A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://c4countdown.co.uk/
They're already there. I'd link you to them, but Apterous isn't playing properly at the moment.Dan Abrey wrote:How about a statland page for best numbers solvers?
ThisDan Abrey wrote:How about a statland page for best numbers solvers?
Facts and Figures > Statland > Top Players > Top Numbers PlayersDan Abrey wrote:I mean a list of best numbers game solvers sorted by percentage solved. Is that already there? Can't find it for looking!
You mean by colour or something similar? Yeah, that would work, surprised no one has thought of it before.Rhys Benjamin wrote:A way of filtering the "online players", e.g. Bots, humans, seekers, normal, busy, all.
no, sort of one box for each cat.Ryan Taylor wrote:You mean by colour or something similar? Yeah, that would work, surprised no one has thought of it before.Rhys Benjamin wrote:A way of filtering the "online players", e.g. Bots, humans, seekers, normal, busy, all.
Ryan Taylor wrote:Yeah, that would work, surprised no one has thought of it before.
Someone's already thought of that too:Rhys Benjamin wrote:No, sort of one box for each cat.
Don't forget one jar for each man.Rhys Benjamin wrote:No, sort of one box for each cat.
[muso trainspot]Charlie Reams wrote:Don't forget one jar for each man.
***LIKE***Hugh Binnie wrote:Two Boy Scouts for KAIKAI?
I thought that the winner of the previous game between 2 players sits in the champions chair next game, just as in the show.Kirk Bevins wrote:How about, if player A plays player B for the very first time, it's random who sits in chair A or chair B but after that, every time they play a particular format it alternates where they sit. This came about as I was player 1 three times in a row against a player who used tricky numbers games to try and claw back points and, although it's 50:50, I felt hard done by 3 times in a row being the "champion". It would be much better if it alternated.
On a related note, I suggest a 15-round format that has 4 numbers rounds that's available from the drop-down thing. Something like LlLlN lLlLn LnlNC. First two "halves" would be as normal and only the third half would be different. I'd suggest this to Damian for the actual show, but I'm worried that it might turn out to be objectively a bad idea and I don't think I could take that.Kirk Bevins wrote:How about, if player A plays player B for the very first time, it's random who sits in chair A or chair B but after that, every time they play a particular format it alternates where they sit. This came about as I was player 1 three times in a row against a player who used tricky numbers games to try and claw back points and, although it's 50:50, I felt hard done by 3 times in a row being the "champion". It would be much better if it alternated.
I've been considering rolling out the Blitz format to other variants. Maybe something more numbers-oriented could also go into rotation, although it could be something a little more "radical" than one extra numbers round. Ideas?Gavin Chipper wrote:I suggest a 15-round format that has 4 numbers rounds that's available from the drop-down thing. Something like LlLlN lLlLn LnlNC.
The masters format (LNCx5) could fit the bill here.Charlie Reams wrote:I've been considering rolling out the Blitz format to other variants. Maybe something more numbers-oriented could also go into rotation, although it could be something a little more "radical" than one extra numbers round. Ideas?Gavin Chipper wrote:I suggest a 15-round format that has 4 numbers rounds that's available from the drop-down thing. Something like LlLlN lLlLn LnlNC.
Yeah, I've also thought it would be interesting to see how far off I was from making some list or other. (Especially the numbers pages that give stuff like max percentages, and I can't see my own if I'm not on the page myself.)Nick Boldock wrote:When I look on Statland I would love to see where I sit outside of the top ranks.
To explain that better...
If I look at, for example, "Statland: Most multitalented players" - I see the Top 30 but I have no idea where I rank, albeit I'm probably somewhere near the bottom. But if I could see that it would give me the goal of improving my standing, which definitely appeals...
Perhaps you can already see this some other way - apologies if so (and tell me where it is).
Thanks..
Realistically I know, as an "average" player, I'm not going to make the Top 30 of hardly any of the charts (if any) but I guess in order to calculate the top 30 there must be some kind of routine behind which calculates the same stats for every player? In which case surely it could add on the bottom, just after the Top 30 (or 20, or whatever), the logged in player's own stats in comparison. That way, although I can't make those charts in the foreseeable future, I'd still be able to chart progress and set my own aims - say aiming for the top 100, top 50 or whatever. I'm not suggesting showing everyone's stats - just the top dogs and then one at the bottom.Miriam Nussbaum wrote:Yeah, I've also thought it would be interesting to see how far off I was from making some list or other. (Especially the numbers pages that give stuff like max percentages, and I can't see my own if I'm not on the page myself.)Nick Boldock wrote:When I look on Statland I would love to see where I sit outside of the top ranks.
To explain that better...
If I look at, for example, "Statland: Most multitalented players" - I see the Top 30 but I have no idea where I rank, albeit I'm probably somewhere near the bottom. But if I could see that it would give me the goal of improving my standing, which definitely appeals...
Perhaps you can already see this some other way - apologies if so (and tell me where it is).
Thanks..
It's a nice idea, although there are significant technical obstacles beyond what's obvious from the outside. However (as I've said before) one of my objectives for the rest of the year is doing more for the "broad middle" of the ability range, so never say never.Nick Boldock wrote:Realistically I know, as an "average" player, I'm not going to make the Top 30 of hardly any of the charts (if any) but I guess in order to calculate the top 30 there must be some kind of routine behind which calculates the same stats for every player? In which case surely it could add on the bottom, just after the Top 30 (or 20, or whatever), the logged in player's own stats in comparison. That way, although I can't make those charts in the foreseeable future, I'd still be able to chart progress and set my own aims - say aiming for the top 100, top 50 or whatever. I'm not suggesting showing everyone's stats - just the top dogs and then one at the bottom.Miriam Nussbaum wrote:Yeah, I've also thought it would be interesting to see how far off I was from making some list or other. (Especially the numbers pages that give stuff like max percentages, and I can't see my own if I'm not on the page myself.)Nick Boldock wrote:When I look on Statland I would love to see where I sit outside of the top ranks.
