<Comment deleted by user>
"May Caissa have her vengeance upon you and your collaborators for destroying the greatest chess website in history."
Sure, he didn't get flamed at all. What a waste of space, lichess should just shut down this forum entirely. Have you called this guy out on his obvious BS yet? Still waiting....
I'm sure other devs who see that will be HIGHLY incentivized to explain the changes here, right?
Sure, he didn't get flamed at all. What a waste of space, lichess should just shut down this forum entirely. Have you called this guy out on his obvious BS yet? Still waiting....
I'm sure other devs who see that will be HIGHLY incentivized to explain the changes here, right?
<Comment deleted by user>
Yep, joke. hehe. Good luck on your useless quest to get an explanation. Don't hold your breath.
@TCF_Namelecc
"It's almost as if you think that lichess mods and devs work for you" - no. I only think that the changes they introduce wouldn't require more work if they consulted them with the community first. Sure, they are legally entitled to play with the website's content as they please, but morally?...
"Once again, if you are getting paired against people that are way above your rating, that is a FLAW in the pairing system, not a good thing" - no. You don't even seem to understand how the lobby works. If I get paired against someone 600 points upwards from me, it means that he accepted my challenge. He wanted it, as well as I did. Two consenting chessplayers. Why do you want to restrict our free choice?
"Also this prevents low-rated farming by setting opponents to below 1300 for example and using it to peaksit on the leaderboard without fear of losing" - no. One bad misclick in 30-50 games will cost you too much points to make this method applicable.
"As for your 'I only want players 100 above my rating'" - no. You misattributed the quote. I play many games against weaker opponents.
@jhuang
"No one has to counter anything from you. If you don't like what lichess is doing you are free to use any other site or make your own" - from a legal point of view, right. Legally, the developers can at any time turn it into the website for mushroom-picking materials. I guess you will be very happy then.
"If you want to play better players, prove it by beating people and increasing your own rating, not by using some sort of setting to manipulate the system" - no. Manipulate the system, seriously? Both sides know what they choose in the lobby. One of them wants to play someone stronger, the other one someone weaker. They satisfy each other's needs.
"So sad to see you go. Have fun on the other platforms. Although they use the same rating selector Lichess now has" - congratulations if in your eyes "go away because you dare to criticise us" is a valid argument.
"There are tons of changes to lichess code base every day, doesn't mean devs post an explanation in the forums for every single change" - how many of them are so meaningful for the end users?
"I guess the new standard is if a change happens that claymore strongly disagrees with, a dev must give an explanation in the lichess forums?" - I guess that, indeed, it is standard in a healthy community to back away from changes that are frown upon and the developers aren't able to defend them with valid arguments.
@claymore
"An explanation isn't much to ask, surely we can agree that much" - no. You still don't seem to understand, poor you. An explanation is always too much to ask from a dictator.
#AbC
"It's almost as if you think that lichess mods and devs work for you" - no. I only think that the changes they introduce wouldn't require more work if they consulted them with the community first. Sure, they are legally entitled to play with the website's content as they please, but morally?...
"Once again, if you are getting paired against people that are way above your rating, that is a FLAW in the pairing system, not a good thing" - no. You don't even seem to understand how the lobby works. If I get paired against someone 600 points upwards from me, it means that he accepted my challenge. He wanted it, as well as I did. Two consenting chessplayers. Why do you want to restrict our free choice?
"Also this prevents low-rated farming by setting opponents to below 1300 for example and using it to peaksit on the leaderboard without fear of losing" - no. One bad misclick in 30-50 games will cost you too much points to make this method applicable.
"As for your 'I only want players 100 above my rating'" - no. You misattributed the quote. I play many games against weaker opponents.
@jhuang
"No one has to counter anything from you. If you don't like what lichess is doing you are free to use any other site or make your own" - from a legal point of view, right. Legally, the developers can at any time turn it into the website for mushroom-picking materials. I guess you will be very happy then.
"If you want to play better players, prove it by beating people and increasing your own rating, not by using some sort of setting to manipulate the system" - no. Manipulate the system, seriously? Both sides know what they choose in the lobby. One of them wants to play someone stronger, the other one someone weaker. They satisfy each other's needs.
"So sad to see you go. Have fun on the other platforms. Although they use the same rating selector Lichess now has" - congratulations if in your eyes "go away because you dare to criticise us" is a valid argument.
"There are tons of changes to lichess code base every day, doesn't mean devs post an explanation in the forums for every single change" - how many of them are so meaningful for the end users?
"I guess the new standard is if a change happens that claymore strongly disagrees with, a dev must give an explanation in the lichess forums?" - I guess that, indeed, it is standard in a healthy community to back away from changes that are frown upon and the developers aren't able to defend them with valid arguments.
@claymore
"An explanation isn't much to ask, surely we can agree that much" - no. You still don't seem to understand, poor you. An explanation is always too much to ask from a dictator.
#AbC
Yes, just claim the entire community is on your side, with no proof of such. Great logic, no wonder you think if you don't like a change, it has to be explained to you.
I don't think boosting is an argument. If you deliberately pick weak people from the lobby, it just gives you like 1 or 2 points max. per match, and one screw-up costs you the effort of like 10 previous wins. Very tedious and I hardly doubt that anyone operates like that.
@jhuang Well, among comments about these changes, these negative grossly outweighed these positive. As usual, we have no way to know what the quiet majority thinks. Nevertheless, "just claim the entire community is on your side" is an outrageous simplification and distortion of my posts. If you minded to notice, I actually present serious arguments why the changes are wrong. You aren't able to discuss with these arguments, so you prefer to insult me.
@Cedur216 You are right. I wrote exactly the same in #45.
#AbC
@Cedur216 You are right. I wrote exactly the same in #45.
#AbC
<Comment deleted by user>
While boosting would take a lot of time, it is definitely possible and has been pulled off by some players. However, I think the bigger problem here is "peaksitting", or playing games against very low rated opponents to stay on the leaderboard week after week with a very very very low risk of losing rating. The new system prevents this.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.