c4countdown

Marc Meakin wrote:

D Eadie wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/ ... 634952.stm

Quality journalism.......a photo of THE actual egg, in case we were all wondering........

Quite eggstraordinary..........although why post it in this thread?
Unless its a tenuous link to a new form of omelette

It's a tenuous link to Matt suggesting i become a politician.

Charlie Reams wrote:Okay, cool. I wasn't trying to dick on the idea

I don't know if its a good idea or not. I thought of it after Kirk mentioned in Innis's duel today how he spotted certain words after he'd committed to choosing a certain Goat letter, and i kind of felt sorry for him, albeit for 0.5 seconds

From the sounds of it, it's touchdown with 8 letters, but you can declare a nine. You can't declare a ten in normal touchdown (although you used to be able to because of a bug), so thats the main difference. Just to emphasise that you can declare up to 9 letters long, there should be nine tiles, where the 9th be a blank or a question mark.

How about, while keeping the standard-ish formats of junior and hyper in their normal places, that there also be an option in the custom menu for no. of letters?

IT'S 8 LETTERS AND A BLANK OKAII??!!1!

3 votes minimum for GOTW rather than 2?
But more usefully, a "with xx% of the vote" bit of stattiness to show how close the top 3 were in the week just finished.

I think everything on apterous has been working brilliantly recently, so your doing a great job, but the one complaint I have is that the system that generates conundrums of appropriate difficulty still seems to be a bit shit:

POO
COCK

JackHurst wrote:I think everything on apterous has been working brilliantly recently, so your doing a great job, but the one complaint I have is that the system that generates conundrums of appropriate difficulty still seems to be a bit shit:

POO
COCK

To save me going through checking what each conundrum's difficulty is, what do you think is a bit shit here?

Michael Wallace wrote:

JackHurst wrote:I think everything on apterous has been working brilliantly recently, so your doing a great job, but the one complaint I have is that the system that generates conundrums of appropriate difficulty still seems to be a bit shit:

POO
COCK

To save me going through checking what each conundrum's difficulty is, what do you think is a bit shit here?

They were all rated 8/9, mostly very difficult (so the actual rating system does seem to be accurate). But what I think is shit is that playing prune should give me the easiest conundrums because his rating is the lowest of all apterous beings, and if these are the difficulty I get against him, then its just not fair. How am I meant to practise heat standard conundrums when the only ones i can seem to access are Finals standard and higher?

JackHurst wrote:They were all rated 8/9, mostly very difficult (so the actual rating system does seem to be accurate). But what I think is shit is that playing prune should give me the easiest conundrums because his rating is the lowest of all apterous beings, and if these are the difficulty I get against him, then its just not fair. How am I meant to practise heat standard conundrums when the only ones i can seem to access are Finals standard and higher?

Unless Charlie's changed it since, you get all possible conundrums from the appropriate decile and lower for some (possibly weighted? I dunno) average of you and your opponent, so you should get easy conundrums now and again (and looking at some of your recent games you do). Given your high rating, you will usually get hard conundrums, and you need a few more examples than a couple of CAs to convince me that it's not just a probabilistic fluke.

I see your point about it ostensibly being difficult to practise easy conundrums, but whether you should be able to tackle easier conundrums is a separate issue to whether the system isn't working as it should - maybe a better suggestion would be "how about an easy conundrum attack mode?" rather than a vague "the conundrum difficulty is broken"

(Of course, it's entirely possible that there is a problem, but the issue of a practice mode for the show is a good one nonetheless, imo.)

Michael Wallace wrote: ...maybe a better suggestion would be "how about an easy conundrum attack mode?" rather than a vague "the conundrum difficulty is broken"

Yeah, thats a fair point.
So do the conundrum attacks I posted against prune only take my rating into account because prune is a bot?

And btw, sorry for moaning about the conundrum difficulty system (calling it shit was a bit cuntish of me), cos I know you put a lot of effort into it.

