grenv: It's still dice dependable anyway

grenv: White has a small advantage since the get to roll first, but it is small. Most games last 40 or more moves so it helps lessen the effect. But it is still an advantage.

pauloaguia: I thought white had the first roll (I know they can't actually move a piece until a 6 is rolled, but the first attempt is an obvious advantage)

grenv: the player who starts first in Ludo is also dependent on the rolls of the dice. According to your own logic, there's "obviously not an advantage" there either ;)

hexkid: Backgammon is obviously not an advantage since there is a random roll to see who starts anyway.

However Ludo does probably have a slight advantage since it's essentially a race.

hexkid: ok, i wasnt to sure which type of game safarigal was referring to, but i understand now what you mean.

WatfordFC: Every game has different percentages :)



Backgammon: 49.66 vs 50.27%
Ludo: 52.06 vs 47.67%
Five in Line: 57.05 vs 42.06%
Horde Chess: 69.60 vs 26.15%
Maharajah Chess: 29.84 vs 61.98%

So, I'd say colour doesn't matter for Backgammon or Ludo, White has a small advantage in Five in Line, and a big advantage in Horde Chess. Black has a big advantage in Maharajah Chess.

hexkid: ah right, ok, thanks for that. Is that for every type of game

WatfordFC: Every game rules page has a little table at the beginning with the percentage of wins for White and Black. For instance, PahTum's percentages are:

white 11354 (54.58 %)
black 6559 (31.53 %)
Draws 2886 (13.87 %)

As you can see, apparently it's better to play with white in this game.

King Reza:

 WatfordFC:

King Reza: ah right, i didnt know that, because i dont play those games.

WatfordFC:It does affect the outcome if you're playing Maharajah Chess, or Hord Chess.

SafariGal: Also i really didnt think that the colour you are makes any difference to the outcome of the game, but i stand to be corrected on that one.

WatfordFC: exactly, there is a work around

SafariGal: If they resign a game and no moves have been made then their BKR wont be effected. If they finish a game and more than 2 moves have been made then they BKR would be effected, so abit of a silly thing to do, if thats what they are doing.

SafariGal: there may always be mean persons ;)

Mr. Shumway: This would also be nice !

Mr. Shumway: isnt it possible to cancel a game if you havent made too many moves. If so, isnt it possible someone would keep cancelling until they got to play the color they wanted?

nabla: That was the reason for my request of randomly chosen colors after a waiting game is accepted - you only have one game, and the amount of black/white would be balanced over the long run.

volant: I think it is impossible to do now and it would be a nice feature. I see so many times someone posting something like 6 waiting games with each color in some unbalanced game, and some time later there are still 5 black games available but only 1 white game - which mean that the contenders take the white challenges but ignore the black ones.
To get around that, you can offer two-games match, but those are then counted (statistics- and rating-wise) as only one game.

mako887:
scrabble = good
upwords = excellent
but I think there are copyright issues...

gambler104: my bad, I didn't explain very well. What I was thinking was a way to put a game/s in waiting game in pairs. So when someone came in and accepted the two players would automatically wind up with two games one of each color. 

volant: sure. when you set up your games, click the number of games you want and then click the box that says "alternate colors".

Don't know if this has been asked before
Could it be possible to set up a game/games in waiting games in pairs one each of black starts and one of white starts.

As BBW said, this board needs to get back to Feature Requests!!! Thank you very much!

** Some posts have been removed **

SafariGal: Wouldn't it be more simple to just go to the Discussion Board List, and expand it to all boards & languages? Then you could see all the public boards that are available on this site.

But lets get this board back to feature requests please.

Any chance of getting a "Scrabble" type game on this site? I think others would be interested in it.

Unrated Simulcast turn based tourney....

gambler104: true

but maybe some kind of tournament could be arranged in which a higher ranked player has to win against more opponents to continue than the lower players themselves ?

maybe a higher ranked player has to play against a team of lower ranked players and the higher ranked player has to win at least 66% of the matches to continue to the next round, if the lower ranked team wins more than 33% then they continue ?

