A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://c4countdown.co.uk/
Got it today - it looks like this:Dan Vanniasingham wrote:Whilst I'm at it, more often than not, when logging in for the first time that day the duel challenge box is squashed to the point where I can see it exists but can't read anything about it (i.e. I can't see the format, or the words "Challenge by The Duellist" or whatever it says).
Ja I'm working on it.jimbentley wrote:Got it today - it looks like this:Dan Vanniasingham wrote:Whilst I'm at it, more often than not, when logging in for the first time that day the duel challenge box is squashed to the point where I can see it exists but can't read anything about it (i.e. I can't see the format, or the words "Challenge by The Duellist" or whatever it says).
I always get that.jimbentley wrote:Got it today - it looks like this:Dan Vanniasingham wrote:Whilst I'm at it, more often than not, when logging in for the first time that day the duel challenge box is squashed to the point where I can see it exists but can't read anything about it (i.e. I can't see the format, or the words "Challenge by The Duellist" or whatever it says).
Submitting this kind of bug without any screenshots or console dumps is a complete waste of time.Gavin Chipper wrote:Sometimes when one player buzzes in the conundrum and gets it wrong, Des then says we're out of time and the other players doesn't get a chance. Surely unless they buzz exactly at the last possible moment, it should always go over to the other player.
It might have been something you were aware of.Charlie Reams wrote:Submitting this kind of bug without any screenshots or console dumps is a complete waste of time.Gavin Chipper wrote:Sometimes when one player buzzes in the conundrum and gets it wrong, Des then says we're out of time and the other players doesn't get a chance. Surely unless they buzz exactly at the last possible moment, it should always go over to the other player.
Then why report it?Gavin Chipper wrote:It might have been something you were aware of.Charlie Reams wrote:Submitting this kind of bug without any screenshots or console dumps is a complete waste of time.Gavin Chipper wrote:Sometimes when one player buzzes in the conundrum and gets it wrong, Des then says we're out of time and the other players doesn't get a chance. Surely unless they buzz exactly at the last possible moment, it should always go over to the other player.
Alright - I thought you might not have been aware of it and that reporting such a bug without a console dump or screenshot would not be a waste of time.Charlie Reams wrote:Then why report it?
Oh OK, is it due to different amounts of lag? The apterous bots obviously having less being on the same server as the conundrum and clock.Charlie Reams wrote:Oh, that's correct behaviour. It happens if the other person's clock has run out before you buzz.
Yep. In theory it can happen against a human but it's probably easier to reproduce against bots as they have basically zero lag.Gavin Chipper wrote:Oh OK, is it due to different amounts of lag? The apterous bots obviously having less being on the same server as the conundrum and clock.Charlie Reams wrote:Oh, that's correct behaviour. It happens if the other person's clock has run out before you buzz.
Is lag compensated for when both players buzz in? If, for example, I buzz at 2.6 seconds on my clock and Apterous Rex does at 2.7 on his, his buzz would reach the server first. But would it then wait to see if I buzzed in under that time on my own clock?Charlie Reams wrote:Yep. In theory it can happen against a human but it's probably easier to reproduce against bots as they have basically zero lag.
No.Gavin Chipper wrote:Is lag compensated for when both players buzz in? If, for example, I buzz at 2.6 seconds on my clock and Apterous Rex does at 2.7 on his, his buzz would reach the server first. But would it then wait to see if I buzzed in under that time on my own clock?Charlie Reams wrote:Yep. In theory it can happen against a human but it's probably easier to reproduce against bots as they have basically zero lag.
Could it be made so?Charlie Reams wrote:No.Gavin Chipper wrote:Is lag compensated for when both players buzz in? If, for example, I buzz at 2.6 seconds on my clock and Apterous Rex does at 2.7 on his, his buzz would reach the server first. But would it then wait to see if I buzzed in under that time on my own clock?Charlie Reams wrote:Yep. In theory it can happen against a human but it's probably easier to reproduce against bots as they have basically zero lag.
The conundrum was an absolute nightmare to code (people who tested early versions will remember how often it used to screw up) so I'm not to keen to change things further. And, it would massively amplify the complaints that "I started typing first but the other guy got the points!", even though that's impossible to solve without defeating the entirety of 20th Century physics.Gavin Chipper wrote:Could it be made so?
OK then. By the way in the situations where you start typing but it turns out the other player started first, what happens if they are wrong? Does your partial answer count or do you type again from scratch?Charlie Reams wrote:The conundrum was an absolute nightmare to code (people who tested early versions will remember how often it used to screw up) so I'm not to keen to change things further. And, it would massively amplify the complaints that "I started typing first but the other guy got the points!", even though that's impossible to solve without defeating the entirety of 20th Century physics.Gavin Chipper wrote:Could it be made so?
