Number 30Charlie Reams wrote:I
[*] Most common incorrect conundrum guesses. Done. Guess what's #1...
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Number 30Charlie Reams wrote:I
[*] Most common incorrect conundrum guesses. Done. Guess what's #1...
As the text at the top says, it's the intended answer, not necessarily one which uses the correct letters. People answer gandiseeg to any random conundrum and it just so happens that PAGANISED is top of that long list right now.Kieran Child wrote:I don't understand why the 'correct' version of gandiseeg is given as paganised?
Didn't the Duellist go through a phase of guessing GANDISEEG for every conundrum if the human player got it wrong? Surely there haven't been that many GANDISEEGs from human users already?Charlie Reams wrote:As the text at the top says, it's the intended answer, not necessarily one which uses the correct letters. People answer gandiseeg to any random conundrum and it just so happens that PAGANISED is top of that long list right now.
Hang on - what? So people have offered GANDISEEG 1634 times as an answer, but presumably not 1634 times with PAGANISED as the correct answer? Is it that for GANDISEEG guesses, PAGANISED happens to be the most common real answer but with presumably about 4 (total guess) instances of this? If so the page seems a bit misleading.Charlie Reams wrote:As the text at the top says, it's the intended answer, not necessarily one which uses the correct letters. People answer gandiseeg to any random conundrum and it just so happens that PAGANISED is top of that long list right now.Kieran Child wrote:I don't understand why the 'correct' version of gandiseeg is given as paganised?
And I still prefer mine.Gavin Chipper wrote:OK. Looks a bit different though.Ben Wilson wrote:This does sound oddly familiar.Gavin Chipper wrote:A scoring system that awards points not on how long a word is but on where it ranks in terms of longest words in the selection (obviously maxes only is this to an extent but this goes further). For joint positions, we could be generous so if there are 5 joint longest words, you'd still get the top-ranking score. But then the next word along would only get points for the 6th rank obviously.
I like the idea of the score being proportional to the reciprocal of the rank position. I think a reasonable compromise would be 12, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1. Nothing for 7th or lower. Or maybe 10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 to fit in with the old F1 scoring system. And so that 10 points is the maximum in all rounds. Or 10, 5, 3, 2, 1. And also both players score.
Correct. If people give the same wrong answer to multiple conundrums then it just picks one arbitrarily.Gavin Chipper wrote: Hang on - what? So people have offered GANDISEEG 1634 times as an answer, but presumably not 1634 times with PAGANISED as the correct answer? Is it that for GANDISEEG guesses, PAGANISED happens to be the most common real answer but with presumably about 4 (total guess) instances of this? If so the page seems a bit misleading.
Edit - 4 indeed. I found 1. http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?ga ... 77#r351977
Rubbish. I write letters down when watching TV or when on the show (not so much on apterous). If people go vowels first (Hurrell) I will write them down and there is plenty of time even when he picks quickly.Gavin Chipper wrote:Does the time limit in picking letters need to be so harsh? Until yesterday I hadn't played for ages and it wasn't like that before. After about your fourth letter, you get a patience bar. It might seem like plenty of time for those who don't write letters down, but it gives you very little chance at all if you want to write the letters down as you go along. Since Apterous is now the main breeding ground for superstars, it seems that all future greats will be players that don't write letters down. Charlie, you're playing God!
But what about when you're picking? It's much harder then. I don't mean specifically when Kirk Bevins is picking. It's hard for the picker to write down the letters as they pick.Kirk Bevins wrote:Rubbish. I write letters down when watching TV or when on the show (not so much on apterous). If people go vowels first (Hurrell) I will write them down and there is plenty of time even when he picks quickly.Gavin Chipper wrote:Does the time limit in picking letters need to be so harsh? Until yesterday I hadn't played for ages and it wasn't like that before. After about your fourth letter, you get a patience bar. It might seem like plenty of time for those who don't write letters down, but it gives you very little chance at all if you want to write the letters down as you go along. Since Apterous is now the main breeding ground for superstars, it seems that all future greats will be players that don't write letters down. Charlie, you're playing God!