Daniel Snyder: In a way, you can't play a simulation in turn-based games. The nature of a simulation is that one very good player plays lots of average or good players at once. Theoretically, this gives the lower players a chance since the very good player has less time to spend focusing on each of his moves. But on a turn-based side, this is impossible.

Ever thought of having a tourney of 1 vs 5 or 10 players?

Since we have random games now, I would like to warm up the idea of random colors for game invitations - so that one can choose wether to set the color manually as it is now, or to let the system set them randomly after the invite was accepted

jurek: Yes, I guess the list of member benefits should be updated. It's much much longer.

Fencer: OK, thanks. I didn't see it in the list of member benefits, so I assumed it didn't exist for anyone.

jurek: Paying members have an option to put any page to the context menu, accessible anywhere by a right-click.

This may have already been requested, but I would like to see a "Watched" list, where you can add and remove other players' games that you want to keep track of as a spectator.

Sarah1980: and yahtzee ... fun and easy :)
(maybe with a doubling cube ;))

yeah like word games

Ok.. this board is not meant for debating new features! :-D ... Please let's get back to requesting new features.
Feel free to take it to General Chat or Members Only to continue the conversation about "slow" players. Thanks.

CryingLoser: But in a tournement with short time limits would get rid of the slow players that you don't care about and give you free points. I know you want to learn but the majority of people are not going to time out. I think the majority of players on here play before the time runs out they just sort there games by how much time is left so a 7 day game will be played last but a 1 day game may get played a lot more often.

grenv: Upps, have overseen that.
SafariGal: Sorry, SafariGal, and i agree 100% with your idea

CryingLoser: I can't take credit for that, it was SafariGal that thought of it, I just seconded it. :)

mctrivia: Wouldn't making a terniment or game with aproprietly short time limits do the exact same thing?

No, it wouldn't. The same idea was some messages before written with title "Simple Solution?", but the idea misses an important point:

When someone creates a tournament in a new game (example: Fabrice in his excellent game "Ambiguous
Chess"), then his main motivation is to discover some strategy of the game, opening theory, etc.
Even if he creates a tournament with only 1 day per move, this doesn't prevent slow players to join in and then lose by time. You may think that then all is OK, they lost and are "punished" and the faster players have the winning point. But the intention of the tournament was to learn something about the strategy of the game and not an easy winning point by timeout!
So, to create a tournament with short time limit is not enough to prevent slow players to do harm against the intention of the tournament.
Therefore, i tried to give this species some name, remember "Specialist" or "Unrestricted Mover", hoping that would make it easier to take measures against this phenomenon.
The suggested names were 0-1-variables, only to make difference between "Specialist" and "Not specialist", but now grenv has suggested a rating, which measures even between the 0-1-extremes "how much specialist" a player is!
I think this includes the solution of the problem, and agree 100% with the suggestion of grenv, as always his idea is convincing!

SafariGal: Wouldn't making a terniment or game with aproprietly short time limits do the exact same thing? There is an entire fellowship of people you can play that like to play quick.

SafariGal: Quite right, for instance I'm not moving now because I have no games where it's my move. So that might look slow ;-)

grenv: exactly right grenv, the point mctrivia makes on this is irrelevant to the speed rating.

A different rating may be an average of time it takes for a player to actually make a move when it is their turn. This would be more accurate than my first suggestion. If mctrivia modified his post a little, maybe he meant that in a 7 day game your opponent can take all 7 days, you can then move immediately but it is still only one move in 7 days making you look bad.

Something more along the lines of the time taken feature at goldtoken but get an average per move, this way your slow opponents wouldnt affect your speed rating.

So mctrivia, indirectly, thank you very much for pointing out a flaw in my original idea :)

mctrivia: you missed the point of the rating, which would be "how quickly does this player play". Playing once every 7 days in a 7 day game is not the same as playing 10 times a day in the same game.

SafariGal: the problem with a rating like that is it does not take into consideration how long they have to make a move. If a player only plays games with 7day + limits because they know they are busy and can only play once a week they should still have a perfect score as long as they always play atleast once a week.