c4countdown

Charlie Reams wrote:

Kevin Manthorpe wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:Not sure what you mean here, there's no patience bar on choosing which word to declare.

What I'm saying is that perhaps there should be.

This is implemented now. Five seconds seems plenty.

Can I please put in a request to have this increased to 10 seconds?
Still not a lot, so that opponents aren't champing at the bit.
If it bothers me, and I've been playing for about 6 months, I think 5 sec is probably too little thinking time for newbies.

Love the new 'non-declared' word feature!

Julie T wrote:
If it bothers me, and I've been playing for about 6 months, I think 5 sec is probably too little thinking time for newbies.

This is just the declaration of word time, Julie, not the thinking time during the round. E.g. if you have LEOTARD for 7 and LEOTARDS for 8, you get 5 seconds of time to decide which you're going to play. I think this is plenty.

Kirk Bevins wrote:you get 5 seconds of time to decide which you're going to play. I think this is plenty.

Except it's really 5 seconds to realise you need to make a choice, make the choice (perhaps after reminding yourself what you've noted down), and then move the cursor to the right place and click. Put like that it's not quite so ridiculous - I don't really see how much of an advantage one gains from the additional thinking time anyway.

I think 10 seconds is enough to look a word up in the dictionary, while 5 isn't.

Jon O'Neill wrote:I think 10 seconds is enough to look a word up in the dictionary, while 5 isn't.

Disagree - but maybe I'm just slow. I think if you're worrying about people actually cheating, you have more to worry about than an extra five seconds at the declaration stage.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:I think 10 seconds is enough to look a word up in the dictionary, while 5 isn't.

Disagree - but maybe I'm just slow. I think if you're worrying about people actually cheating, you have more to worry about than an extra five seconds at the declaration stage.

I agree with this. I don't know why I psoted really, I haven't played Countdown in two weeks.

Michael Wallace wrote:
Except it's really 5 seconds to realise you need to make a choice, make the choice (perhaps after reminding yourself what you've noted down), and then move the cursor to the right place and click. Put like that it's not quite so ridiculous - I don't really see how much of an advantage one gains from the additional thinking time anyway.

This is ridiculous. 5 seconds is plenty to move your mouse and click. If you have a longest word you don't even need to do anything as it will default to this. How can you forget which words you have written down? You imagine on the show, "Kirk, how long is your word?" Kirk: "errr, hang on, give me 10 seconds thinking time while I decide". Ludicrous.

Kirk Bevins wrote:This is ridiculous. 5 seconds is plenty to move your mouse and click. If you have a longest word you don't even need to do anything as it will default to this. How can you forget which words you have written down? You imagine on the show, "Kirk, how long is your word?" Kirk: "errr, hang on, give me 10 seconds thinking time while I decide". Ludicrous.

Tbh, I think you're forgetting that not everyone has the good motor skills, vision, etc. to be able to move a mouse quickly and accurately.

Would it help at all if the selection could be made from the keyboard? Such as pressing a number which corresponds with the entry or arrow keys + enter key combination.

I think it would be ideal if the game could be played entirely with the keyboard anyway. Good ergonomics and such.

Simon Myers wrote:Would it help at all if the selection could be made from the keyboard? Such as pressing a number which corresponds with the entry or arrow keys + enter key combination.

I think it would be ideal if the game could be played entirely with the keyboard anyway. Good ergonomics and such.

Last time I tried tab tab tab tab + enter worked.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:you get 5 seconds of time to decide which you're going to play. I think this is plenty.

Except it's really 5 seconds to realise you need to make a choice, make the choice (perhaps after reminding yourself what you've noted down), and then move the cursor to the right place and click. Put like that it's not quite so ridiculous - I don't really see how much of an advantage one gains from the additional thinking time anyway.

Exactly. My saying 'thinking time' was a bit misleading.
What Kirk really needs to remember is that not everyone is as lightning quick at apterous as he is.
10 seconds rather than 5 would still prevent timewasting, and isn't long enough to look up a word in the ODE2r, if that's what some of you are worried about.