Ah, that could explain exactly why sometimes it doesn't let me finish typing after the clock finishes. Well spotted!Michael Wallace wrote:I can't decide if this always happens or not, but we have the thing where if you're typing at the time limit you get to finish the word you're typing, but does this work if you've only noted down one word? Quite a few times I think I've been typing a word (it's hard to know whether I had started typing before the timer every time, so I could be wrong) only for it to take my one noted down word as my only answer.
Anyone else have experience of this, or am I just being a dork?
I think it is. I've got rid of the new java (uninstalled it) and downloaded java version 6 update 7(instead of version 6 update 11 causing all the problems). I've read on other forums that their detecting kit sees update 7 as a new enough version to be OK. It's been fine since I've had update 7 back. I no longer have those stupid warning signs in yellow triangles.Ian Volante wrote:I'm not sure if the current spate of crashes is to do with the Java update or not.
Either way, what I get when my opponent crashes is: "Stream ended (poison object extracted)".
I hope this is helpful.
To clarify, the new Java update is probably responsible for most of the problems. If you can revert to an earlier version, please do. However, if you're stuck with Update 11, don't panic; the yellow triangles are intended to replace the old message at the top of every window warning you about an unsigned applet, and are not suggesting that any error has occurred. This is clearly a bad design choice by the Java guys but we'll have to live with it for now.Kirk Bevins wrote:I think it is. I've got rid of the new java (uninstalled it) and downloaded java version 6 update 7(instead of version 6 update 11 causing all the problems). I've read on other forums that their detecting kit sees update 7 as a new enough version to be OK. It's been fine since I've had update 7 back. I no longer have those stupid warning signs in yellow triangles.Ian Volante wrote:I'm not sure if the current spate of crashes is to do with the Java update or not.
Either way, what I get when my opponent crashes is: "Stream ended (poison object extracted)".
I hope this is helpful.
Struggling to easily work out how to roll it back. Frankly can't be arsed right now though! I'll pester someone later...Charlie Reams wrote:To clarify, the new Java update is probably responsible for most of the problems. If you can revert to an earlier version, please do. However, if you're stuck with Update 11, don't panic; the yellow triangles are intended to replace the old message at the top of every window warning you about an unsigned applet, and are not suggesting that any error has occurred. This is clearly a bad design choice by the Java guys but we'll have to live with it for now.Kirk Bevins wrote:I think it is. I've got rid of the new java (uninstalled it) and downloaded java version 6 update 7(instead of version 6 update 11 causing all the problems). I've read on other forums that their detecting kit sees update 7 as a new enough version to be OK. It's been fine since I've had update 7 back. I no longer have those stupid warning signs in yellow triangles.Ian Volante wrote:I'm not sure if the current spate of crashes is to do with the Java update or not.
Either way, what I get when my opponent crashes is: "Stream ended (poison object extracted)".
I hope this is helpful.
Go to "Start" "Control Panel" "Add/remove programs" and get rid of Java version 6 update 11. Then go to this link and download Java version 6 update 7.Ian Volante wrote: Struggling to easily work out how to roll it back. Frankly can't be arsed right now though! I'll pester someone later...
Apologies, the new resume code is much more solid but still has a few teething difficulties. I believe this is now fixed.Kirk Bevins wrote:I was playing Stuart Patrick earlier and I was 20-6 up. He crashed. He then rechallenged me and his name came up on the 20 position and mine on the 6 position, meaning he was 20-6 which was obviously false! Also (obviously) his words listed in the past 3 rounds were under my name.
I decided to close and resume game again hoping the 50:50 would put my name above 20 as it should be and I then couldn't resume again. The game was lost. I thought you'd fixed that?
If you mean that thing I posted a while back, where if you refresh the page after signing in, you get a different layout, then yes that still happens. To be honest though, I prefer that second layout more than the original.Charlie Reams wrote:Do people still get the weird metal-look interface sometimes? I think I fixed this about a week ago but it's hard to tell because I never experienced it myself.
Ditto.Joseph Bolas wrote:If you mean that thing I posted a while back, where if you refresh the page after signing in, you get a different layout, then yes that still happens. To be honest though, I prefer that second layout more than the original.Charlie Reams wrote:Do people still get the weird metal-look interface sometimes? I think I fixed this about a week ago but it's hard to tell because I never experienced it myself.
Yep, I've not noticed any change with that. The button images and proper fonts only load up on the second attempt at the earliest.Charlie Reams wrote:Do people still get the weird metal-look interface sometimes? I think I fixed this about a week ago but it's hard to tell because I never experienced it myself.
That's by design. I figured historical accuracy was second to the consideration of learning valid words (and not learning invalid ones.)Martin Gardner wrote:I don't think there's anything you can do about it, but I played Scott Mearns in a 'classic game' and it disallowed his SERRATING which is no longer in the dictionary, but was at the time he played it. Also in the Wills vs. Nash final, you can go for THORNLIKE and it will allow it, but Chris and Graham couldn't have because it wasn't in the dictionary either. But of course, there's no (sane) way to fix this, and there aren't any rating points for these games anyway.
