c4countdown

I really think there should be a button on the numbers round that lets you declare "on target". I say this because when you get a solution late on and you need to change your declaration, quire often you wont be able to type in your new declaration in time. With the system the way it is, I realistically get 2 seconds less on the numbers because it takes me a couple of seconds to sort out changing my declaration, this may not sound like much, but I find it INFINITELY frustrating when I have a solve, but cant enter it because I didnt type the target in quick enough.

I know this has been suggested before, but If its easy enough to implement into the game, I can't see why it shouldn't be.

JackHurst wrote:I really think there should be a button on the numbers round that lets you declare "on target".

Click the target.

How about some sort of game mode where you are scored based on how many words you get, for example, if I entered 5 valid seven-letter words I would get 35 points compared to someone who enters a 9, an 8, and 2 7's who would get 31 points. And every false declaration deducts some points, or something like that. One downside of this would be that you wouldn't stand much of a chance if you were a slow typist.

Darren Carter wrote:How about some sort of game mode where you are scored based on how many words you get, for example, if I entered 5 valid seven-letter words I would get 35 points compared to someone who enters a 9, an 8, and 2 7's who would get 31 points. And every false declaration deducts some points, or something like that. One downside of this would be that you wouldn't stand much of a chance if you were a slow typist.

Why only 31? Don't do Gevin scoring - it's shit.

Darren Carter wrote:How about some sort of game mode where you are scored based on how many words you get, for example, if I entered 5 valid seven-letter words I would get 35 points compared to someone who enters a 9, an 8, and 2 7's who would get 31 points. And every false declaration deducts some points, or something like that. One downside of this would be that you wouldn't stand much of a chance if you were a slow typist.

Something like this might work, although you need to refine it or it turns into one of those tedious games like Boggle where you can get about a zillion points by just hammering down all the 3s.

Suffice to say, after some sexy discussions with Kirk over the weekend, I've pretty much nailed down what the next two variants will be, and they're pretty cool.

Do they contain nuts?

Charlie Reams wrote: Something like this might work, although you need to refine it or it turns into one of those tedious games like Boggle where you can get about a zillion points by just hammering down all the 3s.

Good point, I will give it a re-think.

Darren Carter wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote: Something like this might work, although you need to refine it or it turns into one of those tedious games like Boggle where you can get about a zillion points by just hammering down all the 3s.

Good point, I will give it a re-think.

Accept only 4+?

Ben Hunter wrote:

Darren Carter wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote: Something like this might work, although you need to refine it or it turns into one of those tedious games like Boggle where you can get about a zillion points by just hammering down all the 3s.

Good point, I will give it a re-think.

Accept only 4+?

There are still some rounds where 4s are pretty hard to come by. Accept the three longest words only and ignore the rest.

Darren Carter wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote: Something like this might work, although you need to refine it or it turns into one of those tedious games like Boggle where you can get about a zillion points by just hammering down all the 3s.

Good point, I will give it a re-think.

As I think I've mentioned before, you could just get points for the top n words (2? 3? 5? 2^(42,643,801)-1?) that you find, so your attention is focused on finding a few longer words rather than spamming every short word available.

I've mentioned it before, but not described it too well, but in Superstats, would it be possible to have the "Rating" graph in the same design as the "Numbers success by pick" graph, i.e. WIth each different format rating picked out by a different colour?

Secondly, how about a page (I just envisage one page in a simple table format) listing miscellaneous variants (each one being distinct in variant, time per round, scoring system etc) along with numbers of times played and high scores? It would be interesting to see the most often played weird variants, and have a whole new set of high scores to shoot at. Until the brainiacs put them out of my reach anyway...

I imagine that if you restrict listed variants to those that have been played at least ~five times, then this should restrict server load sufficiently.

Finally, this could theoretically encourage the more popular minor formats towards a level deserving of a distinct statistics page after say a hundred games of that type have been played.

I deem that this is a relatively sensible post for my 1,000th. I hope it's not all dismissed out of hand

Congrats on #1000.

Ian Volante wrote: I hope it's not all dismissed out of hand

Get out, you antlered freak.

Edit: Okay, sure.

Can we please have an index for the chatlogs? It's getting to the point where it takes ages to load the most recent ones.

Can we have a German dictionary on Apterous? For some reason I know loads of Germans, and some of them want to play Countdown.

