And on top of this!!!!!!!! I tried to sit in at a 100 table to lose some points by just leaving, but no they have to keep me there until I get forth place so I don't lose points!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lol, this is funny.

I'm starting to hear a lot of people talk about this so I'm starting to not shrug it off as *not* a problem more and more.

It is a problem (or can be). Not everyone plays kdice to try and win the month - you need to play a TON of games to really compete into the top 10.

I think there should be caps on lower table limits, however, they should be stretched higher.

For instance, 3000+ points cannot sit at a 0 table. Instead of the current 500, which is fairly easy to obtain if you win a couple games.

Also, the cap on 100 tables needs to be considered closely. 500 point tables or higher dont always start up very fast.. sometimes you need to wait 2 minutes, sometimes 10+.

If someone is playing and gets home late, just wants to get a quick game in before bed - they shouldnt be locked out of playing (their main account) because it's physically impossible to sit anywhere that is likely to start playing soon.

Table limits are good, but there's also the fact that if the #1 player sits at a 0 table... that can be GOOD for the community. People with 0 points talking to the reigning king of kdice can promote the game in many ways - people get excited, ask what it's like to play at high tables, etc.

I'm not saying table limits are horrible - but I do believe that they shouldnt go much higher than 100 tables.

I suggest 3000+ points cant play at a 0 table. And I honestly think there should be no limit at all on the 100 point table.

Honestly - if someone wants to win the month, they NEED to be playing on the top tables, 500, 2500, and higher.

While trying to please some of the community by keeping higher players out of low point tables... we must be mindful not to piss off another part of the community - higher point players who want to play a relaxed atmosphere game once in awhile - as a break from all the high pressure games where you can lose thousands of points in 20 minutes.

This is definitely something to discuss, at the very least.

Thank you Grunvagr. This helps to calm me. I play simply to have a good time. Sometimes I make points(quite a bit of points),but they are not important to me. I like the atmospehere. i like getting to know someone at a table that is just as out there as I am, but when I suddenly have too many points to sit in with someone and destroy them, I will not stick around and talk when I cannot play.

there is another thread on this. dont flood the forums with the same topic.

why can't you have fun at higher tables?

I haven't been on in a while sorry I should have checked the forums. I do have fun at the higher tables as well, but sometimes I don't want to deal with all of that I just want to win some lose some at the unpredictable lower tables that have new people that are constantly looking for tips and starting up strange conversations asking questions about the game(seeing as how nothing is really stated in the rules) I just enjoy it.

A real woman does not wimp out by playing at levels of table lower than that at which she is entitled to play.

Keep the table limits as they are. The point levels are fine. Reinstate the 500 table limit. Ignore the whining of players who don't want to have to risk their precious points. The level of doublespeak is reaching toxix levels. On the one hand you have a player say "I don't care about my points" and in the next sentence say it is too stressful playing the higher table. Well, which is it?

The way to solve this is to simply deploy exhibition tables. No points, no risk, just gameplay. If someone wants to chill out, fine. They can play strictly for fun and will neither gain nor lose points. Problem solved.

I am sure that some of the players protesting table limits will protest against this idea also. Too bad. This is supposed to be a site based on competition. As the greeting on the left states, "We play games to get points to compete in monthly competitions."
Legitimate competition requires ranking of the competitors. NBA players don't get to compete against elementary school players and vice versa.

If you think it is unfair to have limits preventing higher point players from playing the lower level tables, I would submit that it is equally unfair to prevent lower level players from competing at the higher tables. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. If you want to compete, the nut up and compete. If you want to just play recreationally, then do so and don't worry about points. Pick one, because you can't have both. End of story.

We're getting closer to the ELO system everyday.

Kind of.

Or Something.

grunvagr, i have a simple solution

I always considered 0 tables as the learning/experimenting place for starting players and I figured pleople would play 100 tables once their scores managed to stay over 250 points. I regularily visit 0 tables to see how the new players are doing and to give some advice if needed (lol, actually it was during one of these visits last month I met lovely Adonia). Lately I have met a few new players that have the same problems with the table maxima.

Personally I think the maxima are needed, especially during the second half of the month. The maxima were ment to get players with similar skill to challenge each other on the appropriate table level. I really want that maximum for 500 because I think you will agree we need a broader player group at the 2500/10ktables.

So finally, here's my solution I mentioned at the beginning:

give 0 tables same maximum as 100 tables or maybe even better: completely eliminate 100 tables and install the points for the 100 tables at the 0 tables. That way, it will be just as easy as now to make the jump to the 500 tables.

I have always felt 0 and 100 are too close together, it's the same group of people that play there so why install 2 sets of tables. Before this scoring system we also had a maximum of 4 types of tables (1500,1700,1900,2100). I think 0 500 2500 10k is enough.