Exactly, you'd have to upload every Countdown dictionary ever, then have a mode to change dictionary when playing historical games. That's why I didn't suggest it, it would be nuts!Charlie Reams wrote:That's by design. I figured historical accuracy was second to the consideration of learning valid words (and not learning invalid ones.)Martin Gardner wrote:I don't think there's anything you can do about it, but I played Scott Mearns in a 'classic game' and it disallowed his SERRATING which is no longer in the dictionary, but was at the time he played it. Also in the Wills vs. Nash final, you can go for THORNLIKE and it will allow it, but Chris and Graham couldn't have because it wasn't in the dictionary either. But of course, there's no (sane) way to fix this, and there aren't any rating points for these games anyway.
It makes me sad when my bad programming is so transparent that even someone who hasn't seen the code knows what I've done wrong...Howard Somerset wrote:Not really a bug. Well only a little one. Results for yesterday's dual show Perfect score: 114, yet the top five players exceeded that score. It seems that the perfect score displayed is the Max for the final person on the list, rather than the Metamax, which I believe is what should be displayed here.
Not really surprising. Even though I quit my job 12 years ago, prior to that one of my main tasks was diagnosing software faults, and I did that for longer than you've so far been alive. It was probably easier not having seen the code. Programming languages may have changed a lot since I last had any practical experience, but the style of mistakes haven't.Charlie Reams wrote:It makes me sad when my bad programming is so transparent that even someone who hasn't seen the code knows what I've done wrong...Howard Somerset wrote:Not really a bug. Well only a little one. Results for yesterday's dual show Perfect score: 114, yet the top five players exceeded that score. It seems that the perfect score displayed is the Max for the final person on the list, rather than the Metamax, which I believe is what should be displayed here.
Was that you?. I saw someone sign in but there was no name next to them just [600?]. Also I assume you typed something as a colon appeared in the chat box, but no textInnis Carson wrote:By logging in while leaving the username and password fields blank, I seem to have been logged in as a blank user with no name. User #1997 in fact.
Is this a bug?
Yeah. You can view the Round Summary for the duel, but you can't view the individual games yet.Howard Somerset wrote:Is anybody else getting a blank table for the duel results? I've had this problem for the last two days (displaying results for 24th and 25th). Round summary table appears ok, as does the month's standings.
Design decision.Jacob Sutton wrote:Not sure if this counts as a bug as such, but ever since Windows Vista has been installed on this computer (26th), I (a non-donator) have been able to access the entire game archive.
You shouldn't be able to resume the Duel, so everything after that is just crap. No idea about the first bug though, did anyone else have this problem? If it happens again, a screenshot would be really useful.Simon Myers wrote:I had a couple of bugs happen to me when trying to complete today's duel. I logged in and did nothing other than accept the duel, but when the first letters round started popping up I had a blank white screen despite the sound effects for numbers playing. I closed the window and the game and restarted my browser (FireFox) in an attempt to resume the duel, maybe from round 2. After logging back into Apterous and trying to resume the duel, it automatically logged me out with a null pointer exception. I closed the window and logged back into Apterous, but this time the duel was gone. Hopefully some answers are hidden in the following:
Weird. Let me know if it keeps happening.Paul Howe wrote:On the last two duels the window that shows you the contestants/DC solutions for the first round has only appeared after I click next round to start round 2. All subsequent rounds are fine, and the problem is confined to duels.
Humm. Seems unlikely. Was anyone else online at the time?I may be imagining this, but it seems my speedgoat results vs apterous prime only get announced in chat when I lose
I'm pretty sure it ain't so, I haven't touched that code in a while.Also it seems that apterous prime is a bit less spectacular at picking letters now (again, very possibly a figment of my imagination). Say it ain't so!
I will fix that, but it's only preventing you from doing something you're not supposed to be doing anyway.And I've had a null pointer exception and been booted from apterous after trying to resume a crashed duel too.
Just had some more speedgoats with prime and again my losses were reported and not my wins. I may try some different games with bots and see if it's a wider problem.Charlie Reams wrote:Humm. Seems unlikely. Was anyone else online at the time?I may be imagining this, but it seems my speedgoat results vs apterous prime only get announced in chat when I lose
Maybe because you haven't won?Paul Howe wrote:I may be imagining this, but it seems my speedgoat results vs apterous prime only get announced in chat when I lose
I guess it got in because it's listed as a plural noun, so there is no singular (at least, according to the ODE).Joseph Bolas wrote:I think this is the right place to post this, but I've just played a 9-round game and the conundrum was DATACOMMS, which is a plural
