c4countdown

JimBentley wrote:

Dmitry Goretsky wrote:There are 16 small numbers: 2 each of 1-10000 (1-8)

10000 is 16. I don't think you'd be very good at this format, Dmitry. Possibly you need a more probability-focused format.

Sorry, I was wrong, 1000 is 8.

Dmitry Goretsky wrote: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 1-1000 (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).

There are how many small numbers? you said all the numbers below are in the binary numeral system except those in brackets...and 16 doesn't feature in binary. Do you mean there are 10000 numbers?

This endurance event has given me an idea for a 'shootout'-style conundrum attack where you set yourself an your opponent a target to achieve beforehand (say first to 15 conundrums wins) and just keep going until one of you hits it. Could also be extended to numbers and letters (either through maxes or a set score to reach) if logistically possible.

JimBentley wrote:

Dmitry Goretsky wrote:There are 16 small numbers: 2 each of 1-10000 (1-8)

10000 is 16. I don't think you'd be very good at this format, Dmitry. Possibly you need a more probability-focused format.

Maybe after the numbers are selected, players could bet on whether the target will be possible. Actually, maybe not.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Dmitry Goretsky wrote: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 1-1000 (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).

There are how many small numbers? you said all the numbers below are in the binary numeral system except those in brackets...and 16 doesn't feature in binary. Do you mean there are 10000 numbers?

Yes. And I give you extra 2 seconds, for a total of 100000 (32) seconds!

I give this variant idea 10 out of 10.

Charlie Reams wrote:I give this variant idea 10 out of 10.

Is it okay if I choose to interpret the first number in two's complement?

Please add Streetcountdown variant so that those of us not in your precious club can play.

Obviously I am not party to the rules but I hear talk of 18 letters, 12 normal numbers with targets up to 1000000 (no, that is not binary) and conundrums of any length over 12.

Matthew Tassier wrote:Please add Streetcountdown variant so that those of us not in your precious club can play.

Obviously I am not party to the rules but I hear talk of 18 letters, 12 normal numbers with targets up to 1000000 (no, that is not binary) and conundrums of any length over 12.

Streetcountdown?! I never heard about it!

Charlie Reams wrote:I give this variant idea 10 out of 10.

Please add it to apterous!

Just to add to the discussion of a possible format where you pick the difficulty, another way of looking at difficulty could be the flatness of the selections. This would eliminate the fact that you would know the length of the max, so you would still have to do a bit of thinking. This idea would still have shitloads of drawbacks tho.

How about a Prisoner's Dilemma variant where if the players offer the same word, they both get zero.

Charlie Reams wrote:How about a Prisoner's Dilemma variant where if the players offer the same word, they both get zero.

You could also do it to the numbers round aswell.

Charlie Reams wrote:How about a Prisoner's Dilemma variant where if the players offer the same word, they both get zero.

Spitting in the eye of people looking for a max game, while not actually affecting game play in any meaningful way! Perfect!

Andrew Feist wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:How about a Prisoner's Dilemma variant where if the players offer the same word, they both get zero.

Spitting in the eye of people looking for a max game, while not actually affecting game play in any meaningful way! Perfect!

1) It's a variant, so why would you play it if you were 'looking' for a max game?
2) Not affecting game play in any 'meaningful' way? Really?

Michael Wallace wrote: 2) Not affecting game play in any 'meaningful' way? Really?

Perhaps I'm just being extraordinarily silly, but no I don't see any meaningful differences, no. I get an 8, you get a different 8, it's 8-8. I get an 8, you get the same 8, it's 0-0. Even if you have to choose between a choice of 9's, if your opponent doesn't find one it's 18-0 to you regardless, and if (s)he does it's either 18-18 or 0-0.

Andrew Feist wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote: 2) Not affecting game play in any 'meaningful' way? Really?

Perhaps I'm just being extraordinarily silly, but no I don't see any meaningful differences, no. I get an 8, you get a different 8, it's 8-8. I get an 8, you get the same 8, it's 0-0. Even if you have to choose between a choice of 9's, if your opponent doesn't find one it's 18-0 to you regardless, and if (s)he does it's either 18-18 or 0-0.

To take the 9s example. If you know there are 2 9s, one obscure and one common, which one you pick will depend on what you know about your opponent (would they get the obscure one? if they did would they think that I wouldn't? etc. etc.). That's one very simple example.

