Records versus bots
Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 10:23 pm
FWIW I think records against bots should be separate from records against humans.
Rather like the Pro Ranks. (Pro Records maybe?)
Rather like the Pro Ranks. (Pro Records maybe?)
A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://c4countdown.co.uk/
Any reason why?Marc Meakin wrote:FWIW I think records against bots should be separate from records against humans.
Rather like the Pro Ranks. (Pro Records maybe?)
I just think that records created against fellow humans are more praiseworthy on the whole.Kirk Bevins wrote:Any reason why?Marc Meakin wrote:FWIW I think records against bots should be separate from records against humans.
Rather like the Pro Ranks. (Pro Records maybe?)
And why can't you do this against humans?Marc Meakin wrote: I also think that any half decent player can keep playing the bots until the right letter/number combinations show up in order to break the record.
I agree, but many players play one or two rounds against prune, fail and start again.Kirk Bevins wrote:And why can't you do this against humans?Marc Meakin wrote: I also think that any half decent player can keep playing the bots until the right letter/number combinations show up in order to break the record.
Breaking records? Depends what the record is. If I get a record by scoring 20 points in Russian then that's a bit shit. If I get a high score record in 15 rounder, then that's a bit different.Marc Meakin wrote: Do you get more satisfaction breaking records or getting max games against bots or humans?
Except that this is now impossible, so your wish has been granted.Marc Meakin wrote:I agree, but many players play one or two rounds against prune, fail and start again.
Thanks, although a clear distinction between records against humans and records against bots would have been sufficient..Charlie Reams wrote:Except that this is now impossible, so your wish has been granted.Marc Meakin wrote:I agree, but many players play one or two rounds against prune, fail and start again.
Why? Whether I play Apterous Prime or Innis Carson - who cares?Marc Meakin wrote: Thanks, although a clear distinction between records against humans and records against bots would have been sufficient..
Yes I know, I'm an ungrateful cunt.
I don't think anyone would care too much about the difference between Prime and Carson -- those are at least both games. Playing Prune is not a game, it's a test of patience, luck and/or skill, in some order. (This is the same issue that came up in the Game of the Week deal -- a max game vs. Prune would get a lot of ink, but a see-saw battle between two good players (but where both players necessarily missed a word here and there as the battle wore on) wouldn't.)Kirk Bevins wrote:Why? Whether I play Apterous Prime or Innis Carson - who cares?Marc Meakin wrote: Thanks, although a clear distinction between records against humans and records against bots would have been sufficient..
Yes I know, I'm an ungrateful cunt.
I've always said that GotW is whatever people make of it. That said, there are certain features of the site that make it easier to spot max games and high scores when they occur, whereas games which are notable for more subtle reasons are harder to flag automatically. Another factor, which I know affects me, is that voting in GotW requires reading through quite a lot of recaps (often 10 or more) and it's much easier to give a high score to a sea of bold than to follow the "story" of a game and decide on that basis. In either case I'm not really sure what can be done about it, although I'd welcome suggestions.Michael Wallace wrote: I do kinda agree with Andrew on the GotW thing, but can appreciate it's a matter of perspective. I personally find exciting tussles between two players (of any ability) much more interesting than Yet Another Max Game (I also think that less good players putting in a particularly good performance for them is often overlooked). I can also appreciate that I'm presumably in a minority on this, because it's voted for by the users anyway, so you can't really blame the system either.
So if you found out that Prune was a real person, who was just Really Shit at apterous, it's suddenly different?Ian Volante wrote:For me, there's a large amount of difference in setting a high score against Prune and doing it against a person. I couldn't give a monkey's about beating a bot, even one of the good ones, whereas there's a whole extra edge in beating a real person, as you're pretty sure that they care too, and are trying their hardest.
Well it's no fun beating a real person that's really shit as well, so no, but with the likes of Plum and Velvet, who are more my level, then if that was the case then yes.Michael Wallace wrote:So if you found out that Prune was a real person, who was just Really Shit at apterous, it's suddenly different?Ian Volante wrote:For me, there's a large amount of difference in setting a high score against Prune and doing it against a person. I couldn't give a monkey's about beating a bot, even one of the good ones, whereas there's a whole extra edge in beating a real person, as you're pretty sure that they care too, and are trying their hardest.
Ok, so setting a high score against Prune is the same as setting a high score against someone who was just that shit. So how do you draw the line, especially when you're implying that it depends on your own ability?Ian Volante wrote:Well it's no fun beating a real person that's really shit as well, so no, but with the likes of Plum and Velvet, who are more my level, then if that was the case then yes.