I find the whole concept of writing things down when playing on apterous bizarre. I know people do it, but surely not many?Gavin Chipper wrote:But what about when you're picking? It's much harder then. I don't mean specifically when Kirk Bevins is picking. It's hard for the picker to write down the letters as they pick.Kirk Bevins wrote:Rubbish. I write letters down when watching TV or when on the show (not so much on apterous). If people go vowels first (Hurrell) I will write them down and there is plenty of time even when he picks quickly.Gavin Chipper wrote:Does the time limit in picking letters need to be so harsh? Until yesterday I hadn't played for ages and it wasn't like that before. After about your fourth letter, you get a patience bar. It might seem like plenty of time for those who don't write letters down, but it gives you very little chance at all if you want to write the letters down as you go along. Since Apterous is now the main breeding ground for superstars, it seems that all future greats will be players that don't write letters down. Charlie, you're playing God!
Me too. I find any writing down of letters/numbers quite odd, they're all like there, really clearly. Not in shit handwriting or anything.JimBentley wrote:I find the whole concept of writing things down when playing on apterous bizarre. I know people do it, but surely not many?
I find it hard to get words out of a selection when they're all in a line. I find myself putting my fingers over the screen and still not finding any decent words.Jon Corby wrote:Me too. I find any writing down of letters/numbers quite odd, they're all like there, really clearly. Not in shit handwriting or anything.JimBentley wrote:I find the whole concept of writing things down when playing on apterous bizarre. I know people do it, but surely not many?
Was about to post this.Simon Myers wrote:If you choose your selections with the keyboard (C for consonant, V for vowel) you should have no problem comfortably choosing the letters with one hand (as C and V are adjacent) and writing them down with the other hand.
I'm not sure we wanted to know you play apterous one-handed.Kirk Bevins wrote:Was about to post this.Simon Myers wrote:If you choose your selections with the keyboard (C for consonant, V for vowel) you should have no problem comfortably choosing the letters with one hand (as C and V are adjacent) and writing them down with the other hand.
Oh you can do that can you?Kirk Bevins wrote:Was about to post this.Simon Myers wrote:If you choose your selections with the keyboard (C for consonant, V for vowel) you should have no problem comfortably choosing the letters with one hand (as C and V are adjacent) and writing them down with the other hand.
Gavin Chipper wrote:Oh you can do that can you?Kirk Bevins wrote:Was about to post this.Simon Myers wrote:If you choose your selections with the keyboard (C for consonant, V for vowel) you should have no problem comfortably choosing the letters with one hand (as C and V are adjacent) and writing them down with the other hand.
Yeah yeah I know - read the instructions!Matt Morrison wrote:Gavin Chipper wrote:Oh you can do that can you?
Hehe, I don't really have a right to complain any more as I seem to have stopped updating the help section, but on the other hand it was this kind of disillusionment that stopped me bothering as well.Gavin Chipper wrote:Yeah yeah I know - read the instructions!Matt Morrison wrote:Gavin Chipper wrote:Oh you can do that can you?
And if you click the number itself (the target number) then it saves you declaring the exact target in the declaration box. I see so many people want to declare the target of 748 and then declare 74 and then time runs out. I say why didn't you just click the target as it's quicker and they have no idea.Matt Morrison wrote: It's quite surprising how many solid long-term apterous members have something to learn - you with the C/V, Ben with the numbers notes section etc.
Both, but especially so on apterous as the pace is so much faster. For the few months before I went on the show, I did write stuff down but that was really only to get into the habit of doing it, as I knew I'd have to do when I appeared. Since then, never. As Jon said, the letters and numbers are much clearer on the screen than they could ever be handwritten, even in my awesome handwriting.Gavin Chipper wrote:Jim, is it just in Apterous that you find it bizarre or Countdown as a whole?