Edit: Actually, scrap that.I think I see what you mean, but am thinking about it a bit more.

Editedit: Yeah, totally agree with you now I've thought about it. Although it does potentially make trying to get high scores more challenging, which is a bit cool, but not a massive change.

How about a variant where, every time you get a max, Kirk Bevins spits in your eye?

Charlie Reams wrote:How about a variant where, every time you get a max, Kirk Bevins spits in your eye?

Spits in your eye, or 'spits' in your 'eye'

Andrew Feist wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote: 2) Not affecting game play in any 'meaningful' way? Really?

Perhaps I'm just being extraordinarily silly, but no I don't see any meaningful differences, no. I get an 8, you get a different 8, it's 8-8. I get an 8, you get the same 8, it's 0-0. Even if you have to choose between a choice of 9's, if your opponent doesn't find one it's 18-0 to you regardless, and if (s)he does it's either 18-18 or 0-0.

I'd say that the biggest difference is that it could put the first person to declare into a difficult position. Do they declare the longer word if it's obscure or dodgy on the assumption that their opponent won't have it, or do they play it safer if they think their opponent isn't good enough? In practice I doubt there'll be many occasions where declaring sub-optimally would be sensible, but ah divvent knah.

Ian Volante wrote:

Andrew Feist wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote: 2) Not affecting game play in any 'meaningful' way? Really?

Perhaps I'm just being extraordinarily silly, but no I don't see any meaningful differences, no. I get an 8, you get a different 8, it's 8-8. I get an 8, you get the same 8, it's 0-0. Even if you have to choose between a choice of 9's, if your opponent doesn't find one it's 18-0 to you regardless, and if (s)he does it's either 18-18 or 0-0.

I'd say that the biggest difference is that it could put the first person to declare into a difficult position. Do they declare the longer word if it's obscure or dodgy on the assumption that their opponent won't have it, or do they play it safer if they think their opponent isn't good enough? In practice I doubt there'll be many occasions where declaring sub-optimally would be sensible, but ah divvent knah.

If we keep the first-second player declarations, then it will play exactly the same -- there's nothing to gain by not playing (one of) your longest valid words, and you can lose. (From a gameplay perspective, 8-8 is exactly the same as 0-0 unless all of a sudden we're getting paid by the point; and risking a 7 just in case means either you go from a 8-0 win to a 7-7 tie or a 7-0 win, or from a 8-8 tie to a 0-8 loss. There's no risk to the second player here, because (s)he knows you chose a 7.)

I suppose if we're being real prisoner's dilemma, then we would not give that extra information to the second player and make them both choose "blind" so to speak. With one opponent, there's only one word to avoid, so you should never give worse than your second best*, and even then only when your best is a darren (or at least the only one you can find). If it is, and you duck, then:
1) Your opponent didn't have it at all, in which case you've gone from 8-0 (we'll say) to 7-7 (or 0-0) or 7-0.
2) Your opponent had a word of that length that you missed, in which case you've gone from 8-8 to 0-8.
3) Your opponent had the same word, in which case you've gone from 0-0 to 0-8.
4) Your opponent also had the word, and also ducked, in which case you've gone from 0-0 to 7-7 (or 0-0 if you chose the same duck).
5) Your opponent had you beaten anyway, so you stay at 0-18 regardless.
And still, if you don't duck you get exactly the same result as the regular game.

(*) I suppose there might be a quibble here, since this is certainly stated without proof, but I can't think of any situation where ducking two points could help.

It may work better on a daily duel formula or if a multi player option (3-6 people) was possible.

I made some changes to Hypercountdown. There are now 60 SECONDS in each round and you score 5pts for 50-off, 7pts for 20-off, 10pts for 10-off, 15pts for 5-off and 20pts for exact match in numbers round. I think Hypercountdown must be REALLY HYPER.

Dmitry Goretsky wrote:I made some changes to Hypercountdown. There are now 60 SECONDS in each round and you score 5pts for 50-off, 7pts for 20-off, 10pts for 10-off, 15pts for 5-off and 20pts for exact match in numbers round. I think Hypercountdown must be REALLY HYPER.

Shouldn't it be called Reallyhypercountdown then? I think most people would be happy with Hypercountdown being merely hyper.

