c4countdown

Working through Sid's list (no guarantee I'll actually do all of this).

Variants and similar

• Lockdown - players type in the best word they can find and decide to either keep looking for a better word or hit End Round Early and "lock" in their word. Best (longest, if standard) word wins like usual, but if both players have the same length word then the first player to "lock" in wins the round.
• Variant where the max available score is given at the start of the round so players can End Round Early and not waste 20 seconds on flat rounds (practice variant really)
• Pregenerated numbers games that cater towards numbers "rules" (rule of 9, 937.5, etc) for practice purposes.
• Fixed-time games [Jono]
• Variant populated entirely with 9 letter words (not like a CA as you can declare <9 letter words and get plurals and words with multi-anags)
• Variant where you get points for your longest 2/3/5 words (flat scoring probably easiest) [DC]

Interface

• (Short) patience bar on numbers declaration box
• Ability to retract "play next round" if your opponent hasn't yet pressed it (if the phone rings or whatever)
• A column in the "games in progress" tab that tells you how many rounds out of the full amount have been played [Jack]
• Numbers difficulty display [Jim].

Website

• List inactive (30 days) players as a different colour on stats pages, with "last 30 days" high score pages and the like [Jack]
• On-demand generated "play along" recap of games - when out and about (on the bus/train, whatever) both Kirk and I like to look at (phone browser) recaps of recent games and play along, but the normal formatting of games isn't really conducive to this. I'm thinking stripped down and text only.
• Statland: Top letters players list for 3/4/5 vowels (like the ones for different numbers formats)
• Statland: Top goatdown players on own / others pick (%max)
• Statland: Top players ever lists - like the top players lists but records only the very top % each player has ever attained
• Statland: Never spotted words (not including anagrams of words that have been spotted.)
• Superstats: Graphs for picking (max/darrenicity) quality
• Superstats: Most common words never spotted (upto anagrams)

Other

• Titles that need defending [Jono] (CA title, 15R title, Goatmaster, etc) - like this I suppose, with expiration of titles due to inactivity.
• Tighten up the robots numbers ability slightly? It just feels a bit wrong that Prime and Velvet are 2nd/3rd and 8th/5th on statland's top letters/conundrums list but neither feature at all in the top 25 1-large players
• "Demo" mode for playing bots for non-contrib players, locked at 3 rounds or always the same 15r selections [Gevin]
• Limiting conundrum difficulty based on rating [Ben H]
• Players don't see the same conundrum more than once in two months [Damo]

Done

• Separate chat pane with constant quickfire TTTs goodness! [Done - the Bash Room]
• What I said here about focus switching to the chat box on non-Enter keypresses in-game.
• In game recaps, include the rating of players when they played a particular game [Shaun]
• Search facility for chat logs [made a separate list instead]
• "Looking for game" status [many]

Absolutely loving this "Bash Room" facility...lovely. Could it also tell us who is in the room rather than just the number?

Edit: Sorry for the "Y" section to this post...you know what I mean! x

Rather than ban 'proven' cheats simply give them their own unique colour (say yellow) or status, and let us decide if we want to play them.
They can also take a reformed cheaters pledge in order to get back to normal status.

Marc Meakin wrote:Rather than ban 'proven' cheats simply give them their own unique colour (say yellow) or status, and let us decide if we want to play them.

I don't think this is a good idea.
a) People may not know what this yellow status is and more importantly
b) if they cheat on the duel it messes everyone up.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote:Rather than ban 'proven' cheats simply give them their own unique colour (say yellow) or status, and let us decide if we want to play them.

I don't think this is a good idea.
a) People may not know what this yellow status is and more importantly
b) if they cheat on the duel it messes everyone up.

Maybe banning them from the duel should be a punishment, but maybe they should have their own status.
Humans, Bots and Cheats.

Kirk Bevins wrote:Absolutely loving this "Bash Room" facility...lovely. Could it also tell us who is in the room rather than just the number?

Edit: Sorry for the "Y" section to this post...you know what I mean! x

Thanks!! Much improved.

Marc Meakin wrote: Humans, Bots and Cheats.

I'm intrigued by this idea, but it does have some other complications. For a start, as Kirk says, it requires people to understand the colour scheme. (The current colour scheme is useful but it doesn't hurt if you don't understand it at all.) Secondly, it seems that people with The Mark Of Cain would be forever protesting their innocence in chat, and it would just be incredibly tedious and pointless.

