Update 9/5/13

[TeeGee]

I have to say, updates 6 days apart from one another is very encouraging for the future of this site. Thanks for the updates bigWham and I hope you keep them coming

Without saying too much, keep a regular check on the Announcements page

[Robespierre__]

These additions are really great! Thanks for all your hard work, coding and volunteer team. Keep it up. As someone who is running a large tournament, anything you do that can make mass game creating easier would be *MUCH* appreciated. The greatest would be some methodology that would allow a .csv file or the like be converted into a massive amount of games created. I know that is probably wishful thinking and problematic for the game engine, but I throw it out there. I will go over to the suggestions forum and mention it.

Also, any of you that are not premium members,if you are not in abject poverty, then you need to pony up the nominal sum that the site requests for premium membership in order for your views to carry any weight at all. If you are not even willing to throw $25 to pay for server and development time, then you are just whizzing in the wind IMHO.

Robes

[bigWham]

I'd like to be able to create games with minimum rank requirements. For example, limiting those who can join a game to two ranks below mine and above. This works really well on a chess site I use.

pop on over to the Suggestions forum with your suggestions!

i think that one has been put forward many times but they'll let you know

Unfortunatelly the suggestions forum is not very active right now. I have submitted a couple of ideas lately and got not much answer, mainly from people who said "We don't like your suggestion because it's different to how we are playing now and would force us to change our way of thinking".

let's change that OliverFA!

you, me & the rest of the Club will turn this around!!

you can see Suggestions getting implemented, no? I know we have a lot of catching up to do... but believe me we will be taking Suggs seriously. Aside from implementing suggestions (the important part), the process is being worked on too.

[bigWham]

I'd like to be able to create games with minimum rank requirements. For example, limiting those who can join a game to two ranks below mine and above. This works really well on a chess site I use.

pop on over to the Suggestions forum with your suggestions!

i think that one has been put forward many times but they'll let you know

Unfortunatelly the suggestions forum is not very active right now. I have submitted a couple of ideas lately and got not much answer, mainly from people who said "We don't like your suggestion because it's different to how we are playing now and would force us to change our way of thinking".

have you got links to those because all i've seen is people point out the flaws with your suggestions.

Lol exactly.
Oliver, this is not someting personal and you seem to see it as such. Your suggestion is an open gate for new types of cheating and abuse (survivor mode). Stop inventing stuff up. I love all novelties and I play all type of games, probably like most people completely against your idea. Most people are against it because of all its flaws, deal with it and stop making stuff up.

Otherwise, bigwham, the minimum\max rank thing has been proposed about a million times. The suggestion moderators just archive it as rejected, with no discution possible. This was lack's vision of the site. It is purely rejected each time because the previous admin was against it. Since this is such a popular request, we would be interested to have your personal opinion on the matter. Is this something that could be reconsidered to satisfy a large part of the community?

Yes, open it back up for consideration.

And OliverFA, do be realzies with your suggestions! Think about compromising, how to make the sugg address the issues people have with it.

[betiko]

I have to say, updates 6 days apart from one another is very encouraging for the future of this site. Thanks for the updates bigWham and I hope you keep them coming

Without saying too much, keep a regular check on the Announcements page

Yup, above expectations! Pretty funny to remember that the platinum medals, which is more or less the only thing done during the reign of el jefe took over 6 month between the anouncement and the resolution of all bugs.

[MoB Deadly]

Wooooooo hoooooo wow... Changes!!!

[OliverFA]

I'd like to be able to create games with minimum rank requirements. For example, limiting those who can join a game to two ranks below mine and above. This works really well on a chess site I use.

pop on over to the Suggestions forum with your suggestions!

i think that one has been put forward many times but they'll let you know

Unfortunatelly the suggestions forum is not very active right now. I have submitted a couple of ideas lately and got not much answer, mainly from people who said "We don't like your suggestion because it's different to how we are playing now and would force us to change our way of thinking".

let's change that OliverFA!

you, me & the rest of the Club will turn this around!!

you can see Suggestions getting implemented, no? I know we have a lot of catching up to do... but believe me we will be taking Suggs seriously. Aside from implementing suggestions (the important part), the process is being worked on too.

I take pride of the Trench settings suggestion (Previously Adjacent Attacks ) Not my own suggestion, and not the only supporter, but with no doubt one of the most active ones. So yes, I saw suggestions implemented even before. Now that you have dinamized the site, we will no doubt see a lot more suggestions implemented

By the way, one suggestion that seems really interesting is the "Infected neutrals" that have been around since I first joined long ago. I am no related in any way with that suggestion, but I think it's worth taking a look at it because adds a complete new dimension without having to program any AI and with a component of predictability that is desirable in an strategy game.

