c4countdown

Ian Volante wrote:Removal of bots from the "best players" lists - does anyone care?

I don't know about anyone else but for me it's quite interesting to see that Prime is slightly better than the top human players, but not so much that he would win all the time.

Gavin Chipper wrote:Maybe it would mean too many stats pages but I'll suggest it anyway - how about best players for shorter lengths rounds (bullet, speed, lightning) as well as the current 30-second lists.

Done. I've experimentally reduced the requisite number of rounds to the number you'd get from ten 15 Rounders, but there are still few players with enough rounds to count.

Is there any way of calculating the best players of an entire year? I suppose this would be based on averages of the charts published all through the year. Now that Apterous has been running for well over a year, I was thinking it is something which could be announced on here or on the Wiki at the end of each year.

No need to start shouting in myear if I'm talking nonsense. This he-year is a kind of suggestions thread, and it was some kind of suggestion.
Yeah-er.

A moment ago I was a crucial conundrum away from losing to Shaun Hegarty after being 34 points ahead.

Are large comebacks announced on the home page sidebar? If not I think they should be!

Charlie Reams wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:Maybe it would mean too many stats pages but I'll suggest it anyway - how about best players for shorter lengths rounds (bullet, speed, lightning) as well as the current 30-second lists.

Done. I've experimentally reduced the requisite number of rounds to the number you'd get from ten 15 Rounders, but there are still few players with enough rounds to count.

Good work. Yeah, there aren't many people on that. But I also meant top players in each discipline as well, so best letters, numbers and conundrums with the different speeds.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Ian Volante wrote:Removal of bots from the "best players" lists - does anyone care?

I don't know about anyone else but for me it's quite interesting to see that Prime is slightly better than the top human players, but not so much that he would win all the time.

I think it's quite interesting to have them on too.

Is there any sort of archive for the games of the week?

Gavin Chipper wrote:Is there any sort of archive for the games of the week?

There will be, when I can be arsed.

On each users section add a box like this one, which shows pencils earned in the last 30 days.

^THIS. Also when do we enter the silver pencil era?

Liam Tiernan wrote:I don't know if this has been requested already, but is it possible to have a buzzer sound on the conundrum if the other player has buzzed in? For non touch-typists like myself it's frustrating sometimes to look up from the keyboard to find that your opponent has buzzed, mistyped and you've now hit an incorrect starting letter.

Happened yet again today. Not crucial or anything, but still frustrating.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:Is there any sort of archive for the games of the week?

There will be, when I can be arsed.

Asked. When you can be asked.

Would it be possible for the 'words using' section to display like the stemmer? Showing the letters which must be added to form the word, and possibly some method of limiting the output, i.e. 8s only or 9s only, and where the output is still too great limit by range of starting letters, or added letters.

Sometimes I think some stats pages could often do with going back more than 30 days. Maybe there could be an option to show all-time lists as well as last 30 days. Also, do records pages update automatically, or do you have to prod them?

How about a box on the homepage showing most recent pencils? Just the word, the finder, and a link to the round. The gaining of pencils seems to have slowed enough that this would be practicable, and as it slows the gain of a pencil becomes increasingly worthy of brag.

Hey, a feature that would be quite useful would be somewhere you could update your personal details.

My surname's changing, but I don't want to set up a new account.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:
As an additional safe-guard, how about making the conundrum disappear while you are entering your answer? I suggested this as a possibility to be used on the show (you'd have to put the physical conundrum board out of view of the players, and then just make the monitor shut out on buzzer press) and I reckon it would work pretty well to help stamp out what is essentially cheating.

Thoughts?

I've thought about doing this before. I think it would probably be one of those things like the numbers entry method, which players constantly whine about even though it's the only fair way to do it.

Can I drag this one up again for a trial? I haven't played much for ages so it's not a current annoyance of mine, but I would like to see if people like it. (I can't see why they wouldn't tbf, unless they were cheating)

It would mean that you couldn't click on the letters, but I suppose it might not matter so much after the first letter as you would no longer be in a typing competition. But what about the foreign ones with funny umlaut things?

