c4countdown

Charlie Reams wrote:I think Jono's octochamp run proves that if you can nail your opponent on the numbers then you can afford to make shit up in about half of the letters rounds and still win comfortably.

But joking aside, if you are the champion you only choose once, and it's very likely that the other two games will be stupidly easy. I know I've made this point a million times before (although probably not for a while), but I think the game would be more interesting and fairer if there were four numbers games and just 10 letters games. The final part could be LNLNC. OK, so it would be quite different in format to the other two parts, but it could be billed as the "exciting" part. I just think that two guaranteed number choices would make a big difference, and would make the numbers game more meaningful rather than a novelty add-on.

I think it's fair to say that most contestants and, more importantly, most people playing along at home prefer the letters rounds, so anything which decreased them would be fairly unpopular. I might be wrong about that. Let's have a poll.

Charlie Reams wrote:I think it's fair to say that most contestants and, more importantly, most people playing along at home prefer the letters rounds, so anything which decreased them would be fairly unpopular. I might be wrong about that. Let's have a poll.

Maybe but reducing from 11 to 10 isn't much, whereas numbers fans would be given a big boost. And with an even number of each, the contestants would choose equally. I think it would make for a more compelling game.

Gevin-Gavin wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:I think Jono's octochamp run proves that if you can nail your opponent on the numbers then you can afford to make shit up in about half of the letters rounds and still win comfortably.

But joking aside, if you are the champion you only choose once, and it's very likely that the other two games will be stupidly easy. I know I've made this point a million times before (although probably not for a while), but I think the game would be more interesting and fairer if there were four numbers games and just 10 letters games. The final part could be LNLNC. OK, so it would be quite different in format to the other two parts, but it could be billed as the "exciting" part. I just think that two guaranteed number choices would make a big difference, and would make the numbers game more meaningful rather than a novelty add-on.

Letters is certainly a more important part of the game than numbers but I wouldn't go as far as to call it a novelty, I've seen plenty of contestants who are above average in the letters game but end up losing because they lost 20, 30 points on the numbers.

Ben Pugh wrote:Letters is certainly a more important part of the game than numbers but I wouldn't go as far as to call it a novelty, I've seen plenty of contestants who are above average in the letters game but end up losing because they lost 20, 30 points on the numbers.

But it can only happen in some games. No-one will get through a whole game of Countdown and not have their rubbishness at letters exposed to some degree. But it can happen quite easily with numbers. Armed with a guaranteed two numbers choices, a good contestant at numbers would be very unlucky not be able to make a decent difference against someone who is not so strong at numbers.

This change would make more of a positive difference to numbers fans than it would a negative difference to letters fans. It would just make the game better!

This is an interesting debate (though nothing to do with the original thread title!) - I think you're right Charlie about most (ordinary) viewers preferring the letters - though that said, the number of times random people have remarked to me, "I'm not much good at the letters, but I always get the numbers"...

Obviously with my run on TV I focused on the letters and just hoped to get by on the numbers - if it had still been the 9-round era that wouldn't have been a viable tactic, but now with 11 letters rounds and just 3 numbers, I think if you're very good at the letters and just average on the maths, that's enough to beat all but the very best contestants - I'd say probably, it should be enough to win you an average series.

But at the very top level - CofC, or finals week of a strong series - you definitely need that numbers ability as well, so it's still an important part of the game Gevin, not a "novelty" at all. Also remember the number of 15-round-era contestants for whom the numbers were the main part of their skill, and who achieved a lot - Ben Wilson, Chris Cummins, Jon O'Neill...

I'm with gevin/gavin here, well, at least I think his proposed 10 letters 4 numbers round would be good, but obviously I'm biased

I certainly think that numbers games are almost always very easy - in my game after completely mind-blanking an easy 2 from the top I went for 6 smalls on both, and they were both a doddle (although lol only 1 datapoint), and it's often struck me as a bit off that the game is de-symmetricised by having an odd number of letter and number rounds

of course, we could always (or do people already do this?) try different round combinations at these various CO- events to see if they provide any exciting outcomes

or I'm just rambling because I'm tiiiiired

Julian wrote:But at the very top level - CofC, or finals week of a strong series - you definitely need that numbers ability as well, so it's still an important part of the game Gevin, not a "novelty" at all. Also remember the number of 15-round-era contestants for whom the numbers were the main part of their skill, and who achieved a lot - Ben Wilson, Chris Cummins, Jon O'Neill...

I will always feel self-conscious continuing an argument with you now, after what you said in that other thread, but I won't let your mind games stop me!

Even at the CofC, a good numbers player still needs a litle bit of luck for his skill to have show dividends. I seem to remember in your CofC, in the games before the final, there was a run of ridiculously easy numbers games. OK, it's in your hands to choose 6 small or 4 from the top, but if you're the contestant picking once, it's still quite likely that it will make no difference whatsoever.