JackHurst wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote: ...maybe a better suggestion would be "how about an easy conundrum attack mode?" rather than a vague "the conundrum difficulty is broken"

Yeah, thats a fair point.
So do the conundrum attacks I posted against prune only take my rating into account because prune is a bot?

Honestly not sure about that, I thought Charlie set it up to take an average of player ratings (so that a better player isn't essentially disadvantaged when playing a rubbish one), but I dunno if that happens for bots. I thought it did, but if it was a straight average then I wouldn't have thought you should be getting 7s and 8s.

JackHurst wrote:And btw, sorry for moaning about the conundrum difficulty system (calling it shit was a bit cuntish of me), cos I know you put a lot of effort into it.

Eh, if people didn't call things shit just because effort went into them then a lot of things would continue to be shit. I'd just prefer a "this is shit and here are my precise reasons for why I think it's shit"

JackHurst wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote: ...maybe a better suggestion would be "how about an easy conundrum attack mode?" rather than a vague "the conundrum difficulty is broken"

Yeah, thats a fair point.
So do the conundrum attacks I posted against prune only take my rating into account because prune is a bot?

And btw, sorry for moaning about the conundrum difficulty system (calling it shit was a bit cuntish of me), cos I know you put a lot of effort into it.

Yeah, bots don't count, so if you have a high rating you'll often get hard conundrums. I have been meaning to do an "easy attack" for a while but haven't found the time yet.

Goatomelette?

Marc Meakin wrote:Goatomelette?

Would likely suffer the same theoretical problems as touchgoat (i.e. trivially easy).

Hyperomelette, on the other hand...

As there are now on the statland pages, can we have comments boxes on the various high-score table pages please?

I think Simon has already suggested these idea, but I like them so much, I'm posting them again just to make sure they haven't been missed out/to check when they will be up.

-Break down of top letters players by number of vowels, much like the breakdown for top numbers players by larges.
-Breakdown of top goatdown letters player done by own pick and opponents pick.

JackHurst wrote:I think Simon has already suggested these idea, but I like them so much, I'm posting them again just to make sure they haven't been missed out/to check when they will be up.

-Break down of top letters players by number of vowels, much like the breakdown for top numbers players by larges.
-Breakdown of top goatdown letters player done by own pick and opponents pick.

I did, and I still would love to see them.

How about a Round of the Week thingy? A numbers/letters/conundrum round is nominated by, say, clicking on it. They would be nominated for maybe a great numbers spot, a pressurised conundrum spot, a quick conundrum spot with a hard answer or more obviously a fantastic letters spot?

JackHurst wrote:I think Simon has already suggested these idea, but I like them so much, I'm posting them again just to make sure they haven't been missed out/to check when they will be up.

-Break down of top letters players by number of vowels, much like the breakdown for top numbers players by larges.
-Breakdown of top goatdown letters player done by own pick and opponents pick.

Let's not forget top players for selections where there is a B, J and F but no W.

JackHurst wrote:-Break down of top letters players by number of vowels, much like the breakdown for top numbers players by larges.

Done. Turned out to be kinda tricky.

Eoin Monaghan wrote:How about a Round of the Week thingy? A numbers/letters/conundrum round is nominated by, say, clicking on it. They would be nominated for maybe a great numbers spot, a pressurised conundrum spot, a quick conundrum spot with a hard answer or more obviously a fantastic letters spot?

Would be far too much infrastructure for what is essentially just a spin-off of GotW. We already have a hard time getting people to vote on one thing, adding a second would make it worse.

Pencil of the week might be popular.

Big thumbs up for the conundrum inventory items. I'm sure Friedrich Mohs would be proud!

A view counter on the recap for each game.

JackHurst wrote:A view counter on the recap for each game.

What if some secretive agency had been collecting such statistics all along?

On your duel history page, it would be cool if there was something that had your final position for each month.

