Idea

All discussion relevant to Countdown that is not too spoilerific. New members: come here first to introduce yourself. We don't bite, or at least rarely.
Post Reply
Douglas Wilson
Enthusiast
Posts: 354
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:54 pm

Idea

Post by Douglas Wilson »

As I have never been on the show I may be wide of the mark with this idea but please read anyway.

I think that some potentially good contestants are lost because they're are beaten by to be Octochamps. You may say this is being beaten fair and square but if you sit in the challengers chair playing somebody who as already aniliated 5 other contestants, coupled with first game nerves its unlikely your going to play your best.

So my idea is that at the end of an octochamp run instead of getting two new players, the player who either came closest to beating the octochamp or got the highest percentage of maxes should play against the new player. (Points score alone wouldn't be fair IMO as it could be a bad days shuffling). You could even have the two best losers from the run and have no new players although I'd rather have just the one.

Any views?
User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Idea

Post by Kirk Bevins »

Not a great idea. Imagine the Countdown team having to ring someone up and say "err...you were the highest scorer in x's octorun. Can you come to the studios in 10 minutes and record?". It would be impractical.
User avatar
Joseph Bolas
Fanatic
Posts: 2446
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:19 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Idea

Post by Joseph Bolas »

Douglas Wilson wrote:So my idea is that at the end of an octochamp run instead of getting two new players, the player who either came closest to beating the octochamp or got the highest percentage of maxes should play against the new player. (Points score alone wouldn't be fair IMO as it could be a bad days shuffling). You could even have the two best losers from the run and have no new players although I'd rather have just the one.

Any views?
I don't know about the highest percentage of maxes suggestion (I've not worked that out yet), but I do definitely agree that the person who came closest to beating the octochamp (points-wise) should be allowed back on :D.
User avatar
Michael Wallace
Racoonteur
Posts: 5458
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
Location: London

Re: Idea

Post by Michael Wallace »

I see your reasoning, but one thing that occurs to me is that there's no way to make who gets to come back as particularly fair (whilst it's arguably unfair in the first place given the luck of the draw and all that, I'll ignore that for now). Arguably one of the better metrics is % of maxes, but firstly this is still iffy because you could just get flat rounds. Secondly though is that if you're pushing the champion quite hard, you might, for instance, take bigger risks, choose different sets, etc. (and similarly the champion may play differently too). I don't really see a way you could choose who was the 'best loser' in a way that would be satisfactory.

I think just leaving it at the luck of the draw seems the fairest option - arguably as far as the show is concerned as a competition, you're only interested in returning the single best player anyway.
User avatar
tonywarren
Rookie
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 10:33 am
Location: somerton, somerset

Re: Idea

Post by tonywarren »

Okay, the corollary to "the challenger loses to an octochamp to be" is "the potential octochamp who comes up to their fourth or fifth game of the day and on account of being knackered loses to someone they would have trashed if wide awake and sharp".

If you are observing that there is luck involved, both in putting together an octochamp run or in who your opponent is when you play your first game, then, of course, you are right.

When it comes down to it statistics like number of maxes and scores don't appear to impress Damian. He seems to think it is a simple contest between two people and to the winner the spoils. Some losers do get invited back for a second go. How they persuade DE to let them is a matter of conjecture.
Who says Morris dancing ain't cool...
User avatar
JimBentley
Fanatic
Posts: 2820
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Contact:

Re: Idea

Post by JimBentley »

tonywarren wrote:He seems to think it is a simple contest between two people and to the winner the spoils.
That's because it is. If you lose a game through tiredness or whatever, then you've lost.
User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 8018
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Idea

Post by Jon Corby »

JimBentley wrote:
tonywarren wrote:He seems to think it is a simple contest between two people and to the winner the spoils.
That's because it is. If you lose a game through tiredness or whatever, then you've lost.
Unless you win it.
User avatar
Debbi Flack
Acolyte
Posts: 210
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:05 pm

Re: Idea

Post by Debbi Flack »

Jon Corby wrote:Unless you win it.
So THAT'S what I did wrong. If only I'd beaten Mike Lambert I'd have won! :D
She came, she saw - oh well, at least she tried!
User avatar
Michael Wallace
Racoonteur
Posts: 5458
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
Location: London

Re: Idea

Post by Michael Wallace »

Winning the game is something that's horribly easy to forget. We should probably add that to the how-to guide.
User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 8018
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Idea

Post by Jon Corby »

Michael Wallace wrote:Winning the game is something that's horribly easy to forget. We should probably add that to the how-to guide.
LMAO
User avatar
D Eadie
Devotee
Posts: 829
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:24 am
Location: Mars Hotel

Re: Idea

Post by D Eadie »

tonywarren wrote:Okay, the corollary to "the challenger loses to an octochamp to be" is "the potential octochamp who comes up to their fourth or fifth game of the day and on account of being knackered loses to someone they would have trashed if wide awake and sharp".

If you are observing that there is luck involved, both in putting together an octochamp run or in who your opponent is when you play your first game, then, of course, you are right.

