Re: Bug reports
Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 2:17 pm
Age old Hyper numbers bug, Lesley.
A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://c4countdown.co.uk/
Cheers for that Matt. I'm putting the performance down to an Old Age hyper numbers bugMatt Morrison wrote:Age old Hyper numbers bug, Lesley.
ExcellentLesley Hines wrote:Cheers for that Matt. I'm putting the performance down to an Old Age hyper numbers bugMatt Morrison wrote:Age old Hyper numbers bug, Lesley.
So that's what Tourney Owl is... didn't know exactly how it worked.Adam Gillard wrote:If Tourney Owl is so that you can play a tournament game separately from your opponent, then pencils from Tourney Owl games shouldn't be announced in chat.
I didn't even know slightly how she worked! Played her today - ended quite a few rounds early without trying but luckily still did pretty good.Joseph Krol wrote:So that's what Tourney Owl is... didn't know exactly how it worked.Adam Gillard wrote:If Tourney Owl is so that you can play a tournament game separately from your opponent, then pencils from Tourney Owl games shouldn't be announced in chat.
Looks like it.Matt Morrison wrote:I didn't even know slightly how she worked! Played her today - ended quite a few rounds early without trying but luckily still did pretty good.Joseph Krol wrote:So that's what Tourney Owl is... didn't know exactly how it worked.Adam Gillard wrote:If Tourney Owl is so that you can play a tournament game separately from your opponent, then pencils from Tourney Owl games shouldn't be announced in chat.
So this is who you play if you haven't bumped into your opponent x days after your game was announced?
Maybe we'll just have to agree to accept the head-to-head score, rather than the overall result. Not perfect, but much better than games going unplayed and tournaments dragging on until people lose interest.Graeme Cole wrote:
Also, well done to Joseph on beating Chris, but should the system not knit the two games together like an ordinary 15 rounder, rather than effectively applying flat scoring, and allowing both players to get points for the conundrum? Had this match happened head-to-head, Chris would have won 95-73.
That's basically the correct behaviour. R4 you were 6 away from the "max", even though the "max" is not really the max because... yeah. And for 5/6/9/11, you got the maximum available score, so that's bold.Lesley Hines wrote:Thomas Carey wrote:Some of the incorrect maxes were when the numbers weren't possiblr (R5, 6, 9, 11)Lesley Hines wrote:There's something weird going on with the emboldening. I'd understood scores were emboldened if they were the correct max, but not if they were an incorrect declaration or below the max. In my Duel game today (it might be Hyper in general, I don't tend to play it very often) several incorrect declarations were bold but some correct maxes weren't. Screen dump available that for obvious reasons I'm not going to upload now, and the obvious reason isn't that I played like a fool. I'll do it tomorrow for clarity
This does involve me coughing to this completely shit game, so bear with me
You'll notice that r4 is a correct max, but not bold, but that r5/6/9/11 (as Thomas points out) are when they shouldn't be, since they're incorrect declarations. Anyhoo, HTH
I still think it could display slightly different behaviour in some situations. I think in maxes only rounds, it should let you attempt your solution if you're at least as close as the Apterous max (in normal numbers as well). At a slight tangent, as it stands in normal numbers, it arguably gives you some sort of undeserved advantage as you know if your declaration is possible when you're trying to blag.Charlie Reams wrote:That's basically the correct behaviour. R4 you were 6 away from the "max", even though the "max" is not really the max because... yeah. And for 5/6/9/11, you got the maximum available score, so that's bold.
I don't think that's true. You ought to act as if it's possible anyway, since if it's impossible you'll be scoring 0 either way.Gavin Chipper wrote: as it stands in normal numbers, it arguably gives you some sort of undeserved advantage as you know if your declaration is possible when you're trying to blag.
This is more of a feature request than a bug report, and it would be a real hassle to do it that way, not to mention some potentially weird consequences. At least with Duel-style scoring everyone knows what to expect.Graeme Cole wrote:Also, well done to Joseph on beating Chris, but should the system not knit the two games together like an ordinary 15 rounder, rather than effectively applying flat scoring, and allowing both players to get points for the conundrum? Had this match happened head-to-head, Chris would have won 95-73.
