What does everyone think about the Sieges ? With only four castles for each time out level and 30+ people on the list, it seems out of balance. Take the worst case example the 14 day timeout castle, if I was to join it now there is no guarantee that I wuld actually play a game before 2005.
I am not saying the feature is bad nor am I offering solutions. I just want to see what other people think.
cheers
trekkie
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
think of them as a little acorn invested for the future. There you are a few months down the line and up pops one out of the blue that you had nearly forgot about. A nice welcome suprise.
Maybe tables of a certain quality could be interesting, 1100 - 1250, 1250 - 1400 and all that. But I suppose to work you would need a system that kicked people off the table once their rating got above the threshold or it would not be fair.
But, on the whole I think they are a good idea. Winner stays on!!!
Andrew
The 14-day castles are nonsense. I have calculated that with an average of about 25 moves (50 half-moves) per game, and when everyone uses his 14-day timeout fully (so this is the worst-case scenario) the last person (no 30) on the list would have to wait almost 60 YEARS to play his game. A bit over the top, IMO.
Originally posted by pidermanshould the waiting lists be shortened to just 3 or 4? This might not be as 'fair' as everyone waiting in line, but it might mean theat people in the list are still interested in playing the game when their turn comes because they haven't been waiting for years (even in the 1 day seiges no. 30 on the list is liekly to wait 4 years to get a go).
The 14-day castles are nonsense. I have calculated that with an average of about 25 moves (50 half-moves) per game, and when everyone uses his 14-day timeout fully (so this is the worst-case scenario) the last person (no 30) on the list wo ...[text shortened]... to wait almost 60 YEARS to play his game. A bit over the top, IMO.
Otherwise there will only be 2 sorts of people - those who don't sign up for seiges because the wait is so long, those who sign up for seiges not realising the wait will be so long
i think the lists should be shorter,
different lengths for different times,
and that the lists for each time should be converged into one.
lets say for the:
-1 day castles, one list of 8 people feeds into whichever 1 day castle needs a new challenger,
-14 day castles, one list of 4 people feeds into all 4 14 day castles as needed.
the challengers will then not know exactly who they will play, but they will know the time period.
(perhaps a 7 day timebank could be added as well)
Flexmore's suggestion is indeed a good one, though it has been done earlier (that is, the suggestion). There is one downside however to maximizing the number of entrants: if you want to join in the one-day castle for example, and it is full, you almost have to do a 24/7 watch to click at just the right moment when the queue advances one player. That can be a bit annoying.
Originally posted by piderman...but it does mean that the people who want it the most, have really thought about it & want to put the time in have the better chance of getting that spot, as opposed to the open list where the keen have to wait in line against the mildly interested.
Flexmore's suggestion is indeed a good one, though it has been done earlier (that is, the suggestion). There is one downside however to maximizing the number of entrants: if you want to join in the one-day castle for example, and it is full, you almost have to do a 24/7 watch to click at just the right moment when the queue advances one player. That can be a bit annoying.