I (think) I originally said 5, as I thought that was the time used for all the 'Patience Meters' ? (i.e. for each step of the numbers method declaration, conundrum declaration)

Julie T wrote: 10 seconds rather than 5 would still prevent timewasting, and isn't long enough to look up a word in the ODE2r, if that's what some of you are worried about.

I can look up a word in ODE2r in 10 seconds, easily. Maybe I should be in DC...

Talking of newby-friendliness, the numbers interface will be getting a big-style overhaul in the next few weeks, I'm well on the way to devising something much more intuitive (and forgiving.)

Charlie Reams wrote:Talking of newby-friendliness, the numbers interface will be getting a big-style overhaul in the next few weeks, I'm well on the way to devising something much more intuitive (and forgiving.)

Ooh, will you be allowing players to delete an operation or number they've picked, pretty please?
I do find that I sometimes press the wrong button, either my own error, or my laptop mousepad assuming I've clicked on something that I've simply dragged the cursor over.

In case it hasn't been mentioned anywhere already, I'd like to say how much I like the new feature of being told whether the longer word you had but didn't risk would have been valid. Thanks Charlie.

Fixed-time games - you have a certain amount of time, maybe 225 seconds, for all fifteen rounds, and you have to end rounds as and when you feel like it. (

This is a great idea.

I don't like moaning about certain features as I feel it depresses Charlie but I'm not a fan of this incremented timer. It was much easier to tell with a continuous timer when you had a fraction of a second left if you wanted to buzz in at the last minute with a conundrum guess. With this new, almost discrete, timer it's hard to judge and more than once I've been caught out wanting to press a letter at the last minute only to be told I'm out of time. Please could we have the old continuous clock back?

Kirk Bevins wrote:I don't like moaning about certain features as I feel it depresses Charlie but I'm not a fan of this incremented timer. It was much easier to tell with a continuous timer when you had a fraction of a second left if you wanted to buzz in at the last minute with a conundrum guess. With this new, almost discrete, timer it's hard to judge and more than once I've been caught out wanting to press a letter at the last minute only to be told I'm out of time. Please could we have the old continuous clock back?

I agree.

Kirk Bevins wrote:I don't like moaning about certain features as I feel it depresses Charlie but I'm not a fan of this incremented timer. It was much easier to tell with a continuous timer when you had a fraction of a second left if you wanted to buzz in at the last minute with a conundrum guess. With this new, almost discrete, timer it's hard to judge and more than once I've been caught out wanting to press a letter at the last minute only to be told I'm out of time. Please could we have the old continuous clock back?

I agree, and also, maybe it's just my computer, but after the letters round, a new window used to open with the dictionary corner guest and it said something like:

Des: What were your words?

Eoin: My 9 was CREATIONS

Susie: Let me just check, and YES!!! it's in, well done.

Prune: My 4 was RAIN

Susie: Well done

Shakespeare: Doth thou not spot NARCOTISE, ANORETICS or REACTIONS?

And now that's gone.

Eoin Monaghan wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:I don't like moaning about certain features as I feel it depresses Charlie but I'm not a fan of this incremented timer. It was much easier to tell with a continuous timer when you had a fraction of a second left if you wanted to buzz in at the last minute with a conundrum guess. With this new, almost discrete, timer it's hard to judge and more than once I've been caught out wanting to press a letter at the last minute only to be told I'm out of time. Please could we have the old continuous clock back?

I agree, and also, maybe it's just my computer, but after the letters round, a new window used to open with the dictionary corner guest and it said something like:

Des: What were your words?

Eoin: My 9 was CREATIONS

Susie: Let me just check, and YES!!! it's in, well done.

Prune: My 4 was RAIN

Susie: Well done

Shakespeare: Doth thou not spot NARCOTISE, ANORETICS or REACTIONS?

And now that's gone.

"Fast mode" that's called; check to see if the box is marked in your account.

Andrew Feist wrote:

Eoin Monaghan wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:I don't like moaning about certain features as I feel it depresses Charlie but I'm not a fan of this incremented timer. It was much easier to tell with a continuous timer when you had a fraction of a second left if you wanted to buzz in at the last minute with a conundrum guess. With this new, almost discrete, timer it's hard to judge and more than once I've been caught out wanting to press a letter at the last minute only to be told I'm out of time. Please could we have the old continuous clock back?

