Forum


1500, 1700, 1800 tables
Eiskrem-Kaiser wrote
at 7:24 AM, Tuesday March 27, 2007 EDT
Hmm, I can't see the 1600 tables anymore. Where are they? And why has the system been changed again?
Can't we agree on one system instead of changing the tables each week?

Thank you. ^^

Replies 1 - 10 of 24 Next › Last »
Louis Cypher wrote
at 8:17 AM, Tuesday March 27, 2007 EDT
It was explained the other week that table limits depend on the number of players in a certain interval - so there will be rearrangements at times.

Unluckily this was to late for me, now I am caught at 1500 and there be very many idiots there.
Eiskrem-Kaiser wrote
at 8:32 AM, Tuesday March 27, 2007 EDT
Same here :|
fuzzycat wrote
at 8:40 AM, Tuesday March 27, 2007 EDT
once again the suggestion to please rethink about the smartness of the idea to leave dynamic gaps.
Scaldis Noel wrote
at 11:52 AM, Tuesday March 27, 2007 EDT
My suggestion, don't be so concerned with your score and rank and just play for the enjoyment of the game. If you are genuinely skilled enough to "play with the big boys" you'll make it to the higher tables. I think that Ryan does a pretty good job of balancing table groupings with the number of players in a given range of scores.

The main reason people don't like the groupings is that they think that they are more skilled than they are and "deserve" to be at higher tables.
fuzzycat wrote
at 12:06 PM, Tuesday March 27, 2007 EDT
the main reason I complain, is that beeing at higher or lower tables depends on having the right tables at time you are at a given score...
Louis Cypher wrote
at 12:45 PM, Tuesday March 27, 2007 EDT
I don't complain, the game is fine and free. I just rant a little, when I feel unlucky - but don't take that serious. If I was seriously unhappy I'd leave.
Today the 1700 were there and gone and there...
I think it is ok the way it is.
fuzzycat wrote
at 1:18 PM, Tuesday March 27, 2007 EDT
I do see where this idea comes from: from the old scoring system, where people complained that high rated tables take long to fill.

It *is* a smart idea to dynamically set the highest rated table, by the ELOs of the tables, so they appear when there are enough players to fill them.

However in the same moment extending this idea to leave gaps is throwing out the baby with the bath water. Even if a 1600 table fills to slow for my taste, i can still see it in the players free decision to join a 1500 table, now he is forced to 1500.

What happens when the game goes further, and avarage ELO *will* go up higher, will at some point then 300 point gaps be (auto) introduced?
Tech wrote
at 2:05 PM, Tuesday March 27, 2007 EDT
As far as 300 point gaps, been there, done that. It's troublesome, but something everyone deals with, eventually.
fuzzycat wrote
at 2:48 PM, Tuesday March 27, 2007 EDT
the gaps will go larger and larger over time.

and thus discriminate players who start now new with kdice, even if they become quite good players fast, they have it much harder with these gaps, then people who could position themselves well after score reset, with close gaps.
Tech wrote
at 2:52 PM, Tuesday March 27, 2007 EDT
Call me back when the gap is something special, like 400 points.
KDice - Multiplayer Dice War
KDice is a multiplayer strategy online game played in monthly competitions. It's like Risk. The goal is to win every territory on the map.
CREATED BY RYAN © 2006
RECOMMEND
GAMES
GPokr
Texas Holdem Poker
KDice
Online Strategy
XSketch
Online Pictionary