When it comes down to it statistics like number of maxes and scores don't appear to impress Damian. He seems to think it is a simple contest between two people and to the winner the spoils. Some losers do get invited back for a second go. How they persuade DE to let them is a matter of conjecture.

Okay, back out of hibernation............. Some people have had more than 1 shot yes. In Kirk's case, it was cirumstance. One of the girls in the office has dyslexia and asked me if Kevin Birks had been on before, and of course i said no, so that was that. With Junaid Mubeenonbefore, it was merely me trying to make amends for destroying his childhood.
David Williams
Kiloposter
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm

Re: Idea

Post by David Williams »

I can't see the harm in allowing more people a second go. A couple of dozen a year who showed themselves to be well above average, but were just unlucky. They wouldn't be as nervous the second time round, the overall quality would go up.

I do think qualification would have to be pretty subjective though. For example, should you automatically exclude people who've won a game? A quick trawl reveals Grant Woods, who beat Steve Baines and lost in his second game to Jeffrey Hansford. Fate didn't want him to do well!
User avatar
D Eadie
Devotee
Posts: 829
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:24 am
Location: Mars Hotel

Re: Idea

Post by D Eadie »

David Williams wrote:I can't see the harm in allowing more people a second go. A couple of dozen a year who showed themselves to be well above average, but were just unlucky. They wouldn't be as nervous the second time round, the overall quality would go up.

I do think qualification would have to be pretty subjective though. For example, should you automatically exclude people who've won a game? A quick trawl reveals Grant Woods, who beat Steve Baines and lost in his second game to Jeffrey Hansford. Fate didn't want him to do well!

David, Grant Wood would be excluded specifically on the grounds that he FAILED to beat Jeffrey Hansford. :mrgreen:
David Williams
Kiloposter
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm

Re: Idea

Post by David Williams »

Great to see you back, Damian. Your views on gay rights and contestants' dress sense have been sorely missed. And I've not seen the point in starting a thread about all the deficiencies of the new show without the anticipation of your contribution.
User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 8018
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Idea

Post by Jon Corby »

I'm suspicious. Why have you created a new ID, Damian? The old one is still there.

Prove that you're the real Damian :x
User avatar
D Eadie
Devotee
Posts: 829
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:24 am
Location: Mars Hotel

Re: Idea

Post by D Eadie »

The old ID was shut down at my request Jon, or at least 'frozen' or whatever they call it, but i cannot remember the password etc, so i joined again, albeit temporarily, just to say hello and bless you all for being so friendly and full of banter together.

Not getting roped into ANY discussions on anything to be honest. I've read a few comments on here and my views are to be kept private on all things like that. Although David, do you really mean ALL the deficiencies of the new show?

Good to see you've not changed. :o

Jon, bumped into your parents last week in Leeds at the recordings. You're dad had a green zip-up fleece on with a logo on the left hand side and your mum wore a grey dress. :mrgreen:
David Williams
Kiloposter
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm

Re: Idea

Post by David Williams »

So if it's not Damian, it's Mrs Corby?
User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 8018
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Idea

Post by Jon Corby »

David Williams wrote:So if it's not Damian, it's Mrs Corby?
Kirk was there too. It could be him.

Or Dudley.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13213
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Idea

Post by Gavin Chipper »

If we're allowing players back, I wouldn't just say those that lost to octochamps. Someone could lose to a very good player who still fails to become an octocamp, someone like Richard Priest.

I quite like David Williams's idea of allowing a couple of dozen or so each year. Maybe you could just let any losers reapply and just limit the number of them that get in. So it would just be someone who lost 100-99 but also someone who got 30 but scored really well in a second audition.

But as David also pointed out, who counts as a loser? You could say anyone who doesn't make the quarter finals. So the 7-timers from series 47 could come back.
User avatar
D Eadie
Devotee
Posts: 829
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:24 am
Location: Mars Hotel

Re: Idea

Post by D Eadie »

Please leave me alone forever.
Chris Corby
Devotee
Posts: 593
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:54 pm
Location: Farnborough, Hampshire

Re: Idea

Post by Chris Corby »

D Eadie wrote:The old ID was shut down at my request Jon, or at least 'frozen' or whatever they call it, but i cannot remember the password etc, so i joined again, albeit temporarily, just to say hello and bless you all for being so friendly and full of banter together.

Not getting roped into ANY discussions on anything to be honest. I've read a few comments on here and my views are to be kept private on all things like that. Although David, do you really mean ALL the deficiencies of the new show?

