It is noteworthy that a MAJORITY of complaints about the changes come from higher rated opponents and that most if not all of the positive comments come from lower rated opponents. Peaking at just over 2600 myself before 4pc was ruined I have played Radon and other high rated players who hate these changes. So that means this game has been ruined for some of 4pc's best players.
Some steps to do urgently, or 4p chess will really die...
Sort:
I actually like the merge, except for the fact that there is a horrible NEW STANDARD position. If you could at least change back to the 4pc old standard, that would be fine by me.
Btw, the WOF's shouldn't be rated because they are too luck based, I almost forgot to mention.
Apr 20, 2022
0
#46
chye3mc wrote:
Btw, the WOF's shouldn't be rated because they are too luck based, I almost forgot to mention.
It's not going to affect other ratings, only the WoF rating...
Apr 20, 2022
0
#47
ChessMasterGS wrote:
chye3mc wrote:
Btw, the WOF's shouldn't be rated because they are too luck based, I almost forgot to mention.
It's not going to affect other ratings, only the WoF rating...
Just because of that isn't a good-enough reason in my view. It's unfair to make losing affect a rating. There isn't enough skill, I think it would be more correct the old way.
Apr 20, 2022
0
#48
zisal2029 wrote:
ChessMasterGS wrote:
chye3mc wrote:
Btw, the WOF's shouldn't be rated because they are too luck based, I almost forgot to mention.
It's not going to affect other ratings, only the WoF rating...
Just because of that isn't a good-enough reason in my view. It's unfair to make losing affect a rating. There isn't enough skill, I think it would be more correct the old way.
And people play the same exact WoF variant hundreds of times in a row to win arenas... I don't see your point.
Apr 21, 2022
0
#49
ChessMasterGS wrote:
zisal2029 wrote:
ChessMasterGS wrote:
chye3mc wrote:
Btw, the WOF's shouldn't be rated because they are too luck based, I almost forgot to mention.
It's not going to affect other ratings, only the WoF rating...
Just because of that isn't a good-enough reason in my view. It's unfair to make losing affect a rating. There isn't enough skill, I think it would be more correct the old way.
And people play the same exact WoF variant hundreds of times in a row to win arenas... I don't see your point.
Come on, the point is so simple…
I think the WOF rating could be called: Lucking
Idk
Jun 28, 2022
0
#51
Admins, will the INTERFACE / STRUCTURE be modified in order to solve most of the issues?
I strongly believe that:
a) ALL the games should be visible by default by the players (who will then be able to define whether they want to see this or that...), whereas today they have to configure their settings for that and most players don't do that,
b) the current structure with separate rooms (Old Standard, etc.) is not correct.
Every player should be able to configure what he/she wants to see, with ideally fine-tuning (for instance, in my case I would've put: FFA only; Rated only; no Hyper, and minimal rating of 2400 in Rapid and 2100 in Blitz and Bullet; PLUS Giveaway (Antichess), War for throne and Gustave box any rating; as of today I can't configure that).
You could fix the server problem (thank you!), you're fixing the set-up issue and also dealt with the rating calculation issues, etc. But I believe that many players left simply because they were not comfortable with the current structure and found it was a mess.
Another idea (from me) is persuasive techniques — using descriptive titles that attract players. It’s likely that it won’t work, but it might succeed…
I’m also thinking how other business in life may be a big problem. I still am trying to think of ways to solve our problem, though.