c4countdown

Joseph Krol wrote:Just calculated that it would take me 173 days and 14hrs (ish) to get through a million conundrums(assuming 15sec per conundrum).

You're also assuming that you can do without sleep for about half a year.

Can there be a statland page like this- http://www.apterous.org/statland.php?se ... reer_maxes -but for most career points? All this talk of millions, I'd love to know just how close Carson, Bevins et al are to that magic number.

Edit: also most career wins.

Adam Gillard wrote:

Joseph Krol wrote:Just calculated that it would take me 173 days and 14hrs (ish) to get through a million conundrums(assuming 15sec per conundrum).

You're also assuming that you can do without sleep for about half a year.

Junior conundrums are just that exciting.

Out of interest, how many Junior conundrums are there?

James Hall wrote:Out of interest, how many Junior conundrums are there?

Must be somehow limited, because pretty much every junior conundrum I don't solve I have heard of, and those weird obscure sevens you get in normal play never seem to come up.

James Hall wrote:Out of interest, how many Junior conundrums are there?

Must be somehow limited, because pretty much every junior conundrum I don't solve I have heard of, and those weird obscure sevens you get in normal play never seem to come up.

Fair point well made Jimbo x2.

Rhys Benjamin wrote:Fair point well made Jimbo x2.

*LIKE*

Joseph Krol wrote:

James Hall wrote:Out of interest, how many Junior conundrums are there?

Must be somehow limited, because pretty much every junior conundrum I don't solve I have heard of, and those weird obscure sevens you get in normal play never seem to come up.

Yep, all the ODE conundrum lists were filtered by hand. There are 3986 junior conundrums and 4378 hyper conundrums.

I know it's come up loads before but I'll mention it again anyway - can you make it so that the duellist buzzes in or something when you get a conundrum wrong so you don't have to wait for the time to tick down?

Gavin Chipper wrote:I know it's come up loads before but I'll mention it again anyway - can you make it so that the duellist buzzes in or something when you get a conundrum wrong so you don't have to wait for the time to tick down?

They used to do this in the olden days and on the surface it worked really well, but there was something buggering it up behind the scenes iirc.

Weird idea for a format - text speak, using the letters from a phone keypad. 3 to 5 numbers between 2 and 9 are drawn with differing frequency (depending on the combination of letters on each key), and words are made using unlimited rules.

As a way of keeping an eye out for fresh talent, one of the criteria for filtering pro ranks could be duration of membership.

Most different words found in each variant.

JackHurst wrote:As a way of keeping an eye out for fresh talent, one of the criteria for filtering pro ranks could be duration of membership.

Also I think 30-59 could do with splitting.

JackHurst wrote:As a way of keeping an eye out for fresh talent, one of the criteria for filtering pro ranks could be duration of membership.

Like Ned Pendleton

Could numbers attack record pages have lowest maximum like normal games do? Could have highest maximum for completeness but it's always likely to be 200.

I know it's probably too late to be changing formats once they've been set up, but I think 2 of each small number would be better than 3 in hyper numbers. (There's at least 3 from experience and probably exactly 3). Also since flat scoring was set up to enable both players to score in each round even if one has a worse score, could it be set up so that each player has their own clock on the conundrum, so that both can solve it? That way you could go back to 10 points. Maybe you could call it flat+.

Also in top dog numbers, can we have things other than 2 from the top? (Like one from the top)

What's with most of the quickest overall conundrum attacks being done with outrageously easy conundrums?

Anyway could do with some 'nasty' conundrums for CSW.

How about if you play 8 consecutive normal 15 rounders, you get eight shirts (regarding the cliché that you must buy many shirts if you are an octochamp) as an item idea?

Joseph Krol wrote:How about if you play 8 consecutive normal 15 rounders, you get eight shirts (regarding the cliché that you must buy many shirts if you are an octochamp) as an item idea?

Good idea, but generally it's 5 shirts I think. Not sure about other people though.

Kai Laddiman wrote:

Joseph Krol wrote:How about if you play 8 consecutive normal 15 rounders, you get eight shirts (regarding the cliché that you must buy many shirts if you are an octochamp) as an item idea?

Good idea, but generally it's 5 shirts I think. Not sure about other people though.

This probably needs a rethink.

Joseph Krol wrote:

Kai Laddiman wrote:

Joseph Krol wrote:How about if you play 8 consecutive normal 15 rounders, you get eight shirts (regarding the cliché that you must buy many shirts if you are an octochamp) as an item idea?

Good idea, but generally it's 5 shirts I think. Not sure about other people though.

This probably needs a rethink.

How about then, if you play (and win) eight consecutive 15-rounders (not against bots), you get one shirt with an 8 on the back, or something.

Joseph Krol wrote:How about if you play 8 consecutive normal 15 rounders, you get eight shirts (regarding the cliché that you must buy many shirts if you are an octochamp) as an item idea?

