CHANGELOG

if one player can abort, doesnt that just open the door for abuse?

minimum 1 of each team must agree, maybe even both opponents should agree. you can beg you oops in the chat for an abort when your partner goes missing etc

You are more scared about the 5% who will consider abusing the system than the 20% of times players just randomly lose rating for the only reason that the opponent did not make a move. 

The abort system should be brought back, and it was never a problem. Having a few aborted games, maybe 30% people dislike the pairings 70% people not showing up is much better than having 30% of the games being decided by unfair measures. 

When there is a limit that you can only abort once in a given time period, like was previously implemented, it's not a problem with abuse at all. 

Lastly, in live chess, you don't lose if you don't show up, it's automatically aborted. It should be the same way for any game.

Can't we stick to the topic of made changes in the changelog instead of suggesting improvements? Not sure if it is just me that thinks requesting stuff here is off topic.

That's basically what I can read from most posts before, coming with feedback on changes or things to change. It's also not like it says what kind of discussion has to take place. Abort system was removed, which it should not have. That's feedback on a change, however not so recent. 

Rating ranges have not been added.  it does not work, at all! I'm always matched with 1200s,  all the time.  

New updates. More to come.

Yay for multiple king claiming!

Some nice updates here

From the rating forum: 

Does this mean a win gets calculated as a win against both opponents and not take your allies rating into account? If so, is the rating change divided by 2 afterwards to not change the ratings too much (since the calculation is done twice instead of once)?

Some new changes were added to the changelog.

> Rating calc adjustments

Please explain how exactly is it adjusted. If it is not e top secret.

> Improved layout and board sizing

The board sizing is wrong now. The board is huge and does not fit the browser window if you decrease the browser window size. So, it is not an improvement.

From the rating topic:

1. Each team receives a rating which is calculated as follows:

         ( Top rated player in team * (2/3) + lower rated player * (1/3) ) / 2

       2.  The corresponding team ratings are used to determine the difference given to the winners and losers. 

Thank you Martin. Just that "rating topic" is marked as "updated 7 days ago" on the forum, not "updated today". Is it a bug?

It seems that rating changes are much more sensible (smaller) now. No more 60 point increments for a win!

Skeftimilos is correct. In FFA it works like before, but there is a division by 3 at the end to compensate for the calculation to be done 3 times.

@BabYagun, the forums only gets marked as updated whenever someone makes a new post in the topic. It does not get marked as updated when someone just edits a post. Rather than consider it I bug I would I would say they should make a new post whenever there is an update (in addition to the edit).

I made a new post in the rating forum, so now it says it was recently updated.

A small update. An invited player should no longer occasionally be put into the wrong team.

>>*New Time Control: 4 | 3 (4 minutes with 3 second increment)

It's probably posted up there somewhere, and I really did look but...
how does one get to these new time controls? I don't see anyone playing them, and can't figure out how I would.

A new update: A new tabs design and rating ranges are followed 100% along with some other things. See the updated first post.

Rating range still does not work properly.

@BabYagun, in what way did it not work for you? FFA or teams? If teams, were you invited, received an invite or random partner?