Gavin Chipper wrote:It would mean that you couldn't click on the letters, but I suppose it might not matter so much after the first letter as you would no longer be in a typing competition. But what about the foreign ones with funny umlaut things?

Um... well, obviously it wouldn't disappear for those. Or something.

Does anyone do conundrums by clicking on the letters? Seriously?

Jon Corby wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:It would mean that you couldn't click on the letters, but I suppose it might not matter so much after the first letter as you would no longer be in a typing competition. But what about the foreign ones with funny umlaut things?

Um... well, obviously it wouldn't disappear for those. Or something.

Does anyone do conundrums by clicking on the letters? Seriously?

I used to.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:It would mean that you couldn't click on the letters, but I suppose it might not matter so much after the first letter as you would no longer be in a typing competition. But what about the foreign ones with funny umlaut things?

Um... well, obviously it wouldn't disappear for those. Or something.

Does anyone do conundrums by clicking on the letters? Seriously?

I used to.

And now you don't because it's crap, yeah? So this would have the added bonus of converting people

Jon Corby wrote:And now you don't because it's crap, yeah? So this would have the added bonus of converting people

Maybe I found it a bit annoying. Can't remember now.

I don't like the sound of this variant. Why bother have the conundrum disappear (it doesn't on the show)? Sometimes people buzz in and type PROPELLOR when the actual answer is PROPELLER and that's when the conundrum is still there! Removing it would make it harder to check if there was an extra E or an extra O, for example.

Kirk Bevins wrote:I don't like the sound of this variant. Why bother have the conundrum disappear (it doesn't on the show)? Sometimes people buzz in and type PROPELLOR when the actual answer is PROPELLER and that's when the conundrum is still there! Removing it would make it harder to check if there was an extra E or an extra O, for example.

I find it more annoying that people buzz in before knowing the answer. Why should people be allowed to check their spelling against the scramble once they've buzzed in? They're supposed to buzz in when they've solved it. The whole "you don't have to spell it on the show" is one you can't really get away with on a computer. I know it's not how the show does it, but I think it should. Apterous doesn't follow show convention elsewhere - you can wait to hear an opponent's declaration before making your own on the show, and then scrabble around looking for words/fudge numbers. The fact that you can't on apterous is an improvement*, in the same way I believe this would be.

Edited to add: * - this isn't particularly problematic on the show, as people generally play more honestly as they have cameras and an audience watching - I'm sure many more people "push it as far as they can" with regards to what apterous allows them to do. Some people use solvers, FFS.

Jennifer Bett wrote:Hey, a feature that would be quite useful would be somewhere you could update your personal details.

My surname's changing, but I don't want to set up a new account.

True say. As a stop gap, if you PM/email me your new details I can change it for you.

Re. the conundrum blanking thing, yes, I think this is a good idea. The letters should also disappear in the letters round if you're finishing a word after the time.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Jennifer Bett wrote:Hey, a feature that would be quite useful would be somewhere you could update your personal details.

My surname's changing, but I don't want to set up a new account.

True say. As a stop gap, if you PM/email me your new details I can change it for you.

Re. the conundrum blanking thing, yes, I think this is a good idea. The letters should also disappear in the letters round if you're finishing a word after the time.

Regarding that, I think it would be good if you could delete letters after the first one, like in conundrums. http://apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=1 ... 0#r2347220

Is it possible to have a "background colour change" button? The white background is a bit of a strain on the old eyes at times, a sort of snow blindness (excuse the pun), a light blue colour or a beige colour option would be great.

Anyway keep up the great work.

Couldn't there be an option to nominate perfomance of the week aswell as game of the week? Kirk made a max in his game with me but slaughtered me at the same time, so I didn't give him much of a game, but his performance is worth nominating.

Jojo Apollo wrote:Couldn't there be an option to nominate perfomance of the week aswell as game of the week? Kirk made a max in his game with me but slaughtered me at the same time, so I didn't give him much of a game, but his performance is worth nominating.