Dmitry Goretsky wrote:I made some changes to Hypercountdown. There are now 60 SECONDS in each round and you score 5pts for 50-off, 7pts for 20-off, 10pts for 10-off, 15pts for 5-off and 20pts for exact match in numbers round. I think Hypercountdown must be REALLY HYPER.

You seem to be somewhat overestimating the difficulty of hyper numbers games.

Matt Morrison wrote:

Dmitry Goretsky wrote:I made some changes to Hypercountdown. There are now 60 SECONDS in each round and you score 5pts for 50-off, 7pts for 20-off, 10pts for 10-off, 15pts for 5-off and 20pts for exact match in numbers round. I think Hypercountdown must be REALLY HYPER.

Shouldn't it be called Reallyhypercountdown then? I think most people would be happy with Hypercountdown being merely hyper.

No, it's the change in the Hypercountdown

How about Balanced variant: LLNNCLLNNCLLNNC?!

Dmitry Goretsky wrote:How about Balanced variant: LLNNCLLNNCLLNNC?!

Surely balanced would be: LLNNCCLLNNCCLLNNCC

James Robinson wrote:

Dmitry Goretsky wrote:How about Balanced variant: LLNNCLLNNCLLNNC?!

Surely balanced would be: LLNNCCLLNNCCLLNNCC

I meant, balanced between letters and numbers (conundrum uses letters)

Dmitry Goretsky wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

Dmitry Goretsky wrote:How about Balanced variant: LLNNCLLNNCLLNNC?!

Surely balanced would be: LLNNCCLLNNCCLLNNCC

I meant, balanced between letters and numbers (conundrum uses letters)

So LCNNLCNNLCNNLCNN, then

How about End round early variant?! When you click End round early button, the round ends immediately for both players, but each players' remaining time is banked! That means, each player recieves back his remaining time!

Michael Wallace wrote:So LCNNLCNNLCNNLCNN, then

No, more letters, less conundrums!

How about a variant where every round you have to type SHUDDUPPAYAFACEDMITRYFFS and THEN type your word after.

Matt Morrison wrote:How about a variant where every round you have to type SHUDDUPPAYAFACEDMITRYFFS and THEN type your word after.

racist

Dmitry Goretsky wrote:F*** YOU ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Even Carolyn Hunt? Harsh.

How about this: LLLNCLLLNMLLLNC? M means mental arithmetic.
For example, you need to quickly add 456 to 237, then divide by 11, then subtract 14, then multiply by 15, then subtract 69. I mean, ((((237+456):11)-14)*15)-69
Like in Conundrum, you need to buzz in. If you're right, you won 10 points. If not, the opponent tries to do this. You have 30 seconds like in Conundrum. Like in numbers, you declare the result and explain how you got it

Dmitry Goretsky wrote:How about this: LLLNCLLLNMLLLNC? M means mental arithmetic.
For example, you need to quickly add 456 to 237, then divide by 11, then subtract 14, then multiply by 15, then subtract 69. I mean, ((((237+456):11)-14)*15)-69
Like in Conundrum, you need to buzz in. If you're right, you won 10 points. If not, the opponent tries to do this. You have 30 seconds like in Conundrum. Like in numbers, you declare the result and explain how you got it

I like this in theory but I'd be crap at it.

Dmitry Goretsky wrote:How about this: LLLNCLLLNMLLLNC? M means mental arithmetic.
For example, you need to quickly add 456 to 237, then divide by 11, then subtract 14, then multiply by 15, then subtract 69. I mean, ((((237+456):11)-14)*15)-69
Like in Conundrum, you need to buzz in. If you're right, you won 10 points. If not, the opponent tries to do this. You have 30 seconds like in Conundrum. Like in numbers, you declare the result and explain how you got it

Why would you explain how you got it?

Click HERE if you are a probability genius.

Dmitry Goretsky wrote:F*** YOU ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dmitry Goretsky wrote:But I'm only 13 years old

Jailbait.

Hopefully back on track,

Some sort of variant where you would get bonus points for using rare letters, like Q and X? Depending on how many bonus points that'd be, may make for interesting choices too if there's a longer word not using them but a shorter word that does.

Stood in the shower this morning, I wondered whether a semi-touch variant would work - only the first letter of any word would be allowed to be flipped.