I don't thing tieing (sp?) the world cup high score is interesting enough new to go on the happenings page any more.

JackHurst wrote:I don't thing tieing (sp?) the world cup high score is interesting enough new to go on the happenings page any more.

Not a word.

Ryan Taylor wrote:

JackHurst wrote:I don't thing tieing (sp?) the world cup high score is interesting enough new to go on the happenings page any more.

Not a word.

Rather than just tell him he's wrong Ryan, give him some constructive criticism you ginger bastard. Jack, it's "tying". And yes I agree about not needing to see it on the Happenings. Cracked me up seeing people like XX and XX tying the high score just to look cool or something when they're not even in the competition.

Matt Morrison wrote:

Ryan Taylor wrote:

JackHurst wrote:I don't thing tieing (sp?) the world cup high score is interesting enough new to go on the happenings page any more.

Not a word.

Rather than just tell him he's wrong Ryan, give him some constructive criticism you ginger bastard. Jack, it's "tying". And yes I agree about not needing to see it on the Happenings. Cracked me up seeing people like XX and XX tying the high score just to look cool or something when they're not even in the competition.

It's especially baffling when people break the record playing against Prune as all you need to do is beat or match your opponent to win a round and as we all know, Prune is utterly hopeless. Reminds me of a duel that was winners-only scoring which was equally hilarious, though not as hilarious as the people who botched a couple of rounds and failed to max it.

http://www.apterous.org/statland.php?se ... al_players

Similar to this page can we have a 'top multiskilled players' page with best scores from every variant's 15-rounders?

Ben Wilson wrote:http://www.apterous.org/statland.php?se ... al_players

Similar to this page can we have a 'top multiskilled players' page with best scores from every variant's 15-rounders?

Muchos Gracias for this btw Carlos. Maybe you could do ones too for Letters/Numbers/Conundrum Attacks and we can take bets on how it'd take Innis to roar to the top of those?

Aegilops star chart please

How about an item for missing an Aegilops max that is spelt out for you, e.g. declaring OPEN or PENT from the selection PEN? Maybe call it a numbskull (although Dinos and I called it a stupidsuit / stoopidsuit when we missed a couple in our game)?

I see you've fixed the article before the word "Unlimited". It also comes up in the lobby with "X got/missed an nine from..."

Adam Gillard wrote:How about an item for missing an Aegilops max that is spelt out for you, e.g. declaring OPEN or PENT from the selection PEN? Maybe call it a numbskull (although Dinos and I called it a stupidsuit / stoopidsuit when we missed a couple in our game)?

Haha yup never again will I miss the word VAGI

Dinos Sfyris wrote:

Adam Gillard wrote:How about an item for missing an Aegilops max that is spelt out for you, e.g. declaring OPEN or PENT from the selection PEN? Maybe call it a numbskull (although Dinos and I called it a stupidsuit / stoopidsuit when we missed a couple in our game)?

Haha yup never again will I miss the word VAGI

Bet you a tenner you do.

The only format listed for the Dogfight variant is Dogfight Letters Attack, which is a fixed 20-rounder. What I'd like to see is a high-score format for each of the daily "Top Dog" games that can be played at any time. In other words, a 45s per round Dogfight with the time decreasing as the rounds go on, and 3 strikes for missing maximums. This sort of game can't be set up using the "full custom" option, due to the 3-strikes-and-out system.

Is it not out of the question to create a feature which shows all the pencils that each person has got, without having to look at each individual game

James Robinson wrote:Is it not out of the question to create a feature which shows all the pencils that each person has got, without having to look at each individual game

Long since.

It's amazing how many words I have pencils for that I have no recollection of getting or even knew existed. My memory must be pretty shit.

Charlie Reams wrote:

James Robinson wrote:Is it not out of the question to create a feature which shows all the pencils that each person has got, without having to look at each individual game

Long since.