For teasers in the Bash Room, at the end of each teaser there could be a list of the top 3 times so you can moan about lag when Innis/Paul/Kieran beats you to it.

Bash room. It's good. If two people are in there, and they both get it, maybe the next word should be offered immediately?

Also, themes. e.g. 15 minutes of words that exceed a certain obscurity rating, 5 minute speed (10 secs / word ) and so on.

Paul Howe wrote:Bash room. It's good. If two people are in there, and they both get it, maybe the next word should be offered immediately?

Also, themes. e.g. 15 minutes of words that exceed a certain obscurity rating, 5 minute speed (10 secs / word ) and so on.

This.

Still not sure I enjoy the Bash Room as much as the ukchatterbox Countdown room though (12 letter random(ish) selections, participants enter their longest words for 30 seconds and the first player to get the longest valid word offered wins. The round ends early if a maximal word is declared. Sadly it's blighted by the use of the wrong dictionary).

Can Paul Howe have his own bash room? Thanks.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote: Humans, Bots and Cheats.

I'm intrigued by this idea, but it does have some other complications. For a start, as Kirk says, it requires people to understand the colour scheme. (The current colour scheme is useful but it doesn't hurt if you don't understand it at all.) Secondly, it seems that people with The Mark Of Cain would be forever protesting their innocence in chat, and it would just be incredibly tedious and pointless.

Maybe 'Cheats' should also lose their voice.

Following on from Jim's suggestion here, how about a slightly more politically-correctly named 'Apterous Soap' that starts off Rex-like and gradually sheds words from his memory as he spots them (shrinking like a bar of... eh, whatever). As sponge and soap eventually swap places and soap becomes sub-prune maybe they could swap and start the whole process all over again? It's worth a go anyway (even if less-played variants like hyper and unlimited could result in a few anomalies later on in their lives).

How about Apterous Joker. The joker used to be a feature on Its a Knockout, whereby whenever you decide to play it on a round, you got double points.
So, if you're confident you've got a word that will definitely beat your opponent, you can nominate to play your joker and score double for that round only, but ONLY if it beats your opponent. If your opponent matches you, then you've wasted your joker. When playing a joker your opponent should not be aware of this until the end of the round. Adds a tactical and strategical element to the game, especially if you play it on a numbers or conundrum rd, or in a letters round where you've really managed to find something obscure from a pants selection etc.

D Eadie wrote:How about Apterous Joker. The joker used to be a feature on Its a Knockout, whereby whenever you decide to play it on a round, you got double points.
So, if you're confident you've got a word that will definitely beat your opponent, you can nominate to play your joker and score double for that round only, but ONLY if it beats your opponent. If your opponent matches you, then you've wasted your joker. When playing a joker your opponent should not be aware of this until the end of the round. Adds a tactical and strategical element to the game, especially if you play it on a numbers or conundrum rd, or in a letters round where you've really managed to find something obscure from a pants selection etc.

I like this, apart from using it in a conundrum round. If you buzz first, then you've won - no joker should be allowed. Using a joker on a numbers would work but I could see it being especially powerful on a letters round. Imagine seeing ASTROLABE for 18 points....using your joker as you're confident your opponent will miss it. Bang, you're 36-0 up. Leaving it and leaving it until round 13 in the hope of getting an obscure 9 involves a tactical element, as Damian describes. Nice idea.

Ben Wilson wrote:Following on from Jim's suggestion here, how about a slightly more politically-correctly named 'Apterous Soap' that starts off Rex-like and gradually sheds words from his memory as he spots them (shrinking like a bar of... eh, whatever). As sponge and soap eventually swap places and soap becomes sub-prune maybe they could swap and start the whole process all over again? It's worth a go anyway (even if less-played variants like hyper and unlimited could result in a few anomalies later on in their lives).

The curious case of Benjemin Wilson.

Ben Wilson wrote:Following on from Jim's suggestion here, how about a slightly more politically-correctly named 'Apterous Soap' that starts off Rex-like and gradually sheds words from his memory as he spots them

I think this may be interesting if he sheds words from his memory as his opponents spot them?

Kirk Bevins wrote: I like this, apart from using it in a conundrum round. If you buzz first, then you've won - no joker should be allowed. Using a joker on a numbers would work but I could see it being especially powerful on a letters round. Imagine seeing ASTROLABE for 18 points....using your joker as you're confident your opponent will miss it. Bang, you're 36-0 up. Leaving it and leaving it until round 13 in the hope of getting an obscure 9 involves a tactical element, as Damian describes. Nice idea.