GotW covers both.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Jojo Apollo wrote:Couldn't there be an option to nominate perfomance of the week aswell as game of the week? Kirk made a max in his game with me but slaughtered me at the same time, so I didn't give him much of a game, but his performance is worth nominating.

GotW covers both.

Ah righto.

I have a variant suggestion/request. The rough idea is a variant with similar rounds to standard, but a different scoring systems. The scoring system would be the same as usual, but with a way of getting supplementary points too.

Letters
The nine letters are picked as usual, and each player tries to get the longest word, with points being awarded as they would be in a normal game at the end of the round. But in addition to this, the players may tick a box, indicating that they wish to gamble points on them having all the maxes available. They may tick boxes indicating they wish to gamble anything from 0-3 points (with 0 being selected as the default). If you have all the maxes and you gamble, you win how many points you gambled, but if you dont have all the maxes and you gamble, you lose however many points you gambled, but you still keep the points you'd get from having the word as the max.
I'll give some example rounds:

RD.1: TRELIONSA
C1: RELATIONS, ORIENTALS, TENSORIAL, GAMBLED 3.
C2: RELATIONS, GAMBLED 0.
MAXES: RELATIONS, ORIENTALS, TENSORIAL
SCORE: C1 21-18 C2

In this round, player one knew that he had all the maxes available, so he gambled 3 points, but player two could only spot relations but knew there were other words that he hadn't bothered to take note of, so he didnt gamble, as he didnt want to lose points.

RD.2: GARBELTEO
C1: BLOATER, AEROGEL, BLEATER, BORGATE, GLOATER, LEGATOR, GAMBLED 1.
C2: GAOLER, GAMBLED 0.
MAXES: AEROGEL, BEAGLER, BLEATER, BLOATER, BORGATE, GLOATER, LEGATOR, ROTABLE, RETAGLO
SCORE: C1 27-18 C2

In this flat round it would be very difficult for any player to get all 9 maxes, and be confident there wasn't an 8 or 9. Player one was good enough to spot 6 of them, and thought it was worth a one point gamble. Unfortunately, it didn't pay off, so he lost one point. Player two could only manage a six, but knew there was longer, so he knew not to gamble.

The important thing to remember is that the word length scoring system and the gambling system can be treated totally separately.

Numbers
Exactly the same as normal numbers, but players can earn an extra 2 points if they have a max solution and it uses the least amount of the 6 numbers possible. An example:

Rd.3: 100, 75, 25, 50, 3, 2 --->103
C1: 103, (100+(75/25))
C2: 103, (100+3)
MAX: 103, using two numbers.
SCORE: C1 37-30 C2

Both players had the max solution, but player 2 had one using the least amount of numbers possible, so he got 2 extra points. Please note, if you get a non max in a numbers round, its not possible to get the bonus points, even if you get that number using the least amount of numbers possible. If, for example, the max is one away, and you get one above the target using 4 of the numbers (which is the least you can get to that number in), and your opponent gets one below, using 3 of the numbers (which is the least you can get to that number in), only your opponent would get the bonus point, because they got the optimal solution using the least numbers possible.

CONUNDRUMS:
The same as usual, but suggestions and what we could do to spice them up are welcome.

ISSUES:
The tick boxes would have to be implemented into the game interface. A facility to declare multiple words would also be necessary, and a way of indicating how many words you intend to declare before the round ends would be necessary. The rules would also have to cater for people declaring invalid and valid words, which is something I need to think about.

I have explained this very poorly, and haven't come up with a name. Feel free to ask further questions and suggest improvements and a Name.