Chris and Joseph played the same game. James Levison and I played different games, which I'm guessing wasn't supposed to happen.Charlie Reams wrote:This is more of a feature request than a bug report, and it would be a real hassle to do it that way, not to mention some potentially weird consequences. At least with Duel-style scoring everyone knows what to expect.Graeme Cole wrote:Also, well done to Joseph on beating Chris, but should the system not knit the two games together like an ordinary 15 rounder, rather than effectively applying flat scoring, and allowing both players to get points for the conundrum? Had this match happened head-to-head, Chris would have won 95-73.
This feature wasn't supposed to have rolled out yet, and it's not been properly tested. I suspect that if one of you starts the game, and then the other one also starts the game before the other guy has finished, you'll end up with a mess. Not sure if that's what happened here.Matthew Tassier wrote: Chris and Joseph played the same game. James Levison and I played different games, which I'm guessing wasn't supposed to happen.
Thanks. I was a bit confused, and ignored the Tourney Owl game the first couple of times I logged in and saw it (would that further complicate things?). James finished about 3 hours before I started I think.Charlie Reams wrote:This feature wasn't supposed to have rolled out yet, and it's not been properly tested. I suspect that if one of you starts the game, and then the other one also starts the game before the other guy has finished, you'll end up with a mess. Not sure if that's what happened here.Matthew Tassier wrote: Chris and Joseph played the same game. James Levison and I played different games, which I'm guessing wasn't supposed to happen.
OK, but since the Apterous max is sometimes not the max (occasionally even in normal numbers), I think it would be good to let you have a go when you declare better than the max on maxes-only scoring.Charlie Reams wrote:I don't think that's true. You ought to act as if it's possible anyway, since if it's impossible you'll be scoring 0 either way.Gavin Chipper wrote: as it stands in normal numbers, it arguably gives you some sort of undeserved advantage as you know if your declaration is possible when you're trying to blag.
Agree with the rest, it's just that changing the way that works would be really quite hard.
English only, not a bug.Joseph Krol wrote:I didn't get an almanac for this round: http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?ga ... 0#r6184710. The country in question is Cuba.
I've got an almanac! You haven't!Joseph Krol wrote:I didn't get an almanac for this round: http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?ga ... 0#r6184710. The country in question is Cuba.
Almanacs are only given for English variants Rhys. And I've got 18 of them, Thomas. So there!Thomas Carey wrote:I've got an almanac! You haven't!Joseph Krol wrote:I didn't get an almanac for this round: http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?ga ... 0#r6184710. The country in question is Cuba.
I found two dead wasps when helping to clean the net curtains, plus I've got an extremely mild case of the sniffles. Do either of those count?Charlie Reams wrote:not a bug.
I got a pencilled almanac yesterday! So there!Liam Tiernan wrote:Almanacs are only given for English variants Rhys. And I've got 18 of them, Thomas. So there!Thomas Carey wrote:I've got an almanac! You haven't!Joseph Krol wrote:I didn't get an almanac for this round: http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?ga ... 0#r6184710. The country in question is Cuba.
Just takes a little longer to update, I think , Kai. Says 137 on your stats now.Kai Laddiman wrote:My game against the Tourney Owl got two records for me: (joint) most maxes in a game and highest score in a game. However, the former is reported as such, but my highest 15-round score is still listed as 135.
Ah, right, thanks. I've just heard that the max of Jamie's game was 118, which makes me feel slightly guilty, but it was NEARLY A MAX GAME aargh head explode.Liam Tiernan wrote:Just takes a little longer to update, I think , Kai. Says 137 on your stats now.Kai Laddiman wrote:My game against the Tourney Owl got two records for me: (joint) most maxes in a game and highest score in a game. However, the former is reported as such, but my highest 15-round score is still listed as 135.
Oops, the small reminder is old and I forgot to disable it when I added the new one. I wonder how long it's been like that for? Probably a good six months.Lesley Hines wrote:The two helpful messages (1 message, 1 nice bright purple notification like the GOTW reminder) reminding me to resubscribe have now changed to only one helpful message since I resubscribed. The nice bright purple one's gone but the more muted line is still there. Unless you wanted me to come on here and confirm I am still enjoying the site (I am), but that's frankly just like-whoring
All gone thanks Dunno, 5 days of e-nagging was all I could takeCharlie Reams wrote:Oops, the small reminder is old and I forgot to disable it when I added the new one. I wonder how long it's been like that for? Probably a good six months.
Not a bug.Thomas Carey wrote:Sometimes when you're typing in the answer, the Guardian buzzes while you're typing and gets it.
Gott an image of this but don't knopw how to put it o here.
