Ladder limit

Dear all,

In the ladders section, one can read "Sorry, ladders are only available to subscribers because of the 6 game limit."

I don't understand the "because ..." part. With a ladder you only commit yourself to a maximum of 2 games, so what does the 6 game limit has to do with it?

I come from chess.com and I'm comparing both sites, to see which I like most. Chess.com seems to have a better iPad client, but RHP seems also to have nice features which chess.com doesn't have, ladders being one of them. However, newcomers can't test whether they really like ladders, without first paying the subscription fee. I was surprised by this marketing decision: How can you make people addicted to ladders, if they can't taste it first?

Originally posted by Towerwood
Dear all,

In the ladders section, one can read "Sorry, ladders are only available to subscribers because of the 6 game limit."

I don't understand the "because ..." part. With a ladder you only commit yourself to a maximum of 2 games, so what does the 6 game limit has to do with it?

I come from chess.com and I'm comparing both sites, to see which I ...[text shortened]... ng decision: How can you make people addicted to ladders, if they can't taste it first?

To 'partially' answer your note here; There is a problem with folk 'disappearing' from ladders...too many games are literally left in limbo when players just leave them unattended, then it's up to the site to kick the player in favour of the challenger. No disrespect intended, but if subscribers can't rely upon other subscribers ( with unlimited games to play or do away with at their leisure ), to continue the ladder, then what hope with the number of non subs that 'come and go' here.
Besides, the topic has been raised with the site owners on a number of occasions, everything from non subs playing in 'one off' tourney's to the ladder games that you raise here... these were all ideas to 'lure' the non sub into subscribing but the owners are content that what they offer to all is consistent, and comparable, with what is offered elsewhere. The fact remains, however, that the $20 or $30 sub is by far and away the cheapest of the 'good' internet chess sites that are available...and NO, I am not a shareholder here 😉

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question!
Fair enough, I understand they want to restrict the ladders to people who have shown some commitment, to reduce the number of dropouts.

That said, I still would suggest to the owners to remove the "because of the 6 game limit" part, and only mention "Sorry, ladders are only available to subscribers." As explained in my previous post, this would make more sense to me. Another reason that prompted my question is that even as a subscriber I would only rarely play more than 6 games simultaneously.

Perhaps some suggestions (although I realize that the owners are probably not short of suggestions :-):

- Create a ladder that only people with less than 40 games can participate to. This should give you a good taste of it. If you want more: subscribe.

- Create for each member a "karma". This number would reflect what fraction (over the last X months or X games) you lost due to time-out. Only people with enough karma would be allowed to ladders. If you don't have enough karma, no problem: start finishing games properly and it will go up automatically.

Originally posted by Towerwood
Thanks for taking the time to answer my question!
Fair enough, I understand they want to restrict the ladders to people who have shown some commitment, to reduce the number of dropouts.

That said, I still would suggest to the owners to remove the "because of the 6 game limit" part, and only mention "Sorry, ladders are only available to subscribers." A ...[text shortened]... enough karma, no problem: start finishing games properly and it will go up automatically.

The actual point of the sentence is that participants of the ladder can be challenged any time 8and need to be) . The non-subscribers could find the loophole to imidiately get a new game as soon as a ladder challenge ends. Then they either have to get 7 games or can't be challenged, so the reasoning that the limit is the point stands.

However you coould suggest your point at the Site Ideas. I see the problem 😉