Amusing idea but I don't really want to create an incentive to not experiment. Maybe an item for playing a selection of variants, or something.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Joseph Krol wrote:How about if you play 8 consecutive normal 15 rounders, you get eight shirts (regarding the cliché that you must buy many shirts if you are an octochamp) as an item idea?

Amusing idea but I don't really want to create an incentive to not experiment. Maybe an item for playing a selection of variants, or something.

Selection box for 8 different variants in a row?

I'd like (on Superstats) "Most Offered Words" to be expanded to also give "Most Offered 8's" and maybe even "Most Offered 7's"...

Though I think 6's and below would be a bit pointless perhaps.

A list of the players online on the homepage of apterous.

Ryan Taylor wrote:A list of the players online on the homepage of apterous.

I wholeheartedly endorse this idea.

I think having someone's Pro Rank on their user page would be good. I don't think there's a way to find it currently without scrolling through all the pages or making them your rival.

I like the way the way it has on the front page the variant, number of rounds and time of the day's duel, but I think it would be even cooler if it had the LNC breakdown.

It would be interesting to see how Apterous looked over time in the history pages.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Joseph Krol wrote:How about if you play 8 consecutive normal 15 rounders, you get eight shirts (regarding the cliché that you must buy many shirts if you are an octochamp) as an item idea?

Amusing idea but I don't really want to create an incentive to not experiment. Maybe an item for playing a selection of variants, or something.

What if you start with a duck when you sign up, then when you first win a game it gets taken away and replaced with a broken duck? You could extend it to have a broken duck egg for your first Omelette win, a broken duckling for your first Junior win, a shot duck for your first Bullet win, un canard cassé for your first French win, etc.

How about something for being in the game of the week?

Top Dog records (number of rounds rather than percentage).

A game of the year vote for 2010 (perhaps the 12 monthly winners or 2nd places too).

Gavin Chipper wrote:Top Dog records (number of rounds rather than percentage).

I'd be more interested in seeing percentages, assuming that the very best never quite reach 100%.

Ian Volante wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:Top Dog records (number of rounds rather than percentage).

I'd be more interested in seeing percentages, assuming that the very best never quite reach 100%.

That would be interesting too, but I think the Top Dog idea of lasting as long as you can is interesting enough in its own right - i.e. regardless of the handicap system. Also, how does the percentage thing work? I still get the feeling that better players are more likely to end up on top from what I've seen.

On the user ratings page, can this be made accessible from a user's page? I don't know of anywhere linking to this other than when Charlie mentioned it existed like here. Also it seems you can only access your own because there's no user number in there and when I click on it, it just goes to mine.

Apologies if this has been mentioned before, but Hypergoatblitz please! (touch and hypertouch have it, goat has it, logical progression is to hypergoat).

Edit: fun for all the family

Now that user pics are kicking off, how about changing the top of game recaps, e.g.:

Innis Carson 79 - 90 James Nguyen

(or perhaps pics straight below the headline if you think they interrupt it?... or maybe even put them in the Cast box (and remove the 'Supporting' bit))

Also, in-game, the challenge blocks under the Your challenges section are the perfect size to have the (potential/current) opponent's photo left-justified.
Looks more beautiful, makes challenges far more easy to manage, and again promotes the use of photos to those that don't have one yet. A real winner.

Matt Morrison wrote:Also, in-game, the challenge blocks under the Your challenges section are the perfect size to have the (potential/current) opponent's photo left-justified.
Looks more beautiful, makes challenges far more easy to manage, and again promotes the use of photos to those that don't have one yet. A real winner.

*LIKE*

I'm not sure any of these ideas make enough use of the images. Maybe put them every other character in chat, like

Jon O'Neill: This is ridiculous.

Charlie Reams wrote:I'm not sure any of these ideas make enough use of the images. Maybe put them every other character in chat, like

Jon O'Neill: This is ridiculous.

A-lol

This is kinda hard to understand, I find that it is a bit hard to explain but... Where you wrote lag corrections for conundrums do you mean well sometimes when I do conundrum attacks on apterous it kinda like asks the other person what they think the answer is and if they dont get it they ask me and I get it, and where it says how many seconds you got them in well it said I buzzed before the other person but they got the chance to answer first, its happened a few times and is quite strange.... Soph K

Soph K wrote:This is kinda hard to understand, I find that it is a bit hard to explain but... Where you wrote lag corrections for conundrums do you mean well sometimes when I do conundrum attacks on apterous it kinda like asks the other person what they think the answer is and if they dont get it they ask me and I get it, and where it says how many seconds you got them in well it said I buzzed before the other person but they got the chance to answer first, its happened a few times and is quite strange.... Soph K

Is this relevant?

If I'm reading back over the chat box and I'm a good bit up the page and someone comes in the room or gets a nine or what have you I get put back to the bottom of the page. Anyway around this?

Mark James wrote:If I'm reading back over the chat box and I'm a good bit up the page and someone comes in the room or gets a nine or what have you I get put back to the bottom of the page. Anyway around this?