I agree, and also, maybe it's just my computer, but after the letters round, a new window used to open with the dictionary corner guest and it said something like:

Des: What were your words?

Eoin: My 9 was CREATIONS

Susie: Let me just check, and YES!!! it's in, well done.

Prune: My 4 was RAIN

Susie: Well done

Shakespeare: Doth thou not spot NARCOTISE, ANORETICS or REACTIONS?

And now that's gone.

"Fast mode" that's called; check to see if the box is marked in your account.

Ah, I see, I ticked it yesterday and didn't know what it was, thanks Andrew.

Kirk Bevins wrote:I don't like moaning about certain features as I feel it depresses Charlie but I'm not a fan of this incremented timer. It was much easier to tell with a continuous timer when you had a fraction of a second left if you wanted to buzz in at the last minute with a conundrum guess. With this new, almost discrete, timer it's hard to judge and more than once I've been caught out wanting to press a letter at the last minute only to be told I'm out of time. Please could we have the old continuous clock back?

No. Read News.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:I don't like moaning about certain features as I feel it depresses Charlie but I'm not a fan of this incremented timer. It was much easier to tell with a continuous timer when you had a fraction of a second left if you wanted to buzz in at the last minute with a conundrum guess. With this new, almost discrete, timer it's hard to judge and more than once I've been caught out wanting to press a letter at the last minute only to be told I'm out of time. Please could we have the old continuous clock back?

No. Read News.

Can't you lessen the round time limits?

The news page says that the 'stepped' clock is a trade-off for improving "lots of round time issues". I feel it's one of those things where yes, a smooth clock would be better, but if less clock cycles painting the clock is what it takes to improve the nightmarish task of synchronising real-time play over the internet (ever played an online shooter and opponents suddenly quantum tunnel across the room because of lag?), then so be it, and from the thousands of hours I gather Charlie has put into this, and the brevity of his answer above, I suspect he wouldn't do it unless it was worth it!

I have found that I have got used to it for 30 second games - but it is quite tricky with 5 second games. Charlie after a quick check it seems to be operating in 1 second increments could it be changed to be e.g. 1/30 of the amount of time available and still give you the round-trip improvements?

Cheers, Rob.

p.s. The "words-I-had-but-didn't-offer" feature is top class.

Rob Thomas wrote:The news page says that the 'stepped' clock is a trade-off for improving "lots of round time issues". I feel it's one of those things where yes, a smooth clock would be better, but if less clock cycles painting the clock is what it takes to improve the nightmarish task of synchronising real-time play over the internet (ever played an online shooter and opponents suddenly quantum tunnel across the room because of lag?), then so be it, and from the thousands of hours I gather Charlie has put into this, and the brevity of his answer above, I suspect he wouldn't do it unless it was worth it!

I have found that I have got used to it for 30 second games - but it is quite tricky with 5 second games. Charlie after a quick check it seems to be operating in 1 second increments could it be changed to be e.g. 1/30 of the amount of time available and still give you the round-trip improvements?

Cheers, Rob.

p.s. The "words-I-had-but-didn't-offer" feature is top class.

Aww man, more posts like this please. The problem with the clock is that, depending on the spec of the machine you're running it on, it can tolerate more or fewer updates without causing major issues, and there's no easy way for to me to determine that threshold for any given machine. I rarely had any problems with the totally smooth clock, but quite a few people apparently did. Your idea of making it 30 increments irrespective of time is a good one. At some point in the future I'll look to do something a bit prettier.

The news page says that the 'stepped' clock is a trade-off for improving "lots of round time issues". I feel it's one of those things where yes, a smooth clock would be better, but if less clock cycles painting the clock is what it takes to improve the nightmarish task of synchronising real-time play over the internet (ever played an online shooter and opponents suddenly quantum tunnel across the room because of lag?), then so be it, and from the thousands of hours I gather Charlie has put into this, and the brevity of his answer above, I suspect he wouldn't do it unless it was worth it!

