Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Help Forum

Help Forum

  1. Standard member flexmore
    Quack Quack Quack !
    31 May '04 11:41
    just a thought - as if russ hasn't already got enough on his plate....

    if the list for one of the castles was ordered, not by time of entry to the list but instead, by highest rated player first.
  2. Subscriber Russ
    RHP Code Monkey
    31 May '04 13:52 / 1 edit
    I have been contemplating where to go with the sieges for sometime. Obviously we need more boards, and this should happen quite soon, but I haven’t really thought about different queue rules such as this.

    -Russ
  3. Standard member SirLoseALot
    Shut Gorohoviy!
    31 May '04 17:52
    Originally posted by flexmore
    just a thought - as if russ hasn't already got enough on his plate....

    if the list for one of the castles was ordered, not by time of entry to the list but instead, by highest rated player first.
    Wait a minute.If I understand it correct,then when a 1500 joins a queue,he pushes down all players rated below him!!??
    Lower rates will never get to the top!
    And then I won't even start about why a higher rate should get priority over a lower rate in the first place.
    I vote NO!

    Sir Lot.
  4. Standard member flexmore
    Quack Quack Quack !
    01 Jun '04 11:13 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by SirLoseALot
    Wait a minute.If I understand it correct,then when a 1500 joins a queue,he pushes down all players rated below him!!??
    Lower rates will never get to the top!
    And then I won't even start about why a higher rate should get priority over a lower rate in the first place.
    I vote NO!

    Sir Lot.
    hang on there fella - the idea is NOT intended for all sieges - NO WAY!

    it is only intended for just one or two of them of them, it would be incredibly difficult to hold one of these castles because you would be fending off high rated players constantly; it would guaruntee the owner a constant stream of very tough opponents.

    players like you and me we would never get to participate - but we would get to watch some classy struggles!
  5. Standard member flexmore
    Quack Quack Quack !
    01 Jun '04 11:36
    Originally posted by flexmore
    if the list for one of the castles was ordered, not by time of entry to the list but instead, by highest rated player first.
    i would suggest one with timeout 1 days and timebank 14 days,

    and another with with timebank 7 days and 28 timebank.

    i would also suggest not allowing entry into the list if you played in the last ten games of that castle.

    further - i think it would be nice to have castles where the "king" is white.
  6. 01 Jun '04 12:27
    Actually, sieges that were banded would be cool. You'd have to be below the maximum rating when joining and when starting your fight. If you aren't eligible when the actual game starts, you are skipped.

    Unlimited
    below 1700
    below 1400
    below 1199

    Either grid them with different timeouts, or make it 3/7. My theory is that if you want to take/hold a castle, you need to be somewhat active on the site. Attacks on castles that last several months aren't necessarily the best for maintaining interest.
  7. Standard member flexmore
    Quack Quack Quack !
    01 Jun '04 12:36 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Pie1120
    Actually, sieges that were banded would be cool. You'd have to be below the maximum rating when joining and when starting your fight. If you aren't eligible when the actual game starts, you are skipped.

    Unlimited
    below 1700
    below 1 ...[text shortened]... eral months aren't necessarily the best for maintaining interest.
    mmmm .... nice intentions, but unfortunately i dont think this would work - ironman was rated 1200 not long ago ..... which genuine 1200 player could take him out?
  8. Standard member SirLoseALot
    Shut Gorohoviy!
    01 Jun '04 16:43
    Originally posted by flexmore
    hang on there fella - the idea is NOT intended for all sieges - NO WAY!

    it is only intended for just one or two of them of them, it would be incredibly difficult to hold one of these castles because you would be fending off high rated players constantly; it would guaruntee the owner a constant stream of very tough opponents.

    players like you and me we would never get to participate - but we would get to watch some classy struggles!
    Ah!Sounds a lot better
  9. Standard member Marinkatomb
    wotagr8game
    01 Jun '04 22:51
    You realize that if this was in place, Bbarr could loose a siege (if he already held the castle) and re-enter it straight away because he is the highest rated player.
  10. Standard member flexmore
    Quack Quack Quack !
    02 Jun '04 00:05
    Originally posted by marinakatomb
    You realize that if this was in place, Bbarr could loose a siege (if he already held the castle) and re-enter it straight away because he is the highest rated player.
    it would depend on the implementation - people could be barred from reentering the line if they were one of the last few challengers - otherwise the castle owner might get "bbarred" to death.

    either way the owner of the castle would get a continual stream of very tough opponents .... scary ain't it !!!
  11. Standard member Saint Nick
    Pimp of the elves
    02 Jun '04 01:30
    Good idea flex, here's two more ideas to throw around:
    -How about a clan siege. There could be 1v1, 3v3, 5v5, etc to account for different clan sizes. The clan leader would select which players are entering the siege.....
    - Or how about rating restricted castles. A 1300-1399 castle, a 1400-1499 castle, etc.

    Just a thought....
  12. Standard member flexmore
    Quack Quack Quack !
    02 Jun '04 01:42 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by saintnick
    How about a clan siege. There could be 1v1, 3v3, 5v5, etc to account for different clan sizes. The clan leader would select which players are entering the siege.....
    yes i have suggested this before - i think it is the best future of much clan competition. there would also need to be many different time limits - a lot of castles - and of course a 20 player castle.

    Or how about rating restricted castles. A 1300-1399 castle, a 1400-1499 castle, etc.

    this is doomed i believe - unless you mean to kick the king of the castle out just because his rating goes too high.
    as i said above, ironman and dscp were 1700 not long ago; any 1700 player who could kick him out of his castle is also no 1700 player.
  13. 02 Jun '04 02:22
    Originally posted by flexmore
    mmmm .... nice intentions, but unfortunately i dont think this would work - ironman was rated 1200 not long ago ..... which genuine 1200 player could take him out?
    Actually, it wouldn't be a problem, because with the banded sieges, you would have to qualify when you joined the list AND when you started each match. So if Ironman had qualified for the below 1400 band initially, by the time it was his turn, he would no longer qualify. No problem.
  14. Standard member Saint Nick
    Pimp of the elves
    02 Jun '04 02:41
    Yep, I forget about the rating increase. You would have to kick out the winner or you would have an 1800 as king in the 1200-1299 castle. Thanks, Flex.

    I think clans can go to a clan siege and/or leagues. I would like to see either one happen, but I know Russ and Chris are plenty busy and RHP isn't making thier Ferrari payment for them.
  15. Standard member flexmore
    Quack Quack Quack !
    03 Jun '04 02:00 / 1 edit
    how about a MAP seige?

    crazy short timelimit, and the queue is sorted by moves-this-month,
    entry to queue not allowed if you were in one of the last few challenges.