[OliverFA]

I'd like to be able to create games with minimum rank requirements. For example, limiting those who can join a game to two ranks below mine and above. This works really well on a chess site I use.

pop on over to the Suggestions forum with your suggestions!

i think that one has been put forward many times but they'll let you know

Unfortunatelly the suggestions forum is not very active right now. I have submitted a couple of ideas lately and got not much answer, mainly from people who said "We don't like your suggestion because it's different to how we are playing now and would force us to change our way of thinking".

have you got links to those because all i've seen is people point out the flaws with your suggestions.

Lol exactly.
Oliver, this is not someting personal and you seem to see it as such. Your suggestion is an open gate for new types of cheating and abuse (survivor mode). Stop inventing stuff up. I love all novelties and I play all type of games, probably like most people completely against your idea. Most people are against it because of all its flaws, deal with it and stop making stuff up.

Otherwise, bigwham, the minimum\max rank thing has been proposed about a million times. The suggestion moderators just archive it as rejected, with no discution possible. This was lack's vision of the site. It is purely rejected each time because the previous admin was against it. Since this is such a popular request, we would be interested to have your personal opinion on the matter. Is this something that could be reconsidered to satisfy a large part of the community?

Maybe I misunderstand things, but those criticisms appeared to me far from constructive and more like "no because no", that's why I get tired of answering them. No point in getting angry about that. However, I promise to take a look at it with a fresh approach and try to improve my suggestions.

[iAmCaffeine]

Great work. As always, I really appreciate your work rds, blake and others involved. And bigWham, you've made a huge impression almost instantly.

[The Dominatrix]

Since yesterday I have only been able to play one game at a time every time I go in to create a game error button comes up why?????

[DoomYoshi]

Re betiko:Max rank has not been rejected.

Re OliverFA: I don't like the Survivor mode because stacking players (which are present in very many escalators and even win some of them) will get more of a reason to just stack.

[blakebowling]

Since yesterday I have only been able to play one game at a time every time I go in to create a game error button comes up why?????

What error are you receiving?

[OliverFA]

Re betiko:Max rank has not been rejected.

Re OliverFA: I don't like the Survivor mode because stacking players (which are present in very many escalators and even win some of them) will get more of a reason to just stack.

You are judging a setting just by one of many options. Not all settings will work equally good with all the different options.

[Shannon Apple]

Otherwise, bigwham, the minimum\max rank thing has been proposed about a million times. The suggestion moderators just archive it as rejected, with no discution possible. This was lack's vision of the site. It is purely rejected each time because the previous admin was against it. Since this is such a popular request, we would be interested to have your personal opinion on the matter. Is this something that could be reconsidered to satisfy a large part of the community?

Yes, open it back up for consideration.

Good to hear. I would definitely welcome this as well.

[Lindax]

=D>

Otherwise, bigwham, the minimum\max rank thing has been proposed about a million times. The suggestion moderators just archive it as rejected, with no discution possible. This was lack's vision of the site. It is purely rejected each time because the previous admin was against it. Since this is such a popular request, we would be interested to have your personal opinion on the matter. Is this something that could be reconsidered to satisfy a large part of the community?

Yes, open it back up for consideration.

Good to hear. I would definitely welcome this as well.

I would still like to see a system (mainly for speed games) where you can set up a game with the ante being 10, 20 or 30 points (for example). If you join, no matter your rank, you play for those points.

Example: I set up a 7 player escalating speed game with an ante of 20 points. The winner takes 120 points, the rest lose 20 points.

As an added option it would make speed games a lot more attractive.

Lx

PS: I can't post in the game chat of games I'm not in. Is that another update? If so, I don't like it....

[blakebowling]

PS: I can't post in the game chat of games I'm not in. Is that another update? If so, I don't like it....

This is actually a bug. I've now fixed it.

[VicFontaine]

=D>

Otherwise, bigwham, the minimum\max rank thing has been proposed about a million times. The suggestion moderators just archive it as rejected, with no discution possible. This was lack's vision of the site. It is purely rejected each time because the previous admin was against it. Since this is such a popular request, we would be interested to have your personal opinion on the matter. Is this something that could be reconsidered to satisfy a large part of the community?

Yes, open it back up for consideration.

Good to hear. I would definitely welcome this as well.

I would still like to see a system (mainly for speed games) where you can set up a game with the ante being 10, 20 or 30 points (for example). If you join, no matter your rank, you play for those points.

Example: I set up a 7 player escalating speed game with an ante of 20 points. The winner takes 120 points, the rest lose 20 points.

As an added option it would make speed games a lot more attractive.

Lx

PS: I can't post in the game chat of games I'm not in. Is that another update? If so, I don't like it....