JackHurst wrote: RD.2: GARBELTEO
C1: BLOATER, AEROGEL, BLEATER, BORGATE, GLOATER, LEGATOR, GAMBLED 1.
C2: GAOLER, GAMBLED 0.
MAXES: AEROGEL, BEAGLER, BLEATER, BLOATER, BORGATE, GLOATER, LEGATOR, ROTABLE, RETAGLO
SCORE: C1 27-18 C2

Not sure where you got this list from but ROTABLE isn't in (RETABLE is) and RETAGLO isn't either - maybe you meant RETABLO. Interesting variant though.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

JackHurst wrote: RD.2: GARBELTEO
C1: BLOATER, AEROGEL, BLEATER, BORGATE, GLOATER, LEGATOR, GAMBLED 1.
C2: GAOLER, GAMBLED 0.
MAXES: AEROGEL, BEAGLER, BLEATER, BLOATER, BORGATE, GLOATER, LEGATOR, ROTABLE, RETAGLO
SCORE: C1 27-18 C2

Not sure where you got this list from but ROTABLE isn't in (RETABLE is) and RETAGLO isn't either - maybe you meant RETABLO. Interesting variant though.

Yeah, I have a solver, and it has a default dictionary which isnt the apterous one, and i forgot to load the apterous dictionary into it when I started it up.

JackHurst wrote:Numbers
Exactly the same as normal numbers, but players can earn an extra 2 points if they have a max solution and it uses the least amount of the 6 numbers possible.

You could have a variant that's the opposite of omelette, where you have to use the minimum possible.

Also, where it gives the ratings in the games, could there be a before and after rather than just an after?

And I think another good idea would be latest games for variants as well as players.

This is a nice idea. I suggest starting a new thread to thrash out the details.

JackHurst wrote:but a different scoring system. The scoring system would be the same as usual

I lol'd

Charlie Reams wrote:This is a nice idea. I suggest starting a new thread to thrash out the details.

Done.
Could anybody who has comment about suggested variant please put them in the new thread and not in this one.

Pencils from other languages shouldn't be bronze pencils. Perhaps make new items named after pencil in that language.

JackHurst wrote:Pencils from other languages shouldn't be bronze pencils. Perhaps make new items named after pencil in that language.

An excellent idea, and an essential one, basically revolving around the same notion that caused bronze pencils to get invented in the first place (to differentiate from the onslaught of pencils that occurs with a new variant/language/website called apterous etc.)

Could have crayon and Bleistift which would eventually become crayon en bronze and Bronzebleistift or whatever.
(don't blame me, blame freetranslation.com)

JackHurst wrote:Pencils from other languages shouldn't be bronze pencils. Perhaps make new items named after pencil in that language.

This is already the case, as of I can't remember when.

I think it would be nice to have the option of seeing more words in the words using section.

I think, by the side of games (maybe 15 rounders) in "Today's games" or indeed in someone's profile of "latest games" there is a number to show how many maxes were made in that game (and maybe a percentage max stat).

When looking at other people's games (e.g. Chris) I see a lot of high scores and think they could be max games or 14-maxers and so on and I have to click each one to realise that actually they were "only" 11 maxers and a long way from the max and so I shouldn't really be voting that for GOTW, for example.

Just a thought.

I think it would be good to see the duel format of the day without having to go into the playing arena. Sometimes you might just have a few minutes and it's quite a lot of effort to get into the game zone (watching that Java thing rotate for ages) and then you find it's a format you hate anyway (e.g. blind).

Gavin Chipper wrote:I think it would be good to see the duel format of the day without having to go into the playing arena. Sometimes you might just have a few minutes and it's quite a lot of effort to get into the game zone (watching that Java thing rotate for ages) and then you find it's a format you hate anyway (e.g. blind).

But it says what it is on the homepage, doesn't it? I'm sure it does.

JimBentley wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:I think it would be good to see the duel format of the day without having to go into the playing arena. Sometimes you might just have a few minutes and it's quite a lot of effort to get into the game zone (watching that Java thing rotate for ages) and then you find it's a format you hate anyway (e.g. blind).

But it says what it is on the homepage, doesn't it? I'm sure it does.

Oh does it? I'd never noticed.

Edit - where exactly?