Ben Hunter wrote:Can we have a German dictionary on Apterous? For some reason I know loads of Germans, and some of them want to play Countdown.

Whilst we're at it, can we have TWL as well? There may well be a market in North America...

Edit: Also whilst in a mood to demand more of Charlie, can we have a few more preset formats please? In particular 10-round letters/numbers/conundrums attack, call them 'quick attacks' or something. Maybe even 30-rounders too?

Ben Wilson wrote:

Ben Hunter wrote:Can we have a German dictionary on Apterous? For some reason I know loads of Germans, and some of them want to play Countdown.

Whilst we're at it, can we have TWL as well? There may well be a market in North America...

Edit: Also whilst in a mood to demand more of Charlie, can we have a few more preset formats please? In particular 10-round letters/numbers/conundrums attack, call them 'quick attacks' or something. Maybe even 30-rounders too?

Quick attacks would be great.

Ben Hunter wrote:Can we have a German dictionary on Apterous? For some reason I know loads of Germans, and some of them want to play Countdown.

This is in the pipeline, should be available tomorrow or Tuesday.

Hullo, while I was cycling to work this morning, I thought of some sort of training feature based on stems. The format could be effectively a goatdown letters attack, but the scoring would be based on either picking a/the correct addendum to the stem offered, or as many as possible of those available, probably with stepdown scoring. It might be easier for people wanting to play that format to play goatdown however.

Ian Volante wrote:Hullo, while I was cycling to work this morning, I thought of some sort of training feature based on stems. The format could be effectively a goatdown letters attack, but the scoring would be based on either picking a/the correct addendum to the stem offered, or as many as possible of those available, probably with stepdown scoring. It might be easier for people wanting to play that format to play goatdown however.

This might be fun as a chat game, rather than a stand-alone variant.

Love the new German variant, but can you put in German Conundrum Attck as a recognised game? Just comes up as Custom in my archive.

Bob De Caux wrote:Love the new German variant, but can you put in German Conundrum Attck as a recognised game? Just comes up as Custom in my archive.

Done. (And I'll add German letters attack if anyone plays one.)

After the recent language lexicon additions, could we please have a Spanish dictionary?

I realise that this is going to be a darling, but could we have (at least a precis) definitions in Lexplorer? If you fancy (wtf?) doing some sort of Spindlex for it I'd be quite happy to do the entering. It's just I like words, and I can only remember them if I know what they mean. I'm aware that there are links to other online dictionaries there, but I just think it would be nice to have it all in one place.

Off to suggest to Hu Jintao he build a nice little wall.

Lesley Hines wrote:I realise that this is going to be a darling, but could we have (at least a precis) definitions in Lexplorer? If you fancy (wtf?) doing some sort of Spindlex for it I'd be quite happy to do the entering. It's just I like words, and I can only remember them if I know what they mean. I'm aware that there are links to other online dictionaries there, but I just think it would be nice to have it all in one place.

Off to suggest to Hu Jintao he build a nice little wall.

If the definitions are reproduced from the ODE2r (which they would have to be, really) then you are likely to run into copyright issues.

Jon Corby wrote:

Lesley Hines wrote:I realise that this is going to be a darling, but could we have (at least a precis) definitions in Lexplorer? If you fancy (wtf?) doing some sort of Spindlex for it I'd be quite happy to do the entering. It's just I like words, and I can only remember them if I know what they mean. I'm aware that there are links to other online dictionaries there, but I just think it would be nice to have it all in one place.

Off to suggest to Hu Jintao he build a nice little wall.

If the definitions are reproduced from the ODE2r (which they would have to be, really) then you are likely to run into copyright issues.

Damn you're good. Well, back my trusty and well-thumbed hard copy then. Just as well I have a spare

Lesley Hines wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:

Lesley Hines wrote:I realise that this is going to be a darling, but could we have (at least a precis) definitions in Lexplorer? If you fancy (wtf?) doing some sort of Spindlex for it I'd be quite happy to do the entering. It's just I like words, and I can only remember them if I know what they mean. I'm aware that there are links to other online dictionaries there, but I just think it would be nice to have it all in one place.

Off to suggest to Hu Jintao he build a nice little wall.

If the definitions are reproduced from the ODE2r (which they would have to be, really) then you are likely to run into copyright issues.