Maybe your handwriting just isn't awesome enough - even Charlie admitted in one thread that my handwriting is the most awesome he's ever seen. The letters may be clearer on the screen but it's the arrangement of them that can be a problem for some people. Anyway the CV remedy may help a bit but I still think the limit is a bit harsh as it is and if it needs to exist at all I think it should only be for the last letter or two.JimBentley wrote:Both, but especially so on apterous as the pace is so much faster. For the few months before I went on the show, I did write stuff down but that was really only to get into the habit of doing it, as I knew I'd have to do when I appeared. Since then, never. As Jon said, the letters and numbers are much clearer on the screen than they could ever be handwritten, even in my awesome handwriting.Gavin Chipper wrote:Jim, is it just in Apterous that you find it bizarre or Countdown as a whole?
The thing is, this discussion suggests that you'd be pretty much the only one who'd really benefit from the timer being removed.Gavin Chipper wrote:The letters may be clearer on the screen but it's the arrangement of them that can be a problem for some people. Anyway the CV remedy may help a bit but I still think the limit is a bit harsh as it is and if it needs to exist at all I think it should only be for the last letter or two.
This idea looks really good (it's also close to how I would judge octo runs if I was going to go through them all - I think it beats number of maxes or percentage of max score). So well done Gavin for coming up with that.Gavin Chipper wrote:A scoring system that awards points not on how long a word is but on where it ranks in terms of longest words in the selection (obviously maxes only is this to an extent but this goes further). For joint positions, we could be generous so if there are 5 joint longest words, you'd still get the top-ranking score. But then the next word along would only get points for the 6th rank obviously.
I like the idea of the score being proportional to the reciprocal of the rank position. I think a reasonable compromise would be 12, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1. Nothing for 7th or lower. Or maybe 10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 to fit in with the old F1 scoring system. And so that 10 points is the maximum in all rounds. Or 10, 5, 3, 2, 1. And also both players score.
Sounds interesting, have I missed some controversy?Alec Rivers wrote:Following recent events, how about a facility enabling players to boot a troublemaker? Say, three or four people's 'boot' required within a minute or two, only available to paid-up players.
Not really, just some 15 year old kid trying to "be" Patrick Bateman from American Psycho, and not doing a very good job of it.Ian Volante wrote:Sounds interesting, have I missed some controversy?Alec Rivers wrote:Following recent events, how about a facility enabling players to boot a troublemaker? Say, three or four people's 'boot' required within a minute or two, only available to paid-up players.
Aye just seen it, I was wondering if anyone had picked up on the reference.JimBentley wrote:Not really, just some 15 year old kid trying to "be" Patrick Bateman from American Psycho, and not really doing a very good job of it.Ian Volante wrote:Sounds interesting, have I missed some controversy?Alec Rivers wrote:Following recent events, how about a facility enabling players to boot a troublemaker? Say, three or four people's 'boot' required within a minute or two, only available to paid-up players.
It's gonna be P(nine)² and P(nine)³ to a very good approximation.Ben Wilson wrote:Anything for statland on the availability of consecutive nines (for flaky and ambulancy purposes)? Maybe '% of games in which they're available' and so forth.
So according to this page its gonna be about 1/400 and 1/8000 chance of a flake or ambulance being available, respectively. Im sure lots of you folks could do the maths if you wanna work out the prob of eith coming up in a game.Charlie Reams wrote:It's gonna be P(nine)² and P(nine)³ to a very good approximation.Ben Wilson wrote:Anything for statland on the availability of consecutive nines (for flaky and ambulancy purposes)? Maybe '% of games in which they're available' and so forth.
You get an ambulance for the first pair and just a flake for the 3rd. Hopefully.JackHurst wrote: I also have a question to go with this post. If you get an ambulance, do you also get 2 flakes for the two combinations of consecutive 9's within the 3?
