c4countdown

Today sees the debut of the biggest new apterous variant since Touchdown. Named Omelette for obvious reasons, this variant turns the game on its head, requiring you to find the shortest word containing all the letters in the selection. Numbers and conundrums have also undergone some interesting modification. See the

Full rules of Omelette (thanks Matt).

This mode is only available to subscribers. However, because it's so awesome and I want as many people as possible to play it, subscription is discounted to just £12 until the end of October, which is (scribbles on an envelope) 20% off! So get in now! Encourage your friends, relatives and pets to sign up! Remortgage your house and subscribe twice!* It'll all be worth it.

Oh and, if you signed up when it was still £15, your subscription has been extended by an extra free month. So everyone's happy. Woo!

All bugs to the usual place please.

* Satire.

An interesting format, the letters games are dynamically more like standard numbers games where you can get some seriously impossible/easy rounds and your selection strategies are very important.

Here's a good example where I've played a letters attack using CSW as opposed to ODE:

http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=132451

I am confused about something.

After playing a few Omelette games, I eventually figured out that you have to use all the numbers in your solution to get any points at all.

Would the best strategy to get the most points be to pick 4 large numbers every time?

Jason Larsen wrote:I am confused about something.

After playing a few Omelette games, I eventually figured out that you have to use all the numbers in your solution to get any points at all.

Would the best strategy to get the most points be to pick 4 large numbers every time?

When you play a game, there's a new tab next to the 'chat' and 'items', which is 'rules'.
Wonderfully useful addition, thanks to whoever put these in!

The new omelette variant is very interesting, and I've played a couple of games. I'm not usually bothered about the variants, and only tend to play them on duels or when practising for duels. But this one I might continue to play.
Having to find the shortest possible word is certainly a new departure.

As regards what is the best numbers selection to pick, it probably depends on how good you are at numbers, and what you usually like to pick. I've managed OK with one large, which is what I usually pick, but was OK when my opponent picked 4 large. Certainly (50+25)/75 would help get rid of those numbers, but you might not be able to make the target with the rest.

Others might have better ideas - I'm not too brilliant at strategies!

Jason Larsen wrote:I am confused about something.

After playing a few Omelette games, I eventually figured out that you have to use all the numbers in your solution to get any points at all.

Would the best strategy to get the most points be to pick 4 large numbers every time?

Good question, Jason. I've made this page to help answer your question. We don't have enough data to conclude anything much yet, but it looks like 1, 2 and 3 large are good bets.

It's also worth practising a few tricks for burning unwanted numbers. Obvious things include Junaiding (multiply by 1) or adding zero, but other tricks like doing 9/3=3 and 8-4=4 to burn the 9 and the 8 are worth remembering too.

Charlie Reams wrote:Obvious things include Junaiding (multiply by 1) or adding zero,

To add a zero you will need two numbers the same (e.g a 10 and a 10) to do 10-10. You can also then do 10/10 to make 1 and multiply, so it seems that adding zero is a bit of a wasted strategy. Shame.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:Obvious things include Junaiding (multiply by 1) or adding zero,

To add a zero you will need two numbers the same (e.g a 10 and a 10) to do 10-10. You can also then do 10/10 to make 1 and multiply, so it seems that adding zero is a bit of a wasted strategy. Shame.

Nice observation.

I have wondered before (and discussed with Mike the other day) how many cute little tricks one can play in a numbers solver. I think the apterous solver is among the fastest around, but I bet there're more tricks that I haven't thought of.

Charlie Reams wrote:I have wondered before (and discussed with Mike the other day) how many cute little tricks one can play in a numbers solver. I think the apterous solver is among the fastest around, but I bet there're more tricks that I haven't thought of.

Can it sit and roll over?

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:Obvious things include Junaiding (multiply by 1) or adding zero,

To add a zero you will need two numbers the same (e.g a 10 and a 10) to do 10-10. You can also then do 10/10 to make 1 and multiply, so it seems that adding zero is a bit of a wasted strategy. Shame.

Well, I don't know; I used it to burn off a 4, 5, and 9 on an easy target.

Andrew Feist wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:Obvious things include Junaiding (multiply by 1) or adding zero,

To add a zero you will need two numbers the same (e.g a 10 and a 10) to do 10-10. You can also then do 10/10 to make 1 and multiply, so it seems that adding zero is a bit of a wasted strategy. Shame.

Well, I don't know; I used it to burn off a 4, 5, and 9 on an easy target.

What Kirk's saying is that you could have done the same by doing *(9/(5+4)) = *1. If you have the numbers to do +0 then you can also make *1 with them.
So they're just different ways of burning the same numbers and aren't two distinctly different methods.

I was going to take your advive, Julie, but Charlie, I think you've hit the nail on the head!