I have found that I have got used to it for 30 second games - but it is quite tricky with 5 second games. Charlie after a quick check it seems to be operating in 1 second increments could it be changed to be e.g. 1/30 of the amount of time available and still give you the round-trip improvements?

Cheers, Rob.

p.s. The "words-I-had-but-didn't-offer" feature is top class.

Jon Corby wrote:The news page says that the 'stepped' clock is a trade-off for improving "lots of round time issues". I feel it's one of those things where yes, a smooth clock would be better, but if less clock cycles painting the clock is what it takes to improve the nightmarish task of synchronising real-time play over the internet (ever played an online shooter and opponents suddenly quantum tunnel across the room because of lag?), then so be it, and from the thousands of hours I gather Charlie has put into this, and the brevity of his answer above, I suspect he wouldn't do it unless it was worth it!

I have found that I have got used to it for 30 second games - but it is quite tricky with 5 second games. Charlie after a quick check it seems to be operating in 1 second increments could it be changed to be e.g. 1/30 of the amount of time available and still give you the round-trip improvements?

Cheers, Rob.

p.s. The "words-I-had-but-didn't-offer" feature is top class.

I'm touched.

...

Okay, you can stop touching me now.

More on the clock - How about having the actual clock tune when the clock is going?

Eoin Monaghan wrote:More on the clock - How about having the actual clock tune when the clock is going?

apterous.org wrote:The first thing to say is that apterous is definitely not Countdown. It is not endorsed by Countdown, Channel 4 or anyone important at all.

Kai Laddiman wrote:

Eoin Monaghan wrote:More on the clock - How about having the actual clock tune when the clock is going?

apterous.org wrote:The first thing to say is that apterous is definitely not Countdown. It is not endorsed by Countdown, Channel 4 or anyone important at all.

Eoin Monaghan wrote:

Kai Laddiman wrote:

Eoin Monaghan wrote:More on the clock - How about having the actual clock tune when the clock is going?

apterous.org wrote:The first thing to say is that apterous is definitely not Countdown. It is not endorsed by Countdown, Channel 4 or anyone important at all.

At Charlie's request, I composed a 30-second royalty-free substitute for the clock music which everyone hated (including me). Anyone with more musical talent than me (which probably includes most, if not all, of your household pets) is welcome to have a go for themselves. Be warned though - it's not as easy as you think. Anything with a discernible tune, for instance, is too distracting.

Would the double bass be suitable?

Phil Reynolds wrote:At Charlie's request, I composed a 30-second royalty-free substitute for the clock music which everyone hated (including me). Anyone with more musical talent than me (which probably includes most, if not all, of your household pets) is welcome to have a go for themselves. Be warned though - it's not as easy as you think. Anything with a discernible tune, for instance, is too distracting.

To be fair, it's only the really monotonous ticking that annoys me about your composition. The ending bit is (relatively) quite an interesting sound.
I agree that practically any 'listenable' sound would be far too distracting though, apart from the actual music of course. And since we can't have that, it seems sensible to have nothing at all.

Neil Zussman wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:At Charlie's request, I composed a 30-second royalty-free substitute for the clock music which everyone hated (including me). Anyone with more musical talent than me (which probably includes most, if not all, of your household pets) is welcome to have a go for themselves. Be warned though - it's not as easy as you think. Anything with a discernible tune, for instance, is too distracting.

To be fair, it's only the really monotonous ticking that annoys me about your composition. The ending bit is (relatively) quite an interesting sound.
I agree that practically any 'listenable' sound would be far too distracting though, apart from the actual music of course. And since we can't have that, it seems sensible to have nothing at all.

I actually didn't hate it at all, I think if you refined it a bit it'd probably be cool, and obviously I'd have the option to turn it off anyway.

Neil Zussman wrote:To be fair, it's only the really monotonous ticking that annoys me about your composition. The ending bit is (relatively) quite an interesting sound.

The ticking is the one bit that I designed to sound as much as possible like the original clock jingle. Trouble is, as I suggested before, it's a MIDI file and so what it sounds like will depend entirely on what MIDI device you're playing it through, so you're probably hearing something totallly different to what I intended.