Fixed, ty.Gavin Chipper wrote:Should ECTOPLASM be removed as a conundrum (because of COMPLEATS)?
Surely COMPLEATS isn't a valid conundrum though as its a plural so there wouldn't be or at least shouldn't be any confusion of what the right answer would be.Charlie Reams wrote:Fixed, ty.Gavin Chipper wrote:Should ECTOPLASM be removed as a conundrum (because of COMPLEATS)?
I think general thinking is that this is a rule for the setter rather than the solver (although Damian may disagree with a shambolic outcome), and I think this is the general rule on Apterous so it would go compleatly against the grain.Mark James wrote:Surely COMPLEATS isn't a valid conundrum though as its a plural so there wouldn't be or at least shouldn't be any confusion of what the right answer would be.Charlie Reams wrote:Fixed, ty.Gavin Chipper wrote:Should ECTOPLASM be removed as a conundrum (because of COMPLEATS)?
Yeah, it won't let me copy and paste either.Lesley Hines wrote:Copy & paste function in chat seems to have stopped working. I don't know if this has been done on purpose (possibly for an anti-cheat mechanism for chat points?) but it used to be quite useful for putting up links n' stuff, and confusing Ryan, not necessarily at the same time. If it wasn't done on purpose thought you'd like to know
Moot point anyway - COMPLEATS is the conjugated verb form, not a plural.Gavin Chipper wrote:I think general thinking is that this is a rule for the setter rather than the solver (although Damian may disagree with a shambolic outcome), and I think this is the general rule on Apterous so it would go compleatly against the grain.Mark James wrote:Surely COMPLEATS isn't a valid conundrum though as its a plural so there wouldn't be or at least shouldn't be any confusion of what the right answer would be.
This is a Java sandbox thing, nothing to do with me. It seems to come and go with different versions.Lesley Hines wrote:Copy & paste function in chat seems to have stopped working. I don't know if this has been done on purpose (possibly for an anti-cheat mechanism for chat points?) but it used to be quite useful for putting up links n' stuff, and confusing Ryan, not necessarily at the same time. If it wasn't done on purpose thought you'd like to know
Ah, 'k. CheersCharlie Reams wrote:This is a Java sandbox thing, nothing to do with me. It seems to come and go with different versions.
Fixed.Adam Gillard wrote:I just get a blank screen now since Lockdown Jnr was added. I can see a line in this console dump about Lockdown Jnr not existing, that might explain the blankness. Whatever I do is recorded in the chat logs, so the interface buttons are working, just I don't get anything on my screen. See screenshot and console dump below.
Thank you!Charlie Reams wrote:Fixed.Adam Gillard wrote:Panic!
FAO Lesley in more simple language:Lesley Hines wrote:Ah, 'k. CheersCharlie Reams wrote:This is a Java sandbox thing, nothing to do with me. It seems to come and go with different versions.
This is probably more of a feature request, but I'd agree actually. When I get a teaser I'd like to know who has got it after me.Soph K wrote:On Apterous, when there's a teaser and I get it then after me, someone else gets it, it doesn't say that that person got it except when it says " 'a number' people got it. 'A player' was the first at 'some seconds'. The answer was 'a word'. " but even then, it only ever tells you how many people got it - not who (apart from the person who got it first).
I know this is not a brilliant explanation so just tell me if you have no idea what I mean - I'll try to explain it in more detail.
Yeah... Not sure if it's a bug or if it's meant to be like this.Gavin Chipper wrote:This is probably more of a feature request, but I'd agree actually. When I get a teaser I'd like to know who has got it after me.Soph K wrote:On Apterous, when there's a teaser and I get it then after me, someone else gets it, it doesn't say that that person got it except when it says " 'a number' people got it. 'A player' was the first at 'some seconds'. The answer was 'a word'. " but even then, it only ever tells you how many people got it - not who (apart from the person who got it first).
I know this is not a brilliant explanation so just tell me if you have no idea what I mean - I'll try to explain it in more detail.
Sometimes it does tell you who also got it but I think they have to get it within the first 30 seconds or something.Gavin Chipper wrote:This is probably more of a feature request, but I'd agree actually. When I get a teaser I'd like to know who has got it after me.Soph K wrote:On Apterous, when there's a teaser and I get it then after me, someone else gets it, it doesn't say that that person got it except when it says " 'a number' people got it. 'A player' was the first at 'some seconds'. The answer was 'a word'. " but even then, it only ever tells you how many people got it - not who (apart from the person who got it first).