I think that's come up before. Can't remember what the official response was, but I find it a bit annoying too.

I think the high score pages for formats involving any type of Goatletters rounds should have a Metamax Column to accompany the Score and Max Columns.

How about a spoilage star path?

Are we ever going to see a Headnote of Hares, Headword of Hurst, Magazine of Monaghan or Paperback of Pati?

Matthew Tassier wrote:How about a spoilage star path?

Seconded! I can't believe I forgot that there isn't one yet.

Graeme Cole wrote:Paperback of Pati?

Pati-er-mâché. That is all.

Mark James wrote:If I'm reading back over the chat box and I'm a good bit up the page and someone comes in the room or gets a nine or what have you I get put back to the bottom of the page. Anyway around this?

If you use the scroll bar on the right of the chat box and make sure you leave the cursor in the position along the bar where you are reading, then you can just click on that spot whenever the chat jumps back to the bottom. It's not ideal, but it saves a lot of scrolling up each time.

Adam Gillard wrote:

Mark James wrote:If I'm reading back over the chat box and I'm a good bit up the page and someone comes in the room or gets a nine or what have you I get put back to the bottom of the page. Anyway around this?

If you use the scroll bar on the right of the chat box and make sure you leave the cursor in the position along the bar where you are reading, then you can just click on that spot whenever the chat jumps back to the bottom. It's not ideal, but it saves a lot of scrolling up each time.

Or just read the chat logs.

With the top players stats on statland with stats over the last 30 days, it's all very transient, and I was wondering if maybe there could be a more permanent version. for example, with top numbers, letters or conundrum players you could have a separate section that includes each player's best consecutive run of say 500 rounds for each type of round. I think that would be a good all-time great type of stat.

I was thinking that the scoring system used in a game should really only be relevant to who wins the game, rather than for records pages. I think for records pages, it shouldn't worry about what scoring system was actually used in a game but check all games played to the same round format.

So for example, Flat 15. The record for this is 118 but only 649 games have been played. The chances are that one of the 142849 15-round games would beat it if the scores were converted.

When I look at records from the actual show, I sometimes look for the best scores under "Gevin scoring". I might also decide to do that for Apterous, but I wouldn't just look for games that happened to be played under "Gevin scoring" - I'd check games under all scoring systems and convert them.

In fact I think it would be a pretty cool idea to be able to be able to check the records for each format under any of the available scoring systems. So at the top of each page you just click the link for each scoring system. You could have different colours for games where the relevant system was actually used and you could still have a separate table on the page to show the top games where the system was actually used, so it would please everybody!

Gavin Chipper wrote:I was thinking that the scoring system used in a game should really only be relevant to who wins the game, rather than for records pages. I think for records pages, it shouldn't worry about what scoring system was actually used in a game but check all games played to the same round format.

So for example, Flat 15. The record for this is 118 but only 649 games have been played. The chances are that one of the 142849 15-round games would beat it if the scores were converted.

When I look at records from the actual show, I sometimes look for the best scores under "Gevin scoring". I might also decide to do that for Apterous, but I wouldn't just look for games that happened to be played under "Gevin scoring" - I'd check games under all scoring systems and convert them.

In fact I think it would be a pretty cool idea to be able to be able to check the records for each format under any of the available scoring systems. So at the top of each page you just click the link for each scoring system. You could have different colours for games where the relevant system was actually used and you could still have a separate table on the page to show the top games where the system was actually used, so it would please everybody!

I've thought about doing something like this before and just never gotten around to it (it would be major hassle to rescore all the old games). Also I've thought for a while that the high scores should be based on raw score rather than actual score, since that way people would be encouraged to play each other more and pound Prune less (which I imagine gets a bit dull). But I dunno if people would be confused to click through from a high score to see a game with a lower score. Hmm.

Charlie Reams wrote:Also I've thought for a while that the high scores should be based on raw score rather than actual score, since that way people would be encouraged to play each other more and pound Prune less (which I imagine gets a bit dull). But I dunno if people would be confused to click through from a high score to see a game with a lower score. Hmm.

I like this idea, maybe it could be a separate section? It might clog up the database though.

Charlie Reams wrote:I've thought about doing something like this before and just never gotten around to it (it would be major hassle to rescore all the old games). Also I've thought for a while that the high scores should be based on raw score rather than actual score, since that way people would be encouraged to play each other more and pound Prune less (which I imagine gets a bit dull). But I dunno if people would be confused to click through from a high score to see a game with a lower score. Hmm.

I suppose rescoring the games would be quite a drain on resources making it quite slow. You could do it between 4 and 5 in the morning each morning until it's done, when presumably Innis is the only one on. The raw score thing sounds quite good, but I suppose instead of confusing people you could add as a filter thing so you'd have to actively select it. Obviously I don't know how hard/simple these things would be though.

More classic games?

Especially since J. Robinson.