Damn you're good. Well, back my trusty and well-thumbed hard copy then. Just as well I have a spare

Maybe it couldbe possible for a hyperlink next to the word that takes you to an appropriate site.

Marc Meakin wrote:Maybe it couldbe possible for a hyperlink next to the word that takes you to an appropriate site.

They're already there - I'm just click-happy enough.

Marc Meakin wrote:Maybe it couldbe possible for a hyperlink next to the word that takes you to an appropriate site.

Yeah - Google "define:word" and it'll bring up a nice list of definitions of word from several dictionary sites, but it won't of course match the ODE2r. Given that you're only likely to be looking up obscurities, you may find it's not there, or is only listed as a noun when it has been used as a verb, and basically you're not much the wiser.

Lesley Hines wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote:Maybe it couldbe possible for a hyperlink next to the word that takes you to an appropriate site.

They're already there - I'm just click-happy enough.

I didn't know that (and I'm in work so can't look now as they've blocked apterous again, the bastards) - where does it redirect to?

Jon Corby wrote:where does it redirect to?

At the top of the entry there are hyperlinks to Google, Wikipedia, dictionary.com, OneLook and answers.com. I just thought, for the sake of completeness, it would be nice to have the correct definitions (as determined by the ODE2r) together with the word list in the same place. You're quite right though, the friendly lawyers at the OUP might have something to say about it.

Lesley Hines wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote:Maybe it couldbe possible for a hyperlink next to the word that takes you to an appropriate site.

They're already there - I'm just click-happy enough.

Oh yeah, silly me

Marc Meakin wrote:Oh yeah, silly me

Marc, don't be hard on yourself. You're the brightest vacuum cleaner I know

Lesley Hines wrote:I just thought, for the sake of completeness, it would be nice to have the correct definitions (as determined by the ODE2r) together with the word list in the same place. You're quite right though, the friendly lawyers at the OUP might have something to say about it.

The only way I could see it working is if there was an empty box next to each word, and people submitted definitions from memory. It is very unlikely that someone's memorized definition is going to use exactly the same wording as Oxford. The problem though, is that there is a possibility of error, with people remembering definitions wrongly. This them reverts to it being easier to look them up online.

A while ago I wanted to start a thread on American English. I was going to use a booklet which I have as a starting point, and then get people to add other words/different usages whenever they thought of them. I e-mailed the publishers of the booklet, and go no response, so abandoned the project. The legal web is fraught with danger.

Lesley Hines wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote:Oh yeah, silly me

Marc, don't be hard on yourself. You're the brightest vacuum cleaner I know

Yeah, but some people still think I suck.

The day Microsoft make vacuum cleaners will be the day they make something that doesn't suck.

Alec Rivers wrote:The day Microsoft make vacuum cleaners will be the day they make something that doesn't suck.

Fantastic

Marc Meakin wrote:

Lesley Hines wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote:Maybe it couldbe possible for a hyperlink next to the word that takes you to an appropriate site.

They're already there - I'm just click-happy enough.

Oh yeah, silly me

I thought you were being sarcastic?

In Superstats, could we see words that used to be unique, and perhaps the person that stole the uniqueness, following that, maybe a page of stolen uniques?

Shaun Hegarty wrote:In Superstats, could we see words that used to be unique, and perhaps the person that stole the uniqueness, following that, maybe a page of stolen uniques?

You're pretty much asking for a list of all the words for which a player has earned a pencil. Some players have thousands of these, most of them not very interesting (someone had to be the first person to spot RETAINS). It could be pretty interesting to see for bronze pencils though, since those words are much less trivial.

Simon Myers wrote:

Shaun Hegarty wrote:In Superstats, could we see words that used to be unique, and perhaps the person that stole the uniqueness, following that, maybe a page of stolen uniques?

You're pretty much asking for a list of all the words for which a player has earned a pencil. Some players have thousands of these, most of them not very interesting (someone had to be the first person to spot RETAINS). It could be pretty interesting to see for bronze pencils though, since those words are much less trivial.

What are bronze pencils for again?

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Simon Myers wrote:

Shaun Hegarty wrote:In Superstats, could we see words that used to be unique, and perhaps the person that stole the uniqueness, following that, maybe a page of stolen uniques?