One-armed bandit. You can nudge any letter up or down 1 step to make a word, but the letters must remain in order. For example: ZQTFQOVS could be rearranged to make APTEROUS. Normal letters distribution would probably suck though.

Jon Corby wrote:

Dmitry Goretsky wrote:How about this: LLLNCLLLNMLLLNC? M means mental arithmetic.
For example, you need to quickly add 456 to 237, then divide by 11, then subtract 14, then multiply by 15, then subtract 69. I mean, ((((237+456):11)-14)*15)-69
Like in Conundrum, you need to buzz in. If you're right, you won 10 points. If not, the opponent tries to do this. You have 30 seconds like in Conundrum. Like in numbers, you declare the result and explain how you got it

Why would you explain how you got it?

Here's the answer (it's REALLY played in Des Chiffres et Des Lettres, here's the video).

If you don't want to completely watch the video, I give you answer below.
237+456=693
693:11=63
63-14=49
49*15=735
735-69=666

Dmitry Goretsky wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:

Dmitry Goretsky wrote:How about this: LLLNCLLLNMLLLNC? M means mental arithmetic.
For example, you need to quickly add 456 to 237, then divide by 11, then subtract 14, then multiply by 15, then subtract 69. I mean, ((((237+456):11)-14)*15)-69
Like in Conundrum, you need to buzz in. If you're right, you won 10 points. If not, the opponent tries to do this. You have 30 seconds like in Conundrum. Like in numbers, you declare the result and explain how you got it

Why would you explain how you got it?

Here's the answer (it's REALLY played in Des Chiffres et Des Lettres, here's the video).

Here's what I thought of the video: Wait, no link.

Eoin Monaghan wrote:Here's what I thought of the video: Wait, no link.

HERE is the video.

Dmitry Goretsky wrote:

Eoin Monaghan wrote:Here's what I thought of the video: Wait, no link.

HERE is the video.

Thanks.

Looks like they were just running through each step at the end for completeness, rather than because he had to. The host seemed to do a lot of it anyway.

Gavin Chipper wrote:Looks like they were just running through each step at the end for completeness, rather than because he had to. The host seemed to do a lot of it anyway.

Yep, that's it

I GIVE YOU A VERY-VERY-VERY COOL AND FUNNY VIDEO! YOU MUST WATCH IT!!! LOLOLOLOLOL

Please note: he only says "TABOURET" and she solved "Lingo"-style word by herself! LOLOLOLOLOL
For the info about French game show Burger Quiz please visit http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burger%20Quiz (in French).
For the info about Lingo game show please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingo%20(game%20show).
Here you'll find info about international game show franchises. Please select the most appropriate.
For info about Motus, French Lingo game show franchise, please visit http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motus_(jeu ... vis%C3%A9) (in French).


P.S. I just understood that this is the parody of Motus game show.

Dmitry Goretsky wrote:

Dmitry Goretsky wrote:How about this: LLLNCLLLNMLLLNC? M means mental arithmetic.
For example, you need to quickly add 456 to 237, then divide by 11, then subtract 14, then multiply by 15, then subtract 69. I mean, ((((237+456):11)-14)*15)-69
Like in Conundrum, you need to buzz in. If you're right, you won 10 points. If not, the opponent tries to do this. You have 30 seconds like in Conundrum. Like in numbers, you declare the result and explain how you got it

If you don't want to completely watch the video, I give you answer below.
237+456=693
693:11=63
63-14=49
49*15=735
735-69=666

That's fiendishly hard.

Liam Tiernan wrote:

Dmitry Goretsky wrote:

Dmitry Goretsky wrote:How about this: LLLNCLLLNMLLLNC? M means mental arithmetic.
For example, you need to quickly add 456 to 237, then divide by 11, then subtract 14, then multiply by 15, then subtract 69. I mean, ((((237+456):11)-14)*15)-69
Like in Conundrum, you need to buzz in. If you're right, you won 10 points. If not, the opponent tries to do this. You have 30 seconds like in Conundrum. Like in numbers, you declare the result and explain how you got it

If you don't want to completely watch the video, I give you answer below.
237+456=693
693:11=63
63-14=49
49*15=735
735-69=666

That's fiendishly hard.

HARD???!!! THAT'S VERY-VERY SIMPLE AND YOU'RE VERY-VERY STUPID!!!