Not sure i agree with you about the conundrum round Kirk. It's only fair to allow each player the choice of when they play their joker. It's not really a case of 'if you buzz first you've won' - there would be more pressure on the joker-player to spot it first, but if you get something like the last conundrum in today's duel then it could be a struggle. There is the tactical element of wondering if you've beaten your opponent. Imagine you've got an 8 and you think there's no point jokering in this round, then you realise your opponent is declaring a seven, you'd be gutted. I think it'll only work if you elect the joker prior to the end of the clock though, and not when seeing how many letters your opponent is declaring. Even jokering on a shitty obscure 5 like GARBA could give you a 10-pt haul, so all in all i think it's a pretty decent idea if i say so myself. I've got other ideas too, but i don't want to bore you with them.

Like the joker idea very much.

D Eadie wrote: I've got other ideas too, but i don't want to bore you with them.

Too late!

Seriously though, nice idea. Consider it on the todo list.

Apterous Graphite, where the bot only declares pencil scoring moves, useful for learning.

Also similar to Damos idea how about a variant with double points for unique pencil declarations (a 5 worded pencil is better than declaring an 8)

Charlie Reams wrote:

D Eadie wrote: I've got other ideas too, but i don't want to bore you with them.

Too late!

Seriously though, nice idea. Consider it on the todo list.

You're very welcome, now hurry up and get apterous fixed.

And of course, the special items could be 'funny jokes', for jokers that came off, and 'rubbish jokes' for those that didn't. JestDown is a nice name for the variant. I'll leave the rest to you.

D Eadie wrote:
You're very welcome, now hurry up and get apterous fixed.

Should be fixed in about 15 minutes time. Charlie is just leaving work to go home, change about 1 line of code and he's hoping it will be back up then.

In reply to Marc, a pencil is only a pencil if it's the max in a selection. If there's an 8 in a selection then it's impossible for there to be a pencil 5. If you mean words that haven't been declared before, then I'm sure words like TA, TO, THE and BI haven't been declared before but that would make the game boring.

What about Apterous Gigglebiz?

It plays words like NAH NAH NAH and HO HO HO all the time - and after 10 minutes you want to smash it's face in.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

D Eadie wrote:
You're very welcome, now hurry up and get apterous fixed.

Should be fixed in about 15 minutes time. Charlie is just leaving work to go home, change about 1 line of code and he's hoping it will be back up then.

In reply to Marc, a pencil is only a pencil if it's the max in a selection. If there's an 8 in a selection then it's impossible for there to be a pencil 5. If you mean words that haven't been declared before, then I'm sure words like TA, TO, THE and BI haven't been declared before but that would make the game boring.

Oops silly me.

RE: Conundrum Difficulty System

Thanks Charlie!

Just thought I'd say that I think the Bash Room is brilliant. To be honest I find it more fun than playing a normal game and I think it's a better way to learn more words quicker, even more so now that new words come up as soon as the last one is guessed (although this isn't happening now - dunno why). So yeah, my favourite new feature since....ever.

How about bots whose characteristics are based on those of past contestants? Apterous Brittain declares legitimate-sounding but made up words, Apterous Gough buzzes for the conundrum early but sometimes doesn't get it right, and Apterous Robinson picks six small and never gets it right.

Stuart Arnot wrote:RE: Conundrum Difficulty System

Thanks Charlie!

Ben Hunter wrote:How about bots whose characteristics are based on those of past contestants? Apterous Brittain declares legitimate-sounding but made up words, Apterous Gough buzzes for the conundrum early but sometimes doesn't get it right, and Apterous Robinson picks six small and never gets it right.

Don't forget Apterous Hunter who cheats outrageously for the first 6 months but then goes clean. And also needs a shave.

Charlie Reams wrote:Don't forget Apterous Hunter who cheats outrageously for the first 6 months but then goes clean.

A bit like a politically-correct Apterous Sponge.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Stuart Arnot wrote:RE: Conundrum Difficulty System

Thanks Charlie!

Judging by the number of perfect conundrum attacks that have sprung up today, and having read the Conundrum Difficulty System guide, is this not kind of being abused by, say Chris Davies playing Prune? Taking into account the bot's rating means the halfway rating point comes out as 781, and Chris ends up getting much easier conundrums than even a game between two 'average' 900-rated players would get.

