Feedback about the new 4PC version

This thread is for discussing the new version of 4-Player-Chess.

Post your suggestions here, tell us what you like, and what you don't.

For Bug reports, please use this topic: https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/list-of-known-bugs

> @GongGong0607

> I don't understand the full logic behind the point system. Why do I get +13 p and my partner only gets +12 p?

The new rating system (Glicko) takes into account how many games you played. If your partner played more games than you, his rating may be more stable. So, his rating change is smaller. Even if you played in 1 team and you both had the same rating before the game.

> @GongGong0607

> Players who resigning without playing 10-20 moves should be the only ones who got punished with point-loss.

Currently the rules are:

FFA: If a player resigns or times out before having made at least 4 moves, he will lose rating and the game will be aborted. Exceptions: a player has already gained points, or the player that resigned/timed out was in check.

Teams: If a player resigns or times out on his first move, he will lose rating and the game will be aborted.

These rules were applied yesterday when we released the new 4PC version. Currently we are not going to change it to 10-20 moves. The rules can be changed in future, but I don't think it will jump from 4 moves to 10 or 20.

> @GongGong0607

> The new chatbot with the fat letters is disturbing the view on the game. It is like driving a car, and a bird plays Peek-A-Boo in the right side mirror.

The chat panel has a transparent background now. Bold letters are visible on all backgrounds. However, I will think about it. Perhaps we'll make an option (settings) to use a regular font weight in chat messages.

Thank you for the answers and also being taken seriously.

> @tommerrall949

> Please, please change the rating system back to where it was. I was previously 2500 rated. Now I'm 2150 because I'm losing 30+ pts whenever I come up with a bad partner. It needs to be changed back because it favours weaker players so much more

You will play more games and rating jumps will be smaller. It is because of the Glicko rating system. Also, if you are a Top player and care about your rating, I strongly recommend to invite friends and also use the Rating Range selector when you play with random partners.

Speaking of the rating range selector, could you separate it for FFA and Teams? It's a little annoying having to adjust it when switching between the two.

@GDII, it is in our ToDo list. Cannot tell you ETA, however.

Maybe more importantly, could you also include a range selector for opponents in the Teams variant? Playing games that give you 0 rating for a win is not very rewarding. Right now higher rated players more often than not get matched up against lower rated players (simply because there are more). That makes it more difficult for the higher rated players to gain (or even maintain) rating than for the lower rated players, since the majority of games give you barely any rating. And when you do have an equal matchup and you happen to lose, you need to play another 30 games versus lower rated players to get it back. If we could set a lower limit for opponents, we would have more equally matched games and more opportunities to gain (back) rating.

@GDII, this is how rating range selector works in Teams currently:

1. If you click [New Game] and then [Play], then your Rating Range Selector applies to both opponents and partner. If you set it to 1400..4000 then all 3 other players should be in this range.

2. If someone invites you and you accept that invitation then your Rating Range Selector is ignored. Instead the Rating Range Selector of a player invited you is applied. Your opponents are filtered according to his/her settings.

So, set the range you prefer to have and either play with random teammates or invite partners yourself.

If there is a bug in 1. or 2., please report it. Show us your Rating Range Selector settings and tell the game number (or its date and player names).

I would like to say that i love the updates. Good Job guys!! Keep up the good work! I know there are a few bugs and im sure you guys are working on them. Thanks again for such a great game!

I was playing with @WheresTheM8 yesterday. My rating range selector is set to 1600 minimum and I invited him. We still got paired up against 11- or 1200s I believe it was and we gained 0 points after winning. (That's when I posted it here.)

Also a few days back actually I played a random game with my rating range set to 1500 minimum and I got teamed up with an 1100 rated player (who got mad and made us lose). This was a game against self-partnering @BOSS_of_4PlayerChess. (I remember I lost like 60 rating in two games, grmbl )

@GDII, Thank you for reporting this. I found 4 those games (№2151 and 3 more). I created a support ticket, we will investigate these cases and fix the bug.

@BabYagun Thank you

> @MILENGE_PHIR_KABHI

> Why do you have changed mate system? It is basically incorrect. If mate happens on one person but he has chance after the opposition person mate to see it then it should be mate on opposition person not on the first person.

Please provide more details. Some screenshot, coordinates of the pieces maybe. Or tell us when you played that game and other players name (at least 1 of them), we will find it in the archive.

@MILENGE_PHIR_KABHI this bug is now fixed

thank you for reporting it.

@StIgnatiusLoyola, please download a new version of Chrome, Firefox or Opera and try again. If you already have a modern browser, then clean its cache and try again. If it doesn't work, try to turn off browser add-on's, especially ad blockers and similar add-on's. If it still doesn't work, then use "Help - Report a Bug" menu to send us a screenshot and description.

> @GongGong0607
> I would like to see some statics about other players. How often they actually play a game to an end and how often they are resigning the games before the end.

Will add it to our ToDo list.

> @GongGong0607
> It will suit the team-game if you have the ability to block those players.

The player pool is too small now to block players. But we have this feature in our ToDo list already.

> @GongGong0607

> Perhaps a button for agree-to-resign would be a possibillity.

We discussed it some time ago on this forum. Imagine that your teammate clicks [Resign] and you get a notification with [Ok, resign] and [Continue to play] buttons. You click [Continue to play]. But your teammate doesn't want to play. What next?

Hello, I love the new updates, some great changes there!

I used to be able to spectate games on my phone but this no longer seems to work..? (iPhone 6S Safari iOS 11.4). It worked best in landscape, I could pinch the screen until everything was in view; there now seems to be some sort of frame over the layout whereby pinching no longer works. 

Is this fixable, do you think? Or has anyone tried a different iPhone browser that works ok?

thanks! 

Overall, thank you great to our chess staffs for doing a great job!!!!!!!

Yeah.. i also feel a little uneasy about the transparent chatbox

Control of your teammate's pieces is transferred to you? That would be teaming with yourself, but a teammate following your move suggestions is not very different from controlling both sets of pieces. You could argue that it may be "abused", but it doesn't make the "team" any stronger. A team can only be stronger than the strongest player if two players complement each other. A team of two players would normally have an advantage over one player controlling two sets of pieces (if their skill level is similar).

Would be cool if we have google translate option in the chat! Or any other good translate option!