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.
Zoznam diskusných klubov
Nie je vám dovolené písať správy do tohto klubu. Minimálna úroveň členstva vyžadovaná na písanie v tomto klube je Brain jazdec.
I often find myself spending a lot of time searching through the tournament list to find open games that need only *one more player* so they would start immediately. What about a filter in the tournament page to show only those? If you are looking for new games to start now, you sign up for some of the shown tournaments, and minutes later you have lots of games going. I would consider that a great feature.
I am sure this has been discussed before, but I can not remember ... why not putting this small and useful red number of games waiting etc. next to the poker-tables, too (number of people sitting at the poker tables) to make the poker-section more attractive?
How about games where other players can suggest moves during the game? Both players will have to agree that other players can join in at anytime of the game. Perhaps this could work on games that require chance or skill. I remember the Kasparov vs the world chess games where everyone against Kasparov could suggest a move.
ketchuplover: I think that never should be the spirit of playing a game for fun. Imagine you playing a game of Yatzee at home and a family member states that you can never win, would you resign?
how about showing the potential highest score a player could receive after each move? If a player sees that (s)he is mathematically incapable of not losing they could resign a lost cause. And or have the system keep track and say (at the appropriate time) "You can only lose this game. Do you want to resign now? YES or NO?
Fencer...I know you are VERY busy working on the Android Application right now but could you have a little think about something else please
I am sure it was mentioned years ago....
Can you think of a way where Fellowship Tournament Winners can Automatically get posted to a Fellowship Discussion Board rather than our Event Box.
For example, something in Settings where those messages could either arrive in the Event Box or get diverted & the contents posted as a Message on a DB of our choice (as many Fellowships have boards for results anyway)
Would be a lovely thing to have mainly for those who run Fellowships with LOTS of Tournaments & Results to let others know about as trust me once you fall behind it is a nightmare to catch up
SchlagerPower: Schlagerpower, you will not get more participants by posting your tournament multiple times and in the wrong discussion boards, you will just get the opposite effect. It is like obnoxious advertisements this way.
diogenysos: The problem is that the BKR is calculated by the number of played games. You can multiply that by 3, but after a while you will get the same problem.
So your BKR increases double/triple and you not just get 2 or 3 points for winning the game... . And the BKR of he opponent decreases twice/three times as much as in a normal game... .
Would make the hunt for being under the top rated players much more interesting - and as the gammon varaints are very popular here it would make sense offering this.
People could decide before starting the game if they wanted to chose this option, like outopass... .
joshi tm: I am quite busy developing the Android application so until is it finished, new games are not very likely. After that, there is a good chance because I've already received some very nice tips.
There is the score of games shown which are finished with one particular player. But not the draws.
Say I played three games against somebody. Lost two and drew one. The score still shows 2:0 and not 2,5:0,5.
I would like to see the exact score instead of the gap between the players, because the drawn game, "winning" half a point maybe against a much better player, should be "respected too... :-)
Dont think it would be lot of programming to change this easy function, hm?
Reiner Knizia, one of the biggest game designer of all times, in his book "Dice Games Properly Explained" gives a very interesting way of playing category dice games, like Yahtzi, General and others. The whole idea is not to count and add points collected in each category and sum them at the bottom, but to reward the first player to score in each category OR the one who scored the highest point in category. There are two types categories. 1-6 categories, 3 of a kind, 4 of a kind, 5, 6, Chance and the second type which include fixed points like straights, Towers, Cars or Full House. So, the player who gets the highest score in the first type category (let's say 12 points when 3's are scored) gets 2 points for this row. In the second type of categories (with fixed points) the player who gets there FIRST scores 1 point.
In my opinion this way of playing makes the game more exciting. It's more like fighting for the holes on golf course. We are not fighting for the overall score but for each and every category. It changes our tactics and strategy significantly.
likewowman2cool: take the average of the one team and the aeverage rating of the other; after the end of the game, add or subtract the difference from the individual ratings
Aganju: thats exactly what happened to me and therefore I decided to put it in here for discussion - because the less exact time control removes this advantage...
diogenysos: Be aware though, that that is a valid and accepted strategy in real-life games - making complicated or surprising moves to have your opponent time out. The point here is more that there is an arbitrary 1 - 10 minute extra time before time-out, which makes it random. It could even happen that your opponent has -9 minutes and you have 0 minutes, and just when the demon comes by, it is your move, so you *lose*. And a malicious opponent could even use that - if you watch the timeouts taking effect in the system, you can time the demon's arrival up to 1 or 2 seconds, so you could make a move right before that... I agree with you that a game where seconds count should have a more exact time control that ~10 minutes.
Fencer: I see. Yes I can imagine that BK is growing and after a while some components do not work well with each other any longer.
I would appreciate a revision, as I think that an exact time-control would give those fast games more thrill and as many players calculate with their opponents timing out and do, for example, strange and difficult moves just in order to make their opponents think longer and use more time.
diogenysos: You know, the timeout system had been created a long time before introducing 1 hour games, so it is possible that it is not the best suitable solution for this specific time control. I'll look at it.
Playing an one-hour game with six minutes left and the opponent was at zero. The game continued with me - well - not watching the game any longer with full concentration, just waiting for the opponent to time out. Finally, I lost by a sudden checkmate which was to be avoided easily by playing a little more defensive.
My feature request is more a question: Isnt it possible to make a better and more exact programming in order to play games with clear and exact rules?
It would be nice if we could have Havannah here. It was created by Christian Freeling (I hope I've spely his name correctly, it might be Freeleng).
It's played on a hexagonal board and uses black and white stones, like Go. Unlike Go the goal is not to make territory or capture pieces but to make one of three configurations before one's opponent: a ring; a connection from one "corner" to another; or a fork connecting three edges (the corner hexes are not considered part of the edge).
There are other places where I can play it, but it would be nice if it was available here. Obviously I can't speak for Christian, but I don't think he would have any objections to Havannah being added to BrainKing's repertoire of games if he were asked. He has a website called MindSports, and he also plays at Itsyourturn. I think he considers himself a game inventor rather than a game player...
Excuse me if this was not the correct way of broaching this topic. :D
rod03801: Well aware of that, still not helping me much... a "go to next tournament game" option is what I still want to see. Why? I am not someone who plays a lot of tourney games, but I would prefer to not be the hold up in completing a tourney... additionally, I sometimes go long stretches (a week) without playing more than a few games. So, when I do play ten to fifty games a light night (opposed to some nights when I will plays thousands), I would prefer it to be a tourney game opposed to something other. Does that make sense?
I did a quick search to see if this has been asked before but I didn't find much...
Would it be possible to have a "go to next tournament game" option? I don't want to delay any tournaments I am (they take long enough as is!!!) in and I would prefer to play all of my tournament games each day despite the long time limits as to not be the bottleneck in the tourney... also, I would prefer to not go through 2, 5, or even 10 pages to click each game... Any thoughts on if this can be done? It would certainly be on my short list of selected sumbit move actions!!!
pgt: I don't see why each player shouldn't be able to set the default for who goes first to whomever they want. You can have white (or black) and I can have random. ;-)
Thad:The default now is that the inviting player is white, but irt can always be changed. What I was suggesting was that the default was black (but could always be changed by the inviting player)