Guess what, nothing is perfect.

Well, ok, he took almost 10 seconds to answer one of them, but it's perfect in my book.

Maybe it works better when Bots are not involved.
Although personally I had no problem with the old system
If it aint broke don't fix it.

Marc Meakin wrote:Maybe it works better when Bots are not involved.
Although personally I had no problem with the old system
If it aint broke don't fix it.

It was broken.

Marc Meakin wrote:Maybe it works better when Bots are not involved.
Although personally I had no problem with the old system
If it aint broke don't fix it.

Lots of people were complaining about the difficulty. I've not played many games lately but I haven't been faced with many insane conundrums lately. That conundrum games against Prune are now easier is a bit of a drawback but other than that it seems to work pretty well.

It would be nice if I could roll out a feature and people would say "that's cool, I will now play with that for a while" rather than "yeah but you should've done X, Y and Z instead/as well". I think some of you forget that I do this for fun and I'm not just an endless mine of new code and features.

Charlie Reams wrote:It would be nice if I could roll out a feature and people would say "that's cool, I will now play with that for a while" rather than "yeah but you should've done X, Y and Z instead/as well". I think some of you forget that I do this for fun and I'm not just an endless mine of new code and features.

To put on my sycophantic hat for a minute (I had lost it) most of us definitely appreciate all the hard work you put in, even if we don't mention it. Apterous is brilliant and it's brilliant that you take the time to read the comments and act on some of them, even if some come across as negative.

With this new system, I think it's quite reasonable that all players (including Chris Davies) should have the option of picking the easier conundrums, by playing Prune for example. Otherwise I think it would be going too far. So it's probably a good balance.

What he said

In Aptochat, players who share a first name could be distinguished just by their second initials (e.g. Chris K & Chris D) unless, of course, those initials are the same.

Charlie Reams wrote:It would be nice if I could roll out a feature and people would say "that's cool, I will now play with that for a while" rather than "yeah but you should've done X, Y and Z instead/as well".

Don't be ridiculous Charlie, this is the forum we're talking about here. Since when was there ever a level of satsifaction about anything? It's like the origins of words after Rd 9, a presenters voice, an unwelcome guest in DC, an unfairness towards Scrabblers, plural conundrums, returning contestants, series length, the missing 'V', too many apterites, the C of C format, who's taking part in the specials, not enough numbers games, giving contestants 2 grand each, 'fantastic', 'i haven't written it down', incorrect guidelines, mass nouns, horse-racing, upside down M's and W's.............

Alec Rivers wrote:In Aptochat, players who share a first name could be distinguished just by their second initials (e.g. Chris K & Chris D) unless, of course, those initials are the same.

I think it works that if they're the only person in the room with that name, they're just Fred. If someone else comes in with the same name they become Fred Bloggs.

PS Conundrums - that's cool, I will now play with that for a while.

D Eadie wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:It would be nice if I could roll out a feature and people would say "that's cool, I will now play with that for a while" rather than "yeah but you should've done X, Y and Z instead/as well".

Don't be ridiculous Charlie, this is the forum we're talking about here. Since when was there ever a level of satsifaction about anything? It's like the origins of words after Rd 9, a presenters voice, an unwelcome guest in DC, an unfairness towards Scrabblers, plural conundrums, returning contestants, series length, the missing 'V', too many apterites, the C of C format, who's taking part in the specials, not enough numbers games, giving contestants 2 grand each, 'fantastic', 'i haven't written it down', incorrect guidelines, mass nouns, horse-racing, upside down M's and W's.............

Damian, you should have started your argument with "This is not a rant, but I can't stand this whole thing about..."

D Eadie wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:It would be nice if I could roll out a feature and people would say "that's cool, I will now play with that for a while" rather than "yeah but you should've done X, Y and Z instead/as well".

Don't be ridiculous Charlie, this is the forum we're talking about here. Since when was there ever a level of satsifaction about anything? It's like the origins of words after Rd 9, a presenters voice, an unwelcome guest in DC, an unfairness towards Scrabblers, plural conundrums, returning contestants, series length, the missing 'V', too many apterites, the C of C format, who's taking part in the specials, not enough numbers games, giving contestants 2 grand each, 'fantastic', 'i haven't written it down', incorrect guidelines, mass nouns, horse-racing, upside down M's and W's.............