Liam Tiernan wrote:

Dmitry Goretsky wrote:

Dmitry Goretsky wrote:How about this: LLLNCLLLNMLLLNC? M means mental arithmetic.
For example, you need to quickly add 456 to 237, then divide by 11, then subtract 14, then multiply by 15, then subtract 69. I mean, ((((237+456):11)-14)*15)-69
Like in Conundrum, you need to buzz in. If you're right, you won 10 points. If not, the opponent tries to do this. You have 30 seconds like in Conundrum. Like in numbers, you declare the result and explain how you got it

If you don't want to completely watch the video, I give you answer below.
237+456=693
693:11=63
63-14=49
49*15=735
735-69=666

That's fiendishly hard.

The trick is to visualise each step of the problem as a probability. That's probably right anyway.

Dmitry Goretsky wrote:HARD???!!! THAT'S VERY-VERY SIMPLE AND YOU'RE VERY-VERY STUPID!!!

As stupid as someone who can't work out the probability of getting 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3 from a 6 small pick?

Dmitry Goretsky wrote:

Liam Tiernan wrote:

Dmitry Goretsky wrote:


If you don't want to completely watch the video, I give you answer below.
237+456=693
693:11=63
63-14=49
49*15=735
735-69=666

That's fiendishly hard.

HARD???!!! THAT'S VERY-VERY SIMPLE AND YOU'RE VERY-VERY STUPID!!!

It was a play on words, Dmitry. Would expect someone as clever as you to have spotted it .

Dmitry Goretsky wrote: HARD???!!! THAT'S VERY-VERY SIMPLE AND YOU'RE VERY-VERY STUPID!!!

Just shut up and go away.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Jon Corby wrote: I have to say I am frequently taken aback by the new stuff which you do introduce and the timescales involved. Do you put much effort into refactoring existing code, or is it gradually getting more unwieldy?

Yeah, a lot of time is spent refactoring, generalising, stream-lining and so on. I have a somewhat autistic obsession with doing things The Right Way, and I often hold out on implementing features if I can't see The Right Way to do it. This is helped by the fact that I'm the only developer (sorry Jono), so there's no one else to get confused if I suddenly rewrite big portions of the code.

Further to this, and lest anyone thought I was blowing my own trumpet, the website itself is an absolute clusterfuck. PHP is really not suited for large, long-term projects (Facebook take note), and a lot of the code is just a horrible mess, especially for Statland. Unfortunately there's so damn much of it now that there's little chance I'll ever be able to refactor it.

How about Point variant? Each letter scores you different amount of points, but there are some "blank" or "*" cards that score NOTHING which can substitute EVERY letter, much like in Scrabble. The word with the most points wins, BUT in case of a tie, longest word still wins. Longest wordand word with most points (best word) scores DOUBLE the points and if the word is BOTH the longest and the best it scores QUADRUPLE the points (it's just because they're multiplied by 2*2)! The correctly guessed conundrum score DOUBLE the points, just because it's the longest word. There are two variants: no "voweling-consonanting" (NVC) and with "voweling-consonanting" (WVC).
NVC
there are "regular blank" cards, or simply "*"
WVC
There are "blank vowel" or "*V" cards in vowels deck and, you guessed, "blank consonant" or "*C" in consonants deck.

P.S. NOTE: this variant is only suitable for letters and conundrums. If you have an idea about how to make such numbers or targets score more points, please post it here

Dmitry Goretsky wrote:How about Point variant? Each letter scores you different amount of points, but there are some "blank" or "*" cards that score NOTHING which can substitute EVERY letter, much like in Scrabble. The word with the most points wins, BUT in case of a tie, longest word still wins. Longest wordand word with most points (best word) scores DOUBLE the points and if the word is BOTH the longest and the best it scores QUADRUPLE the points (it's just because they're multiplied by 2*2)! The correctly guessed conundrum score DOUBLE the points, just because it's the longest word. There are two variants: no "voweling-consonanting" (NVC) and with "voweling-consonanting" (WVC).
NVC
there are "regular blank" cards, or simply "*"
WVC
There are "blank vowel" or "*V" cards in vowels deck and, you guessed, "blank consonant" or "*C" in consonants deck.

P.S. NOTE: this variant is only suitable for letters and conundrums. If you have an idea about how to make such numbers or targets score more points, please post it here

Not a fan of this idea at all.