I would also say that even for a skilled numbers player (Ben, Chris, Jon, as above), it would be wrong to say that numbers were the main part of their skill. OK, so they may have been better at numbers than letters, but if they lost their letters ability overnight, it would have had a much greater effect on their scores and ability to win the game than if they lost their letters ability overnight. And taking that to its logical conclusion, a player might be perfect at getting a nine if a certain set of letters comes up. It may be what they are best at but it would be so rare that it would be crazy to call it the main part of their skill. OK, so numbers games aren't rare in the same sense, but it's a continuum and the same logical point applies.

Ok fair enough Gevin, I take your point. It probably would be better to have the format as you suggested (though would make it more difficult for me!), and maybe if the Countdown production team had had more time to plan the 15-round format, they would've come up with a better balance of letters and numbers rounds...

You've got to realize that they were given very little notice by Channel 4 that they wanted 45-minute shows, and what with the hassle of quickly finishing the then-ongoing 9-round series, recalling old contestants at short notice etc., I doubt they had as much time as they'd have liked to weigh up the pros and cons of different options.

One thing that did disappoint me when the 15-round games started, was that the series final is now just an ordinary game... it takes a bit of the shine off the occasion, also I used to like the way that, when they had two conundrums in the final, they would often join them with a theme (e.g. PETERHEAD - LANCASTER or ALSHEARER - LETISSIER). I thought that was cool!

I don't think they should change it now, it would make comparisons between different generations of players even more difficult... we already have two distinct eras which are difficult to compare, let's not have three!

As for Michael's point - the CO- events could maybe have an exhibition game or two to try out proposed new formats, but I hope the bulk of the games played will always remain in the usual 9-round format - otherwise it'd be like organizing a tennis tournament and having the net a foot higher than normal, or the service line a foot further back... what relevance would any of the results then have?

Having watched some of these 30th Birthday Championship games, which used the terrible old-15 format with just three numbers games (and therefore asymmetrical picking), it's reminded me of the debate we used to have about it, so I thought I'd bump this thread. Nowadays it seems that pretty much everyone prefers the new format, but before it was introduced, quite a few people seemed against it. Some people even seemed to prefer just two numbers rounds, which would be symmetrical, but ridiculous. And when I talk to people and they all seem to prefer how it is now I often think to myself "Some of you must have been against the change". So I've looked through some old threads to provide a hall of shame:

Heather Styles
Jack Hurst
Mark James
Mike Brown
Jen Steadman
Ben Hunter
Kirk Bevins
Jon O'Neill
Charlie Reams
Slightly on-the-fence post by Julian Fell before he came over to the right side in principle while saying they probably shouldn't change it because of records

Some of these posts are more conclusive evidence than others, but they're all linked to so enjoy!

I always hated Old 15s and have never changed my mind on this. They are horrid and you get almost saturated with letters rounds, and if you're better at the numbers like me they can be really taxing at times. The difference between 9 rounders and 15 rounders was you almost doubled the letters rounds yet only added one more numbers round. 10:4 is much better than 11:3, although for a format the 6:2 of 9-rounders probably works best.

14-rounders make much more sense if you view them as a two-leg final (and indeed, a two-leg final was played on Calendar Countdown), so playing 2 7-rounders to get a winner makes more sense. I do agree that there is a lack of prestige given to finals now as a result, but at least they're not the bastardised old 15s. They're really quite an effort to sit through, I'm afraid.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 12:16 am I always hated Old 15s and have never changed my mind on this. They are horrid and you get almost saturated with letters rounds, and if you're better at the numbers like me they can be really taxing at times.

I definitely agree with this, and I'd say regardless of whether you prefer letters or numbers. If you're having numbers at all, you have to have enough of them to make them seem a relevant integrated part of the game, rather than a novelty add-on. I know some of this was addressed above, but four letters games in a row twice before getting to a numbers game just makes it seem rather constipated. Just that one extra numbers game makes a massive difference to the quality. And while the numbers haters might not like it, the loss to them is unlikely to be that much (they still get 10 letters game instead of 11 anyway, not much difference), whereas it makes a big difference to those who wanted an extra numbers, and generally those with any aesthetic sensibility whatsoever. Basically, this is a case of objective right and wrong, and right won out in the end.

Another thing about this old format that I'd forgotten about (well not really the game format as such) is having Susie's bit just before the numbers round in part 2, which was just weird and upset the flow of the game.

*edited because of the sarcastic response that followed it from possibly one of the biggest dickheads ever to have existed on this forum*

Ronan M Higginson wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 10:47 pm is this the biggest thread bump?

4 hours 10 minutes? I doubt it. In fact, I've just beaten that already.

Oh drop the bloody sarcasm

I hadn't realised quite how near the beginning of this forum this thread was. A split topic too, so it evolved from an even older thread. Although that had been previously bumped, so bumping that one wouldn't have been as good.

2008 Gevin knew his shit!

L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 12:24 am 2008 Gevin knew his shit!

What went wrong?

I enjoy the Old 15, having 4 letters games before a numbers, so a compromise format would be to have
LLLLNLLNLLNLLNC
Numbers on 5,8,11,14
A numbers on game 3 has always felt too soon

Well I don't mind the order too much as long as we get our four numbers games!

As long as each player gets two numbers picks. We're not savages.