me a new idea...until now, we have always the same type of team tournament, so why not allow some types of tournaments? The old format, "my format" and round robin format? The creator of team tournaments could choose what type of tournament people would play.

I don't know if this possibility is difficult to implement, but would be fun to change the type of tournament. Single elimination tournament is a bad option for team tournaments, so we would have others types of team tournaments...

Coan.net, what do you think about a public opinion poll about these ideas? :)

Owari/Oware should be introduced it is better than Mancala that is a fairly trivial win for the starter!

Oware is a theoretical draw and has a lot more depth than mancala!

When a piece has been landed on it is hard to know who is the blocked player and how many pieces are on the point, it just look like the graphic has failed to load properly.

Since becoming a pawn again today, my pond disappeared. I guess this means pawns can't even complete the ponds they are in the middle of playing? Seems a little draconian, but oh well.

grenv: I agree. Pawn ought to at least be able to finish the ones they're in. It stinks to play in a pond where others downgrade to pawns almost as much as it does to be the one who downgrades. This would benefit all pond players.

Thad: now the fun thoughts start. aha, a pawn in the pond. Hmm, no * near the last bet, so he wasn't a pawn then... now did he think of placing a new bet before reverting? risky! mark this pond to be checked one minute before the target date, the joker might have set it so to re-buy membership just before, to plunge us all...

rabbitoid: I thought pond games were about making good (and sometimes lucky) bets, not about stalking your opponents and checking and rechecking to see who has been online right before deadlines. ;-)

Thad: Turns out Rabbitoid didn't move and dropped out of the pond,. whereas I got the bonus and stayed in :)

It is kind of stupid though, in every other game or tournament I could finish, but not this one? Stupid or retarded, not sure what the best description is.

grenv: After all, missed the deadline. Part of the fun too...

grenv:
I expect the point is that if you are deemed to lose a game your opponent is also penalised in that a possibly interesting game is cut short. In a pond you are one of many so you are affected much more than your opponents, for whom the pond goes on.

Justaminute: Just doesn't seem like the site gains anything... i'm not going to pay membership just to finish 1 pond... so all that is achieved is that you piss people off.... not a good marketing strategy.

I think of it this way, if you sat down and made up a game, would you make it the way Ponds are now? Or would you make it the way it 'should' be? I think almost everyone would design it in the most sensible way, which is to allow everyone to play until they fall, even if it means giving away a few extra days of eligibility to someone whose paid membership has expired.

It also seems that the goodwill gained by allowing players to finish their ponds, rather than marring the game for everyone still in it would be worth it.

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.

coan.net: I'm fine with only paying members being allowed to play in ponds. I think that's a good incentive to buy a membership here, but ya still gotta allow players who's paid membership expires finish their current ponds. It only makes sense.

i'm still in... at this rate i could last a few more rounds :)

grenv: There were even instances where a pawn actually won a pond :)

Could not auto-pass work, even when you need to roll the dice but there is no way on (ie all the opponent's home squares are blocked). In a real otb game, I would just sit back and wait for the other uy to clear a space. No way do I roll the dice!!

tonyh: not when there's a doubling cube
ok, little chance the guy would double when he needs to enter into a blocked home, but still, it's a legal move.

tonyh:  LOL...every so often in such cases in over-the-board play, I do roll the dice (and I feel like an idiot).  Mostly because I've gotten so used to having to roll in online play!

does anybody know the game Salta ??

rabbitoid: Simple solution; have a button next to "move" that says "move and autopass" - which you click when you know you don't want to double...

grenv: Sounds good to me, grenv

tonyh: What's the point? it wouldn't be "auto", the guy still has to click. As it is, you click twice: once on the "roll dice" then a "move" button. your way it would save one click. big deal

rabbitoid: I think that "move and autopass" would tell the server that the player won't double in the next turn. So if he can't move a checker then, the server will autopass instead of giving him the opportunity to double.

Good idea, BTW.

Thom27: Correct, and it would continue to autopass from then on until a move is possible.

grenv: Correct; that is a good option. Gets the game moe like real life.

tonyh:  It can be a dangerous option.  I can see how you might regret having chosen it, if your opponent happened to roll some anti-jokers.

wetware: What are 'anti-jokers'? And you do realise that, as soon as there is a space, you would be rolling the dice again.

tonyh: Ahh...I see what you mean.  Sounds good in theory, but I'm not a fan of the dice-rolling routines here.  It's a looooooong story...

Anti-joker:  a very bad dice roll--opposite of a "joker".  In this context, a roll or series of rolls that would force a player to leave a home board blot or blots.