I think Charlie is giving you a subtle hint to pull your hand out of your pocket and give him a fiver for superstats

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:

James Robinson wrote:Is it not out of the question to create a feature which shows all the pencils that each person has got, without having to look at each individual game

Long since.

I think Charlie is giving you a subtle hint to pull your hand out of your pocket and give him a fiver for superstats

Well, I think I've got to redo my subscirption before the end of the year, and I definitely want to see my Superstats too, so it shouldn't be too long before I get those.

I can understand it if you haven't got a job, but don't you work James? Surely you've got a spare fiver if you are working?

Charlie--

--not sure whether this suggestion best belongs here, or under the "ideas for new variants", but how about a feature for the classical scholars among us - apterous in Latin? There appears to be a suitable wordlist at http://users.erols.com/whitaker/wordsoth.htm (download LISTALL.zip from this page), which doesn't seem to need much editing other than removing the proper nouns.

Also, to make things more "authentic", I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult to code the numbers games in Latin as well (if you'd be interested in doing so)? Obviously you could just do this by changing all the standard large and small numbers to their Latin equivalents (i.e. the big numbers would be C, LXXV, L and XXV, and the target would come up as e.g. DCCXCI), and you would have to type your solution in the Notes box using the Roman Numerals rather than modern-day numbers. Or you could use the numbers mouse interface as normal, but with all the calculations and buttons displayed in Roman numerals.

Alternatively, to make a new "Latin Numbers" variant entirely, the big numbers would be M, D, C and L (1000, 500, 100 and 50 respectively), and the small numbers would be X, V and I (6 of each of X, V and I gives 18 small numbers to pick from). Now, due to the greatly decreased likelihood of exact solutions being achievable for this numbers set, I suggest that you might offer 8, rather than 6, numbers to work with, although the target would still be in the range CI to CMXCIX (101 to 999, if I've got that right). The player may only pick 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 large.

Of course, offering 8 small numbers for Latin Normal Numbers begs the question: how many numbers to deal if some hardcore nutcase wants to play Latin Junior Numbers or Latin Hyper Numbers? Maybe it would be best to stick to 6 numbers after all, although this would lead to a lot of numbers games being extremely difficult to solve (at least until Craig Chittenden manages to max the format ).

Any thoughts?

--Matt

PS Credit for the numbers idea goes to my mate Dave.

That does sound cool, not that I could ever play it.

Matt Morrison wrote:That does sound cool, not that I could ever play it.

It does! It would be particularly awesome to be taken through a numbers solution in Roman Numerals by some wizened old mathematician like Archimedes, Pythagoras or Carol Vorderman.

Sounds entertaining. I've considered adding Latin before (more as a novelty TBH) but could never find a word list for it. One possible complication is that Latin's incredibly dense inflection system means that the word list is absolutely vast, over a million words, and I'm not sure how the server would cope with that. (Might be fine, honestly not sure.)

I've simulated a couple thousand iterations of your suggested numbers variant and even with 6 worker numbers, 68% of games are exactly soluble and 99.8% within 5, which seems nice enough for me. And a lot of the solutions of brilliantly elaborate, which should keep Craig Chittenden and the rest of the numbernerd gang happy for a bit.

Charlie Reams wrote:... which should keep Craig Chittenden and the rest of the numbernerd gang happy for a bit.

What's the view on my old suggestion of being able to print rounds off to take on your travels (or whatever) with you.

Going on holiday for a week next week and don't know if I will be able to cope without apterous!

Also, is there any chance that you could make it so that prune buzzes pretty much immediately after you make an incorrect guess, so you dont have to wait round for 20 odd seconds or whatever after you have got a conundrum wrong against him.

JackHurst wrote:Also, is there any chance that you could make it so that prune buzzes pretty much immediately after you make an incorrect guess, so you dont have to wait round for 20 odd seconds or whatever after you have got a conundrum wrong against him.