Good to see you've not changed. :o

Jon, bumped into your parents last week in Leeds at the recordings. You're dad had a green zip-up fleece on with a logo on the left hand side and your mum wore a grey dress. :mrgreen:
Even I am 99% sure now. It can be 100% if you would just confirm here Damian what you said to me about Charlie Reams :o
User avatar
Steve Durney
Acolyte
Posts: 181
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:53 pm
Location: Swindon

Re: Idea

Post by Steve Durney »

Is there not a seedings system in place then? I always assumed that the top players (based on performances in qualifying to get on the show) were kept apart, much like in tennis. So it was pure luck that Kai's first game was the first game after Junaid's run, in which case his octo-champ run and subsequent non-Countdown tv appearences might never have happened? (IF Junaid beat him of course!!)
Scott Bagnall
Newbie
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:06 pm
Location: manchester

Re: Idea

Post by Scott Bagnall »

I think it's a terrible idea. If you lose then you lose. Those are the breaks i'm afraid.
User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9494
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Idea

Post by Charlie Reams »

Scott Bagnall wrote:I think it's a terrible idea. If you lose then you lose. Those are the breaks i'm afraid.
Those are the breaks, but you've failed to provide any argument that those should be the breaks.
Jeff Clayton
Enthusiast
Posts: 319
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:47 pm

Re: Idea

Post by Jeff Clayton »

I understand that Chiffres/Lettres have recently introduced something to their game that's not a million miles off this idea.

The requirement of the French format is that a contender must win five best-of-three matches before [s]he can retire with 1000€ and a weekend break. So anyone who starts anew against a champion in his "cinquième match" will have something of an uphill struggle, and the presenters always make a point of this.

But now... if that challenger loses two games and the champion claims his fifth match, there is now the opportunity to come back, start again and play the brand new contender who follows.


Jeff
User avatar
Julie T
Kiloposter
Posts: 1130
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 3:12 pm
Location: Hertfordshire, England

Re: Idea

Post by Julie T »

D Eadie wrote: Okay, back out of hibernation............. Some people have had more than 1 shot yes. In Kirk's case, it was cirumstance. One of the girls in the office has dyslexia and asked me if Kevin Birks had been on before, and of course i said no, so that was that. With Junaid Mubeenonbefore, it was merely me trying to make amends for destroying his childhood.
Just read this thread. Welcome back, Damian! :)

I'd thought it was because Kirk was under 18 on his first appearance, as was Junaid.
Is allowing a child back as an adult not automatic then?
Just curious, not complaining, Mr Eadie, Sir! ;)
"My idea of an agreeable person is a person who agrees with me." Benjamin Disraeli
David Williams
Kiloposter
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm

Re: Idea

Post by David Williams »

David Williams wrote:I can't see the harm in allowing more people a second go. A couple of dozen a year who showed themselves to be well above average, but were just unlucky. They wouldn't be as nervous the second time round, the overall quality would go up.
Have I missed something? Is this actually happening?
Chris Corby
Devotee
Posts: 593
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:54 pm
Location: Farnborough, Hampshire

Re: Idea

Post by Chris Corby »

D Eadie wrote:
With Junaid Mubeenonbefore, it was merely me trying to make amends for destroying his childhood.

........... so it was you not Michael Jackson :!:
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6238
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Idea

Post by Marc Meakin »

FWIW I think any first time loser with an 80+ score should be invited back
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
User avatar
Michael Wallace
Racoonteur
Posts: 5458
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
Location: London

Re: Idea

Post by Michael Wallace »

Marc Meakin wrote:FWIW I think any first time loser with an 80+ score should be invited back
The trouble with that is that there are variables like how many points were available, difficulty of maxes, etc. etc. Plus you can have two very good players who take lots of rounds off each other, and so both end up with (ostensibly) rubbish scores (and similarly, you could have two rubbish players who end up with flattering scores - you'd only need to average a 5 in every letter round and get 25/30 on the numbers to hit 80).
User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9494
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Idea

Post by Charlie Reams »

Michael Wallace wrote:
Marc Meakin wrote:FWIW I think any first time loser with an 80+ score should be invited back
The trouble with that is that there are variables like how many points were available, difficulty of maxes, etc. etc. Plus you can have two very good players who take lots of rounds off each other, and so both end up with (ostensibly) rubbish scores (and similarly, you could have two rubbish players who end up with flattering scores - you'd only need to average a 5 in every letter round and get 25/30 on the numbers to hit 80).
Clearly Countdown needs some kind of resident statistics raccoon to resolve these issues for them.
JackHurst
Series 63 Champion
Posts: 1986
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:40 pm

Re: Idea

Post by JackHurst »

Surely its simple enough for the production staff to pick out any favourite losers and invite them back on. Isn't that what they do now anyway? Having said that, I would like to see it mentioned in their introductions that they have been on the show before, giving details of their previous appearance, then saying that they have been let back on for whatever reason.
User avatar
Michael Wallace
Racoonteur
Posts: 5458
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
Location: London

Re: Idea

Post by Michael Wallace »

JackHurst wrote:Having said that, I would like to see it mentioned in their introductions that they have been on the show before, giving details of their previous appearance, then saying that they have been let back on for whatever reason.
I suspect they don't want to draw attention to the fact they do it, since it would probably cause them quite a lot of headaches (plus you can't always do that, cf. the PROMATE incident). It's not like anyone other than us notices anyway.
Post Reply