Charlie Reams wrote:I think if you refined it a bit it'd probably be cool, and obviously I'd have the option to turn it off anyway.

This is my second attempt. It's simpler in structure, has a more lightweight ticking sound in deference to Neil's artistic sensibilities, and I've saved it as MP3 audio rather than MIDI so you can hear (more or less) what I'm hearing. If this one doesn't appeal then I shall probably go the way of all misunderstood (i.e. failed) musicians and disband myself citing creative differences.

Phil Reynolds wrote: If this one doesn't appeal then I shall probably go the way of all misunderstood (i.e. failed) musicians and disband myself citing creative differences.

I'm not a fan of this one - I was getting used to the first one though, it's quite good.

Kirk Bevins wrote:I'm not a fan of this one - I was getting used to the first one though, it's quite good.

I think I'll go and have a little cry.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:I'm not a fan of this one - I was getting used to the first one though, it's quite good.

I think I'll go and have a little cry.

I reckon a 30 second version of 'we love countdown' would be pretty suitable.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:I'm not a fan of this one - I was getting used to the first one though, it's quite good.

I think I'll go and have a little cry.

Don't worry, Kirk says that about everything. Can you upload an MP3 of the original one so we can compare?

Charlie Reams wrote:Can you upload an MP3 of the original one so we can compare?

Done, in all its festering overtwiddliness.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:Can you upload an MP3 of the original one so we can compare?

Done, in all its festering overtwiddliness.

Sounds pretty much identical to the MIDI version on my system. I did actually get most of the way to implementing this so maybe I'll finish the job.

My tuppence.

First one is far superior. Thanks for doing the MP3. Like Charlie, sounded the same as I'd heard through my browser with the MIDI file, right up until the end - the anti-climatic 'twanging of an elastic band' (as you described it before) sounds much better now that I can hear it as intended. It's pretty cool. I'd dig it for conundrums, but for every round would be too much for me as I'm always listening to (proper) music or watching some episode of something whilst I'm playing. Gwork.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Neil Zussman wrote:To be fair, it's only the really monotonous ticking that annoys me about your composition. The ending bit is (relatively) quite an interesting sound.

The ticking is the one bit that I designed to sound as much as possible like the original clock jingle. Trouble is, as I suggested before, it's a MIDI file and so what it sounds like will depend entirely on what MIDI device you're playing it through, so you're probably hearing something totallly different to what I intended.

Sorry Phil Sounded harsher than intended. I think the problem is just that the harsh metronomic ticking of the first composition reminds me too much of music lessons at school. As someone with purely scientific/ mathematical skills ('skills' being used in the very loosest sense of the word) any kind of artistic subject brings me out in a cold sweat.
FWIW, I prefer the first one, but would prefer it more if the 'lighter' ticking sound was used. However, I don't want to cause any more trouble than I already have.

Neil Zussman wrote:Sorry Phil Sounded harsher than intended. I think the problem is just that the harsh metronomic ticking of the first composition reminds me too much of music lessons at school. As someone with purely scientific/ mathematical skills ('skills' being used in the very loosest sense of the word) any kind of artistic subject brings me out in a cold sweat.
FWIW, I prefer the first one, but would prefer it more if the 'lighter' ticking sound was used. However, I don't want to cause any more trouble than I already have.

Haha - made you blush twice. You haven't caused any trouble at all, but thanks for the insight into your phobia about music teachers, which will no doubt be used against you in some random future bout of name-calling.

Anyway, here's the first version again with the less obtrusive tick and some other changes to the sounds used, plus some improved mixing and a bit of stereo separation.

Phil Reynolds wrote: Anyway, here's the first version again with the less obtrusive tick and some other changes to the sounds used, plus some improved mixing and a bit of stereo separation.

That is really quite good, as in, I wouldn't be embarrassed to listen to it during an actual game. Can you send me/post the midi version?

How about a "Most Improved player" for Statland... Namely because my ratings have gone up this week But seriously, it might be cool

Silly little statland request- most frequent host/dc etc.? Has no bearing on anything actually related to the game but would be interesting to see nonetheless.

