c4countdown

CABRIOLES in R1.

The classic disadvantage of raw scoring is that if you fail to score in a round, it's very difficult to catch up, so it heavily discourages offering risky words. And assuming the contestants therefore play it safe, the conundrum is much more likely to be crucial unless one player has dominated the game, making the rest of the game comparatively insignificant.

However, if they're having many conundrums in one game, which they seem to be doing, I'm not sure those disadvantages apply so much.

Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:24 pm The classic disadvantage of raw scoring is that if you fail to score in a round, it's very difficult to catch up, so it heavily discourages offering risky words. And assuming the contestants therefore play it safe, the conundrum is much more likely to be crucial unless one player has dominated the game, making the rest of the game comparatively insignificant.

However, if they're having many conundrums in one game, which they seem to be doing, I'm not sure those disadvantages apply so much.

Well it just means the other rounds are irrelevant. Just get the conundrums and you win!

Susie saying SODDENLY but not SUDDENLY...

Jo is 5-2 up on Jay in won rounds, and one of the rounds Jay "won" was a numbers game he didn't get. And yet Jay is leading...

Yeah, so Jay really deserved to win that.

If you're going to use raw scores, let the second player buzz in on the conundrum after the first player is right too.

Johnny Canuck wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:07 pm If you're going to use raw scores, let the second player buzz in on the conundrum after the first player is right too.

I thought that too.

Good first episode! Can't wait for next week

Great first episode! Kinda wanted Jo to win in the end though. :/

R6 Alt.: ((9*6)+1)*4
R9 Alt.: (100+5)*8
FLUORITE and FLOURIER in R11
R12 Alt.: ((25-9-2)*50)-(10/2)

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:32 pm

Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:24 pm The classic disadvantage of raw scoring is that if you fail to score in a round, it's very difficult to catch up, so it heavily discourages offering risky words. And assuming the contestants therefore play it safe, the conundrum is much more likely to be crucial unless one player has dominated the game, making the rest of the game comparatively insignificant.

However, if they're having many conundrums in one game, which they seem to be doing, I'm not sure those disadvantages apply so much.

Well it just means the other rounds are irrelevant. Just get the conundrums and you win!

I thought they'd have LNC all the way, but it turned out they only had two conundrums.

Not sure that 930 was a good example for using the 937.5 method as two standard method solves are possible too!

((75-50)x25)+(3x100)+5
((25-3)x50)-100-75+5

Tony Atkins wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:26 am Not sure that 930 was a good example for using the 937.5 method as two standard method solves are possible too!

((75-50)x25)+(3x100)+5
((25-3)x50)-100-75+5

Doesn't mean it isn't a good example. One of the most important things to know about the 937.5 rule is that often it isn't the easiest way to solve the puzzle, and sometimes it won't help you at all.

If the numbers are 100 75 50 25 10 7 -> 932, you don't want to be the contestant who leaps head first into the 937.5 trick, spends 30 seconds trying various combinations in the hope of getting their YouTube moment, ends up with 934 not written down, and drops 10 points behind because they didn't think to try 100 * 10 - 75 + 7.

Maybe a controversial opinion, but the very lengthy 937.5 conversation seemed like a bizarre thing to put in a Celebrity special which probably attracted a lot of viewers who haven't watched CD before. Not sure why the scoring gimmick was needed either. A standard 9 round format and 30 minute runtime would have made more sense for a format like this.

Martin Hurst wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:50 pm Maybe a controversial opinion, but the very lengthy 937.5 conversation seemed like a bizarre thing to put in a Celebrity special which probably attracted a lot of viewers who haven't watched CD before. Not sure why the scoring gimmick was needed either. A standard 9 round format and 30 minute runtime would have made more sense for a format like this.

It was a bit too much I thought. Start with adding before you multiply and move on from there.

I'm gonna invoke my SPECIAL VALUABLE TOP SECRET INSIDER INFORMATION i watched some of the recordings and say that yeah rachel did a different numbers tip every episode. THey did go in some vaguely sensical order, it's just they're broadcasting out of order (maybe to split up the people onmultiple shows?). This one was the 5th of 6 recorded. And yeah, raw score is dumb - I get wanting to make the celebs feel good about themselves when they score 4 every round but it's not like they're playing anyone good, at it leads to games like this where the far better player loses by being too risky. Just have celebs of a similar level of countdown ability playing each other and you're sorted. (but once again i'm getting way to invested in something i don't care much aboutl lol), this cohiafihbaisaikgigaga

I quite enjoyed this episode of Celebrity Countdown. The scoring system is okay but gives an unfair advantage to the contestant solving the conundrum. I think that the conundrum should only be worth five points if this scoring system is used.

Tony Atkins wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:26 am Not sure that 930 was a good example for using the 937.5 method as two standard method solves are possible too!

((75-50)x25)+(3x100)+5
((25-3)x50)-100-75+5

Interestingly, I would go for the top method in-game and maybe the 937.5 on another day. Wouldn't even think of going with the second method you suggested. This makes the numbers rounds great though as we all have our preferred method of solving them. I'm looking forward to Rachel's segment next week.

Martin Long wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 8:52 am I quite enjoyed this episode of Celebrity Countdown. The scoring system is okay but gives an unfair advantage to the contestant solving the conundrum. I think that the conundrum should only be worth five points if this scoring system is used.

That's exactly how it's done on flat scoring on apterous. Probably wouldn't work here because it's quite a shit amount of points for what it is, especially since they're not likely to solve them all

Would have been 28-50 to Jo under normal rules, I believe?

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:01 am Would have been 28-50 to Jo under normal rules, I believe?

Or 50-28 as it's also known.

(I haven't checked the numbers though.)

Well, given Jo was in C2's chair...