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

Site Ideas Forum

  1. Standard member flexmore
    Quack Quack Quack !
    04 Apr '05 08:32 / 1 edit
    sieges are stagnating ... low rated players lose interest because they stand no chance of taking, nor holding a castle.
    high rated players lose interest because they face an endless assault from players rated 1000 points lower than them.
    many people like to play against similarly rated opponents.
    the owner of a siege castle could be rewarded with similarly rated opponents ...

    there are 6 colours of boards: Red Green Blue Yellow Purple Orange

    i suggest different rules based on the colour of the board:

    RED BOARD... for lower rated players ... the challenger will be the highest rated player with a rating lower than the siege owner. such a board would end up being owned by lower rated players permanently. it is important that the nearest rated player has first chance ... otherwise a temporarily low rated player could kidnap the board for ever, this way the kidnapper's peers will steal the board back and eventually return it to the rightful owners: the lower rated players.

    GREEN and BLUE and YELLOW and PURPLE BOARDS ... the queue is exactly as it is now: longest waiting player at the top .... high rated and low rated players get to play against each other.

    ORANGE BOARD ... the challenger is the highest rated player in the queue ... a board only for the elite players.
  2. Standard member Toe
    04 Apr '05 11:13
    I don't think your method takes into account peoples rating changes during play, particularly on the longer boards. A good players gets in on a low rating, and the board is forever theres. Which is the same as the current problem though it would take longer to happen.

    What we need to do is get the very good players off boards that lower rated players want to play on.

    When you successfully hold your current board for three challenges, you are shifted to the next higher colour queue, and two new players from the vaccated board's queue start playing on that board.

    And so on: thus the blue boards will end up being only the best players but anyone has a good chance of winning and holding a red for the max of three.

    No max on the top board?

    Perhaps very high-rated players could skip the lowest colour board too?

    This sounds like a completely different thing now. Bah humbug.
  3. Standard member flexmore
    Quack Quack Quack !
    04 Apr '05 11:28
    Originally posted by Toe
    I don't think your method takes into account peoples rating changes during play, particularly on the longer boards. A good players gets in on a low rating, and the board is forever theres. Which is the same as the current problem though it would take longer to happen.

    What we need to do is get the very good players off boards that lower rated players want to ...[text shortened]... the lowest colour board too?

    This sounds like a completely different thing now. Bah humbug.
    my thoughts were focussed on players with changing ratings.

    if a 1900 player sneaks in and snatches the low rated board ... they will then face 1800 players til they lose or draw, the new player will face 1700 players til they lose or draw etc ... and the rating of the siege holder will drop back and back.

    if a player successfully defends their board, then they must have won, and so gain in rating points ... their opponents will then be tougher and tougher til they meet their match.
  4. Standard member Toe
    04 Apr '05 12:00
    Ah I see now. In which case, grand.
    A tweak for red would be:
    If there are players in queue with ratings <= to current owner, then select player with higest rating (or longest wait if duplicates)
    If there are no players with a rating less than the current owner, select lowest rated player in the queue.
    Or something like that.
  5. Standard member Peakite
    Sais
    04 Apr '05 22:41 / 1 edit
    A quick idea or two of my own

    Have the entry levels for each of the boards capped (something like this)

    Red - 1,000
    Green - 1,200
    Blue - 1,450
    Yellow - 1,700
    Purple - 2,000
    Orange - Uncapped

    You queue to enter the siege as a whole - not a specific level. When a board becomes free the first in the queue below the cap gets entered.

    Obviously a player may increase his ranking throughout the course of the games. So the defender can be up to 100 points above the cutoff point (a challenge, but not impossible to lower ranked players), if more than this after winning a game, they immediately become #1 challenger for the next board up.



    A little complicated, and probably flawed.

    But I've just signed up for another game against meman. Need to think a bit more, but then it's probably the equivalent of Stone Dominoes playing down at Anfield.



    Edit: And to the earlier ideas, there needs to be an element of the longer wait, the more likely a game. Under the closest challenger, some people could end up waiting an awful long time.
  6. Standard member flexmore
    Quack Quack Quack !
    07 Apr '05 07:10
    i am a little concerned about people's lack of concern over the sieges ... it is a superb idea, and russ has done 95% of the necesary code work.
    i am sure it is dysfunctional except for only a small tweak ... lets find that tweak.
  7. Standard member flexmore
    Quack Quack Quack !
    07 Apr '05 07:32 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Peakite
    ...
    Red - 1,000
    Green - 1,200
    Blue - 1,450
    Yellow - 1,700
    Purple - 2,000
    Orange - Uncapped
    ...
    nice ideas ...

    have you seen this distribution of rhp players?

    RATING PLAYERS (One dot = 12.5 players.)
    0600s 0006
    0700s 0024..
    0800s 0089........
    0900s 0254....................
    1000s 0611................................................
    1100s 0984..............................................................................
    1200s 1233....................................................................................................
    1300s 1142............................................................................................
    1400s 0769............................................................
    1500s 0500........................................
    1600s 0281........................
    1700s 0140............
    1800s 0079......
    1900s 0041....
    2000s 0015.
    2100s 0023..
    2200s 0013.
    2300s 0001
    2400s 0001


    with your idea, i think the boards would be better as
    Red - 0 to 1,200 (no p1200's)
    Green - 1200 to 1,300
    Blue - 1300 to 1,400
    Yellow - 1400 to 1,600
    Purple - 1600 to 1,900
    Orange - 1900 and up
  8. Standard member Peakite
    Sais
    07 Apr '05 20:57
    Good suggestion, I had seen that distribution when drawing up my numbers, although was influenced by the fact that I'd expect many players to move around quite a bit, so too close together and it might not work so well.

    But your numbers would certainly reduce waits for the modal ranking groups.


    We could always change the number of boards too, some more levels, perhaps reducing some of the more unusal timeout/timebank combinations if the number of boards is wanting to be kept down.
  9. Standard member gumbie
    The man himself
    07 Apr '05 21:35
    I like being able to give meman 6 games whenever I want

    I see some good ideas though, maybe intoduce a max rating cap on a few of the of the boards but not all. And no min rating cap for my reason above.
  10. Standard member flexmore
    Quack Quack Quack !
    08 Apr '05 10:44
    Originally posted by gumbie
    I like being able to give meman 6 games whenever I want

    I see some good ideas though, maybe intoduce a max rating cap on a few of the of the boards but not all. And no min rating cap for my reason above.
    this is my thought too ... best is some boards for lower rating, some for higher and some just all over the joint for all of us to play meman (i am playing meman in 2 at the moment ... thinking of taking a couple more)
  11. Standard member flexmore
    Quack Quack Quack !
    10 Apr '05 04:48
    another siege issue:

    most players do not want to always have to play as black.

    instead of a siege involving just one game ... i think it should involve two simultaneous games ... one as white and one as black ...