Gavin Chipper wrote:

JimBentley wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:I think it would be good to see the duel format of the day without having to go into the playing arena. Sometimes you might just have a few minutes and it's quite a lot of effort to get into the game zone (watching that Java thing rotate for ages) and then you find it's a format you hate anyway (e.g. blind).

But it says what it is on the homepage, doesn't it? I'm sure it does.

Oh does it? I'd never noticed.

Edit - where exactly?

Oh yeah, you're right, it just gives you the number of rounds and the length. But if you also look at 'Today's games' you can sort of figure out if it's some weirdo variant.

On the front page with the latest pencils, can you only show pencils obtained from English ODE games? (or at worst put the French stuff in another box.)

I saw DESIGNEE in the list and thought that's worth learning until I realised it's invalid and was obtained in a French game.

Gavin Chipper wrote:Also, do records pages update automatically, or do you have to prod them?

They update automatically.

Kirk Bevins wrote:On the front page with the latest pencils, can you only show pencils obtained from English ODE games? (or at worst put the French stuff in another box.)

I saw DESIGNEE in the list and thought that's worth learning until I realised it's invalid and was obtained in a French game.

Or you could colour code depending on dictionary? Or have a separate column with an icon? Would be nice to have some way to distinguish them though.

Simon Myers wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:On the front page with the latest pencils, can you only show pencils obtained from English ODE games? (or at worst put the French stuff in another box.)

I saw DESIGNEE in the list and thought that's worth learning until I realised it's invalid and was obtained in a French game.

Or you could colour code depending on dictionary? Or have a separate column with an icon? Would be nice to have some way to distinguish them though.

I did that originally, listing dictionary and variant, but the CSS seems to crap up if you make the table any wider than it is now. I might see if I can get Matt to fix this.

Every time someone offers APTEROUS as a max, they should get an item in their inventory...like a fly that a child has ripped its wings off or something.

Kirk Bevins wrote:Every time someone offers APTEROUS as a max, they should get an item in their inventory...like a fly that a child has ripped its wings off or something.

A plug?

Thanks for doing the bold pencils on the front page, Charlie, but it appears that the bold pencils are only for standard games. I think they should be for all ODE2r games (as described actually under the pencils box on the front page) and thus include ODE2r omelette games and goatdown games, for example, which they currently don't.

Kirk Bevins wrote:Every time someone offers APTEROUS as a max, they should get an item in their inventory...like a fly that a child has ripped its wings off or something.

Or an old-fashioned sanitary towel (before they started putting wings on them).

Alec Rivers wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:Every time someone offers APTEROUS as a max, they should get an item in their inventory...like a fly that a child has ripped its wings off or something.

Or an old-fashioned sanitary towel (before they started putting wings on them).

Doctor White time? It's Tampax 2
Joke circa 1970.

Yes! Spanish lexicon, thanks!

One situation which frustrates me is when the site is lagging and the box that you use to declare your word isn't popping up. Its frustrates me when the word on the top of your list is a dodgy word and you dont wanna risk it, so you have to wait at your computer tentatively until the menu pops up so you can click on your safe word.

Maybe a feature that lets you click on the word you want to declare so that when the menu pops up, the word you clicked on is the one that is declared by default if your timer runs out.

JackHurst wrote:One situation which frustrates me is when the site is lagging and the box that you use to declare your word isn't popping up. Its frustrates me when the word on the top of your list is a dodgy word and you dont wanna risk it, so you have to wait at your computer tentatively until the menu pops up so you can click on your safe word.

Maybe a feature that lets you click on the word you want to declare so that when the menu pops up, the word you clicked on is the one that is declared by default if your timer runs out.

This is awesome, but for me would more importantly solve the "declaration box pops up behind other windows, seemingly at random" problem as opposed to lag stuff.

Play via webcam: it could be like Chatroulette but with less creepy naked men.

Jimmy Gough wrote:Play via webcam: it could be like Chatroulette but with less creepy naked men.

Thanks for the heads-up. I'd've clicked the link, else.