You're pretty much asking for a list of all the words for which a player has earned a pencil. Some players have thousands of these, most of them not very interesting (someone had to be the first person to spot RETAINS). It could be pretty interesting to see for bronze pencils though, since those words are much less trivial.

What are bronze pencils for again?

The same as pencils but introduced later and, since pencils are much harder to obtain nowadays, he's spiced them up in a bronze livery. :p

True it would result in a lot of words from way back at the start, but not necessarily pencils, as it's possible to have been the first to get a word without it being the max.

Would it please be possible to put on the game review pages where they've broken a record? I'm looking at Kirk's mega 151 (unlucky!!), and at the GOTW nominations, and thinking it would be helpful information if you didn't know all the records off the top of your head at that time. It would be quite a nice historical reference to see what the records were as they were broken, too.

Just a thought - thanks very much

I think the number of people who play non-ODE games is so small that it doesn't warrant having non-ode nines coming up in aptochat.

If you must keep them, could I propose that the missed nines remain as

"2009-05-24 22:44:56 Oliver takes his 248th point! The 9 from IGPOENROC was COOPERING!"

and not

"2009-12-02 14:30:44 Innis takes his 5490th point! The English (ODE) 9 from SUNDAISBE was UNBIASSED"

Labelling the non-ode nines as (CSW only) or something when they (rarely) crop up would be useful because at the moment, rather than letting the 9s in aptochat sink in by osmosis and then spotting them at a later date, I'm actually reading to make sure it's not CSW and so on and I reckon I'm in greater danger of offering a phoney on the show.

Apterous Velvet needs some personality. We should suggest some chit chat for her.

Ben Hunter wrote:Apterous Velvet needs some personality. We should suggest some chit chat for her.

[Like]

Charlie Reams wrote:

Ben Hunter wrote:Apterous Velvet needs some personality. We should suggest some chit chat for her.

[Like]

The other Ben has now obliged. Watch this space.

Would it be worth someone who knows about programming working with Charlie to create a downloadable version of Apterous? It could contain some classic games, or maybe just some random games. Then, when the server goes down, at least people can play around on that version while they are waiting for the main site to come back.

Derek Hazell wrote:Would it be worth someone who knows about programming working with Charlie to create a downloadable version of Apterous?

Is that your way if asking Charlie to do it without wanting to sound too demanding?

Derek Hazell wrote:Would it be worth someone who knows about programming working with Charlie to create a downloadable version of Apterous? It could contain some classic games, or maybe just some random games. Then, when the server goes down, at least people can play around on that version while they are waiting for the main site to come back.

It would be very difficult to do that, technically speaking. I wouldn't say never because sometimes I enjoy a technical challenge, but it would be a real task. And for someone else to do it, with no knowledge of a large and poorly-documented codebase, would be almost impossible.

There's always my old VB game Derek...

Jon Corby wrote:There's always my old VB game Derek...

Or http://www.prezzybox.com/products/index.aspx?pid=3990

Liking the comments feature. Is it possible to make notifications come up on your userpage as well as / instead of by email?

Ben Hunter wrote:Liking the comments feature. Is it possible to make notifications come up on your userpage as well as / instead of by email?

How about something like this? Having made this I now can't work out where to put it.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Ben Hunter wrote:Liking the comments feature. Is it possible to make notifications come up on your userpage as well as / instead of by email?

How about something like this? Having made this I now can't work out where to put it.

When I said "No" to the pester thing I got some kind of query gen error. Then I said yes and got no error.

Jon Corby wrote: When I said "No" to the pester thing I got some kind of query gen error. Then I said yes and got no error.

Fixed. (And I changed yours to No.)

Charlie Reams wrote:

Ben Hunter wrote:Liking the comments feature. Is it possible to make notifications come up on your userpage as well as / instead of by email?

How about something like this? Having made this I now can't work out where to put it.

How about something that mentions just the games you're involved in but on Apterous rather than by e-mail?

Can we have a link to the site which brings you to the home page please? I am always having to hit back if I want to read something on the home page and sometimes it backtracks on any comments I have made. That or I just open apterous up again.

Eoin Monaghan wrote:Can we have a link to the site which brings you to the home page please? I am always having to hit back if I want to read something on the home page and sometimes it backtracks on any comments I have made. That or I just open apterous up again.

You mean like the big 'apterous.org' link in the top-left corner of every page?