I know this is not a brilliant explanation so just tell me if you have no idea what I mean - I'll try to explain it in more detail.
Does it? It never tells me who gets it after me..Mark James wrote:Sometimes it does tell you who also got it but I think they have to get it within the first 30 seconds or something.Gavin Chipper wrote:This is probably more of a feature request, but I'd agree actually. When I get a teaser I'd like to know who has got it after me.Soph K wrote:On Apterous, when there's a teaser and I get it then after me, someone else gets it, it doesn't say that that person got it except when it says " 'a number' people got it. 'A player' was the first at 'some seconds'. The answer was 'a word'. " but even then, it only ever tells you how many people got it - not who (apart from the person who got it first).
I know this is not a brilliant explanation so just tell me if you have no idea what I mean - I'll try to explain it in more detail.
It's cute that one of apterous' longest users does not know the rules to all the variants off pat. Saying that, I've been on it long enough but still confuse all the variants together in one big messy lump.Kirk Bevins wrote:I think it's about time the rules for unlimited were changed, or at least remove the "aegilops" rules from the rules page on unlimited. Yet again for a duel I've clicked on rules, realise I have to find a 9 letter word then fail to find it. Then the answer tells me it was just a 7 and I've lost ten easy points. I then notice it says "aegilops" for the rules. Frustrating.
I love the weird variants, and I made exactly the same mistake.Ryan Taylor wrote:It's cute that one of apterous' longest users does not know the rules to all the variants off pat. Saying that, I've been on it long enough but still confuse all the variants together in one big messy lump.Kirk Bevins wrote:I think it's about time the rules for unlimited were changed, or at least remove the "aegilops" rules from the rules page on unlimited. Yet again for a duel I've clicked on rules, realise I have to find a 9 letter word then fail to find it. Then the answer tells me it was just a 7 and I've lost ten easy points. I then notice it says "aegilops" for the rules. Frustrating.
I'm not really sure what this is about but, since a few people have now reported a similar thing, I assume it must be more than user error. For me, when I look on the rules tab for Unlimited, I see the rules for Unlimited. If anyone recreates this problem or anything else where it shows you the wrong rules, please send me your console contents (instructions) right away and I'll see if I can get to the bottom of it.Kirk Bevins wrote:I think it's about time the rules for unlimited were changed, or at least remove the "aegilops" rules from the rules page on unlimited. Yet again for a duel I've clicked on rules, realise I have to find a 9 letter word then fail to find it. Then the answer tells me it was just a 7 and I've lost ten easy points. I then notice it says "aegilops" for the rules. Frustrating.
This happened to me too today but I was already doing shit on the duel so it didn't bother me too much.Joseph Krol wrote:When I was playing the duel today my connection was lost a couple of times. However, when I reconnected, it said that I had blanked the rounds even though I had not seen the full selection, instead of just resetting to the start of the roud like normal. This may be a duel only thing, I don't know, but I feel a bit hard done by (especially as it will determine my seeding in the Tiny Tots Tourney and lost me a useful 13 points).
That's by design, sorry. It sucks but the alternative is letting people quit out and retry the same rounds, which ruins the Duel.Joseph Krol wrote:When I was playing the duel today my connection was lost a couple of times. However, when I reconnected, it said that I had blanked the rounds even though I had not seen the full selection, instead of just resetting to the start of the roud like normal. This may be a duel only thing, I don't know, but I feel a bit hard done by (especially as it will determine my seeding in the Tiny Tots Tourney and lost me a useful 13 points).
Also along the similar lines. On a conundrum in a standard 15, if you don't solve it you can logout and then log back in and the conundrum will be reset so you get a different one. So if you are on 14/14 maxes against Prune you can just keep refreshing until you get a conundrum you want. I'm pretty sure this is the case anyway and will try it out now.Charlie Reams wrote:That's by design, sorry. It sucks but the alternative is letting people quit out and retry the same rounds, which ruins the Duel.Joseph Krol wrote:When I was playing the duel today my connection was lost a couple of times. However, when I reconnected, it said that I had blanked the rounds even though I had not seen the full selection, instead of just resetting to the start of the roud like normal. This may be a duel only thing, I don't know, but I feel a bit hard done by (especially as it will determine my seeding in the Tiny Tots Tourney and lost me a useful 13 points).