Also something permanent in statland regarding the item high score tables we see on the front page- maybe 'total items' or 'total holy relics' or something.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote: Anyway, here's the first version again with the less obtrusive tick and some other changes to the sounds used, plus some improved mixing and a bit of stereo separation.

That is really quite good, as in, I wouldn't be embarrassed to listen to it during an actual game. Can you send me/post the midi version?

I like the human sounding "too too tooooo" bit near the end. Midi-tastic, in a really good way.

Phil Reynolds wrote:Anyway, here's the first version again with the less obtrusive tick and some other changes to the sounds used, plus some improved mixing and a bit of stereo separation.

Nice one! Easily the best version, cheers Phil.

Having just been on apterous for the first time in ages, I just want to congratulate Charlie on all the improvements- it's amazing! The numbers interface, the items tab, the improved chatbox, even Phil's jingle (glad I typed that right) it's all awesome, well done!
This isn't intended as a bribe to let me win our match in the goatblitz tourney, I do generally think the changes are great. But if you are open to bribes...

Neil Zussman wrote:Having just been on apterous for the first time in ages, I just want to congratulate Charlie on all the improvements- it's amazing! The numbers interface, the items tab, the improved chatbox, even Phil's jingle (glad I typed that right) it's all awesome, well done!
This isn't intended as a bribe to let me win our match in the goatblitz tourney, I do generally think the changes are great. But if you are open to bribes...

Sweet, thanksGet that cheque in the post.

Neil Zussman wrote:Having just been on apterous for the first time in ages, I just want to congratulate Charlie on all the improvements- it's amazing! The numbers interface, the items tab, the improved chatbox, even Phil's jingle (glad I typed that right) it's all awesome, well done!

Got all excited when I read this as the clock music hadn't been added last time I was on. So I went and had a token game against Waldorf - and didn't get the music. I get all the usual sounds, and the music is enabled in my settings - I just don't hear it in the game. What's that all about?

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Neil Zussman wrote:Having just been on apterous for the first time in ages, I just want to congratulate Charlie on all the improvements- it's amazing! The numbers interface, the items tab, the improved chatbox, even Phil's jingle (glad I typed that right) it's all awesome, well done!

Got all excited when I read this as the clock music hadn't been added last time I was on. So I went and had a token game against Waldorf - and didn't get the music. I get all the usual sounds, and the music is enabled in my settings - I just don't hear it in the game. What's that all about?

http://apterous.org/help.php?page=12#info

Now that we have the awesome ninefinder contests, could you add either a default or login page option that these induce a noise or set window to on top or something when they come up? I like multitasking but I don't like losing to the multiheaded lexicohydra they call Chrinnis.

Daniel O'Dowd wrote:Now that we have the awesome ninefinder contests, could you add either a default or login page option that these induce a noise or set window to on top or something when they come up? I like multitasking but I don't like losing to the multiheaded lexicohydra they call Chrinnis.

You mean Kirchrinnis, right?

Would it be possible to have the full ninefinder table on a separate page?

Would it be possible to display a breakdown by format for recent history only, say the last 30 days, in addition to all time?

Kevin Davis wrote:Would it be possible to have the full ninefinder table on a separate page?

Done.

Junaid Mubeen wrote:Would it be possible to display a breakdown by format for recent history only, say the last 30 days, in addition to all time?

This is the default now. The all-time stats were causing too much pain for the database server. I'll consider doing some kind of archive data at some point.

Neil Zussman wrote:Having just been on apterous for the first time in ages, I just want to congratulate Charlie on all the improvements- it's amazing! The numbers interface, the items tab, the improved chatbox, even Phil's jingle (glad I typed that right) it's all awesome, well done!

Same here. Just when you think apterous is pretty much perfect and can't get any better, it does. The whole chatbox thing is great, totally want to start apterousing again once my exams are over.

On the high scores page, it strikes me as odd that the 15-rounder format with its 15 000 games is only entitled to a top ten scores the same as, for instance, CSW Goatdown 9, which to be frank barely even needs a top 1. Perhaps some records could be scaled back while others- 15 rounders, 9 rounders and speedgoat spring immediately to mind- could be enchanced to a top 20 or 25?