Also, I am surprised you can be 85% accurate with the exactly correct solution with 4 large! I thought that number would be much lower actually!

Jason Larsen wrote: Also, I am surprised you can be 85% accurate with the exactly correct solution with 4 large! I thought that number would be much lower actually!

So why, above, did you suggest 4 large would be best for most points?

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Jason Larsen wrote: Also, I am surprised you can be 85% accurate with the exactly correct solution with 4 large! I thought that number would be much lower actually!

So why, above, did you suggest 4 large would be best for most points?

Presumably he thought the other values would be even lower.

Charlie Reams wrote: Presumably he thought the other values would be even lower.

OK. Makes sense.

Hope I'm not spoiling a joke by stating the obvious, but didn't he perhaps think the four large numbers are easier to cancel out than a set of small ones? e.g. 100+25-75-50

Alec, you're absolutely right.

Jason Larsen wrote:Alec, you're absolutely right.

Phew. Makes a change.

Of course!

Why would you say that, Alec?

I thought I'd reply to a post that I couldn't make sense of with a post that makes no sense.

Alec.

Kangaroo.

Alec Rivers wrote:Kangaroo.

I can think of instances when making a zero is advantageous. For example, If you can get the target using just 2 or 3 numbers, and two of the numbers left are the same, you can make zero out of them, and then multiply the other spares by zero to eliminate them. This might be better than looking for a tricky method of obtaining a 1 for multiplying purposes.

JackHurst wrote:I can think of instances when making a zero is advantageous. For example, If you can get the target using just 2 or 3 numbers, and two of the numbers left are the same, you can make zero out of them, and then multiply the other spares by zero to eliminate them. This might be better than looking for a tricky method of obtaining a 1 for multiplying purposes.

Good thinking batman.

JackHurst wrote:I can think of instances when making a zero is advantageous. For example, If you can get the target using just 2 or 3 numbers, and two of the numbers left are the same, you can make zero out of them, and then multiply the other spares by zero to eliminate them. This might be better than looking for a tricky method of obtaining a 1 for multiplying purposes.

Thumbs up man. This is good.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

JackHurst wrote:I can think of instances when making a zero is advantageous. For example, If you can get the target using just 2 or 3 numbers, and two of the numbers left are the same, you can make zero out of them, and then multiply the other spares by zero to eliminate them. This might be better than looking for a tricky method of obtaining a 1 for multiplying purposes.

Good thinking batman.

I'm not Batman, I'm an orange. Just look at my avatar.

JackHurst wrote:I'm not Batman, I'm an orange. Just look at my avatar.

I've never really been into being dribbled on before, but if you dribble fresh orange juice it could be quite nice.

Oh, and on topic, I have tried Omelette a couple of times and liked it. Although yet again it is something a certain KC is expert at already.

Don't think I'd want an omelette with orange in it though.

Derek Hazell wrote: Although yet again it is something a certain KC is expert at already.

Really? I don't see his name appearing much on the high scores for Omelette.

Jack, you're a hero for getting us back on topic!

JackHurst wrote:I can think of instances when making a zero is advantageous. For example, If you can get the target using just 2 or 3 numbers, and two of the numbers left are the same, you can make zero out of them, and then multiply the other spares by zero to eliminate them. This might be better than looking for a tricky method of obtaining a 1 for multiplying purposes.

Good spot. Lucky I didn't make this optimisation then, really...

Derek Hazell wrote:

JackHurst wrote:I'm not Batman, I'm an orange. Just look at my avatar.

I've never really been into being dribbled on before, but if you dribble fresh orange juice it could be quite nice.

Look at his avatar again. That is not orange juice.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Derek Hazell wrote:

JackHurst wrote:I'm not Batman, I'm an orange. Just look at my avatar.

I've never really been into being dribbled on before, but if you dribble fresh orange juice it could be quite nice.

Look at his avatar again. That is not orange juice.

No, it looks saltier than that.

Alec Rivers wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:Look at his avatar again. That is not orange juice.

No, it looks saltier than that.

Well, I've heard of a blood orange but . . . can you get oranges of all bodily fluids then?

I met up with a girl off the Internet a while back, and we just wandered round the streets with her and her mates, and the whole time she kept dribbling on the ground. I thought maybe she had a medical condition - until her friend started doing it as well!
No word on whether they also dribble while making omelettes or playing Apterous though.

Derek Hazell wrote:I met up with a girl off the Internet a while back, and we just wandered round the streets with her and her mates, and the whole time she kept dribbling on the ground. I thought maybe she had a medical condition - until her friend started doing it as well!
No word on whether they also dribble while making omelettes or playing Apterous though.

Does your local giggle-factory's website have a dating section, then?