The missing 'V', now that's scandalous Dump the 'Q' and bring back the 'V' forthwith.
Am liking the 'Call My Bluff' bit that Susie has been doing, keep it up.

Lesley Hines wrote:

Alec Rivers wrote:In Aptochat, players who share a first name could be distinguished just by their second initials (e.g. Chris K & Chris D) unless, of course, those initials are the same.

I think it works that if they're the only person in the room with that name, they're just Fred. If someone else comes in with the same name they become Fred Bloggs.

Sometimes I think I'd prefer to have the whole name all of the time. I often find myself scrolling through the list of online players to find out which Ben, for example. But then again it might come across as too formal-looking. I still think I'd prefer it though.

Since the recent anti fudging measures put in place for the conundrums and letters rounds, I wondered if anyone had noticed their form dipping. (apart from mine)

Gavin Chipper wrote: Sometimes I think I'd prefer to have the whole name all of the time. I often find myself scrolling through the list of online players to find out which Ben, for example. But then again it might come across as too formal-looking. I still think I'd prefer it though.

It made sense when I first wrote it, apterous had a handful of members who all knew each other and it saved space. Now space is not particularly valuable with everything else going on it chat, and it's occasionally quite confusing, so I'll probably drop it altogether.

Marc Meakin wrote:Since the recent anti fudging measures put in place for the conundrums and letters rounds, I wondered if anyone had noticed their form dipping. (apart from mine)

Only other people who were fudging

Charlie, Charlie, please can you program something into apterous that makes my willy longer?

Matt Morrison wrote:Charlie, Charlie, please can you program something into apterous that makes my willy longer?

He's not a miracle worker you know.

Darren Carter wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:Charlie, Charlie, please can you program something into apterous that makes my willy longer?

He's not a miracle worker you know.

Surely making a very small thing a bit bigger isn't that difficult?

Matt Morrison wrote:Charlie, Charlie, please can you program something into apterous that makes my willy longer?

Jamb it in a lift.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote: Sometimes I think I'd prefer to have the whole name all of the time. I often find myself scrolling through the list of online players to find out which Ben, for example. But then again it might come across as too formal-looking. I still think I'd prefer it though.

It made sense when I first wrote it, apterous had a handful of members who all knew each other and it saved space. Now space is not particularly valuable with everything else going on it chat, and it's occasionally quite confusing, so I'll probably drop it altogether.

Marc Meakin wrote:Since the recent anti fudging measures put in place for the conundrums and letters rounds, I wondered if anyone had noticed their form dipping. (apart from mine)

Only other people who were fudging

I am more of a crap typist than a fudger.

Marc Meakin wrote:I am more of a crap typist than a fudger.

Why does the letters disappearing affect your ability to type? Surely if you're that crap you'd be looking at the keyboard anyway?

Jon Corby wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote:I am more of a crap typist than a fudger.

Why does the letters disappearing affect your ability to type? Surely if you're that crap you'd be looking at the keyboard anyway?

Fair point, maybe I should just use a pen and paper, like on the show.

Marc Meakin wrote: Fair point, maybe I should just use a pen and paper, like on the show.

You don't have to use pen and paper on the show...Conor didn't.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote: Fair point, maybe I should just use a pen and paper, like on the show.

You don't have to use pen and paper on the show...Conor didn't.

But Conor's a fucking genius.

Marc Meakin wrote:Fair point, maybe I should just use a pen and paper, like on the show.

Are you genuinely objecting to not being able to see the letters, or just messing around? (I'm defensive because it was my idea.)

Jon Corby wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote:Fair point, maybe I should just use a pen and paper, like on the show.

Are you genuinely objecting to not being able to see the letters, or just messing around? (I'm defensive because it was my idea.)

Bit of both I suppose.
My only gripe is that countdown tolerates fudging, but apterous does not.

Marc Meakin wrote: My only gripe is that countdown tolerates fudging, but apterous does not.

Countdown has various elements that we can't easily reproduce, so we have to approximate them in some other way. Imagine if you buzzed in for a Countdown conundrum, then waited 2 seconds before saying only the first letter, waited another 2 seconds etc.. They'd soon tell you to get lost. Likewise if you claimed to have solved a numbers game and then waited 6 seconds before saying "75... ... ... times ... ... ... 3".