Prune does actually guess correctly occasionally, but I've often thought this myself.

JackHurst wrote:Also, is there any chance that you could make it so that prune buzzes pretty much immediately after you make an incorrect guess, so you dont have to wait round for 20 odd seconds or whatever after you have got a conundrum wrong against him.

Get it right first time you amateur.

JackHurst wrote:Also, is there any chance that you could make it so that prune buzzes pretty much immediately after you make an incorrect guess, so you dont have to wait round for 20 odd seconds or whatever after you have got a conundrum wrong against him.

This used to happen, but it caused all kinds of bugs that I couldn't figure out how to fix.

Charlie Reams wrote:This used to happen, but it caused all kinds of bugs that I couldn't figure out how to fix.

I want my £15 note back.

(Ideally not one you've had a bath in.)

Michael Wallace wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:This used to happen, but it caused all kinds of bugs that I couldn't figure out how to fix.

I want my £15 note back.

(Ideally not one you've had a bath in.)

Stop posting our in-jokes to the forum, people might think we're friends.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:This used to happen, but it caused all kinds of bugs that I couldn't figure out how to fix.

I want my £15 note back.

(Ideally not one you've had a bath in.)

Stop posting our in-jokes to the forum, people might think we're friends.

Fuck. I thought you said everyone had seen those pictures.

Now that we're limited to having just 3 bot games unfinished at any time, I would like a "Kill" button which could remove unfinished Bot games and make them disappear from our Challenge window. Obviously this is entirely motivated by high-score/personal best setting ambitions, but since quite a lot of us on apterous are into that kind of thing, I'm sure many would welcome the feature.

To avoid multiple games clogging up the "Games in progress" window, the "kill" button should probably only become active after logging out and back in to the game room. That is, unless the act of killing could make the game disappear from the "Games in progress" window as well.

Basically, it's no fun having to play another 13 rounds of a 15-rounder when due to a mishap in round 2, you know you can no longer beat your PB, or achieve whatever other personal goal you'd set. Without the Kill button we are now unlikely to see things like the tremendous battle for the Hyper Unlimited Letters Attack record.

I don't think there can be much objection to people high-score-hunting by killing games as soon as a high score is unlikely?

Matt Bayfield wrote:Now that we're limited to having just 3 bot games unfinished at any time, I would like a "Kill" button which could remove unfinished Bot games and make them disappear from our Challenge window. Obviously this is entirely motivated by high-score/personal best setting ambitions, but since quite a lot of us on apterous are into that kind of thing, I'm sure many would welcome the feature.

This is an interesting tension which arises in many other online games when they try to cater to a variety of ways of playing. What I aimed to prevent with the 3-game cap is the kind of high score hunting in which a player starts game after game until they get, say, 2 nines in a row. This is incredibly tedious to play, and it's ultimately in everyone's best interest if neither they nor their "competitors" for high scores can play this way. Plus of course it makes high scores exclusively the reserve of deliberate hunting, mainly against Prune, making it very difficult for any "normal" game to make the high scores page, and I think that would be a shame too.

I also wanted to stop people flooding chat, Games In Progress and so on with multiple games, and inflating their statistics and rating by finishing only those games in which they could beat the bots. But those are subsidiary really.

Fair enough, and thanks for the response Charlie. I do think we'll see far fewer big scores in certain formats now, but I suppose that makes any new records all the more impressive.

Matt Bayfield wrote:Any thoughts?

How about binary variant?

All numbers below are in the binary numeral system, except the numbers in brackets which are in decimal system.
Regular Binary
There are 16 small numbers: 2 each of 1-10000 (1-8) and 4 large: 100000 (32), 1000000 (64), 1100000 (96) and 10000000 (128), one each. The target range between 10000000 (128) and 10000000000 (1024).
Hyperbinary
There are also two large numbers: 11000000 (192) and 100000000 (256). The target range between 10000000000 (1024) and 10000000000000 (8192).