Could be neat, but would almost nullify the ranking system completely since a cook could "gamble" 700 points and...well.

[maasman]

=D>

Otherwise, bigwham, the minimum\max rank thing has been proposed about a million times. The suggestion moderators just archive it as rejected, with no discution possible. This was lack's vision of the site. It is purely rejected each time because the previous admin was against it. Since this is such a popular request, we would be interested to have your personal opinion on the matter. Is this something that could be reconsidered to satisfy a large part of the community?

Yes, open it back up for consideration.

Good to hear. I would definitely welcome this as well.

I would still like to see a system (mainly for speed games) where you can set up a game with the ante being 10, 20 or 30 points (for example). If you join, no matter your rank, you play for those points.

Example: I set up a 7 player escalating speed game with an ante of 20 points. The winner takes 120 points, the rest lose 20 points.

As an added option it would make speed games a lot more attractive.

Lx

PS: I can't post in the game chat of games I'm not in. Is that another update? If so, I don't like it....

Could be neat, but would almost nullify the ranking system completely since a cook could "gamble" 700 points and...well.

Easy fix there, just set the limit to the current ones, 1-100 points lost. Plus, who the hell would join that game

[rdsrds2120]

I feel like this could be abused by friends...I'll be sure to discuss it with BigWham!

BMO

[patrickaa317]

=D>

Otherwise, bigwham, the minimum\max rank thing has been proposed about a million times. The suggestion moderators just archive it as rejected, with no discution possible. This was lack's vision of the site. It is purely rejected each time because the previous admin was against it. Since this is such a popular request, we would be interested to have your personal opinion on the matter. Is this something that could be reconsidered to satisfy a large part of the community?

Yes, open it back up for consideration.

Good to hear. I would definitely welcome this as well.

I would still like to see a system (mainly for speed games) where you can set up a game with the ante being 10, 20 or 30 points (for example). If you join, no matter your rank, you play for those points.

Example: I set up a 7 player escalating speed game with an ante of 20 points. The winner takes 120 points, the rest lose 20 points.

As an added option it would make speed games a lot more attractive.

Lx

PS: I can't post in the game chat of games I'm not in. Is that another update? If so, I don't like it....

Could be neat, but would almost nullify the ranking system completely since a cook could "gamble" 700 points and...well.

Easy fix there, just set the limit to the current ones, 1-100 points lost. Plus, who the hell would join that game

Definitely not a fan of this idea. A lot of people would play games for 1 point. A lot of farming would be done against the noobs that think they can win 50 points, etc. All I see is potential for abuse and people working the system on this.

[greenoaks]

Definitely not a fan of this idea. A lot of people would play games for 1 point. A lot of farming would be done against the noobs that think they can win 50 points, etc. All I see is potential for abuse and people working the system on this.

that's the way i see it too.

[Shannon Apple]

Not sure if that's what Lindax meant. If something like that was set up, the "ante" should be 20 points and 20 points only. No matter who joins, it would be as if they are all on equal points. There should be no option for a bigger gamble. That is the only fair-ish way of doing it and it would prevent points abuse to some degree. However, farmers would have a great time taking points from cooks with that system without risk.

Yeah. Anything that has the potential to be grossly abused by dishonest people shouldn't happen, but definitely liking the idea of putting a range on the points that can join games that you create. Although that limit should be within reason. It would have almost the same effect as what Lindax said without anyone being able to abuse it.

[Swifte]

The whole point of the current scoring system is that if a stronger player plays a weaker player (in terms of their relative scores) the stronger player should be rewarded less for the win, as they would be expected to win more often. The higher ranked player correspondingly risks losing more points if the fall to a weaker opponent.

In an ante system, the stronger player can win a disproportionately high number of points from weaker opponents, while risking relatively fewer points (since everyone contributes the same number of points to the pot) - every point farmer in his right mind would rather play these kinds of games than games under the current system - less risked, easier potential for gain against the same lesser opponents.

I don't think an ante system could co-exist with the current scoring system at all.

[jimboy]

The whole point of the current scoring system is that if a stronger player plays a weaker player (in terms of their relative scores) the stronger player should be rewarded less for the win, as they would be expected to win more often. The higher ranked player correspondingly risks losing more points if the fall to a weaker opponent.

In an ante system, the stronger player can win a disproportionately high number of points from weaker opponents, while risking relatively fewer points (since everyone contributes the same number of points to the pot) - every point farmer in his right mind would rather play these kinds of games than games under the current system - less risked, easier potential for gain against the same lesser opponents.

I don't think an ante system could co-exist with the current scoring system at all.

I completely agree with Swifte's statements on this matter. An ante system will be a farmers paradise.

[Paddy The Cat]

The bigWham has not been a let down thus far!