If it's not a challenge, it's not as much fun, simple as that. A lot of the challenge for me isn't just beating a score, it's beating the other person too. Obviously this area is as fuzzy as a brand new teddy bear, and I enjoy shooting at high scores too even if I am playing Prune.Michael Wallace wrote:Ok, so setting a high score against Prune is the same as setting a high score against someone who was just that shit. So how do you draw the line, especially when you're implying that it depends on your own ability?Ian Volante wrote:Well it's no fun beating a real person that's really shit as well, so no, but with the likes of Plum and Velvet, who are more my level, then if that was the case then yes.
I think the key issue here is that aiming to break a record by repeatedly playing a bot is a bit like masturbation. You can jizz all night on your own but if you have sex and it lasts ten seconds, at least you've had sex with someone.Michael Wallace wrote:The fun thing I can totally get behind - it's not as much fun beating a player (human or bot) who is really really shit, that's cool.
What I find hard to understand is the idea that a high score against a bot is inherently worth less than a high score against a human (which might not be what Ian is saying, but has been implied by others in this thread).
The only thing I can see is that it's 'better' because against a human you have a lower chance of actually managing it, but that seems a peculiar line to draw because the issue is clearly that it's a bot, not that it's incompetent. I don't think incompetence is the issue people are having - would anyone really subscribe to "records against rubbish people should be separate to records against competent people"?
Apterous is sufficiently populated that you could have sex with different people all day, which amounts to the same thing, surely?Jon O'Neill wrote:I think the key issue here is that aiming to break a record by repeatedly playing a bot is a bit like masturbation. You can jizz all night on your own but if you have sex and it lasts ten seconds, at least you've had sex with someone.
The equivalent of an Apterous hand job is when your human opponent lets you get the conundrum unopposed, in order for you to max the gameJon O'Neill wrote:I think the key issue here is that aiming to break a record by repeatedly playing a bot is a bit like masturbation. You can jizz all night on your own but if you have sex and it lasts ten seconds, at least you've had sex with someone.Michael Wallace wrote:The fun thing I can totally get behind - it's not as much fun beating a player (human or bot) who is really really shit, that's cool.
What I find hard to understand is the idea that a high score against a bot is inherently worth less than a high score against a human (which might not be what Ian is saying, but has been implied by others in this thread).
The only thing I can see is that it's 'better' because against a human you have a lower chance of actually managing it, but that seems a peculiar line to draw because the issue is clearly that it's a bot, not that it's incompetent. I don't think incompetence is the issue people are having - would anyone really subscribe to "records against rubbish people should be separate to records against competent people"?
But what about hand jobs?
I don't think Dale's 15-round record of 170 should stand as he was playing a human. If he was playing Rex he'd only have 156 and he wouldn't have the record. It works both ways.Michael Wallace wrote:
What I find hard to understand is the idea that a high score against a bot is inherently worth less than a high score against a human (which might not be what Ian is saying, but has been implied by others in this thread).
Nobody gains records playing Rex, do they?Kirk Bevins wrote:I don't think Dale's 15-round record of 170 should stand as he was playing a human. If he was playing Rex he'd only have 156 and he wouldn't have the record. It works both ways.Michael Wallace wrote:
What I find hard to understand is the idea that a high score against a bot is inherently worth less than a high score against a human (which might not be what Ian is saying, but has been implied by others in this thread).
Definitely. (if you include numbers rounds )Ryan Taylor wrote:Is it possible to get 11 nine's in one game? I don't know how many tiles there are of each letter in a pack so wondered if 11 nine's is achievable. Probably a stupid question to which the answer will be yes.
Without even bothering to check the distribution it's undoubtedly gonna be a yes.Ryan Taylor wrote:Is it possible to get 11 nine's in one game? I don't know how many tiles there are of each letter in a pack so wondered if 11 nine's is achievable. Probably a stupid question to which the answer will be yes.
Well, it hasn't been really as I haven't bothered to checkRyan Taylor wrote:Ok, was just nice to be confirmed.