To explain that better...
If I look at, for example, "Statland: Most multitalented players" - I see the Top 30 but I have no idea where I rank, albeit I'm probably somewhere near the bottom. But if I could see that it would give me the goal of improving my standing, which definitely appeals...
Perhaps you can already see this some other way - apologies if so (and tell me where it is).
Thanks..
Like when you look at the tennis rankings on BBC Sport and underneath the important people it shows you where the Brits are ranked...
(I like that analogy)*
*With apologies to Mr Andrew Murray.
Fair enough, sounds promising... ish.Charlie Reams wrote: It's a nice idea, although there are significant technical obstacles beyond what's obvious from the outside. However (as I've said before) one of my objectives for the rest of the year is doing more for the "broad middle" of the ability range, so never say never.
I've noticed myself at the bottom of the Pro ranks before - is this not just the same as that but for other things as well?Charlie Reams wrote:It's a nice idea, although there are significant technical obstacles beyond what's obvious from the outside. However (as I've said before) one of my objectives for the rest of the year is doing more for the "broad middle" of the ability range, so never say never.
Yes it's identical, I was lying when I said it was difficult.Gavin Chipper wrote:I've noticed myself at the bottom of the Pro ranks before - is this not just the same as that but for other things as well?Charlie Reams wrote:It's a nice idea, although there are significant technical obstacles beyond what's obvious from the outside. However (as I've said before) one of my objectives for the rest of the year is doing more for the "broad middle" of the ability range, so never say never.
Haha - fair enough, sorry.Charlie Reams wrote:Yes it's identical, I was lying when I said it was difficult.Gavin Chipper wrote:I've noticed myself at the bottom of the Pro ranks before - is this not just the same as that but for other things as well?Charlie Reams wrote:It's a nice idea, although there are significant technical obstacles beyond what's obvious from the outside. However (as I've said before) one of my objectives for the rest of the year is doing more for the "broad middle" of the ability range, so never say never.
Here's the answer I might have given if I had been feeling more charitable: Pro Ranks operates on a completely different subsystem to Statland and has a fairly fundamentally different design under the hood. I was thinking today that it's not completely infeasible that Statland could be migrated to something more like Pro Ranks, but it would be a significant amount of work just because there's so much stuff on Statland now (and ease of development was something I designed for from the beginning). But it would be kinda cool and could probably be done incrementally, if I was willing to put up with the spurious bug reports in the mean time. So... maybe.Gavin Chipper wrote: Yes it's identical, I was lying when I said it was difficult.
I think you'll find that's called "Flat".Rhys Benjamin wrote:Raw Scoring
Presumably lowest score in most variants would be 0 more or less?James Bradley wrote:How about under a variant page, a stat of lowest score to go with highest score?
That's true, but if the bots were excluded would there be many human players scoring 0?Ryan Taylor wrote:Presumably lowest score in most variants would be 0 more or less?James Bradley wrote:How about under a variant page, a stat of lowest score to go with highest score?
Bizarrely some otherwise sane players would deliberately score 0 just to get their name on the page, so I'm afraid it would be pointless.James Bradley wrote:That's true, but if the bots were excluded would there be many human players scoring 0?Ryan Taylor wrote:Presumably lowest score in most variants would be 0 more or less?James Bradley wrote:How about under a variant page, a stat of lowest score to go with highest score?
What, similar to this on here?Matthew Tassier wrote:Bizarrely some otherwise sane players would deliberately score 0 just to get their name on the page, so I'm afraid it would be pointless.James Bradley wrote:That's true, but if the bots were excluded would there be many human players scoring 0?Ryan Taylor wrote: Presumably lowest score in most variants would be 0 more or less?
Aw, you subscribed. Fair playRhys Benjamin wrote:A resign feature.
Cool. Might throw up something interesting.Ian Volante wrote:Persons chosen most as rival.
The problem with that is you could resign before the game ends, potentially denying your opponent the chance of a high score or whatever. You could restrict it only to situations where the game goes to a tie-break, and automatically award the other player the points for that round, but somehow it doesn't seem right to award a player points for something they haven't done.Rhys Benjamin wrote:A resign feature.
That's actually a nice idea.Graeme Cole wrote: An "offer draw" feature might work, though, whereby a tied game can be curtailed by mutual agreement. I can see that being useful in the more esoteric variants when, as in this case, two players get stuck in a never-ending stream of tie-break conundrums.
Also, make the 'Latest duel' position, considering it only appears for completed duels, link to the specific duel game in question.Matt Morrison wrote:Another quick comparison column for your rivals on rivals.php would be 'Duel points this month'.
He actually didn't, an anonymous donor subscribed for him. Oddly he's never commented on it.Lesley Hines wrote:Aw, you subscribed. Fair playRhys Benjamin wrote:A resign feature.
I don't know much about coding but it sounds to me like this might be one of those things that sounds easy but it ridiculously hard, so the effort to reward ratio is not very favourable.Gavin Chipper wrote:I was wondering if it was possible for the clock to be tied up more with the music in the game. If there's a laggy moment, the clock can jump but the music won't so they can get out of sync. Also the music starts again after an incorrect conundrum buzz, rather than carrying on from where it left off.
Hmm, would it? I do this all the time.Liam Tiernan wrote:If, for example I want to play Jojo, but he's already in a game it would be rude to issue a challenge.
Does Jojo not get annoyed?Charlie Reams wrote:Hmm, would it? I do this all the time.Liam Tiernan wrote:If, for example I want to play Jojo, but he's already in a game it would be rude to issue a challenge.