This has been on my todo list for a good six months, I can't remember who first suggested it. It will happen eventually, I promise.Alec Rivers wrote:Would it be possible to have a Player Status feature? A symbol next to the name or a colour change could indicate:
Maybe there could be a row of three small buttons beneath the Settings button for players to indicate their status.
- Available for play (either not in a game or playing a bot but accepting challenges)
Not available for play (e.g. waiting for a particular opponent or just there to chat)
Away from computer for a moment
I asked some others and they were keen on the idea, too.
Done.Alec Rivers wrote:Would it be possible to have a Player Status feature? A symbol next to the name or a colour change could indicate:
Maybe there could be a row of three small buttons beneath the Settings button for players to indicate their status.
- Available for play (either not in a game or playing a bot but accepting challenges)
Not available for play (e.g. waiting for a particular opponent or just there to chat)
Away from computer for a moment
I asked some others and they were keen on the idea, too.
Excellent job. I don't know if you saw me ask in the game chat, but it would be awfully fab if you could give the new panel a fixed height.Charlie Reams wrote:Done.
Done.Howard Somerset wrote:I like the Duel leaderboard, Charlie. Any chance of just one enhancement to it? Showing the number of people who have competed so far today would avoid the necessity for me to count through all the duel games in Today's games in order to confirm that I'm right at the bottom; I would be able to tell immediately.
Thanks.Charlie Reams wrote:Done.Howard Somerset wrote:I like the Duel leaderboard, Charlie. Any chance of just one enhancement to it? Showing the number of people who have competed so far today would avoid the necessity for me to count through all the duel games in Today's games in order to confirm that I'm right at the bottom; I would be able to tell immediately.
This has been top of my to-do list for ages because all the people who forget their passwords email me them asking for them back (which I can't do, so I have to reset them and arghhh) but I finally got email working the other day so this may happen soon.Derek Hazell wrote:Could we have a "forgotten password" link on the signing in page, like you get on most webistes which require passwords?
This would save us having to contact you each time we have trouble signing in, and save you from having to reset us manually.
I am permanently signed in at home, but I cannot get myself signed in anywhere else now.
I think this is still the same as it was when I suggested it, so I'm going to bump it.Gavin Chipper wrote:Once in a numbers game, I entered my solution into the box, clicked on "end round early", and then my attention drifted away until I realised that I'd typed something in wrongly and also that I'd run out of time on the second chance thing! My suggestion would be that if you end the round early but make a mistake, it goes straight to the other bit without having to wait for the time to run down or the other player to click on "end round early".
Also if I declare further away from the target than my opponent, and I don't enter it into the first box, then it won't ask me for my solution unless the other player gets it wrong. I don't like the bit where you've got to sit staring at the screen waiting to see if you have to enter your solution. Can't it have you enter it anyway?
And this.Gavin Chipper wrote:Like the classic games, but an option to replay old games on Apterous. I think it would be a useful tool as people could play their old games to see if they've learnt anything.
What can non-donators do these days? I don't see it from their perspective so I wouldn't know.Charlie Reams wrote:That's a pretty good idea. Prod me if I haven't done this in a week's time.Gavin Chipper wrote:you could just have a demo mode where you just get one round of each (letters, numbers and conundrum) or even a full game that's the same game every time - just something to let you practise the controls. In terms of drawing in a wider audience and getting donations from them, I think this would help matters.
Hooray!Simon Myers wrote: For Superstats:
- Per numbers format max graphs
Surely the bottom line should be telling me something...Charlie Reams wrote:Hooray!Simon Myers wrote: For Superstats:
- Per numbers format max graphs
Don't worry Kai, I'm not gonna learn from this either.Kai Laddiman wrote:Surely the bottom line should be telling me something...Charlie Reams wrote:Hooray!Simon Myers wrote: For Superstats:
- Per numbers format max graphs