There was a page somewhere that detailed arrangement of letters in the tiles so you could guarantee 9s regardless of what the pick was. I can't find it now, and can't remember how far you could get (although obviously not very), hopefully someone else will be able to point at it though.Marc Meakin wrote:Time for one of you boffins to create a scenario whereby 11 nines are acheivable. (with the correct letter distribution)
Easy. I think actually we had a challenge once to set the decks to see how many rounds you could guarantee nines in, regardless of the vowel/consonant selections made by the players. I think some smartypants got it up to 5.Marc Meakin wrote:Time for one of you boffins to create a scenario whereby 11 nines are acheivable. (with the correct letter distribution)
I'm pretty sure Charlie did it so you could be guaranteed eleven 9s?Jon Corby wrote:Easy. I think actually we had a challenge once to set the decks to see how many rounds you could guarantee nines in, regardless of the vowel/consonant selections made by the players. I think some smartypants got it up to 5.Marc Meakin wrote:Time for one of you boffins to create a scenario whereby 11 nines are acheivable. (with the correct letter distribution)
Damn you coonboy
Marc Meakin wrote:11 nines
Jon O'Neill wrote:eleven 9s
Wow, that would be seriously impressive.Jon O'Neill wrote:I'm pretty sure Charlie did it so you could be guaranteed eleven 9s?
Charlie Reams wrote:I might have another go and see if I can get it up
I see an opportunity here.Heather Badcock wrote:I resemble that remark.Kirk Bevins wrote:You do love an erection? Oh.Heather Badcock wrote:
I do love rejection.
Actually yeah, I guess you're right that this pretty much take care of my "objections" as they were. What I do wonder though is if the pre-cap state of affairs has left the high-scores dominated by ludicrous Human v Prune restart type games, which still makes the distinction worthwhile on this older data even if there's no (or significantly less of an) issue going forward. I have no idea as I haven't really logged onto apterous in months. I really should pop back in.Charlie Reams wrote:Now there's an unfinished game cap, people can't just have endless restarts until they hit a bunch of lucky nines.
Probably not, it's just too difficult to find an opponent for e.g. a Hebrew conundrum attack unless one of you is just a patzer, in which case you might as well just play Prune. Still it is nice to stimulate human v human competition, so if the "top joint score" page reappears any day (which would be human v human only) that might do it.Ian Volante wrote:Would a separation of bot records lead to an upsurge in human v human matches in obscure formats?
I worried about this too, but I think it would be harsh to strip people of their records retrospectively when they were given no inclination at the time that a game against Prune wasn't a "proper" one. Looking at the major formats, a lot of current records were set against humans anyway: 15 rounder, 9 rounder, Letters Attack, Speed 9, Junior 15, Touchdown 15 etc. The only variant where playing Prune is a big boon (teehee) is Goatdown, where you get perfect picking in at least half the rounds. On the less played formats, a lot more of the records are against bots (not always Prune) and TBH I don't see that as a problem -- in fact, it's exactly what bots are good for.Jon Corby wrote:What I do wonder though is if the pre-cap state of affairs has left the high-scores dominated by ludicrous Human v Prune restart type games, which still makes the distinction worthwhile on this older data even if there's no (or significantly less of an) issue going forward.
Then I can sleep well tonight.Charlie Reams wrote:I worried about this too, but I think it would be harsh to strip people of their records retrospectively when they were given no inclination at the time that a game against Prune wasn't a "proper" one. Looking at the major formats, a lot of current records were set against humans anyway: 15 rounder, 9 rounder, Letters Attack, Speed 9, Junior 15, Touchdown 15 etc. The only variant where playing Prune is a big boon (teehee) is Goatdown, where you get perfect picking in at least half the rounds. On the less played formats, a lot more of the records are against bots (not always Prune) and TBH I don't see that as a problem -- in fact, it's a good example of bots doing what they do best.Jon Corby wrote:What I do wonder though is if the pre-cap state of affairs has left the high-scores dominated by ludicrous Human v Prune restart type games, which still makes the distinction worthwhile on this older data even if there's no (or significantly less of an) issue going forward.
It is. Just not in a way that makes any difference to high scores.Andrew Feist wrote: But getting 200 in a conundrum attack against Prune vs. getting 200 in a conundrum attack against, well, just about anybody, feels like two very different things to me.
This is an interesting point in that I'm trying to break a record at the moment and I play Prune. I played a human and I thought "had you not buzzed in just before me then I'd have broken the record". Kinda annoying as against a human it's sometimes a reaction test but against Prune it's just a "can you get this in 30 seconds" test.Charlie Reams wrote:It is. Just not in a way that makes any difference to high scores.Andrew Feist wrote: But getting 200 in a conundrum attack against Prune vs. getting 200 in a conundrum attack against, well, just about anybody, feels like two very different things to me.
Apart from conundrums...JimBentley wrote:I don't think it's worth making a distinction at all. To break any of the hotly-contested records, you'll pretty much have to max the game (and have a high maximum available to start with), and if you're going to max the game, then who your opponent is doesn't matter at all.